Securities lawyer here. And... I kind of agree. With respect to insider trading at least. The laws are both complicated and unclear. Recent cases are taking things to the point where it might soon be difficult for senior executives to own stock without a blind trust. Historically insider trading has required some sort of affirmative _action_ (buying or selling) but there's been a trend recently (as alleged here) of alleging insider trading for inaction. You didn't sell as planned, you didn't disclose in time, etc. It could really put management in a difficult spot.
Other than the insider trading conundrum though it might seem like everything is securities fraud because we're too used to executives putting their own interests ahead of (or at least in line with) their shareholders*. That's a problem because their fiduciary duty says that company/shareholder interests have to come above all else.
Edit: Meant "shareholders" interests not "own" interests.
Other than the insider trading conundrum though it might seem like everything is securities fraud because we're too used to executives putting their own interests ahead of (or at least in line with) their shareholders*. That's a problem because their fiduciary duty says that company/shareholder interests have to come above all else.
Edit: Meant "shareholders" interests not "own" interests.