ASAP !!! please help me with my question?

[rashrash27]

Laura Etheridge and Rita O’Donnell, the CEO and Creative Director of Clean Clothes (a Texas based lesbian women’s clothing line) brainstormed together and came up with a tagline for their new slacks line: “Masculine Attitude, Feminine Fit.” They market the product on YouTube, Twitter, and Face Book showcasing their “Funky Femme” slacks collection, made from a material which resembles alpaca wool, but is actually organic cotton. To further the advertising impact, the team uses an Ellen DeGeneres look-alike in the YouTube video, where the model does the “Ellen dance” – and mouths “love the pants” as she points to her legs and then walks off leading an Alpaca by a halter. Within months, the slacks are a huge hit in the lesbian community. Clean Clothes sends a letter to their attorney asking him to trademark their tagline, and move forward without another thought about it.
Meanwhile, Men2Wimmin, a French company with a branch in New York, has established a huge following in the gay and cross-dressing community. It has used the tagline “Feminine Attitude, Masculine Fit” for many years to advertise their drag queen dress collection for men on billboards, the internet and television.
Ellen DeGeneres learns that her likeness is being used to advertise for Clean Clothes. She watches the ad and is incensed. She spends the next week on her show bashing the Clean Clothes company, and states that she would never endorse the use of Alpaca wool for clothing, as she feels shearing them is cruel. (She doesn’t catch that the pants are really made from cotton.) Further, she says she feels that lesbian women should not need to shop at special stores, although she admits she often shops in the men’s department at Joseph A. Bank (JOSB). Her comments cause a precipitous drop in sales at both Joseph A. Bank (JOSB) and Clean Clothes.

Question
It is discovered that two weeks before the Ellen show, her partner had sold $2 million in JOSB stock (at a gain of about $2,200) and had also authorized a purchase of “put options” on JOSB the morning after Ellen’s show, on which she made another $210,000 in the next week. The swing in the price was not 100% directly tied to Ellen’s comments and Ellen’s partner’s previous trading activity shows that she made it a normal practice to “vigorously trade” the stock of any company with which Ellen did business. A review of her trading activity for the past year showed that she had bought and sold JOSB stock 25 different times, including both call and put orders, as well as some short sales. Do you think the SEC will file anything against Ellen or her partner for these sales of JOSB? Is there any cause to do so? Analyze the transactions with respect to insider trading activity (based on what you know) – and whether Ellen or her partner should be concerned. Is the prior trading activity a defense? Analyze and explain fully

[Stephen]

Do your own assignments.

[zealousanger555]

The answer is... yes, of course. You're welcome.

Or maybe it's do your own homework. Any answer you received here would come up on a basic homework plagiarism program anyway. So not only are you a cheater, you're a stupid cheater.

Good luck with that.

[CJ]

tl;dr

[bcnu]

Yes, shearing alpacas is cruel. You're welcome.

[Robert Eubanks]

The fact pattern tends to suggests that the SEC will not file.

First, the trading of the stock occurred the morning after the issuance of bad news regarding JOSB. Therefore, Ellen's rant was public knowledge. Thus, no inside information.

Second, Ellen nor Ellen's partner owed no duty to the JOSB corporation. The fact pattern states that JOSB used an Ellen look alike. There is no information that Ellen was associated with the corporation in any way. So Ellen owed no duty and, therefore, was not an insider. Since Ellen was not an insider, Ellen's partner could not be found to owe a duty through the misappriation theory.

Third, Ellen's partner regularly and vigorously traded the JOSB stock over the past year, both call and put orders. So the activity by Ellen's partner was not out of the ordinary. This would be a defense to insider trading even if the trade occurred before the issuance of non-public information and Ellen and/or Ellen' partner were an insider.

Finally, the material component of insider trading is satisifed since a reasonable trader would figure a negative statement from Ellen would hurt a company that was using an Ellen look alike and marketed to the gay and cross dressing community. However, since the other elements fail, there is no insider trading and no SEC filing against Ellen or her partner.