RE:RE:RE:"material fact" definition, per Ontario Securities ActJusthalffull wrote: If the LG deal is "material", then Hill would be guilty of insider trading. He would lose any gains he made on the purchase, and would likely be fined for the breach. He could also be disciplined by Quarterhill, as he violated their own policy on trading. Is Hill that naive? I doubt it. They simply do not think the LG deal is material enough to stop them from buying.
You could argue that the LG deal is part of Wilan's "normal operations". After all, they average a good sum each year. As such, as long as the deal itself was announced and that they aren't in a blackout period, it wouldn't be insider trading.
You'd have to be naive to think that anyone that sits in high management doesn't know how the business is doing in ANY business (like sales results and contracts signed in real time instead of deffered to quarterly reports) and any buying your own stock would be deemed insider trading on the terms you've highlighted.
As such, with the announcement of the deal, even without financial figures, in the view of the regulators, it wouldn't be insider trading as investors could look back at other transactions done by Wilan to evaluate the impact on the company, unless the deal would stand outside of "normal operations". Given Wilan had licensing revenues of $78M and $106M, the deal would have to be really good to be considered as business changing.