The Seamico employee could possibility have broken securities laws (or at least ethical practices), by publishing opinions under and assumed name while giving investment advice publicly.

In the case of the ex-UBS woman at least, she just translated something that had already been published in English. She did so after the market closed and after it had suffered its sharp fall.

I believe the only market move post-publication was up.

She published the translation after the market fell to explain why. It then rose the next day.

It would appear impossible to claim that she played a role in the original market fall or later correction.

It is hard to see how this could violate any law at all, and I will be surprised if it goes to court.

Neither comment was published as a part of any job and I don’t expect either will get legal support from these banks.

I assume CT Bruton is Chris Bruton, a rabid PAD supporter so we can see what is going on with his comment: expressing an opinion. There is nothing wrong with it in either case, certainly not to the degree that the government should, or should be allowed to, interfere in.

(BD: Thanks for the clarification, hadn’t updated the first available reports yet. The word later on was that UBS and Credit Suisse were having manipulated stocks – a claim that’s rejected by the SEC itself: http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=12620)