After readingChonA.Noriega, "Imagined Borders: Locating Chicano Cinema in America/America..."

1. How is Chicana/o Cinema an expression of the Chicano civil rights movement?
2. Give one example of one filmand one "Chicana/o"musician/songand explain how they and/or their music are an expression of the Chicana/o civil rights movement.

Insider dealings raise intriguing questions. When can employees buy and sell securities in their own companies? How much information must they disclose to stockholders about the firm's plans and prospects? When must this information be disclosed? There's also the question: Who is considered an insider? Corporate executives, directors, officers, and other key employees are certainly insiders. But what about outsiders whom a company temporarily employs, such as accountants, lawyers, and contractors? Or what about those who just happen upon inside information? In its effort to police the marketplace, the SEC has interpreted \"insider\" in a broad sense to mean anyone who buys or sells stock based on nonpublic informationwhether or not the person is a corporate officer or otherwise linked to the company whose stock is being bought or sold. However, in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court challenged the SEC's broad conception of insider trading in the case of Vincent Chiarella, a financial printer who traded on information he culled from documents passing through his shop. The Court ruled that Chiarella was not an insider with fiduciary responsibilities and thus had not violated the Securities Exchange Act. The Court reinforced its decision three years later when it reversed the conviction of securities analyst Raymond Dirks, who advised several of his clients to dump their shares in a company that he was about to blow the whistle on for fraud. In so ruling, the Court held that there is nothing improper about an outsider's using information, as long as the information is not obtained from an insider who breaches a legal duty to the corporation's shareholders for personal gain or to show favor to friends. Since then the SEC has developed a new tactic, arguing that people who trade on confidential information but who are not, strictly speaking, company insiders are guilty of insider trading if they have \"misappropriated\" sensitive information. Although some appellate courts had rejected the SEC's approach, in 1997 the Supreme Court endorsed the misappropriation theory of insider trading in U.S. v. 0'Hagon,, thus upholding one of the SEC's main legal weapons against insider trading. In this case, James O'Hagan, a lawyer, had reaped a $4.3 million profit after learning that a company represented by his law firm was planning a hostile takeover of another company. O'Hagan had not worked on the case himself, but he hadthe Court ruledmisappropriated confidential information belonging to his firm and its client. Writing for the majority, justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stressed that the Court's decision reected the \"animating purpose\" of the Securities Exchange Act, namely, \"to insure honest securities markets and thereby promote investor confidence.\" Conicting Perspectives on Insider Trading S umm ary Insider trading is the buying or selling of stocks on the basis of nonpublic information likely to affect stock prices. Insider trading seems unfair; it can injure other investors and undermine public confidence in the stock market. In practice, determining what counts as insider trading is not always easy, but it typically involves misappropriating sensitive information. Although some writers defend insider trading as performing a necessary and desirable economic function, executives who do it are putting their own interests before those of the company and its shareholders. Arthur Levitt, ]r., chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission at the time, applauds the Court's O'Hagan decision, stating that it \"reaffirms the SEC's effort to make the stock market fair to all people, whether you're a Wall Street veteran or a Main Street newcomer.\" Law professor Henry Manne, however, sees nothing inherently wrong with insider trading and thinks the SEC should stay totally out of the insidertrading field. \"The use of insider information should be governed by private contractual relationships,\" he believes, such as those between a corporation and its personnel or among the partners and associates of a law firm. Some business theorists dispute the need to outlaw insider trading. At the core of this disagreement are two opposed perspectives on what makes the market work. Levitt and likeminded analysts contend that the marketplace can work only if it is perceived as being honest and offering equal investment opportunity. Insider trading, they argue, makes that impossible. Those who think like Manne believe that permitting insiders to trade is good for the market because it accelerates the ow of positive or negative information about the stock to other shareholders and investors. As a result, this information is more quickly reected in the stock's price, which is healthy for the market. They also believe that permitting insider trading can benefit a company by providing employees an incentive to invent new products, put together deals, or otherwise create new information that will increase the value of a company's stock. Contrary to the view expressed by Manne, however, it's difficult to believe that insider trading does much to promote genuine market efficiency. That's because insiders hoard information, profiting on the lag between when they start buying or selling and when the rest of the market learns what the insiders \"" 1\" "'\"\""""' O \"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\" J \"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\"\" ' 1\" \"\"\"'\"D ...-. "'\"" '\"0 between when they start buying or selling and when the rest of the market learns what the insiders already know. In addition, insiders can benefit from negative, not just positive, information about the company they work for; this creates a dangerous incentive for them to act in ways that hurt it. Even if insider trading does promote market efciency in some cases, this fact would have to be weighed against its moral drawbacks. Insider trading makes some ordinary investors worse off than they would have been if they had had the same information. This strikes many people as unfair. True, it's not always unfair for one party to a transaction to know more than another, but insider traders often do seem to be taking unfair advantage of outsiders. Moreover, as Justice Ginsberg and Arthur Levitt suggest, widespread perception that \"the game is rigged\" would discourage ordinary investors from buying stocks. Even more important, when executives engage in insider trading, they are putting their own interests ahead of their shareholders, thus violating the fiduciary responsibility that is central to business management. All employees, but especially company insiders, have a duty to act in the interests of the firm and its shareholders, but many ways of profiting from insider information do not benefit the company at allindeed, they may damage its interests. The information that employees garner within the company is not always the kind that affects stock prices. Sometimes the information concerns highly sensitive data related to company research, technology, product development, and so on. How employees treat such secret or classified data can also raise important moral issues. Book Title: eTextbook: Moral Issues in Business Abuse of Official Position Insider Trading Insider Trading One common way of abusing one's official position is through insider trading: the buying or selling of stocks (or other financial securities) by business \"insiders\" on the basis of information that has not yet been made public and is likely to affect the price of the stock. For example, as soon as he learned that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was not going to approve his company's highly touted cancer drug Erbitux, Dr. Sam Waksal, CEO of ImClone Systems at the time, knew its stock would plummet. Before the FDA's decision was made public, Waksal quickly but quietly sold his stock in the company and told his father and one of his daughters to do so as well. He is also alleged to have passed the word on to his friend Martha Stewart, who dumped her ImClone stock the day before the FDA announced its decision. One doesn't have to profit personally to cross the line, however. For example, the wife of Genentech's president and chief executive officer was charged with insider trading for providing confidential information to her brother. Before the biotechnology firm was partly acquired by another company, she told her brother that \"some good things were about to happen\" to the company and suggested that he buy a few thousand dollars' worth of stock, even if he had to borrow the funds. She also advised him to keep the purchase secret and make it in the name of a \"trustworthy\" friend. Insider trading is the buying or selling of stocks on the basis of nonpublic information that is likely to affect their price. Inside traders ordinarily defend their actions by claiming that they don't injure anyone. It's true that trading by insiders on the basis of nonpublic information seldom directly harms anyone. But moral concerns arise from indirect injury, as well as from direct. As one author puts it, \"What causes injury or loss to outsiders is not what the insiders knew or did; rather it is what [the outsiders] themselves did not know. It is their own lack of knowledge which exposes them to risk of loss or denies them an opportunity to make a profit.\" Case in point: the famous Texas Gulf Sulphur stock scandal. E 5; E E _ & AP Images/Louis Lanzano In December 2013, a jury found Michael Steinberg, a trader at SAC Capital Advisors, guilty of insider trading. Some consider insider trading a victirnless crime. Do you agree? When test drilling by Texas Gulf indicated a rich deposit of ore near Timmins, Ontario, some officials at Texas Gulf attempted to play down the potential worth of the Timmins property in a press release by describing it as only a prospect. But four days later a second press release termed the Timmins property a major discovery. In the interim, inside investors made a handsome personal profit through stock purchases. At the same time, stockholders who unloaded stock after the first press release or who sold the stock short, anticipating its price would fall, lost money. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is charged with policing the stock market, subsequently charged that a group of insidersincluding Texas Gulf directors, officers, and employees had violated the disclosure section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purchasing stock in the company while withholding information about the rich ore strike the company had made. The courts upheld the charge, finding that the first press release was \"misleading to the reasonable investor using due care.\" As a result. the courts not only ordered the insiders to pay into a special court- adm'mistered account all the money they had made but also directed them to repay profits made by outsiders whom they had tipped off. The courts then used this account to compensate people who had lost money by selling their Texas Gulf Sulphur stock on the basis of the rst press release. Insiders and \"Misappropriation\