rofl did Amaya write that themselves?

Considering the source fool.ca....

Pretty sure it was bears, not Canadians that did that. Canada didn't even get fire till 1879, a gift from their Queen.

All I said is that US law does not apply in Canada, and this is the most derailed thread on the forum. Sorry I rose to the bait, I guess I don`t know why you would insult the heritage of a stranger from another country. It seems inappropriate, and there is a forum on this site created for just that purpose, that is what BVB is for. But whatever.

Canada isn't a country, it's a forest.

You seem set on insulting my heritage repeatedly, so let me rephrase my points as questions.

1) Since this thread is about a Canadian citizen charged under Canadian law with insider trading of a Canadian company's stock on a Canadian stock exchange, in what way is this an appropriate thread to host endless post after post page after page discussions of US laws and regulations?

2) Since problems with racism and xenophobia are so prevalent in the USA today, especially in terms of your present political discourse, under what circumstances would you as an American feel it is appropriate to insult a foreigner's heritage?

Yeah I have been interested in that one. I first saw this on 60 Minutes I believe a few years ago. There was a guy that left his position as the head of RBC to explore the idea of stopping High Frequency Traders. All you needed was the fastest connection, as close as possible to the Exchange to win. It's like having the best seating script.

Hopefully this (my) post will get deleted along with a lot more when the thread gets tidied up, but till then: The way it works among countries of the anglosphere (i.e. the five eyes countries plus Rep Ireland), is that we take the mickey out of each other and rib each other all the time.

This "don't insult foreigners" thing exists to protect the people we actually look down on - as you rightly allude to with the comment on current US politics, insulting those foreigners is a mark of vulgarity. As for relations between ourselves, get ready your NZ sheep jokes, your gay British accent jokes and think of a good comeback to the guy who thinks the US is superior to Canada because of it's higher population density (greetings from the UK btw) and embrace being part of a group of nations with enough self confidence not to play victim when a joke is made.

Well, the humor does wear thin after a while, and then wears away entirely.

Now you are just being mean.

I know many Canadians, and despite their constant drunkeness and love of hockey, they are the nicest people you could ever meet.

I'm beginning to suspect you are actually from Alaska.

Say it once, it's a joke, I'll laugh along with you. Say it three times, it's insulting.
You didn't answer my questions.

You two can take it to PM. Let get back on track to Amaya news.

+1.05, eh ?

Re #1, and this is on the Amaya topic, what happens in Toronto does not stay in Toronto. The alleged violations of Canadian law do matter with respect to suitability/fitness to operate a US-regulated igaming business. Similarly, the same underlying conduct may violate laws in both the US and Canada. Finally, this is NVG, which abounds with "experts" on all sorts of topics, eager to show off their "knowledge", real or feigned, for page after page.

Re#2, As for the level of US present political discourse, neither of our likely next Presidents' moms ever banged Mick Jagger.

FWIW, a Canadian with US ties apparently could be sued in the US under Rico for the effects in the US of conduct in Canada under certain circumstances

"If the conduct relevant to the statute’s [RICO's] focus occurred
in the United States, then the case involves a permissible domestic application even if other conduct occurred abroa
d; but if the relevant conduct occurred in a foreign country, then
the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial application regardless of whether other conduct occurred in U. S. territory. In the event the statute is found to have clear extraterritorial effect at step one, then the statute’s scope turns on the limits Congress has or has not imposed on the statute’s foreign application, and not on the statute’s “focus.”

"Section 1964(c) requires a civil RICO plaintiff to allege and prove a domestic injury to business or property and does not allow recovery for foreign injuries."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...5-138_5866.pdf (decided today)

I'm no plaintiffs' counsel, but might there not be someone in the US affected by this conduct in Canada ?

A spectacularly stupid non sequitur, intended as wit.

Be aware that applies to only one small exchange.

It is still the institutionally permitted. The IEX is just another small trading platform trying to compete.

And remember aside from high frequency traders, brokerage firms which also have proprietary trading divisions, are permitted to trade ahead of their customer orders. For example, say Vanguard places an order to buy 2 million shares of some stock. Before that order is presented to the market, Vanguard's broker can either sell that order to a market making firm, or give the info to its own traders to then trade ahead of. They then bid the stock up a few ticks and then sell the 2 million shares to Vanguard making a riskless profit.

This is legal and explicitly permitted by the SEC and the rules of the exchanges.

this thread used to be good and have useful info and discussion about the OP.

yeah, even it's somehow interesting, it's one of the worst derails :-/

Sorry, but some presumed Canadian was whining about the level of political discourse in the US. Posting an example of what would face the current Canadian PM were he forced to stand for election in the US was hardly a non sequitur. ( 2016 US political discourse has provided tmi re hand size, spousal affairs and appearances, personal divorce records and such of the actual crop of candidates.)

I understand why you might find it "spectacularly stupid" and unfunny, I forgot to mention his Mom also reportedly slept with Ron Wood and Ted Kennedy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau

+1

No one really is interested in legal theory. Keep the thread about Baazov or close it until the next step of his legal journey.

+1

+2

+1 trillion