What what do you think? This shows you really need to go back to the original -- you did not know the original basis of the insider information, then it's not culpable. I think it's a big blow, and it really messes up what is the lot, the manipulation standard and relate it to insider trading. It's a big problem. Is it so dramatic that merrill lynch, goldman sachs, the f.s.a. and sir martin's england, do they have to rip up all of their instructions on insider trading? No, no, but it means that the f.c.c. is going to have to bring more cases and make sure that they're strong, and the case law on this is going set the standard for the future. They're going to have to bring more cases and try to work on this. I don't have enough money for insider trade, so i don't know how it works, but help me understand. Is this plausible to think you can pass on information with no knowledge whatsoever of how the information or whether it's going to be used. Well, i mean, it's possible, i guess, but to some extent, if you think about it, you should be cautious as an investor before this. When you get information, you should have some sort of due diligence to know where the information came from. I think that gets to the gray line that may be looked at. Do people innocently pass on information with no plans whatsoever? I'm going tell you about this company, do what you will. It's hard to say. You need to know the facts and circumstances, the individual circumstances. We saw, for example, the mark cuban thing that went away also. You have to look at these things individually. I hate to comment generally about it. What does this do for the man and for the office that he leaves in terms of their ability to be effective? It does send a chilling thing. People go, wait a minute, what are we doing? We worked all this time on it, and now we've been pushed back. But there are setbacks in government, and that's ok. You know, they just need to go forward. Let's go the other side, and a public officer of a publicly traded company, sir martin. What do you do to make sure there's not insider trading? Well, we have street rules in terms whf people trade. The close period that we have, you know, we report quarterly, and no officers at the company or people can trade or they have to get permission if they want to trade even throughout the organization in those close periods between the end of the quarter and when we announce so. It knocks out actually about -- at the end of the day, it knocks out about three or four months of the year when you could trade and actual rules it out for senior officers. I feel that i should disclose that sir martin told me some things right before the show. We had a good gossip. What i'm going to do with them, he's ok. Have you ever been in a meeting in your illustrious career where people have said, oh, my god, this is not good, weave got to go to our lawyers to get advice on insider trading? No, i actually -- no. Ok, that's good. No, you don't -- you don't really know what people will be doing elsewhere. Well, remember the business week one? Wasn't there something on long island that was getting "business week" a night early? This was like a case study. It was pretty impressive, nibble queens or long island, it was printing "business week's" cover. I'm guessing it was "business week." do you remember? We used to get -- the copies were distributed from the printers before, not for insider trading, but to get knowledge of what was happening on a sunday rather than a monday. I use to be a magazine writer. Let us think back to a time when magazines had such power that you could inside trade based on something contained. Well, no, no, they had the power of the friday night, the story late on a friday night. I remember that one. Now we have technology where you've got mobile tracking and all these things that can actually -- inside information. It's a new world, right? It's not about the economy a couple of days in. It's finding out right now something that's going to happen in five seconds,ed trading on it. What you're referring to goes against the grain in the sense that you have more information. You have more trails that you can follow, so you would think it would be easier to prosecute. We've get a five-hour "bloomberg surveillance" this morning, so we'll continue. Let me republican up the script. Oil, with the brutal moves in oil, has it created dysfunction within the commodity markets? Do you look for margin call issues? Here we are, low nest five years. More so in the energy space. So radar subpoena right now. Yeah, and of course energy impacts agriculture and everything else. So yeah, there are big concerns. When you talk about the  This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.
Former CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton and Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive officer at WPP, discuss the ruling by a federal appeals court that reversed two insider-trading convictions and makes it tougher to secure future prosecutions. They speak on “Bloomberg Surveillance.”