The Securities & Exchange Commission is appealing a judge's dismissal of the commissions insider trading lawsuit filed against billionaire Mark Cuban.

Bloomberg reports that "The SEC today filed a notice of appeal at U.S. District Court in Dallas without indicating what arguments it may make. A judge had dismissed the agency's lawsuit in July, saying Cuban's alleged promise to keep information confidential about Mamma.com Inc. didn't bar him from trading the company's stock."

The SEC's insider trading case against Mark Cuban is proving to be quite different from the usual open and shut matters we've come to expect from the commission. As Jonathan Berr reported yesterday on DailyFinance, some major legal experts have defended Mark Cuban's insistence that he didn't qualify as an insider when engaged in the trades in question.

Worse news for the SEC: Cuban has taken the unusual step of suing the SEC for denying him proper access to documents that detail the SEC's allegations and evidence against him.

When the SEC sued Mark Cuban for insider trading in shares of Mamma.com, the case was unique from the beginning. First of all, Cuban didn't settle instantly and paid a small fine without admitting or denying guilt -- something that seems to be a rarity these days. He even blogged about the charges.

Now, the feisty Mavericks owner has taken the unusual step of suing the SEC for denying him proper access to documents that detail the SEC's allegations and evidence against him.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, accuses the commission of improperly rejecting requests to access some evidence, being too slow to respond to some requests, and not trying hard enough to find all the documentation Cuban's attorneys requested.

When Tribune Co. (OTC: TRBCQ) owner Sam Zell took the publishing and media giant private about a year ago, little did he know that his move would completely backfire, leading to a bankruptcy just under a month ago. With way too much debt, one of the nicer possessions in Zell's closet has been the Chicago Cubs. Outspoken billionaire Mark Cuban wants to buy them, but at a discount to Zell's asking price of course.

Cuban's balking at the approximately $1 billion price tag that seems to be the asking price for the Cubbies. Cuban probably is thinking that Tribune and Zell are in such dire straights that he can hold out a bit and score the Cubs for a much lower price -- perhaps $600 million or so. Zell, who is going to have to generate some asset sales regardless of how Tribune navigates through bankruptcy, needs to make this sale. In fact, all of the flash wrapped up in Tribune's assets that don't have a core function in its business probably will have to go. Time for egos to take a vacation.

Tribune Co. was for a time a great collection of media assets. Just like any other newspaper publisher, it was caught off-guard when most news seekers turned to the internet for instant news -- not late news like newspapers generally supply. Local content and freshness has been what has saved many publishers, but who knows if this will last.

For now, Zell's huge misstep with Tribune is going to demand he bite his tongue and rake in some cash. It's nice to know that two outspoken rich guys will be the ones getting to deal with each other soon, and perhaps Cuban will use his blog to chip away at the Cubs' price even more.

Mark Cuban disclosed in a 13-D filed this morning that he has a 9.4% stake in Carmike Cinemas (NASDAQ: CKEC).

Unlike Mr. Cuban's personal blog, the 13-D lacks much in the way of color: There is the standard disclosure that he acquired the stake for investment purposes and may buy more or sell some or all depending on his mood.

According to the company, "Carmike Cinemas, Inc. is a U.S. leader in digital cinema and 3-D cinema deployments and one of the nation's largest motion picture exhibitors. As of September 30, 2008, Carmike had 250 theatres with 2,276 screens in 36 states. Carmike's digital cinema footprint reaches 2,147 screens, of which 430 are also equipped with 3-D capability. Carmike's focus for its theatre locations is small to mid-sized communities with populations of fewer than 100,000."

The company has been reporting huge losses as it sinks under the weight of a crippling debt load and economic malaise. But Cuban's one of the smartest people in business, so maybe there's some upside to be had. The shares have lost about 90% of their value since the beginning of 2007.

We recently presented a look at some of the most notorious financial felons of contemporary times.

Since then, news has included the indictment of Mark Cuban for insider trading in a case that is somewhat reminiscent of Martha Stewart's case. According to the SEC, the billionaire entrepreneur asked his broker to sell all his shares of Mamma.com after the company's CEO confidentially told him of an impending stock offering that would dilute the value of all existing shares. By selling before the information became public, Cuban is said to have sidestepped losses of more than $750,000. Cuban insists, though, that no agreement existed to keep the information confidential.

And then there was the indictment in Texas of Vice President Dick Cheney, along with former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and others. There seems to be a conflict of interest between the vice president's influence on the federal agency that oversees federal immigration detention centers and his substantial holdings in Vanguard Group, which invests in private prison companies. But does the lame-duck county district attorney, who was a no-show in court, have the authority to bring charges against federal officials with regard to federally run institutions?

Say it ain't so, Mark Cuban.

Yesterday the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged the billionaire with insider trading. The regulatory agency claims that Cuban sold shares of mamma.com, a Canada-based Internet search company, with the advance knowledge of a yet-to-be-disclosed private equity offering of company shares.

Cuban allegedly sold his shares under the assumption that the private offering would greatly dilute his holdings. Selling as he did prevented the loss of some $750,000, the SEC claims in its charges.

He denies the charges and vows to fight.

Mamma.com changed its name to Copernic Inc. (NASDAQ: CNIC) in 2007. As a result of the highly publicized charges against Cuban, I expected to see trading volume in CNIC increase from its current average volume of 45,000 shares.

Sure enough, volume yesterday was at more than 350,000 shares. The lemmings are so predictable. They see something on the news and they place a trade.

No matter that the reasons for the company being in the news have little to do with the business, its current state or its future potential. The company is in the news because of insider trading, period.

Now, is that a reason for a stock to go up in value?

The breaking news is that the SEC is charging Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, with insider trading related to sales of shares in Mamma.com, Inc., now Copernic, Inc. (NASDAQ: CNIC). The entrepreneur billionaire allegedly dumped 600,000 shares in the Internet search engine company when he found out it was raising money by selling shares in a private offering. This information was not publicly known.

The SEC filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, saying that in June, 2004, Cuban was invited to participate in the stock offering after he agreed to keep the information confidential. Knowing the offering would be conducted at a discount, Cuban then sold his entire 6% ownership within a few hours after he learned about it. When the financing was announced the next day, the company's shares dropped more than 10% due to dilution concerns. Cuban thus avoided more than $750,000 in losses.

If these allegations are true, this is a classic case of insider trading. The public had no way of knowing the stock price would drop, while Cuban and other insiders did. The SEC release didn't mention what other insiders did, but it seems, for now at least, that only Cuban acted on the information.

I've had about all the news of corruption I can take. Of course, I don't mean to sound accusatory, or find Mark Cuban guilty before he has been properly tried, but it's just the timing of it. When the world is swirling into a global recession based on greed, and probably at least a little bit of corruption, these news items are definitely ones I can do without.

Mark Cuban has a new pet project: BailoutSleuth.com seeks to keep readers updated on how their money is being spent as part of the $700 billion bailout of financial institutions.

So far the early returns aren't looking good. Yesterday the site's editor, Chris Carey, wrote that the "Treasury Department put out an announcement about a major bailout-related contract with Bank of New York Mellon Corp. that fell short in the transparency department."

The problem? Nearly all the information on compensation was redacted, leading to less than illuminating lines like this: "The Financial Agent shall receive a monthly fee ---------------------------------------."

It's hard to know what purpose is served by keeping taxpayers in the dark about how much Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE: BK) is being paid for its services. This reeks of the same contempt for taxpayers that characterized the passage of the bailout in the first place.

Concerned citizens should consider bookmarking BailoutSleuth to follow this travesty in real time.

With theories flying about the cause of the problems in the financial sector, just about every possibility has been discussed. Unfortunately, the media has given tremendous attention to the "evil short-seller conspiracy" idea but, on his blog, billionaire Mark Cuban offers a more sane alternative: "Risk and reward have been decoupled for CEOs on Wall Street."

Cuban writes: "If you are the CEO of a major public company, once you qualify for your golden parachute there is absolutely no reason not to throw the Hail Mary pass, and do high risk deals every chance you get.... Lets just say for example, you run Fannie May or Freddie Mac. You basically f*** up the entire housing economy. Your punishment ? You walk away with 9mm and 14mm dollars as severance."

Instead of cracking down on short-selling, regulators and especially directors should be looking at the corporate governance issues that led executives at companies like Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM), Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH), and American International Group (NYSE: AIG). One possible solution that is already beginning to take hold at many companies is providing executives with restricted stock grants instead of options so that there is an incentive to retain value rather than betting the farm on growth.

While Cuban's analysis is probably overly simplistic -- the recent mayhem is not only a result of poorly structured CEO pay -- the huge unchecked risks and excessive leverage at so many companies should lead to a renewed call for changes in corporate America.

CEOs have been doing the old soft shoe at quarterly report time since the market first form, but dancing now seems to have become a favored pastime of CEOs include Steve Ballmer of Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Jerry Yang of Yahoo (NASDAQ:YHOO) and (surprise? hardly) Mark Cuban (also a yahoo).

Yang busted some moves recently dancing with the star of Where the Hell is Matt?, the outstanding internet feature following adventurer and dancer (I use the term loosely) Matt Harding. Don't miss the video at the end of this post, if you're not familiar with Matt. - it's perhaps the most charming, uplifting video I've seen in years.

Of course, who can forget Steve Ballmer's dance at the podium during a Microsoft presentation? And, of course, Mark, 'Gimme the Cubs" Cuban performing on Dancing with the Stars?

Come to think of it, many CEOs are already quite accomplished at performing the fan dance with their balance sheets. Ex-Gov. Spitzer has shown his fondness for the hustle and the shag, while Donald Rumsfeld is still waiting for the cakewalk to begin. Senator Craig seems to favor the swing, while President Bush appears dead-set on taking on the Persian Dance before he waltzes out of the White House.

And me? Having lived through the Vietnam Era, I'm doing the Time Warp again.

Thanks to Portfolio.com

Sam Zell is looking to unload the Chicago Cubs baseball franchise that came with his ill-timed $8.2 billion acquisition of Tribune Media Co., and the most aggressive suitor appears to be dot-com billionaire Mark Cuban. The New York Times reports that he offered $1.3 billion for the the team, Wrigley Field, and the team's stake in Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

But of course, Cuban, who has accumulated $1.7 million in fines during his tenure as owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is not without his critics, to say the least. He's too arrogant, too brash, and not gentlemanly enough, they say. He had trouble cracking into the old boy's network of the NBA, and Major League Baseball is said to be even more reluctant to change.

But if Cuban is the high bidder -- and the league will let him in -- it'll be a great day for the Cubs and for baseball. The team hasn't won a World Series since 1908 but, given Cuban's deep pockets and superhuman competitive drive, the Cubs would likely get the extra boost they need to finally win one. Plus, Cubs and Cuban have the same first three letters, so it's pretty much meant to be.

Baseball has dealt with a lot of scandal lately involving performance-enhancing drugs, and it's about time we added a passionate renegade to the current regime of old bureaucrats. And yes, I'm talking to you Ted Lerner.

My perennial near-hero Mark Cuban recently examined the issue of CEO pay, over on his handy soapbox, The Blog Maverick. In his blog post titled "My 2 Cents on CEO Pay," Mr. Cuban outlined his position on the subject and tossed some ideas around. The post makes a good read, and the author makes some good points. Additionally, the 65 or so comments by the readers are well worth the time to cruise them.

I'd like to discuss and expand upon an idea someone presented in addition to those discussed by Mark Cuban. It's actually a reverse scenario to what Mr. Cuban describes as moving chief executive officers into "the cash zone." In the Cuban scenario, the CEO would be paid cash, without additional compensation through stock grants, in order to make their pay more tangible and visible as a business expenditure. Mr. Cuban also asserts that this might more closely align CEO compensation with company performance. It's an admirable idea, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

In this alternate approach, we give the CEO all the stock certificates he or she can swallow. Then we provide an equal number to be divided among all other employees of the company. In this manner of compensation, all employees have their hands on the ball. The concept of laboring to line the pockets of someone else with gold would become extinct. The CEO would suddenly become a real person in the eyes of the rank-and-file laborers. Likewise, the labor force would be inextricably linked to the financial success of the CEO. If labor is to share the risk, they should also share the reward.

A further stop-gap to this scenario would be if upper management deemed that labor cuts were needed to create profitability, or for any reason other than "cause," they and the CEO would be required to surrender share holdings equal to the holdings of the displaced workers. These surrendered shares would then be distributed to the pink-slipped workforce members, with the company paying all applicable taxes on the transfer. Additionally, no party would be allowed to liquidate more than 5% of their holdings in any one year, as long as they were employed by the company, and upper management would be required to maintain holdings at least equal to those of the workforce.

I know it's a lofty scenario, but it sure would beat the heck out of what we have going on now.

After a hiatus that led many to suspect that Mark Cuban's ShareSleuth experiment had gone the way of the hula hoop, Chris Carey is back with a scathing report on China Fire & Security Group Inc. (NASDAQ: CFSG), which bills itself as a "leading total solution provider of industrial fire protection systems in China."

The ShareSleuth report found evidence of the usual suspects in pump and dumps: exaggerated resumes, disclosure issues, associations with characters of ill repute and a lot of hype combined with little evidence of a strong operating business.

Another major red flag: CEO Brian Lin told Mr. Carey in an email "that you should be careful since you don't know how strong our business is and how many big deals we are close to completion. CFSG SHORT SELLERS WILL BE SQUEEZED - SOON!!"

An email from a CEO to a journalist of that nature is highly irregular, securities lawyer Howard Sirota of Sirota & Sirota told me in a phone conversation. He added that it is a violation of Regulation Fair Disclosure, an SEC regulation requiring that material information be disseminated simultaneously to market participants: "It goes back to the concept of full and fair disclosure. That statement wasn't made in a public dissemination to the entire market. This is selective disclosure, an effort to effect the price of the stock by giving information to a selected market participant. The idea of full and fair disclosure is a level playing field. This is like whispering to one analyst 'We're gonna beat expectations."

Be sure to check out this story from ShareSleuth -- the site could develop into a tremendous resource for investors.

I often spend a little time over at Blogmaverick.com, where Mark Cuban recently sought to give the world of blogging a little of his insightful perspective. It seems that Mr. Cuban finds little to respect in the world of blogging, or at least in the world of slipshod ,cookie-cutter blogging. Though I found Mark's blog entry a trifle difficult to read, which is quite unusual coming from him, I nonetheless agree with most of the body of his post. I especially agree with his assertion that just because a blog is backed by the name of a well-known media organization does not in itself render that blog worthy of special notice.

Mark Cuban wrote, "...newspapers having 'bloggers' is easily one of the many bad decisions that newspapers have made over the past 10 years." If newspapers are going in a wrong direction by producing blogs, perhaps they need to reinstall the title reporter and drop the title blogger to give a different perspective to the reader. If newspapers are using the term blog simply as a culture hook, then they have it all wrong and they're just selling their reporters short. I believe that I'm in agreement with Mark Cuban when I say that true reporters should be releasing content within some format other than blogs. Blogging is what I do, and I'll be the first to tell you that I'm no reporter. The titles are absolutely not interchangeable, though they may sometimes be used correctly in tandem.