they are looking to bring more charges against matthew martoma. ed they want more charges against him. they want to build up a superseding indictment against martoma. why do they want to do that? they want to pressure him to do what he is not doing right now. that is to flip against steve cohen. here is the thing, you read a lot in the paper. we broke this story. an indictment on charges that steve cohen willfully ignored. that is one potential avenue that they have. from what i understand, that may have been. the best case they know they have is right here with matthew martoma. he has been indicted for insider trading. that trade came after a conversation he had with steve cohen. liz: is ignorance a defense? charlie: if they believed there was enough evidence that he should have known or did no, they can bring one of these willful ignorance cases. they trade about a million shares a day. some astronomical amount of money. a huge portion of the new york stock exchange trading. it is still a fairly small percentage of volume. we were among the irst

two guys they indicted matthew martoma, michael steinberg.artoma, former portfolio manager. steinberg, current portfolio manager. they would love tem to turn evidence. melissa: they would, and they haven't and isn't that interesting. what does that tell you? they put pressure on the guys who could go to jail a long time. >> decades. melissa: right. and wouldn't you think that if they could implicate someone gher up t food chain that theywould do that? they're sound much pressure. >> either they will, either they will implicate somebody higher up the food chain to save their own necks, or there is no there there. what t justice department is trying to get them to do they can't do. >> we're reading the tea leaves here. we're not in the room. i can tell you when i talk to justice department officials you guys in the press you get half the stuff wrong. it is tough when you're outside. i would say this, the grand jury thing was kind of smarmy. they knew that steve cohen if they gave him a grand ju subpoena was never going to testify. guess what th

in late july, essentially a deadline by which federal prosecutors near to bring charges in the matthew martomaawry. the question is will steve cohen be charged as a result of all of that? he was implicated and a crucial conversation between him and that trader who has been indicted already, matthew martoma shs and we don't know yet if they have enough evidence to charge him personally. >> the company is paid $600 million plus to the s.e.c. not that long ago. did they think at that time that they were putting their legal troubles behind them? >> yeah. without certainty, but they did think that most of their troubles were in the rear view meror. the s.e.c. is their primary regulator. they wrote a $16 million check. there's been meeting with government officials and additional speech arksz issues and the s.a.c. has said enough is enough. we're not going to fully cooperate anymore and that's caused hesitation on the part of investors who are pulling money. >> you reported on a key meeting that happened between the lawyer's office and contractors for the s.a.c. it can't seem to yield anything. what

and we still are no closer to knowing what matthew martoma is going to do? august is the key dates. if they, if that happens, like, for example, the statute of limitations ends in july and august. if he makes it until then, steve cohen is not getting indicted, bottom line. melissa: so if he makes it through a certain period of time and he doesn't get indicted and seeing all the redemptions, is there anything to stop the investors from coming back? >> you know, he would have to reopen the fund. that is one thing he could do. this is it what scares me now that i got my voice back as a civil libertarian. what scares me the notion of a grand jury subpoena, the notion of suspicion, can put somebody out of business and i will tell you, that, you know, no one has been more critical of steve cohen on this broadcast or gone after him as much as i have. they have been looking at him for seven years. seven years. they have not been able to get a case. we do know there is a grand jury empan they would. we do know investigators believe that he has done something wrong bu

charges against steve coen had, charges against the firm, in recalls it of what went on with matthew martoma, the former portfolio manager that sold, been indicted for selling stock of drug companies. that, to potential rico as you know, racketeering charges which could really be damaging to the firm. a rico charge --. melissa: that is worst-case scenario. >> that is like nuclear war, it puts people in jail for 30 years if that's what they do. it could impose fines that would eat that $9 billion, that cohen has and the other guys have, his employees have in the fund could eat that pretty quick if you look how rico charges add up. that is the worth case scenario. zack is kind of glossing it over but, you know, i will say this about sac capital. this is what astound me about them. i've been dealing with these guys for two years with their pr firm. is how much they underplayed this thing. i can't tell you, if they were just spinning me all these years, telling me that this isn't that big of a deal. there were times where they out right misled me. i can't tell if this was spin --. melissa: reall

limitations which is the five-year deadline for prosecutors to bring additional charges associated with matthew martoma pharmaceutical stocks in 2009 based on inside information and theria a second deadline of late august. trades on dell and nvidia that have snared a network of current and former sac employees including most recently resulting in charges against longtime trader michael steinberg. that's a case that could potentially ensnare cohen as well. what's missing there and the reason people are focused on martoma. you don't see them mentioned in those details and he did do dell trading. >> different than that 20-minute conversation. >> that key 20-minute conversation between he and m martomi. it doesn't mean it wasn't necessarily incorrect and that they won't get steinberg, but it was a very small number. >> the ill-gotten gains in that were alleged to be 25 million in the tens of millions as opposed to a quarter billion which made martoma ill gotten gains in the history of insider trading cases. >> kate, thank you. >> thank you. >> when we come back, or by the way, lululemon has officially brou