Andrew Left Defense Says Disagreement Can Beat Fraud Claims

Andrew Left's defense told jurors Tuesday that disagreement over stocks can be ordinary market judgment, not securities fraud. The argument goes to the center of a trial that could shape how short-seller commentary and sharp criticism are treated when analysts reach different conclusions.

Adam Fee said Left tells the public what he believes and then trades on that view. "He tells the public what he believes — the truth — and then he trades on the truth to make a profit. It's not fraud. That's trading," Fee said in opening statements, drawing a line between a bad call and a criminal one.

Twitter at $20

Twitter traded around $30 when Left issued a December 2018 report titled "Twitter has become the Harvey Weinstein of social media" and set a $20 target. Prosecutors say Left said one thing about over 20 stocks and then traded the opposite way, making over $20 million in the process. The Twitter report was one of the clearest examples the government has used to argue that his public comments and private trades diverged.

Douglas Anmuth, an internet analyst at JPMorgan, testified Wednesday that he covered Twitter at the time and disagreed with Left's report. Fee pressed him on whether that was simply a difference of opinion, asking, "Fair to say when you and any other analyst disagree, that might just be a difference of opinion, correct?" and "You would agree generally that reasonable people can disagree about how information in the market might impact stock prices?"

Cronos Group in August 2018

In August 2018, Left tweeted a negative report on Cronos Group, and analyst Martin Landry later wrote a rebuttal saying some of Left's allegations appeared to be "unfounded and biased." Fee used that exchange to push the same defense theme, asking Landry, "If you said 'buy,' another said 'sell,' the guy who said sell wasn't committing fraud, correct?"

Fee also asked Landry whether "people can reasonably disagree about the value of a company." The defense is trying to show that Left's public calls were opinionated market views, not lies, even as prosecutors say he manipulated the market and deceived retail investors through misleading statements.

The trial now turns on whether jurors see those calls as aggressive but lawful analysis or as a pattern of statements tied to opposite-side trading. For readers following the case, the next issue is whether the government's stock-by-stock examples or the defense's disagreement argument carries more weight in the jury box.