motive can take many forms. For example, an individual could
tip for the purpose of gaining the trust of a client, or for the purpose of building his reputation so that other potential clients
would be attracted. There is no requirement that motive must
involve a direct personal financial gain.
 In terms of Bobrow separately, the Panel’s conclusion that
Bobrow tipped clients, including, in particular, H.F., was an
entirely reasonable one for the Panel to reach. Azeff and Bobrow
together bought Masonite stock in more than one hundred client
accounts, beginning on November 19, 2004, which included the
account of H.F. As I have already mentioned, the Panel found that
these purchases were the result of Finkelstein tipping Azeff.
 Contrary to Bobrow’s claim that there was neither evidence presented, nor a finding made, that he had the “
opportunity” to tip H.F., the Panel heard evidence from Bobrow
himself that H.F. was an important client, with whom Bobrow
frequently spoke, often multiple times a day.
 Of some consequence, on this point, is the e-mail exchange
between H.F. and Bobrow on November 29, 2004 regarding
H.F.’s purchase of Masonite shares. In that e-mail exchange,
Bobrow inquires whether H.F. has told another person about
Masonite. H.F. responds that he has not and then adds: “We
don’t want this info in the public domain”.
 Having concluded that Finkelstein tipped Azeff, it would
not have been a difficult next step for the Panel to draw the
inference that Azeff told Bobrow. When one couples that reality
with the evidence of L.K., the volume of shares purchased and
the e-mail from H.F., the Panel’s conclusion that it was more
probable than not that Azeff and Bobrow were tipped, and correspondingly tipped others, is certainly a conclusion that was reasonably open to the Panel on the evidence.
BB. Azeff and Bobrow — Dynatec
 I have already dealt with the issue of whether Finkelstein
tipped Azeff about Dynatec. I need not repeat that analysis here.
I have also dealt with the issue whether, if Azeff was tipped, he
would, in turn, have passed the information to Bobrow.
 Azeff and Bobrow’s main challenge to the Panel’s findings
that they were tipped regarding Dynatec, and then used that
information to tip others, involves the purchase of a large number of Dynatec shares by the C Family. Azeff and Bobrow contend that the purchase of Dynatec by the C family was unrelated
to any information that Azeff and Bobrow might have possessed.
They move from that contention to further contend that
purchases of Dynatec by other clients of Azeff and Bobrow were