simply the result of those clients “piggy backing” on the purchases by the C family. Since Azeff and Bobrow say that the
C family purchase was “innocent”, the subsequent purchases by
other clients must be equally “innocent”.
 Certain salient facts have to be noted regarding the issue
about the C family purchase. One is that the Panel did not make
any finding that the C family’s purchases of Masonite were the
result of being tipped. Rather, the Panel simply concluded that
the evidence could not establish that fact one way or the other.
As the Panel noted: “The evidence regarding timing of the orders
and the lunch time presence or absence of Azeff and Bobrow was
contradictory and unclear”.
 The fact that the Panel did not conclude that the C family
purchase was the result of tipping did not, as the Panel found,
negate a finding that other purchases were the result of tipping.
In that regard, the Panel looked at the long list of communications between Finkelstein, Azeff, Bobrow and others, on April 18
and 19, 48 hours before the public announcement, and the number of purchases of Dynatec shares by various person associated
with Azeff and Bobrow, none of whom had bought any Dynatec
shares in the previous six months.
 Of course, there is the further salient fact that L.K.
admitted receiving a recommendation to buy Dynatec from
Azeff, and acting on it.
 Again, the Panel’s conclusion that Azeff and Bobrow used
material non-public information, to recommend that their clients
purchase Dynatec shares, is a reasonable one that was open to
the Panel on the evidence that they heard, and the factual findings that they made.
BBB. Azeff and Bobrow — Legacy
 I will deal with this aspect of the appeals briefly because
the submissions made by Azeff and Bobrow largely mirror the
submissions made by Finkelstein on the subject of Legacy, and
I have already dealt with those submissions above.
 Azeff and Bobrow also say that there was significant
information regarding Legacy already in the public domain.
They also point to rumours and an existing non-binding offer for
Legacy. There is, of course, a wide gap between rumours and
non-binding offers on the one hand and certain knowledge and a
firm offer on the other. The public had the former; Finkelstein
had the latter.
 There is also a reasonable inference that can be drawn
from the magnitude of the purchases. It is one thing to take a
small position based on rumour, speculation or guess work. It is