He should never had traded the stock if he was not prepared to accept the risk, or did not personally have belief in the stock's prospects. It is irresponsible to trade stock based on the recommendations of television analysts. In a moral sense, Rick Stedman, if he was indeed committing a pump-and-dump, knew that some viewers may suffer adverse consequences. However, the limits of his moral responsibility are with his responsibility to the network. He is not morally responsible for the actions of any individual viewer. Likewise, the network is in the news and commentary business. That viewers may trade based on things that they hear or see on the network is a given. The network's oversight with respect to controls on its analysts does not amount to a moral responsibility.

No matter the set of events that lead to the unfortunate loss suffered by James Lee, the final decision to trade was made by Mr. Lee himself. He alone had the control to make this decision and could have stopped himself at any time. In stock markets, the onus of the decision-making is strictly on the investor and they must always conduct due diligence. This is not merely a financial obligation but a moral one as well. One cannot reasonably expect to walk through life making irresponsible decisions and expect to place blame on others. Mr. Lee had a moral obligation to himself to conduct due...

The company did the right thing in hiring a law firm to investigate the allegations. The company is obligated to protect the interests of its owners, and Rick Stedman was potentially engaged in a conflict of interest. Thus, DNHC was protecting its own interests and the interests of its major stakeholders against potential harmful actions by one of its employees. That no more serious form of investigation was conducted by the company fits with the company's obligation to its employees to treat them with due respect, not treating Stedman as a criminal based on a single relatively-unsubstantiated accusation.
The company needed to develop rules for its analysts, but the company probably did not do the right thing, simply because it did not go far enough in protecting itself. The rules as stated do not appear to be adequately sufficient to protect the interests of DNHC and its stakeholders. The basic action was the right thing, however, despite this shortcoming in the outcome. The network does not know precisely how the courts will treat lawsuits stemming from a proven pump-and-dump situation with one of their analysts. Thus, they must demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to prevent this situation. Such steps protect the network, the viewers and to some extent they protect the commentator as well.