Well, here's some of the quote that I got my information from, if it makes it clearer to you. The whole post is at Dispatches from the Martha Stewart Trial It's a pretty good read in its entirety, if you're interested.
As I have explained in previous dispatches, the SEC has filed separate civil insider trading charges, which carry a lower burden of proof and don't involve jail time, against Stewart for selling ImClone after learning of the Waksal sale (as distinct from the Erbitux information). Technically, the Waksal sale information is not "inside" information but a form of "market" information. The distinction? "Inside" information pertains to the operations and/or performance of the company; "market" information pertains to the demand for the company's stock. In this case, the issue is complicated by the theory that Stewart could infer inside information—the Erbitux rejection—from the Waksal sale. I would argue that, especially to a CEO like Stewart, who was used to selling stock in her own company for reasons other than impending disaster, the Waksal sale information was not as material as the government is making it out to be.
As to the insider trading question, I thought that there were federal laws against it, but that the definition was left up to the SEC. However, I do not have any references to back that up, so will concede I may not have that straight.
Drew Garrett