A silly and baseless claim. The executives didn't know about the breach at the time of sale, and it wasn't "covered up". It's standard industry procedure to first stop an intrusion, investigate the scope, contact law enforcement and regulatory agencies, and prepare a consumer response, before publishing a breach. This wasn't something that was dug up by an investigation, so calling it a cover-up is simply wrong.
Sure, I always dump stock in companies I manage while sticking to standard industry procedure after not sticking to any industry procedures until I had a massive failure. Sorry, I am not into business people the benefit of the doubt when all the facts point the other way.
Could it be that the executives will get in more trouble for selling the shares - i.e. insider trading - than for managing the company with such a massive data breach?
