That almost entirely binds to what responsibility they had in regards to the company. If they weren't legally insiders, then even if they had more knowledge than the broader public does (which in this case may be irrelevant depending on a few things), they won't be carrying liability.
To be clear, selling doesn't make them liable for fraud committed by Theranos, if they had no role in managing the company. Even if a lawsuit were brought, you're going to have one helluva hurdle in getting any liability to stick to said investor/s without proving direct involvement.
Doing anything about insider trading in a private corporation, has historically been a challenging area for the SEC. They have often previously been more hands off, but they've gotten more aggressive about it lately:
"On December 12, 2011, the SEC announced an enforcement proceeding that serves as a useful reminder that the federal laws against insider trading and misrepresentation apply as forcefully to private companies purchasing stock from employees and other shareholders as they do in the public company setting."
To be clear, selling doesn't make them liable for fraud committed by Theranos, if they had no role in managing the company. Even if a lawsuit were brought, you're going to have one helluva hurdle in getting any liability to stick to said investor/s without proving direct involvement.
Doing anything about insider trading in a private corporation, has historically been a challenging area for the SEC. They have often previously been more hands off, but they've gotten more aggressive about it lately:
"On December 12, 2011, the SEC announced an enforcement proceeding that serves as a useful reminder that the federal laws against insider trading and misrepresentation apply as forcefully to private companies purchasing stock from employees and other shareholders as they do in the public company setting."
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e24dc4ab-2a77-...