Lessons from the Insider Trading Prohibition Act After Its Likely Demise In the Senate
For a moment there, it really looked like it was going to happen. After a long and winding road, insider trading reform had reached the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. But then the Insider Trading Prohibition Act (ITPA) went to the Senate and vanished. What lessons we can learn toward fashioning the best possible legislation next time?.
August 14, 2020 at 03:45 PM
8 minute read
This article appeared in Business Crimes Bulletin, an ALM/Law Journal Newsletters publication that features the news and analysis you need to stay on top of the fast-changing, multi-faceted world of financial and white-collar crime.
For a moment there, it really looked like it was going to happen. After a long and winding road, insider trading reform had reached the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. The Insider Trading Prohibition Act (ITPA) had support on both sides of the aisle. Learned professors had testified about the need for action. Past and present commissioners from the Securities and Exchange Commission had weighed in on the merits of the bill. Proponents from all sides of the criminal justice system called for the need for greater clarity in insider trading regulation and enforcement. On Dec. 5, 2019, the House voted to pass the ITPA with 410 yeas against only 13 nays. The hour was at hand.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
Skadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute read
Amex Latest Target as Regulators Scrutinize Whether Credit Card Issuers Deliver on Rewards Promises
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
- 2Long Hours and Lack Of Boundaries: Associates In India Are Leaving Their Firms
- 3Goodwin Procter Relocates to Renewable-Powered Office in San Francisco’s Financial District
- 4'Didn't Notice Patient Wasn't Breathing': $13.7M Verdict Against Anesthesiologists
- 5'Astronomical' Interest Rates: $1B Settlement to Resolve Allegations of 'Predatory' Lending Cancels $534M in Small-Business Debts
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
