Regulatory: Directors and officers and insider trading
Recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions demonstrate the SECs willingness to impose personal liability on directors and officers of public companies who fail to take appropriate steps to prevent securities law violations by subordinates. In light of these enforcement actions and recent enforcement actions for insider...
July 11, 2012 at 06:42 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions demonstrate the SEC's willingness to impose personal liability on directors and officers of public companies who fail to take appropriate steps to prevent securities law violations by subordinates. In light of these enforcement actions and recent enforcement actions for insider trading violations, directors and officers should take extra care to ensure that their companies institute a policy against insider trading and closely monitor its effectiveness.
Federal securities law imposes personal liability on “controlling persons” who fail to take appropriate steps to prevent or detect securities law violations by their subordinates. Directors and officers of a public company are generally deemed to be controlling persons and are charged with a responsibility to enforce the company's policy against insider trading, a responsibility that the SEC has demonstrated an increasing willingness to enforce.
All of this should put a little fear in directors and officers because insider trading allegations can spell big trouble for a company. However, the good news is that with an effective policy against insider trading in place, it is likely insider trading violations will be avoided. In addition, a policy against insider trading that directors and officers actively oversee and monitor for effectiveness will insulate them from personal liability in the event an employee engages in insider trading.
An effective policy against insider trading begins with education. Directors, officers and employees need to learn that federal securities law prohibits not only them, but also their family members, relatives and related persons from buying or selling company common stock while aware of material, nonpublic information about the company (so-called “inside information”).
Another area for education relates to sharing inside information with others, as some directors, officers and employees view this as a less serious problem. They mistakenly think of “tipping” or communicating inside information as less serious because they are not using the inside information to buy or sell company stock. So, directors, officers and employees need to be taught that “tipping” is considered a violation of insider trading laws, and they will be as liable as the person to whom they provide the inside information if that person uses the information to buy or sell company stock. This is true even if the director, officer or employee is not involved with and did not profit from the trading by the person with whom he shared the information.
A final area for education is the severity of the penalties that can be imposed, and the harm that they can bring to the company. Individuals trading on or passing on inside information to others are subject to severe criminal sanctions and civil penalties of up to 300 percent of the profit gained or loss avoided. At the company level, insider trading allegations bring with them substantial reputational harm that can disrupt the market for the company's stock, and regulatory investigations that are costly and distracting.
In addition to educating themselves and employees about insider trading, directors and officers need to ensure that they thoroughly review and understand the company policy against insider trading, including the mechanics of pre-clearing transactions, trading windows and the roles of the officers tasked with monitoring and implementing the policy. Directors and officers also should have an annual review session with the general counsel or outside counsel where they are updated on recent developments and where they have an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns.
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
© 2024 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 AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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