On Jan. 14, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss an SEC enforcement action rooted in a novel “shadow trading” theory of insider trading. In SEC v. Panuwat, the SEC alleged that Matthew Panuwat used confidential information regarding the acquisition of Medivation, his employer, to buy stock options in another industry participant, Incyte. The court ruled that the SEC alleged facts sufficient to state a claim under the “misappropriation” theory of insider trading for violations of §10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. See Dkt. 26 (MTD Decision). Given the unique theory of liability underpinning the SEC’s complaint, the decision may signal a noteworthy expansion in insider trading enforcement.

Insider Trading: A Brief Background

In the absence of a federal statute, insider trading law has developed through judicial interpretation of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Insider trading prosecutions generally proceed under one of two theories of liability: the “classical” theory or the “misappropriation” theory.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]