Insider Trading Statute Needed
Congress should enact a specific insider trading statute without further delay. There is simply no downside to it.
August 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Congressman Chris Collins was arrested on Aug. 8, 2018, on charges that he engaged in insider trading. The 58-page indictment returned by the grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charged in unusual detail that an Australian biotechnology company, of which Collins was a board member, had learned that a drug which it was hoping to produce for the treatment of multiple sclerosis had totally failed its trial testing. Upon learning that, Collins allegedly contacted his son as well as others to tell them that the drug in question had failed its trial. That information resulted in the immediate sale of the stock of the company, prior to the public announcement of the drug's trial failure. That is alleged to have resulted in the tipees avoiding more than $768,000 in losses. Rep. Collins has been quoted as denying guilt and expressing the expectation that he will be acquitted. We know nothing about the facts of this case other than those set forth in the indictment, and would not and do not intend to express any view of guilt or innocence.
However, this case, as so many others of recent vintage, is based on a number of legal theories including securities fraud in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78(j)(b) and 78(ff). Also alleged in the indictment is that the securities fraud violated Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 240.10b-5. We note that nowhere in the indictment is there a reference to a specific federal statue defining insider trading. That is because no such statute exists, although many legal commentators and scholars have long expressed the view that prosecutions for insider trading would be facilitated if there were a specific statute setting forth the elements of the offense. It has been said that those who prosecute these cases prefer the fact that there is no statutory definition of insider trading, inasmuch as the absence of a statutory definition allows in some respects greater liberality in a trial of such cases than would otherwise be the case if there were a specific statutory definition of the offense.
The most recent case decided by the United States Supreme Court on insider trading was Salman v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016). In that case, Justice Alito, writing for the unanimous court, dispelled the notion held by some federal courts that liability for insider trading could only be properly established if the tipper not only breached the fiduciary duty to maintain confidential information and not disclose it, but also, as a result of disclosing it, received a financial benefit. In some cases, the inability to show that the tipper received such a benefit resulted in an acquittal or a reversal of a conviction on appeal.
The Supreme Court resolved any ambiguity on that issue by holding that insider trading can be properly established even where the tipper does not receive money or property as a result of the breach of a fiduciary duty. Rather, it was held that a personal benefit resulted even from simply making a gift of confidential information to a friend or relative. In other words, a benefit in the form of cash was not required in order for a conviction to obtain.
While Salman resolved this issue, it did not deal with other potential ambiguities that almost inevitably result from the lack of a statutory definition of insider trading. Thus, we take this opportunity to repeat what we have espoused in the past, i.e., that Congress should enact a specific insider trading statute without further delay. There is simply no downside to it, and such statute would obviate a number of proof problems that have plagued the courts in these kinds of cases.
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 AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 2For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 3As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 4General Warrants and ESI
- 5GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
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