“Insider trading” is a term that most investors have heard and usually associate with illegal conduct. Recent government actions, including the criminal case against Martha Stewart have enforced that view.
However, the term “insider trading” actually includes both legal and illegal conduct. The legal version is when corporate insiders, officers, directors, employees and large shareholders, buy and sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC. Many investors and traders use this information to identify companies with investment potential, the theory being, if the insiders are buying the stock, they must know more about their company than everyone else, so it is a good idea to buy the stock.
Reports of transactions by insiders are filed with the SEC on Forms 3, 4 and 5, and the SEC has an excellent overview of these forms and the requirements for filing of same. Most of the internet based financial quote sites have insider trading information for each particular security. Visit Yahoo Finance and select a security, then select the menu choice for Insider Transactions. Here is the insider trading page for Citigroup for an example.
The insider trading definition that we are concerned about is the buying or selling of a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Over the last 10 years, the SEC and the courts have greatly expanded this definition, to include trading by individuals whose “relationship of trust” is so remote as to be non-existent, but that discussion is left for another day. While myself and most other securities attorneys believe that the concepts of insider trading have been expanded beyond all permissible bounds, the law today is that if material information about a company, or about the company’s stock, is obtained in violation of any duty to any person and used to trade, the trader is guilty of insider trading.
Insider trading violations may also include “tipping” such information, securities trading by the person “tipped,” and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information. Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:
- Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation’s securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
- Friends, business associates, family members, and other “tippees” of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;
- Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
- Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government;
- Employees of financial printers who learned of the information during the course of their employment; and
- Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.
In recent years, the SEC and the Courts have expanded this further, and insider trading can now include trading by the random man in the street if the SEC believes that he obtained the information from someone who should not have the information. See SECLaw Blog posts on insider trading for more information. In my opinion, this has all gone too far, and the SEC needs to be reigned in on the expansion of insider trading liability.
Products from Amazon.com
- Price: $12.01Was: $18.95
- Price: Check on Amazon
- Price: Check on Amazon
The theory behind the prohibition on insider trading is that it undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets. Thhe SEC claims that the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities, and all investors must be aware of the potential danger in trading on a “tip” from someone who knows non-public information regarding a security.
The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is “aware” of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.
Rule 10b5-2 clarifies how the misappropriation theory applies to certain non-business relationships. This rule provides that a person receiving confidential information under circumstances specified in the rule would owe a duty of trust or confidence and thus could be liable under the misappropriation theory.
Insider trading carries severe civil and criminal penalties. If you are contacted by a regulatory agency regarding trades that you made, you should contact a securities attorney before speaking to the regulators. For more information about the defense of insider trading allegations, contact Mark Astarita of Sallah Astarita & Cox, at email@example.com. For more general information regarding insider trading and the SEC’s views of it, read Insider Trading -A U.S. Perspective.
- U.S. Opens Criminal Probe Into Trading in Fannie, Freddie Bonds The U.S. has opened a criminal investigation into whether traders manipulated prices in the $550 billion market for unsecured bonds issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to people familiar with the matter.The probe, parts of which were described by four people familiar with it, shows that investigations by the Obama Justice Department into ...
- From our old Discussion Forums. Please forgive the formatting, but we needed to repost this discussion because it is popular. The Securities Law Forums General Securities Law Series 7 and Drug Testing? Author Topic: Series 7 and Drug Testing? 20kMBA New Member posted 09-15-2005 12:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 20kMBA Click Here to Email 20kMBA Edit/Delete Message ...
- Whistleblowers Need Lawyers There have been many developments in securities whistleblower rulings over the years, but none as compelling as Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Digital Realty Trust, Inc., vs. Somers which held that an employee who merely reports potential securities law violations internally has not done enough to avail himself of the extensive Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protections, including “the immediate access ...
- UBS Pulls a Fast One on its Own Employees Only a few months after withdrawing from the Protocol, UBS Financial Services is requiring brokers waiting for their 2017 bonuses to sign agreements that open them to lawsuits and arbitration complaints if they try to contact former clients within 12 months of leaving the U.S. broker-dealer unit of the Swiss bank. UBS slipped the provision into the ...
- Rule 8210 – How You Respond Makes a Difference For FINRA member firms, and employees of FINRA firms (even those who are not registered) FINRA Rule 8210 (Provision of Information and Testimony and Inspection and Copying of Books) gives FINRA the authority to request documents and testimony from firms, registered persons and, in FINRA’s view, other persons and entities related to a registered person ...