Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Sept. 30, 2010, the SEC brought an insider trading case against two railroad employees and their relatives, alleging that the defendants reaped more than $1 million in illegal gains by trading on nonpublic information about the planned takeover of the railroad company. SEC v. Steffes, No. 01 Civ. 06266 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2010). The SEC alleges that the employees traded and tipped on observations made on the job, including seeing people in suits tour the rail yards, hearing coworkers discuss the possible sale of their company, and being asked to prepare asset valuations. Critics complain this is an unfair case of Goliath versus David, where the SEC is going after low-level employees who turned a hunch about the sale of their company into a profit.
The Steffes complaint reminds us that the prohibition on insider trading applies to everyone, not just to hedge-fund managers and financiers. The securities laws forbid any transacting party ' rich or poor, sophisticated or unsophisticated ' with an illegal informational advantage over an unknowing counterparty from making a profit by exploiting that counterparty's ignorance. The rub is the word “illegal,” as trading on nonpublic information does not necessarily violate the law. This informational advantage often arises where an employee (at any level) learns something through his employment that he is duty-bound to protect. Setting aside the highly fact-specific question of whether information is material ' which the SEC will have to prove in the Steffes case ' the baseline of any insider trading inquiry is whether one who trades on or is tipped about alleged material nonpublic information owes a fiduciary duty to the source of the information to keep it confidential.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.