Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Brophy Revisited
A current “hot button” issue in corporate law is the extent to which federal law can ' or should ' pre-empt state corporate law regimes. Due to its prominence as the state of incorporation for so many U.S.-domiciled corporations, Delaware has frequently found itself at the epicenter of this debate. One area in which this tension recently flared is in the context of insider trading. When one thinks of insider trading actions, ' 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder naturally come to mind. However, as long ago as 1949, in “the venerable case” Brophy v. Cities Service Co., 70 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 1949), the Delaware Court of Chancery recognized the right of Delaware stockholders to sue corporate fiduciaries derivatively to recover profits derived from insider trading on the basis of “confidential corporate information.” According to the Brophy court, “[e]ven if the corporation did not experience actual harm, equity requires disgorgement of that profit.”
In 2010, the Court of Chancery had the opportunity to re-visit the continued viability of Brophy. In Pfeiffer v. Toll, 989 A.2d 683 (Del. Ch. 2010), the Court of Chancery rejected the argument that Brophy is a “misguided vehicle for recovering the same trading losses that are addressed by the federal securities laws.” Instead, the Court of Chancery declared, the “federal insider trading regime as currently structured rests on a foundation of state law fiduciary duties.” However, in so ruling, the Pfeiffer court limited Brophy by observing that the harm addressed is “not measured by insider trading gains or reciprocal losses,” as under the federal regime, but rather by “harm to the corporation” measured by its “ costs and expenses for regulatory proceedings and investigations, fees paid to counsel and other professionals, fines paid to regulators, and judgments in litigation.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
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.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.