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
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.
How AI Has Affected PR
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.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
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.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
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.