Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Insider Trading Liability
In the wake of recent insider trading decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second and Ninth Circuits, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to determine if proof of a close family relationship is enough to satisfy the personal benefit requirement laid out in previous decisions addressing tipper-tippee liability under Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See Salman v. United States, cert. granted, __U.S.__ (No. 15-628) (Jan. 19, 2015). The forthcoming decision will undoubtedly set the table for all future insider trading actions brought by both the government and private parties, forcing individuals and firms to adjust their practices to the Court's holding in order to guard against exposure to potential insider trading liability.
Supreme Court Precedent
As first set forth in Dirks v. S.E.C., the Supreme Court has long stood by its postulation of the elements necessary for a finding of tippee liability arising out of a corporate insider's breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, under Dirks, the following elements must be satisfied for there to be a finding of tipper and tippee liability: 1) the corporate insider was entrusted with a fiduciary duty; 2) the corporate insider breached his fiduciary duty by (a) disclosing confidential information to a tippee (b) in exchange for a personal benefit; 3) the tippee knew of the tipper's breach, that is, he knew the information was confidential and divulged for personal benefit; and 4) the tippee still used that information to trade in a security or tip another individual for personal benefit. See Dirks v. S.E.C., 463 U.S. 646 (1983).
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?