Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When Is a Promise Enough?: Contractual Duties and Insider Trading
Imagine this: A man takes a job as a security guard for a wealthy executive. His duties include answering phone calls and printing emails containing information about the executive's company. So he enters into a confidentiality agreement, which prohibits him from disclosing or using such information for matters outside his employment. But one day he sees a confidential email saying the executive's company is going to be acquired at a premium. He decides to buy stock and call options, all of which he sells at a substantial profit when the information becomes public.
For those who follow the law of insider trading, this seems like an open and shut case. The guard breached a duty by misappropriating material nonpublic information and used it to trade securities. The SEC likely thought this elementary when they brought an enforcement action in 2017 against an individual named Todd Alpert in the Southern District of New York. See, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Todd David Alpert, No. 17-Civ-1879 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 15, 2017)
But an interesting issue soon arose: What kind of duty did Alpert breach? Insider trading cases traditionally turned on breaches of fiduciary duties. But that wasn't quite the case here. After all, Alpert was a contractor. And whatever duty he owed the executive was purely a creature of contract. Was a breach of a contractual duty sufficient to create insider trading liability? And if so, what kind of contractual duty?
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.