for the purpose of benefitting the corporation o Insider Trading trading on

For the purpose of benefitting the corporation o

This preview shows page 19 - 22 out of 48 pages.

for the purpose of benefitting the corporation o Insider Trading: trading on secret information when you’re not supposed to, 20 years in jail, $10 million fine, it is unlawful to use or employ in connection with the purchase/sale of any security any manipulative or deceptive device in contravention of such rules as the SEC may prescribe Have to prove 5 things: 1. Defendant bought/sold securities (stock) 2. They knew they were doing something wrong, with intent (scienter) 3. Did purchase on basis of 4. aterial, non public information 5. The trader owes a duty under the law to disclose or abstain —who has this duty? (page 139)
Image of page 19
1. Company insiders, workers who shares are being traded (janitor to CEO) 2. Temporary insiders- not on payroll, but brought into the company (auditors, attorneys, bankers, consultants) 3. Misappropriator: if one company is getting bought by another, committing fraud on the source 4. Tipee: if any one related to the above 3 buys stock because of what they were told, both tipper and tippee are in trouble United States v. Anderson (2008) o Zomax a CD company knew they would fall short of their sales expectations and earnings o Anderson then began to liquidate all the shares he owned o Jury convicted Anderson of insider trading and gave him 30 months in prison, and owed a ton of money, he appealed o Anderson said the information was not material, and he did not trade on the basis of, and that it was not nonpublic information o Jury could find that he traded on the basis of nonpublic info, so the decision is affirmed! Granholm v. Heald (2005) o 2 plaintiffs from out of state filed lawsuits against the three tier system in Michigan and NY so that they could directly ship their wine to customers in those states o both won in local, appellate also won in Michigan but appellate case for NY guy lost o these cases got sent to the supreme court and consolidated o In Michigan, the state allows for in state wineries to ship directly so it’s discriminatory against other states o New York says they must develop a distribution operation in NY- technically the same as in state wineries o States say out of state direct shipment undermines their abilities to police underage drinking o There is no proof that direct shipment increases minor’s access o State’s tax collection argument was also stated insufficient o Both laws were invalidated Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc (2011) o Pharmaceutical manufacturers promote their drugs to doctors through detailing- a scheduled visit to the office to persuade the doctor to prescribe a certain drug o They can be more persuasive when they know the doctor’s background and info “prescriber-identifying information” o Vermont passed a law against selling prescriber identifying info
Image of page 20
o Data6 miners and manufacturers sued saying it violated freedom of speech, trial judge upheld the law so they appealed o Court of appeals reversed it, supreme court got it o The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed, law invalid Kelo v. City of New London (2005) o
Image of page 21
Image of page 22

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 48 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • BREDESON
  • Law, Government, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S Supreme court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture