Insider Trading and the Gradual Demise of Fiduciary Principles
Donna M. Nagy
Indiana University Maurer School of Law
January 30, 2009
Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 123
Iowa Law Review, Vol. 94, p. 1315, 2009
Recent SEC enforcement actions, such as the case filed against Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban, raise the question whether deception by a fiduciary is essential to the Rule 10b-5 insider trading offense. Under the Supreme Court's classical and misappropriation theories, the answer is clearly yes - each theory has a fiduciary principle at its core. Yet lower courts and the SEC frequently disregard the Court's explicit dictates, and a consensus is emerging that insider trading rests simply on the wrongful use of material nonpublic information, regardless of whether a fiduciary-like duty is breached. Although this view of insider trading can be justified by the policy objectives underlying the Court's decision in United States v. O'Hagan, it currently lacks a solid doctrinal foundation. To resolve this anomaly, this Article offers specific suggestions that would bring much needed coherence and legitimacy to the law of insider trading.
Keywords: insider trading, fiduciary duty, Rule 10b5-1, Rule 10b5-2, securities fraud, O'HaganAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 31, 2009 ; Last revised: August 13, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds