Sky Blog
Few types of behavior attract as much attention in corporate and securities law as insider trading – that is, securities transactions based on material non-public information (MNPI).[1] Yet there is very limited empirical evidence on whether the law effectively …
In a new article, I respond to an article by Professor Andrew Verstein concerning the awareness/use problem in insider-trading law. As many readers know, this problem arises because, although Rule 10b-5 prohibits persons bound by a duty of confidentiality from …
For at least a quarter century, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has pursued claims of unlawful insider trading where the information at issue was material to the stock price of the sponsor of a clinical trial. In recent years, …
On January 14, 2022, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco denied a motion to dismiss charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission under an expansive new theory of insider trading liability. In a matter of first impression, the …
On December 15, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a set of proposed amendments (the Proposal) regarding the adoption of trading plans that qualify for the affirmative defense against liability for trading on the basis of material non-public …
Executives, directors and other corporate insiders have privileged access to material non-public information. Previous research shows that trades by insiders are informed, on average. For example, insider purchases tend to precede positive stock returns. In addition, like other investors, corporate …