Although some have praised United States v. O'Hagan for bringing coherence and stability to the federal insider trader regime, the case actually underscores the regime's astonishingly dysfunctional nature. This Article explores three features of the regime. First, the federal insider trading regime that supposedly bans insider trading actually permits such trading. The conventional wisdom, that insiders must either disclose material, non-public information in their possession or abstain from trading their company's shares, is wrong. Instead, if insiders engage in Candid Insider Trading by declaring an intent to trade on material, non-public information prior to trading, they can avoid Rule 10b-5 liability. Second, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 10b-5 broadens liability to all cases where a securities trade itself triggers a deception. Thus, whenever an insider engages in Deceptive Trading, she faces liability under Rule 10b-5, whether or not there is a misappropriation of material, non-public information. Third, this Deceptive Trading Theory explains liability in both the classical insider trading and the misappropriation scenarios. The first two problematic features arise out of the SEC's ongoing efforts to mitigate unfair informational asymmetries through the manipulation of a statute that prohibits deceptions. By cramming its goals into a statute that does not speak to its regulatory concerns, the SEC has created a regime that is nothing short of dysfunctional.
There have been many many, many proposals to use Russia’s frozen assets to help Ukraine. Russia’s invasion violated international law; reparations are...
After several years of dramatic growth, ESG investing seems to have entered a period of retrenchment. While it is impossible to predict the future...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
On December 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Illumina, Inc. v. FTC. Although the court vacated and...
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what are potentially the most significant commercial law cases of the last decade. In the...
Lenders are perfectly free to decide for themselves whether, when, how, to whom and on what terms they will extend credit to a sovereign borrower. But...
There is a live debate going on over whether antitrust should take a broader view of the economics of market concentration. When antitrust reformers...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
We examine the legal terms in the market for green bonds, debt instruments in which proceeds are earmarked, directly or indirectly, for projects with...
In an era defined by partisan rifts and government gridlock, many celebrate the rare issues that prompt bipartisan consensus. But extreme consensus...
Consequential damages have been a cornerstone of contract doctrine since the broken crankshaft in Hadley v. Baxendale. And the Hadley rule is one of...
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas’s majority opinion announced that the key to applying originalist methodology...
In this article, we examine the relations between risk, the choice of foreign or local contract terms (parameters), and maturity in the sovereign debt...
Engaging New Cases: The book uses fresh, timely cases in agency and partnership to show how business law is relevant in a variety of practices...
Over the past quarter century, Congress has enacted several major reforms for retirement plans and individual retirement accounts, usually with large...
The 1968 Fair Housing Act required local government recipients of federal money to take meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH...