Regulating insider trading in the post-fiduciary duty era: equal access or property rights?

Author(s):  
Stephen M. Bainbridge
Author(s):  
Jonathan R. Macey ◽  
Maureen O'Hara

This chapter discusses vertical and horizontal problems in financial regulation and corporate governance. More specifically, it examines three contexts in which efforts to mitigate systemic risk and moral hazard in capital markets and financial institutions clash with long-standing principles of corporate governance. The first issue relates to the so-called “vertical” challenge between financial institutions and the separately incorporated holding companies that own and control them. The second issue relates to the “horizontal” challenge, in which regulatory arbitrage occurs between the banking subsidiaries of complex holding companies and their less-regulated nonbank and shadow bank siblings. The third and final issue deals with the conflict between the conception of fiduciary duty in the federal law of insider trading and the concept of fiduciary duty in state law.


2001 ◽  
Vol 87 (7) ◽  
pp. 1229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zohar Goshen ◽  
Gideon Parchomovsky

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 558-600
Author(s):  
Ana Taleska

AbstractParity-of-information is purported to be the single overarching policy rationale for the European Union (EU) regulation on insider trading. This is because securities trading on the basis of informational advantages is generally prohibited under EU rules, as is tipping (and issuers’ selective disclosure) of material, non-public information. Yet, EU regulations allow market actors, including investment professionals and analysts, that have discovered valuable information -and thereby, have an informational advantage vis-à-vis their trading counterparties- to trade on this information. Relatedly, issuers of financial instruments, takeover bidders and merging parties can share information with a selected group of investors prior to public announcement of the transaction (market sounding), whereas firms can delay public disclosure of inside information and prevent all other market participants from trading on this information. I argue that these exceptions from the parity-of-information theory are -from a doctrinal standpoint- best explained as property rights in information of market actors that have developed new proprietary information with respect to European listed securities. This article, therefore, aims at providing a property rights account of the exceptions to the parity-of-information theory and it illustrates the trade-offs between the parity-of-information and the property rights in information theories underlying European insider trading rules. By extension, I analyze the specific case of activist campaigns as inside information and argue that it would be consistent with the property rights approach to allow activist investors to share their investment and trading strategies with other market participants that further their activist agenda.


1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Salbu

Under the present judicial interpretation of federal securities law, an individual is prohibited from trading on non-public information that has been misappropriated in contravention of a fiduciary duty. Trades made using non-public information that has not been misappropriated are not prohibited by Rule 10b-5, promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The current requirement of misappropriation to trigger Rule 10b-5 liability creates a gap that permits transactions that are both ethically and economically undesirable. Judicial or legislative reforms are recommended to close the gap and help ensure the fairness and efficiency of securities markets.


Author(s):  
Tanya Nayyar

This chapter studies the international market malpractice of insider trading where officials holding a fiduciary duty towards the company, violate the same to utilise company specific and price sensitive information to trade in company securities before such information is announced to the public investors. Information asymmetry, gross violation of ethical standards and abuse of fairness and market integrity are the underlining terms of this offence. The chapter studies four SAARC nations of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal to project their working against insider trading. While countries introduce law and yet fail to enforce it, SAARC countries are encouraged through this chapter to maintain strong ground against this malady. The author projects recommendations and observations to prompt periodic statutory review.


2019 ◽  
pp. 853-923
Author(s):  
Paul S Davies ◽  
Graham Virgo

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses proprietary claims and remedies, which are based upon a claimant’s property rights. Proprietary claims require the claimant to have a right that can be identified in property in the defendant’s hands either through the process of following or that of tracing. Where a breach of trust or fiduciary duty has involved the transfer of property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest, the beneficiary or principal may wish to bring a claim to assert his or her proprietary interest in assets that are now in the hands of another person. Such claims are founded on the beneficiary’s equitable interest in the property, and so are properly characterized as proprietary claims. However, although the claim is founded on the beneficiary’s proprietary rights, the remedy awarded is not necessarily a proprietary one.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document