Insider Trading Litigation: The Obstacles to Recovery Export

@article{citeulike:3338610, abstract = {Recent disclosures of insider trading have resulted in private claims by companies and private investors against arbitrageurs, investment bankers, brokerage firms, and attorneys. Trading that violates Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will lead not only to damage claims but to arguments concerning breach of fiduciary duty. Rule 10b-5 claims and possible defenses involve: 1. estoppel and causation, 2. damages, 3. facts known to the company, 4. fiduciary duty, 5. personal gain to the tipper, and 6. contemporaneous trading. Those trading on inside information also may be subject to state law claims. Review of several claims in Diamond versus Oreamuno illustrates New York state law operation. Other possible areas of claim involve: 1. racketeering activity, 2. Insider Trading Sanctions Act violations, and 3. common-law claims. Claims may be asserted by public shareholders, target companies, or limited partners.}, author = {Brodsky and Edward and Swanson and Richard, P.}, citeulike-article-id = {3338610}, journal = {Securities Regulation Law Journal}, keywords = {34, acquisitions, court, decisions, fiduciary, insider-trading, litigation, mergers, regulations, responsibility, sec, securities, state, stockholders, supreme}, number = {1}, posted-at = {2008-09-26 05:27:08}, priority = {2}, title = {Insider Trading Litigation: The Obstacles to Recovery}, volume = {16} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:3338610 L3 - citeulike-article-id:3338610 N2 - Recent disclosures of insider trading have resulted in private claims by companies and private investors against arbitrageurs, investment bankers, brokerage firms, and attorneys. Trading that violates Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will lead not only to damage claims but to arguments concerning breach of fiduciary duty. Rule 10b-5 claims and possible defenses involve: 1. estoppel and causation, 2. damages, 3. facts known to the company, 4. fiduciary duty, 5. personal gain to the tipper, and 6. contemporaneous trading. Those trading on inside information also may be subject to state law claims. Review of several claims in Diamond versus Oreamuno illustrates New York state law operation. Other possible areas of claim involve: 1. racketeering activity, 2. Insider Trading Sanctions Act violations, and 3. common-law claims. Claims may be asserted by public shareholders, target companies, or limited partners. IS - 1 JF - Securities Regulation Law Journal TI - Insider Trading Litigation: The Obstacles to Recovery VL - 16 KW - 34 KW - acquisitions KW - court KW - decisions KW - fiduciary KW - insider-trading KW - litigation KW - mergers KW - regulations KW - responsibility KW - sec KW - securities KW - state KW - stockholders KW - supreme AU - Brodsky AU - Edward AU - Swanson AU - Richard, P ER -