Securities Law Commons^™

Two Faces Of Corporate Lobbying: Evidence From The Pharmaceutical Industry, Dongnyoung Kim, Incheol Kim, Omer Unsal

Finance Faculty Publications

This paper addresses two side effects of corporate lobbying on firm value in the pharmaceutical industry. Employing corporate lobbying and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval data for the period from 1998 to 2013, we find that lobbying firms have a 67.3 percent higher chance that their new prescription drugs are approved by the FDA than non-lobbying firms. On the 3-day window surrounding FDA approval announcements, lobbying firms yield, on average, a 1.1% higher market reaction than non-lobbying peers. However, we also find that insiders in lobbying firms abnormally purchase their own stocks prior to FDA approvals. These opportunistic …

The Sec, Administrative Usurpation, And Insider Trading, Adam C. Pritchard

Articles

The history of insider trading law is a tale of administrative usurpation and legislative acquiescence. Congress has never enacted a prohibition against insider trading, much less defined it. Instead, the SEC has led in defining insider trading, albeit without the formality of rulemaking, and subject to varying degrees of oversight by the courts. The reason why lies in the deference that the Supreme Court gave to the SEC in its formative years. The roots of insider trading law are commonly traced to the SEC’s decision in Cady, Roberts & Co. Cady, Roberts was only made possible, however, by the …

When Insider Trading And Market Manipulation Cross Jurisdictions: What Are The Challenges For Securities Regulators And How Can They Best Preserve The Integrity Of Markets?, Janet Elizabeth Austin

PhD Dissertations

Over the last few decades world securities markets have become significantly more sophisticated in terms of how securities are traded as well as the variety of securities traded. My hypothesis is that the ability of securities regulators to take enforcement action against market abuse has not kept pace with the level of sophistication of the markets and, in particular, the way in which trading can take place across borders and the manner in which market related information can spread rapidly across the world. I argue that that regulators need to do more to protect the integrity of the markets by …

No More Quid Pro Quo: Abandoning The Personal Benefit Requirement In Insider Trading Law, Shannon Seiferth

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

A circuit split between the Second Circuit’s 2014 decision, United States v. Newman, and the Ninth Circuit’s 2015 decision, United States v. Salman, illustrates problems in insider trading law dating back over thirty years to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dirks v. SEC. Dirks held that when a corporate insider provides information to an outside party who then trades on the information, it must be shown that the insider received some form of a personal benefit for providing the information in order to impute liability. The courts in Newman and Salman disagreed on the sort of evidence …

When Does Corporate Criminal Liability For Insider Trading Make Sense?, John P. Anderson

Journal Articles

It is clear that not all insider trading is victimless, and not all employers of insider traders are innocent. But I am convinced that these critics are correct to point out that the current enforcement regime is absurdly overbroad in that it affords no principled guarantee to corporate victims of insider trading that they will not be indicted for the crimes perpetrated against them. The law should be reformed to ensure that corporations are only held criminally liable where they are guilty of some wrongdoing.

Family Ties: Salman And The Scope Of Insider Trading, Jill E. Fisch

All Faculty Scholarship

On October 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salman v. United States. Salman raises questions about the scope of insider trading liability for tippees under the personal benefit test previously articulated in Dirks v. SEC. Some critics have argued the Second Circuit’s decision last year in United States v. Newman demonstrates that the personal benefit test is unduly restrictive and should be reconsidered. Salman offers an opportunity for the Supreme Court to do so.

This essay argues that Salman does not require the Court to reexamine the parameters of insider trading liability. Instead, the Court can …

Beyond Dirks: Gratuitous Tipping And Insider Trading, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Did an investment banker who gratuitously shared material nonpublic information with his brother, with no expectation of receiving anything in return, commit securities fraud? And is the investment banker's brother-in-law jointly liable for trading securities on the basis of what he knew to be gratuitous tips? The Supreme Court is poised to answer those questions in Salman v. United States, after steering clear of insider trading law for nearly two decades. It has been even longer still since the Court last addressed securities fraud liability relating to stock trading tips-it articulated a "personal benefit" test for joint tipper-tippee liability in …

Salman V. United States: Insider Trading's Tipping Point?, Donna M. Nagy

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.