Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

See related case examples of

Dell Inc.

appraisal rights for intrinsic value realization

and

Walgreen Co.

stock buyback policies

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference

For graphs of specific company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

For graphs of specific company voting for the past 5 years, see

Shareholder Support Rankings

 

 

 

Forum distribution:

Regulators' view of need to assure fair use of investment information

 

Source: The New York Times, October 9, 2018 commentary


Opinion

Insider Trading Laws Haven’t Kept Up With the Crooks

The laws around insider trading are outdated and unclear. They don’t even define “insider trading.” We have a way to fix that.

By Preet Bharara and Robert J. Jackson Jr.
Mr. Bharara is a former United States attorney. Mr. Jackson is a Securities and Exchange commissioner.

Oct. 9, 2018
 

A display at the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York. Jeenah Moon for The New York Times

America’s insider trading laws are hopelessly out of date. As a result, fraudsters have evaded law enforcement scrutiny, and honest market participants are sometimes confused about the rules of the road.

As a former United States attorney for Manhattan (Mr. Bharara) and a current commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Mr. Jackson), we have sworn to uphold and enforce the law, to protect the fairness and integrity of our financial markets against those who would undermine them. Our work is guided by a simple idea: If you engage in misconduct that harms investors, you should be held accountable.

Insider trading cases are of special significance. They are a manifestation of America’s basic bargain: that the well-connected should not have unfair advantages over the everyday citizen. When regulators and prosecutors make a commitment to punish insider trading, it sends a message that you don’t need special access to make an honest buck. Fighting insider trading is a refusal to accept a rigged system.

But the truth is, we often struggle to hold bad actors accountable for insider trading. In large part, that’s because our insider trading laws do not clearly define what the standard is.

Unlike most other developed countries, the United States lacks a law that expressly bans insider trading. Instead, the government brings insider-trading cases under a Depression-era law that generally prohibits “fraud” in securities markets. As a result, what we now understand as the laws against insider trading have been written by federal judges in their decisions interpreting a statute that never mentions the words “insider trading.” Although there is a commonly accepted idea of what constitutes insider trading — trading based on material, nonpublic information associated with a breach of duty — that can be a difficult legal standard to apply.

The result is a legal haziness that leaves both investors and defendants unclear about what sorts of information-sharing or other activities by investors would be considered insider trading, and what are the acceptable forms of data-gathering and research that are part of any healthy, functioning financial marketplace.

The government’s commitment to fairness should be unambiguous. But, while the government has brought many strong insider trading cases, a good bit of insider trading law remains ambiguous.

Suppose that a corporate insider gives a friend nonpublic information — a planned merger that has not yet been announced, for example — and the friend makes illicit profits trading on that information. Can the insider be held accountable? The answer, it turns out, depends on whether a court is convinced that the insider obtained a “benefit” by tipping her friend — a subject on which judges of all stripes often disagree. Ordinary investors may be surprised to learn that there is any confusion about this question. And defendants facing potential criminal liability should have more clarity about what the law is.

Or what if a hacker finds his way into a corporate computer system and trades on the sensitive information he uncovers? Will that hacker face charges of insider trading? This time, the answer depends on whether the information was obtained through sufficiently “deceptive” practices, like misrepresenting one’s identity to gain access to information, rather than just mere theft, like exploiting a weakness in computer code. Again, we think ordinary investors would be deeply concerned that any trading on the basis of hacked information might evade punishment. Insider trading law should not allow the possibility that profits obtained through illicit trading could fund the cyberattacks that the American government and companies are constantly facing.

The uncertainty in insider trading law invites debate over the legality of misconduct that has no place in our markets. But this is a fixable problem: The law can be updated and made clearer. Ideally, Congress would take the lead. But bipartisan proposals to update the law have languished for years. The S.E.C., however, does have the authority to clarify insider trading law. The commission should use that authority before the next wave of corporate abuses.

That’s why we are announcing the creation of the Bharara Task Force on Insider Trading, a panel of experts that will propose new insider trading reforms to protect American investors.

The task force will be led by Mr. Bharara and will consist of eight distinguished former regulators and prosecutors, judges, academics and defense lawyers who have agreed to put forth concrete proposals to update the insider trading law. We hope the S.E.C., and perhaps even Congress, will consider the group’s recommendations.

The shoddy state of American insider-trading law affects everyone. Prosecutors and regulators are stuck enforcing laws that are ill-suited to 21st-century misconduct. Lawyers struggle to tell their clients what they can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. And ordinary Americans are left asking whether financial markets are stacked in favor of those who skirt the rules. Our law should leave no doubt about the answer to that question.


Preet Bharara was the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York from 2009 to 2017. Robert J. Jackson Jr. is a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 


© 2018 The New York Times Company

 

 

This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.