Insider Trading

We've had the Second Circuit finally speak in SEC v. Dorozhko regarding the liability of people who owe no fiduciary duty to the source of the information who steals inside information and makes a profit off of it. The Second Circuit held "[T]he Supreme Court has in a number of opinions carefully established that the essential component of a § 10(b) violation is a breach of a fiduciary duty to disclose or abstain that coincides with a securities transaction.”

One of the interesting aspects of the case is the subtle shift from the fiduciary base theory of US v. O'Hagan to a property rights approach. To quote the quoteable Steven Bainbridge in his blog post about the case: "If a law student had written the Dorozhko, I’d give him a D (and only because I never ever fail anybody). It is not an interpretation of O’Hagan. It is the creation of an entirely new version of misappropriation liability., carved out of whole cloth and without any regard for precedent. It may be right on policy, but isn’t that for the Supreme Court to decide."

This theory also goes with the recent dismissal of the complaint against Mark Cuban for insider trading as well.