Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardInsider Trading and Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information

An independent environmental compliance auditor conducting a mandatory safety audit at a publicly traded chemical manufacturer discovers undisclosed test results showing a critical product failure that will trigger a costly recall. Prior to any public announcement, the auditor discloses this information to a sibling and suggests short selling the manufacturer's stock. The sibling executes the short sale and realizes substantial profits after the recall is announced. The auditor did not trade any shares personally and received no monetary compensation from the sibling. Under federal securities laws regarding insider trading, which of the following statements correctly describes the liability of the auditor and the sibling?

  1. Both the auditor and the sibling are liable because tipping confidential information to a relative constitutes a breach of duty for personal benefit, making the tipper liable, and the sibling traded on material nonpublic information.Answer
  2. B
    Only the sibling is liable because tipper liability requires the tipper to personally execute trades or receive direct financial compensation from the trade proceeds.
  3. C
    Only the auditor is liable because an individual who is not an employee or director of the subject corporation is exempt from tippee prosecution under federal securities regulations.
  4. D
    Neither the auditor nor the sibling is liable because an independent external contractor owes fiduciary duties only to their contracting firm, not to the issuer's shareholders.

Answer

Both the auditor and the sibling are liable because tipping confidential information to a relative constitutes a breach of duty for personal benefit, making the tipper liable, and the sibling traded on material nonpublic information.
Both the auditor and the sibling are liable under insider trading regulations. Under the misappropriation theory, an independent auditor breaches a duty of trust owed to the source of the information by passing confidential data to others. Giving material nonpublic information as a gift to a family member constitutes a personal benefit to the tipper, establishing tipper liability regardless of whether the tipper personally traded or received cash. The sibling, as a tippee, is also liable because they knowingly traded on material nonpublic information obtained through a breach of duty.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Determine if the information disclosed constitutes material nonpublic information.
The undisclosed product failure and imminent recall would clearly affect the company's stock price, making it material and nonpublic.
Insider trading regulations apply specifically to information that is both material and nonpublic.
2
Evaluate the auditor's liability as a tipper.
The auditor owed a duty of confidentiality to the client company/source of information. Disclosing this information as a gift to a family member satisfies the legal standard for a 'personal benefit' breach of duty under insider trading law, establishing tipper liability even without personal trading or monetary gain.
Under the misappropriation theory and key precedent, gifting confidential information to a trading relative establishes tipper liability.
3
Evaluate the sibling's liability as a tippee.
The sibling knew or should have known that the information was material, nonpublic, and disclosed in breach of a duty, and proceeded to trade based on that tip.
Tippees assume derivative liability when trading on material nonpublic information conveyed in breach of a known duty.

Key Concept

Tipper and Tippee Liability under Insider Trading Law
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Insider Trading and Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information