A structural engineering consultant retained by a publicly traded utility firm learns during a confidential safety audit that a key regional power facility faces an immediate, unannounced regulatory shutdown. The consultant does not execute any securities transactions, but discloses this material nonpublic information to a close personal friend. The friend immediately buys put options on the utility firm's stock prior to the public press release, generating significant profits. Under federal securities laws, which of the following statements correctly describes the potential insider trading liability of the consultant and the friend?
- Both the consultant and the friend can be held liable under insider trading regulations, even though the consultant did not personally execute any trades.Cevap
- BOnly the friend can be held liable, because tipper liability strictly requires the individual conveying the information to execute a trade directly.
- CThe friend is completely exempt from liability because non-employees who do not owe a direct fiduciary duty to the issuer cannot be prosecuted for insider trading.
- DNeither party can be held liable because information acquired by independent contractors during external safety audits is exempt from insider trading rules.
Cevap
Both the consultant (tipper) and the friend (tippee) can be held liable for insider trading violations, even though the consultant did not execute any securities transactions personally.
Under federal securities laws and SEC Rule 10b-5, a person who possesses material nonpublic information and breaches a duty of trust by passing it to another acts as a tipper and can be held liable even if they do not execute any trades. The recipient who trades on that information while knowing (or having reason to know) it was nonpublic and improperly disclosed acts as a tippee and is also liable.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Tipper and Tippee Liability under Insider Trading Regulations