Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorInsider Trading and Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information

An independent management consultant retained by a public logistics firm learns of an unannounced acquisition offer during a confidential strategic planning session. Although the consultant does not purchase or sell any securities of the firm, the consultant discloses the impending takeover to a sibling during a private conversation. Acting on this tip, the sibling purchases call options on the target company prior to the public announcement and subsequently realizes substantial profits. Under federal securities regulations, which of the following statements correctly describes the insider trading liability of the consultant and the sibling?

  1. Both the consultant and the sibling are subject to insider trading liability because the consultant breached a duty of trust by tipping material nonpublic information and the sibling traded on it.Cevap
  2. B
    Only the sibling is subject to liability, because tipper liability requires that the insider execute trades or receive direct financial compensation from the transaction.
  3. C
    Neither individual is subject to liability, because insider trading prohibitions apply exclusively to corporate officers, directors, and permanent employees of the issuer.
  4. D
    Only the consultant is subject to liability, because family members who are not employed in the financial services industry are exempt from tippee liability.

Cevap

Both the consultant and the sibling are subject to insider trading liability because the consultant breached a duty of trust by tipping material nonpublic information and the sibling knowingly traded on that information.
The statement declaring that both the consultant and the sibling are subject to liability is correct. Under federal securities laws and SEC Rule 10b-5, a person who misappropriates confidential information in breach of a duty of trust (such as a consultant) is liable as a tipper for conveying material nonpublic information. Furthermore, a recipient who trades on such information knowing it was improperly disclosed is fully liable as a tippee. Personal trading by the tipper or direct monetary gain is not required to establish tipper liability.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the status of the consultant (the tipper).
As an independent consultant, the individual was entrusted with confidential corporate information, establishing a duty of trust/confidentiality (misappropriation theory).
Passing material nonpublic information (MNPI) to an outside party without a legitimate business purpose constitutes a breach of duty.
2
Evaluate tipper liability without personal trading.
The consultant is liable as a tipper even though they executed no trades and received no direct monetary payment, because disclosing MNPI as a tip to a family member legally counts as a breach of duty.
Federal case law and SEC rules establish that tippers are liable for the profits generated by their tippees.
3
Analyze the status of the sibling (the tippee).
The sibling is liable as a tippee because they knew or should have known that the information was material, nonpublic, and disclosed in breach of a duty.
Trading on MNPI derived from a breach creates full tippee liability regardless of whether the tippee is an insider or financial professional.

Anahtar Kavram

Tipper and Tippee Liability under Insider Trading Regulations
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Insider Trading and Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information