4 ms·
Intent doesn't need to be proven. If you knew of the material non-public information and you then decided to execute a trade you're guilty of insider trading.
by khuey 9y ago
Intent doesn't need to be proven. If you knew of the material non-public information and you then decided to execute a trade you're guilty of insider trading.
- marcoperaza 9y agoIt's not that clear cut. Otherwise, no one in the leadership of a company would ever be allowed to buy or sell stock.
- khuey 9y agoCorporate leadership is usually reluctant to trade in the company's stock outside of a 10b5-1 plan because of this sort of problem.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- RhodesianHunter 9y agoThat's precisely what scheduled sales via 10b5-1 plans are for. To schedule future and recurring stock sales to avoid this.
- dkfmn 9y agoActually there are three criteria: 1) Information is material 2) Information is not public 3) Breach of duty through the "trust and confidence" clause. It would be highly unusual for the CFO not to have the burden of confidence but even for a division president it's not clear they'd have corporate officer responsibilities. During compliance training in my old life they covered the classic "overheard in a coffee shop" example as a way to highlight that a barista does not owe confidentiality to a random public company. However, I don't think it's ethical behavior regardless of whether it'd result in a conviction.
- walshemj 9y agoI think all employees are covered by 3 breaching trust is gross misconduct in the UK