![]() |
|
|
April 2008 |
|
To view past issues of the Securities Update, please visit http://business.cch.com/updates/securities If you have questions or comments concerning the information provided below, please contact me at elena.eyber@wolterskluwer.com. CCH Federal Securities Law Reporter
SEC Proposes to Streamline Exchange-Traded
Funds Approval Process
Proposed Rule Would Target Abusive
Naked Short Sales
Commission Proposes Changes to Regulation
S-P
10th Circuit Panel Orders New Trial
for Former Qwest CEO The District Court for the District of Colorado convicted the former CEO of 19 counts of insider trading, sentenced him to prison and ordered him to pay a fine and forfeiture. On appeal, the CEO argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, that the jury was not properly instructed and that the trial judge incorrectly excluded evidence important to the defense. The circuit court agreed that the improper exclusion of an expert witness merited a new trial, but concluded that the evidence before the district court was sufficient for the government to try the CEO again without violating the double jeopardy clause. The circuit court found that a properly-instructed jury could have found the CEO guilty of insider trading. According to the court, proper instructions were given to the jury on each legal issue related to the insider trading charges: materiality, scienter and the connection of the inside information to the trades. Furthermore, the evidence introduced at trial for each issue was sufficient for the government to try the CEO a second time. U.S. v. Nacchio (10thCir) will be published in Report 2321 at ¶94,603.
3rd Circuit: SLUSA No Bar to Aiding,
Abetting Claims by Trust The case arose from the failure of a software company after some of its officers and directors allegedly ran a "pump and dump" scheme, and then attempted to conceal their actions by channeling funds through sham entities and accounts with the assistance and knowledge of foreign banks. After the issuer filed for bankruptcy, the reorganization plan assigned the corporation's claims to a state law trust, as did individual purchasers of the company's securities. The trustees filed suit in federal court alleging that the foreign banks aided and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties and violated Swiss money-laundering laws. The district court (DC NJ) dismissed the claims under the Uniform Standards Act. First, the court rejected the trustees' claims that the trust should be considered one "person" under the Uniform Standards Act because the trust was formed for the primary purpose of pursuing causes of action and recovering damages for shareholders. The trust was actually acting as a shareholder representative, pursuing the litigation on behalf of a class of 6,000 people, held the district court. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit initially held that the damages resulting from the pump and dump scheme accrued to the corporation. The panel noted that the fact that the company "no longer exists does not convert its corporate claims into direct shareholder claims; rather, the corporate nature of the claims endures, and ownership of the claims" passed to its successor, the trust. The court then disagreed with the trial court's finding that the trust entity should be disregarded and the stock purchasers should be counted for Uniform Standards Act purchases. With regard to the Swiss banking law claims, the panel concluded that the Uniform Standards Act, which applies to claims "based upon the statutory or common law of any State," did not preclude actions for foreign law violations. Initially, the court rejected the banks' claim that Congress intended to preempt such foreign law claims. The court cited language that "[i]t is not our job to speculate upon congressional motives; our job is to hew as closely as possible to the meaning of the words Congress enacted." Because Congress could have defined a state to include foreign jurisdictions, and had done so in other legislation, the court declined to extend the definition in this case. The claims also did not arise from or incorporate state law claims, and were not dependent on state law, including New Jersey's choice of law provisions. To conclude that, within the intendment of SLUSA, those claims are "based upon the . . . law of New Jersey would require attributing to Congress a subtlety of such exquisite reach as to have no place in the legislative process," stated the court. LaSala v. Bordier et Cie (3rdCir) is reported at ¶94,597 (ip access user). CCH Blue Sky Law Reporter
Nevada Proposes to Define "Institutional
Buyer," Add Transfer Agents as Licensees; And Incorporate FINRA References
Texas Changes NASD References to FINRA
Washington Updates NASAA Policy Statement
Rule References
Expungement Award Did Not Require Specific
Findings by Arbitrator Aspen Federal Securities Publications
The Regulation of Corporate Disclosure,
Third Edition, by J. Robert Brown, Jr.
Financial Reporting Handbook, by Michael
Young Hot Topic of the Month
This month's Hot Topic is Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 Trading Plans. Rule 10b5-1 provides that, for purposes of insider trading liability, a person trades "on the basis" of material nonpublic information if he or she is aware of the information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. These exceptions permit persons to trade in specified circumstances where it is clear that the information is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith. Rule 10b5-1(c)(1), for example, allows persons to plan securities transactions in advance, at a time when they are not aware of material, nonpublic information, and then complete those pre-planned transactions at a later time, even if they subsequently learn of material, nonpublic information. To raise the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense successfully, a person must establish three elements. First, he or she must demonstrate the existence of a prior contract, instruction, or plan concerning the securities in question. Second, the person must show that the preexisting contract, instruction, or plan meets certain conditions. Finally, the person must show that the trade occurred "pursuant to" the preexisting contract, instruction, or plan. The person raising an affirmative defense must also satisfy a separate good faith requirement. While 10b5-1 plans have not been subject to any enforcement actions to date, in October 2007, SEC Enforcement Director Linda Chatman Thomsen noted that recent academic studies suggest that insiders may be abusing the rule. If executives are trading on inside information and using a plan for cover, Thomsen said the plan will not provide a defense. Thomsen advised that the staff is looking at the disclosures surrounding Rule 10b5-1 plans. We publish related information in a wide range of resources (e.g., Federal Securities Law Reporter, SEC Today, Insights – Amy L. Goodman, Securities Regulation – Loss, Seligman & Paredes, etc.), and document types (laws, regulations, releases, newsletter articles, treatise discussion). For example:
IPO Vital Signs
IPO Vital Signs, an advanced IPO research analysis tool, assists IPO professionals and pre-IPO companies satisfy their most challenging research needs and answers hundreds of mission critical questions for all the players in the IPO process. IPO Vital Signs’ tabular data analyses focus on issues surrounding client advisement, deal negotiation, and prospectus disclosure. IPO Week in Review, a weekly e-newsletter to keep professionals up to date with recent filing and going public activity, is an important element of the IPO Vital Signs system or is available by separate subscription. Coverage includes a monthly feature article on recent trends in going public in the U.S. To see how an IPO Vital Sign works click on the Vital Sign title below: Use IPO Vital Sign #398 to…
and drill down into the different fee ranges to see
Tip! Click on blue numbers to drill down for more information. |