On Tuesday, the House passed the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, an effort to codify and clarify inconsistencies in the case law applying the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to insider trading. The bill now moves to the Senate. A potential sticking point is the bill's "personal benefit" requirement to hold tippers liable for insider trading. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will remove this requirement.
| less than a minute read
House Passes The Insider Trading Prohibition Act
Get in touch
Get in touch
When the bill was passed in 2019, it included a last-minute amendment from Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., that requires a "personal benefit" provided by a tippee to a tipper to prove insider trading happened in certain situations. That disappointed John C. Coffee Jr., a Columbia Law School professor who helped write the bill . . . . The "personal benefit" requirement is still present in the current bill, Coffee told Law360 on Tuesday, which is a "regressive step backwards" from a recent Second Circuit ruling that found no such requirement exists under other federal fraud statutes.
Get in touch
Get in touch
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/MediaLibrary/Images/2024-11-26-19-02-08-026-67461b30530ccc05630285ca.jpg)
With intangible assets representing over 90% of an AI company’s value, an effective intellectual property strategy is essential to...
Latest Insights
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-20-06-29-00-813-67650eac8b43d2162bbe0c4b.jpg)
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-19-16-52-34-384-67644f522e5b24efe2d24c81.jpg)
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-17-22-28-22-746-6761fb064f363822418cba43.jpg)
/Passle/5f7c32f353548911309c42df/SearchServiceImages/2024-12-16-16-00-43-722-67604eabe47d4e3f62ee4dc0.jpg)