Creed
100+ Posts
Yeah, it seems to me that it's a weird result that flows from the way tipper/tippee liability works. I think the personal gain rule was a way for the people setting the standards to distinguish between someone disclosing for the purpose of trading and someone who is just talking when they shouldn't. That goal seems reasonable to me, as you want special punishment for people actively gaming the system. What doesn't make as much sense is that the tippee's liability is always derivative of the tipper. That's why we might be able to say "yeah, I thought it was MNPI, but since I knew the tipper wasn't doing it for a gain I went ahead and traded." I don't really think that's the intended result, but it seems like that's where the decisions have gone.
For sure I don't think it's a good idea for him to tell us. I think you're right in pointing to breach of fiduciary duty as the law being broken if he were to tell all of us. I think we'd be in the clear to trade, though.
For sure I don't think it's a good idea for him to tell us. I think you're right in pointing to breach of fiduciary duty as the law being broken if he were to tell all of us. I think we'd be in the clear to trade, though.