NINTH CIRCUIT REJECTS ATTEMPT TO EXPAND SCOPE OF SHORT-SWING PROFIT INSIDER LIABILITY CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 16(b)
In Dreiling v. America Online, Inc., 2009 WL 2516325 (9th Cir. May 5, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 — which, broadly speaking is intended to “prevent corporate insiders from exploiting their access to information not generally available to others” by requiring disgorgement of short-swing profits from trading in securities — did not “provide a private litigant with another means of litigating securities fraud” that are prohibited under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Court held further that a company and an individual acting on behalf of a different company who participated in “negotiations that result[ed] in the formation of a business agreement between two companies” was insufficient to create the sort of agreement necessary to establish that they were a group of “insiders” for the purpose of Section 16(b). The Ninth Circuit, therefore, rejected plaintiff’s novel attempt to expand the reach and scope of liability under Section 16(b).
SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT COMPUTER HACKING FOR PURPOSES OF TRADING ON INSIDE INFORMATION MAY BE A "DECEPTIVE DEVICE" UNDER SECTION 10(b) EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A BREACH OF ANY FIDUCIARY DUTY
In SEC v. Dorozhko, 2009 WL 2169201 (2d Cir. July 22, 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that computer hacking for purposes of obtaining and trading on inside information may be a “deceptive device” under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, even where the hacker owed no fiduciary duty to the issuer. This holding appears in conflict with a 2007 decision from the Fifth Circuit, and can be viewed as expanding the scope of liability for insider trading to those who owe no fiduciary duties to the issuers of the stock being traded.
House Quickly Passes Legislation to Control Executive Compensation Practices
Acting in rapid fashion, on July 31, 2009, the House of Representatives passed legislation that, if enacted, would further advance the federal government's efforts to realign executive compensation practices. As we reported in our July 22, 2009 blog, the Treasury Department released draft legislation just two weeks earlier to require (i) an annual shareholder vote to approve named executive officer compensation, (ii) a shareholder vote to approve golden parachute arrangements and (iii) enhanced compensation committee independence and authority. The House-approved legislation, which now has been referred to the Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, in some respects goes even further than what was originally contemplated by Treasury.