Insider Trading California Style

In this recent post, Professor Stephen Bainbridge noted that the attorneys defending former hedge fund manager Doug Whitman have argued for the application of California law with respect to fiduciary duties.  He cites this Wall Street Journal Law Blog by Joe Palazzolo.

There is no mention of California’s very own insider trading statute, California Corporations Code Section 25402, which, unlike federal law, actually defines the offense of trading on inside information:

It is unlawful for an issuer or any person who is an officer, director or controlling person of an issuer or any other person whose relationship to the issuer gives him access, directly or indirectly, to material information about the issuer not generally available to the public, to purchase or sell any security of the issuer in this state at a time when he knows material information about the issuer gained from such relationship which would significantly affect the market price of that security and which is not generally available to the public, and which he knows is not intended to be so available, unless he has reason to believe that the person selling to or buying from him is also in possession of the information.

Section 25502.5 prescribes a remedy for violation of Section 25402 (which can be treble damages).  Another unique feature of the Section 25502.5 is a provision that requires boards of directors to consider in good faith shareholder allegations of violations of Section 25502.5.  Read literally, however, this provision is passing strange because Section 25502.5 doesn’t actually proscribe any activity (Section 25402 does).  Despite this anomaly, California should be applauded for the wisdom of actually defining what it criminalizes.  Section 25502.5 applies only  to issuers that have total assets in excess of $1,000,000 and have a class of equity security held of record by 500 or more persons.

For more on California’s insider trading statute, see my article, California’s Unique Approach to Insider Trading Regulation, 17 Insights 21 (July 2003).


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.