Archives For 10b-5

My colleague JW Verret has an interesting take on the bank bailout at

This deal was intended to bolster public confidence in banks, while at the same time minimizing the cost of the bailout when Treasury sells its shares once markets pick up. The form of equity Treasury has taken, and plans to take in the second round of the bailout, threatens to destroy both goals.  This is because governments have two unique qualities: immunity from insider trading laws and a political interest in using their shareholder power to pander to special interests.

A healthy share price makes for a healthy bank. But healthy share prices require healthy profits. When governments become powerful shareholders in companies, the profit motive is inevitably watered down.

After European governments privatized government-run industries in the 1980s they maintained powerful equity positions in the privatized firms. Those companies were twice as likely to need to subsequently obtain subsidies and bailouts at the public trough.


Another important consequence of the bailout is that Treasury’s access as a regulator to inside information about banks makes it the ultimate inside trader of stocks in financial institutions. Luckily for the federal government, it has sovereign immunity from insider trading laws.

The market will significantly discount the value of banks in which Treasury is a shareholder. Since the dominant player in that market has the opportunity to engage in insider trading, it makes little economic sense for other investors to buy bank shares. Why would anyone want to play the game when they know the game is rigged?

To protect against insider trading liability, corporate executives file “10b-5 plans” that detail future share sales. Treasury should be bound to the same kind of plan to assure investors that it will not use inside information to trade its shares.

On the flight back from my spring break ski trip, I had a chance to read the recent Tenth Circuit opinion reversing the insider trading conviction of former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio. Mr. Nacchio had been convicted of 19 counts of insider trading, sentenced to six years in prison (plus two years’ supervised release), fined $19 million, and ordered to disgorge $52 million more. In a 2-1 decision authored by Judge McConnell, the Tenth Circuit reversed Nacchio’s conviction because of the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony by Dan Fischel (my corporations prof). The court also concluded that retrial will not constitute double jeopardy because a properly instructed jury could have found Nacchio guilty of insider trading. To reach that conclusion, the court had to delve extensively into the law of insider trading and the evidence presented at trial.

Here are a few thoughts on the decision.

Fischel’s Expert Testimony

The court was right to insist that Nacchio be allowed to present Prof. Fischel’s expert testimony. The government’s basic claim against Nacchio was that he sold Qwest stock after he learned that the company’s revenues were largely comprised of non-recurring sources, implying that the company would have a hard time meeting projected earnings. Nacchio maintained that he sold the stock not because he was trying to avail himself of an inflated stock price but because he wanted to diversify after he exercised soon-to-expire stock options. He also contended that the specific information to which he was privy (i.e., that much of Qwest’s revenue was non-recurring) was not “material” non-public information because the market didn’t react when the information was publicly disclosed.

Prof. Fischel was to testify (1) that Nacchio’s trading pattern was more consistent with a diversification strategy than with an attempt to profit from inside information and (2) that the stock price effect of the disclosure concerning Qwest’s non-recurring revenue suggested that the information wasn’t material. The district court ruled that Prof. Fischel wasn’t properly disclosed as an expert witness and that, in any event, his testimony wouldn’t “assist the trier of fact.”

I don’t want to get into the expert disclosure rules (where the district court apparently ignored distinctions between the criminal and civil contexts), but it seems clear to me that the district court was just wrong on the question of whether Fischel’s testimony would help a jury. Having taught Business Organizations a few times, I’ve seen that many smart, educated people are not aware of (1) why diversification is so important (and thus why sophisticated investors always diversify) and (2) how stock prices immediately incorporate material information. Fischel’s testimony would undoubtedly help jurors understand Nacchio’s defense. (More on this aspect of the decision from Jay Brown.)

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right (…as I said earlier)

One of Nacchio’s arguments was that his knowledge of pending deals with the government — deals that would have boosted Qwest’s revenue — immunized him from insider trading liability. This undisclosed “good news,” he argued, negated the materiality of the undisclosed fact that much of Qwest’s revenue was non-recurring. Moreover, he contended, the fact that he knew this information shows that he did not act with scienter (an intent to deceive).

I previously expressed skepticism about Nacchio’s defense. In a post titled Nacchio’s Puzzling (Innovative?) Defense, I wrote the following:

Is Nacchio claiming that it was OK for him to sell while in possession of material non-public bad news regarding company prospects because he also possessed material non-public good news? Is this a “two wrongs make a right” theory?…

Nacchio’s defense (or this part of it, at least) is that two “wrongs” do make a right because the second piece of non-public information to which Nacchio was privy when he traded (i.e., the likelihood of the lucrative defense contracts) would make the first piece (i.e., various bits of bad news at the company) immaterial. In other words, the theory seems to be that the totality of non-public information of which Nacchio was aware would not be something a rational investor would consider important in deciding how to invest (and thus would not be material), for Nacchio’s private negative information was counterbalanced by private positive information.

…I’m not optimistic for Nacchio.

It seems my skepticism was warranted. Upholding the district court’s decision to prohibit Nacchio from presenting classified information about the alleged government contracts, the Tenth Circuit quickly disposed of the “two wrongs” theory:

[E]ven if the classified information were presented and established what he said it would, it could not exonerate Mr. Nacchio as he claims. Essentially, Mr. Nacchio argued that undisclosed positive information can be used as a defense to a charge of trading on undisclosed negative information. We disagree. … If an insider trades on the basis of his perception of the net effect of two bits of material undisclosed information, he has violated the law in two respects, not none.

An Opening to Challenge Rule 10b5-1

Nacchio claimed that his sales were not illegal insider trading because he did not make them “on the basis of” material non-public information. Even if he possessed such information when he sold his stock, the information, he insists, did not cause the sales; he would have made them anyway in order to exercise his options and achieve diversification. Thus, the sales were not “on the basis” of material non-public information.

If one were to look only to the securities regulations, Nacchio’s position would seem doomed. The SEC’s Rule 10b5-1 states that any securities trade made while “aware” of material non-public information is made “on the basis” of such information, unless the trade was made pursuant to some securities trading plan executed before the trader became aware of the information. Thus, if you possess material non-public information, and you trade, and your trade wasn’t pursuant to some previously executed contract or instruction or “written plan for trading securities,” you’re in trouble.

But that rule would seem to read the “scienter” element out of an insider trading claim. The law prohibiting insider trading, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, prohibits only “manipulative or deceptive device[s] or contrivance[s]” that contravene SEC rules. This language would seem to require some intent to deceive (or at least recklessness), and the Supreme Court has interpreted it accordingly. In a prominent insider trading case, Dirks v. SEC, the Court was careful to emphasize that “[t]here must also be ‘manipulation or deception’ in an insider trading case,” and it said the following about the required scienter element:

Scienter — “a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud” — is an independent element of a Rule 10b-5 violation. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, motivation is not irrelevant to the issue of scienter. It is not enough that an insider’s conduct results in harm to investors; rather, a violation may be found only where there is “intentional or willful conduct designed to deceive or defraud investors by controlling or artificially affecting the price of securities.”

(Note 23, citations omitted.)

Thus, it would seem that proof of “intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud” is required to establish illegal insider trading. Rule 10b5-1 would impose liability without such proof, but that rule, promulgated by the SEC, can’t go further than the authorizing statute, Section 10(b). The rule, then, may be invalid. (For more on this, check out this from Prof. Bainbridge.)

On remand, Nacchio is almost certain to challenge the validity of Rule 10b5-1. Judge McConnell’s opinion invites him to do so. It notes that “[s]ome commentators maintain that [Rule 10b5-1] (the authority of which has not been resolved by any circuit) is unlawful because it effectively eliminates fraud from the liability standard.” Watch for Nacchio’s lawyers to seize on this argument when fighting over jury instructions on remand.

A Lenient Materiality Standard

Finally, the Tenth Circuit’s decision is notable for adopting a very lenient standard for the “materiality” of non-public information. The non-public information at issue in this case suggested that earnings targets were overstated. Nacchio argued that this information was not material because the degree of overstatement was so slight. He contended that the degree of overstatement was 1.4% of total revenues; the government maintained that it was 4.2%. In either event, Nacchio’s argument would seem to be fairly strong. The Tenth Circuit noted that “[c]ourts regularly look to the magnitude of a potential loss in determining whether knowledge of it is material,” and it cited an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision concluding that “[revenue] projections which are missed by 10% or less are not generally actionable.” (In re Apple Computer, Inc., 127 F. App’x 296, 204 (9th Cir. 2005).) It also quoted from an SEC accounting bulletin in which the accounting staff assessed the “common ‘rule of thumb’ among accountants ‘that the misstatement or omission of an item that falls under a 5% threshold is not material in the absence of particularly egregious circumstances.'” In that bulletin, the accounting staff stated:

The use of a percentage as a numerical threshold, such as 5%, may provide the basis for a preliminary assumption that–without considering all relevant circumstances–a deviation of less than the specified percentage with respect to a particular item on the registrant’s financial statement is unlikely to be material. The staff has no objection to such a “rule of thumb” as an initial step in assessing materiality. But quantifying, in percentage terms, the magnitude of a misstatement is only the beginning of an analysis of materiality; it cannot appropriately be used as a substitute for a full analysis of all relevant considerations.

Given the accounting staff’s unwillingness to create a real safe harbor for revenue deviations of less than 5% of projections, the Tenth Circuit was unwilling to conclude that Nacchio’s non-public information about a likely revenue shortfall (which the court measured at 4.2% of projections) was immaterial. So much for the rule of lenity.

(More on the materiality ruling here.)


So what’s going to happen on remand? Jay Brown thinks Nacchio’s prospects are pretty grim. I’d perhaps offer a brighter prognosis. If Nacchio can get the court to reject Rule 10b5-1’s “awareness” standard, so that the government must prove that the material non-public information caused the sales at issue AND if Fischel sets forth a convincing case for why the stock trades must have been accomplished as part of a diversification strategy, not as an attempt to profit from inside information, then he has a shot.

Of course, those are some big ifs. Nacchio’s best approach might be a plea bargain. I, of course, hope he doesn’t do so so that a court can directly confront Rule 10b5-1’s overbreadth.

No More 10-Qs?

Bill Sjostrom —  7 November 2006

According to the Financial Times (via, the Big Four accounting firms will recommend in a joint paper to be released tomorrow that the current system of quarterly reports be scrapped for “real-time, internet based reporting encompassing a wider range of performance measures.” It will be interesting to see what exactly they have in mind. In particular, how will liability issues be addressed? Obviously, more frequent and quicker disclosure is good for market efficiency but increases the chances of misstatements and omissions of material facts. Oh, yeah, the SEC is going dis-imply Rule 10b-5 private causes of action and cap auditor liability, so maybe increased liability exposure isn’t a big concern. But seriously, in addition to potential 10b-5 liability, how will the proposal impact incorporation by reference into registration statements and the attendant potential Section 11 and 12 liability?

Today’s WSJ has a great article by Holman Jenkins on reporting on the backdating “scandal.”  Larry is, of course, on the case.  I would also — modestly — point out that much of what Jenkins says in his article today, I said in this space about four months ago, when the news was first breaking.  The key elements:

  1. The notion that backdating gives executives an incentive-defeating “paper profit right from the start” is asinine.
  2. “Backdating” may make perfect sense as a means of compensation, especially given certain regulatory quirks.
  3. If the practice amounts to corporate shenanigans, they sure didn’t bother to hide it very well.
  4. Non disclosure of the practice, if disclosure was required, may, of course, be illegal.
  5. To quote Larry, “second-guessing executive compensation is a tricky business, even when the problems seem clear.”

On the somewhat-related matter of spring-loaded options (the raising of which was not at all inappropriate, Elizabeth), I find myself in complete agreement with Larry.  Strange, I know.  But it ain’t misappropriation if the board knows what’s going on.  Once again, perhaps some disclosure is required, but it’s hard to see how non-disclosure of the compensation scheme could transform informed executive compensation into a section 10(b) violation.

In both cases, I’m pretty sure there’s no “there” there, but I’m equally sure we’ll be reading (and litigating) about them for quite some time to come.

Over at Professor Bainbridge’s place, Iman Anabtawi has some thoughts on the granting of “spring-loaded” options, an option granted at a market price that does not incorporate some favorable non-public information, and insider trading laws. The practice is analytically similar to granting a discount option (one with an exercise price below the market price) and is related to backdating (issued retroactively after the information is released). Check it out.

UPDATE: Ribstein responds.

When Henry Manne writes about insider trading, as he does this week in the WSJ op-ed, one can be sure that it is worth reading. The op-ed, which is the first installment of a two part series, offers two central points: (1) the behavioral finance literature does not support the regulation of insider trading, but has pushed usefully pushed economists to think beyond the realm of the “marginal trader” and into a Hayekian theory of price formation, and (2) this “wisdom of crowds” approach to price formation provides a new rationale insider trading regulations. The key paragraph:

“Since such trading clearly makes the market process work more efficiently, it aids capital allocation decisions and informs business executives through market-price feedback of the best predictions about the value of new plans… .
The new approach would suggest that it is undesirable to have laws discouraging stock trading by anyone who has any knowledge relevant to the valuation of a security. Thus, assembly-line workers, administrative assistants, office boys, accountants, lawyers, salespeople, competitors, financial analysts and, of course, corporate executives (government officials are another story) should all be encouraged to buy or sell stocks based on any new information they might have. Only those privately enjoined by contract or other legal duty from trading should be excluded. The “wisdom of crowds” can do far more for the welfare of American investors than all the mandated disclosures and insider trading laws that the SEC and Congress can think up.”

Henry makes a more detailed version of this argument in this paper. Here are some early reactions from Larry Ribstein and Tyler Cowen. One particularly interesting feature of this rationale for insider trading is the fascinating issues it raises with respect to the adoption of corporate prediction markets as the basis for firm decision-making and resource allocation. If one believes that information markets can improve firm decision-making and corporate governance, insider trading laws are a substantial barrier to achieving those efficiencies.

As Lisa Fairfax notes over at the Glom (see here), Martha Stewart has decided to fight the civil insider trading charges filed against her by the SEC in June 2003 (more here). The complaint had been stayed pending resolution of the related criminal proceedings. With those proceedings resolved, the SEC lifted the stay last month. The complaint also named Stewart’s Merrill Lynch broker, Peter Baconovic, as a defendant. While from Stewart’s perspective there is not a lot of money at stake (the SEC alleges she avoided losses of $45,673 by engaging in insider trading), in addition to disgorgement of losses avoided and civil penalties, the complaint seeks an order barring Stewart from “acting as a director of, and limiting her activities as an officer of,� any public company.

The SEC is trying to nail Stewart as a tippee under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. Under this theory, the SEC has to prove, among other things, that: Continue Reading…

You might have noticed that the current Bausch & Lomb product recall is on my list of things to blog about. Let us start in on it:

As you likely know, Bausch & Lomb announced a worldwide recall yesterday of its MoistureLoc product. This recall comes about a month after B&L disclosed concerns about and discussions with the FDA regarding a rare eye infection (Fusarium keratitis) that had cropped up among some number of MoistureLoc users (and users of other products, made by other companies, it is worth noting). At that point, in April, B&L suspended sales in the US of its MoistureLoc product.

The CEO of B&L told us yesterday that investigations have shown that there had been no contamination or tampering with the MoistureLoc product, which leads B&L to deduce that “some aspect of the MoistureLoc formula may be increasing the relative risk of Fusarium infection in unusual circumstances.” To be safe, B&L is recalling the product, while B&L continues to investigate the link between the infection and MoistureLoc.

Three things are interesting to me:

1. The wires tell us that the FDA just released a report chastising B&L for not reporting in a timely fashion 35 cases of eye infections reported by its MoistureLoc users in Singapore and for not notifying the FDA immediately when B&L withdrew its product from the Singapore market in February (well before B&L pulled the product in the US). (I could not get my hands on the FDA report, hence my introduction “the wires tell us.�)

2. The MoistureLoc solution has apparently been used since late 2004. In December of 2005, a class-action suit was filed against B&L by a woman who claimed that she suffered an eye infection as a result of using B&L’s solution, and the infection ultimately required her to get a corneal transplant.

3. The RiteAid and Target directors have not yet responded to a fax (or e-mail) I sent to them last month, asking whether I should stop using their generic eye care products (in the event that their products were made by B&L and/or Alcon).

Allow me to expand on these three things: Points two and three above are interesting to me because they would make good facts for an exam question. Specifically, I view B&L’s disclosure failures and the fact that B&L was on notice of potential problems months ago as raising fun securities fraud and director liability (for good faith failures) issues.

On the issue of securities fraud, B&L appears to have been holding off on filing 10Qs and 10Ks for months. Initially, the reason given was unrelated to the MoistureLoc eye infection issues. My question is “at what point did B&L know enough about the eye infection potential that it became material disclosure that *had* to be made, such that the failure to make the disclosure while making *other* disclosure constituted securities fraud?�

Remember the balancing test from Basic v. Levinson – essentially balance the contingency against the impact it would likely have if it came to pass? It seems to me that (a) getting sued by a bunch of folks who have serious eye problems (including blindness- God forbid), (b) having to pull a relatively significant product, and (c) losing consumer confidence in other unrelated products are all things that I would peg as “material enough� (for lack of a better phrase) under Basic to merit disclosure sooner rather than later. I understand that making disclosure sooner rather than later raises the risk of alienating investors if it later turns out that the fungal infection issue is a non-starter. But we are talking about eyes here, people; not toenail fungus infections.

On the director liability front, I would love to know how much the B&L directors knew about the potential MoistureLoc concerns and when they knew it. I see this as a policy sort of exam question – “if you are called by your friend Sue, a director for Generic Eye Care Inc., and she tells you that the COO of Generic mentioned something while on the links with her about a class action suit related to eye infections but the COO said this sort of litigation was de rigeur in the medical products world, and Sue asks you if she needs to raise a red flag with her fellow directors, what do you tell her? Remember that the modern board is a ‘monitoring board,’ at best.�

With respect to point three above, I faxed (or e-mailed) letters to the Boards of Directors of both Target and Rite-Aid back in April when I heard about B&L’s product recall, asking whether either of their private label eye solutions (which I use) were actually B&L products about which I should be concerned. I also asked in the letter what I should do, in terms of using the products and/or getting my eyes examined.

In a *shocking* turn of events, I have not yet heard back from even a single director.

Option backdating was on page one of the W$J again yesterday (here). The story was spurred by comments made by UnitedHealth’s CEO, William W. McGuire, during UnitedHealth’s First Quarter 2006 Results Teleconference on Tuesday. UnitedHealth’s option grants to Dr. McGuire were among those cited as suspicious by a March 18 page one W$J (article here; earlier blog post here).

The Journal’s analysis raises questions about one of the most lucrative stock-option grants ever. On Oct. 13, 1999, William W. McGuire, CEO of giant insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc., got an enormous grant in three parts that — after adjustment for later stock splits — came to 14.6 million options. So far, he has exercised about 5% of them, for a profit of about $39 million. As of late February he had 13.87 million unexercised options left from the October 1999 tranche. His profit on those, if he exercised them today, would be about $717 million more.

The 1999 grant was dated the very day UnitedHealth stock hit its low for the year. Grants to Dr. McGuire in 1997 and 2000 were also dated on the day with those years’ single lowest closing price. A grant in 2001 came near the bottom of a sharp stock dip. In all, the odds of such a favorable pattern occurring by chance would be one in 200 million or greater. Odds such as those are “astronomical,” said David Yermack, an associate professor of finance at New York University, who reviewed the Journal’s methodology and has studied options-timing issues.

Dr. McGuire addressed the issue during Tuesday’s teleconference (click here for the transcript). Among other things, he recommended that that UnitedHealth: Continue Reading…

Judges and commentators (myself included) routinely assert that an element of a claim under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 17(a) of the ’33 Act and Rule 10b-5 of the ’34 Act is a misstatement or omission of a material fact. However, the omission part of the element, with slight differences in phrasing, is actually an omission of “a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.� See Rule 10b-5(b). This phrase is a mouthful, hence my (and I assume others) use of “material omission� or the like for short. This shorthand, however, promotes the common misconception that these provisions create a duty to disclose all material information. This is not correct. They do not impose liability for omissions of material facts that are not necessary to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Maybe this is just splitting hairs with respect to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) given the litany of disclosure requirements for a public offering, but I don’t think it is hair splitting for 17(a) and 10b-5 in various contexts. Hence, I’m trying to come up with a new shorthand that reflects the subtle distinction. Any ideas?

This story in yesterday’s Boston Herald asserts that during the bidding war for Guidant between J&J and Boston Scientific (BSX), BSX “used highly questionable investment advice to swing the battle their way and give their stock a good ‘pop.’� Specifically, BSX put out a press release that quoted various Wall Street analysts endorsing the BSX bid.

If Boston Scientific won the takeover, it would be “a ‘must own’ stock� (UBS), could rise “35-40� percent (Lehman Brothers), “56 percent (in) two years� (JMP Securities), or over 30 percent more than the market (SG Cowen), the statement said.

There is no problem with a company quoting analyst statements in a press release, although securities lawyers bristle whenever a company includes predictions that its stock will perform well. But that is where the bespeaks caution doctrine and the forward-looking statement safe harbors under the ’33 Act and ’34 Act come in. Under these provisions, as long as the forward-looking statements are identified as such and accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, the company can generally not be sued for the statements even if they turn out to be false. Continue Reading…