New! H2O now has access to new and up-to-date cases via CourtListener and the Caselaw Access Project. Click here for more info.

Main Content

Casebook Read Credits
asdasdasd
Resource 4 . 2 . 1
11 minutes

Chiarella v. United States

This decision rejects the so-called “equal access theory” of insider trading, according to which anyone trading while in possession of material nonpublic information violates rule 10b-5.1. According to the majority, why is the equal access theory inconsistent with rule 10b-5? In other words, what else is required for a 10b-5 violation, besides trading while in possession of material nonpublic information?2. As Burger’s dissent points out, Chiarella did not simply trade while in possession of material nonpublic information: Chiarella misappropriated that information from his employer. Why is such misappropriation not sufficient to subject his trades to 10b-5 liability? Or is it? Cf. part IV of the majority opinion and O’Hagan, infra.3. Do you think the equal access theory would be good policy? What interests would it protect, if any? What desirable activities might it hamper?

Supreme Court of the United States
445 U.S. 222, 63 L. Ed. 2d 348, 100 S. Ct. 1108, SCDB 1979-053, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 88
No. 78-1202
1980-03-18

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.