Skip to main content

Criminal Liability of Stock Brokers: Full Disclosure of Material Information

The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on June 16th that securities brokers must disclose material information regarding a stock purchase if the broker has a fiduciary relationship with a client.

Hampton Porter Investment Bankers, LLC, became involved in a “pump and dump” scheme that resulted in “bonus commissions” for sales of “house stocks.” “House stocks” are those that were granted to Hampton Porter for either extremely discounted prices or for free and then driven up in price when clients were pressured into purchasing them, strongly discouraged from selling them, or simply ignored when clients made sales orders.

According to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, it is illegal to use any manipulative or deceptive device in connection with a purchase. Rule 10b-5 states that it is illegal to “defraud, to make any untrue statement of, or omit to state, a material fact, or to engage in any course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon another in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.”

The court found that the overall “pump and dump” scheme was a separate violation of Rule 10b-5 from failure to disclose bonus commissions. Additionally, the Brokers’ failure to disclose was circumstantial evidence of their agreement to be part of this conspiracy.


The case is United States v. Laurienti, 07-50240

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S. Supreme Court Eases Rules for Miranda Warning

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer . Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which six other Justices joined in full. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. The Court held that a fourteen-day break in custodial interrogation ends the Edwards v. Arizona rule which states that once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary and is the result of coercion. In reversing the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court concluded that Shatzer’s return to his normal pre-interrogation life in the general prison population for a period of two-and-one-half years before re-interrogation constituted a sufficient break in custody enable him to voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Therefore, the Edwards case did not require that Shatzer’s re-interrogation statements be suppressed, and the Court remanded the case ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ecstasy qualifies as a controlled substance under Health & Safety Code section 11377

The California 4th District Court of Appeal held that because Ecstasy contains methamphetamine, it qualifies as a controlled substance or an analog to a controlled substance for purposes of Health and Safety Code section 11377. In this case, Appellant was convicted of possession of Ecstasy. He argued insufficient evidence supported the conviction because the drug is neither a controlled substance, nor an analog of any controlled substance for purposes of the statute. Section 11377 prohibits possession of controlled substances which are specified in several other statutes. Ecstasy, also known as MDMA or methyldioxy methamphetamine, is not listed in any of these statutes. But, one of the statutes enumerated in section 11377, namely section 11055, subdivision (d), includes, inter alia, "stimulants" containing any quantity of methamphetamine. In this case, the officer testified Ecstasy includes methamphetamine and has a stimulating effect similar to it. Based on this testimony, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Second Circuit Holds that Personal Benefit is Not Required for Insider Trading

Insider trading, or “ securities fraud ,” is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1348 and 15 U.S.C. § 10(b) As the Supreme Court explained in Dirks v. SEC , someone engages in insider trading under §10(b) if they breach a fiduciary duty by disclosing material, nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit. However, the Second Circuit’s recent holding in United States v. Blaszczak rejected this personal benefit requirement, at least as it relates to § 1348. The result? The range of conduct that triggers criminal liability under § 1348 is far bigger than the range of conduct that triggers liability under § 10(b). Stated another way, Blaszczak makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after Title 18 securities fraud because - unlike Title 15 securities fraud - they do no need to prove the existence of a personal benefit.
Post a Comment
Read more