Businesses of all types and sizes throughout the United States, Mexico and beyond bring their disputes to Gardere's litigation team and receive practical, responsive, boutique-style attention in return. Our clients have access to the firepower and value of a well-known and highly-regarded Firm's capabilities and interdisciplinary strengths.
Gardere has a national and international energy practice formed around our Energy Industry Team, which is a multidisciplinary group of approximately 60 attorneys with diverse backgrounds, experience and skills specific to the energy industry. Our team includes attorneys who have served as in-house counsel for major energy companies, providing a depth of insight into our clients' needs, issues and concerns. We understand and regularly practice in virtually every sector of the energy, and we represent a wide variety of industry participants from multinational corporations to individuals.
From our offices in the United States and Mexico, our International Practice helps clients operate in today’s global economy. We have more than 30 professionals operating as a boutique within an Am Law 200 law firm and are able to provide focused service with the resources of a large firm. We understand that clients who are engaged in the global marketplace need lawyers who can operate seamlessly across multiple jurisdictions. Our international experts are multi-lingual, are culturally fluent and intimately familiar with various legal systems across the world, especially those in Latin America. Whether you need help with commercial transactions, regulatory matters, customs and import regulations, immigration matters, M&A and joint ventures, international disputes, or international tax planning, Gardere’s international team is here to assist you.
We represent domestic and foreign private funds in all aspects of fund formation, fund operations, platform and add-on acquisitions, and portfolio company operations. Our team has a reputation for being the go-to-lawyers for private equity funds, hedge funds, venture capital funds and family offices. We are known for our vast deal experience, the efficient way we staff and manage our work, and the way we maintain our relationships. We get deals done with sophisticated, strategic, and practical advice tailored to the needs of our clients.
*Not admitted to practice law.
Recent business or financial news has been filled with reports of insider-trading cases that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been or is pursuing. Many of those cases involve large amounts of money, well-known persons or companies, and interesting factual questions. But they
do not necessarily raise questions about the theory of insider-trading liability. In mid-July, the SEC settled an insider-trading case against an individual, engaged solely in personal trading activities, in which the disgorged profits were less than $90,000, and the facts of the case point to the limits of the “misappropriation” theory of insider-trading liability.
According the SEC’s complaint, the defendant was Mr. Robert Doyle, who purchased call options on securities of Brink’s Home Security, apparently after he had obtained material non-public information about the proposed acquisition of Brink’s by Tyco International. Mr. Doyle was a friend of an employee of an investment banking firm that represented Tyco. That friend was a house guest of Mr. Doyle in August 2009, and when the friend departed, he inadvertently left in Mr. Doyle’s house a copy of a presentation relating to the proposed acquisition. When Mr. Doyle discovered the copy in December 2009, he began trading in securities of Brink’s.
Mr. Doyle’s friend did not intentionally provide information to, or encourage any trading by, Mr. Doyle. Therefore, the “classical” theory of an insider-trading claim was not applicable, because there was no “insider” of Tyco (or Brink’s) involved in the trading and no “tipper-tippee” relationship. Mr. Doyle’s liability for insider-trading could only be based on the “misappropriation” theory of insider-trading liability, which requires a breach of fiduciary duty or a breach of trust or confidence. Otherwise, inadvertent recipients of material non-public information who trade while in possession of that information would face liability.
It is apparent that Mr. Doyle had an improper intent – i.e., an intent to use the information for his own profit when he knew that the information was not intended for him or for that purpose. Nevertheless, even on the misappropriation theory of insider-trading liability under existing case law, that does not appear to be sufficient to constitute insider-trading. The misappropriation theory, applicable to “outsiders” like Mr. Doyle, requires not only that the material non-public information be misappropriated (i.e., used by someone for a purpose not intended to be used), but also that it be used fraudulently – i.e., in violation of a duty to another person and without disclosure of the proposed use.
The SEC’s complaint states that Mr. Doyle’s trading “breached a legitimate expectation of confidentiality” held by Mr. Doyle’s friend, but it does not describe in detail the facts supporting that “legitimate expectation of confidentiality.” It is an interesting question whether a “legitimate expectation of confidentiality” is equivalent to, or sufficient to give rise to, the duty of “trust and confidence” that is required for the misappropriation theory. The further interesting question is what understanding or facts are sufficient to give rise to a “legitimate expectation of confidentiality.” The SEC’s complaint states that Mr. Doyle knew that his friend “could not, and did not, share material nonpublic information with him.” Was this knowledge the result of a conversation between the two regarding the information, or was it only more general knowledge about the nature of the work in which Mr. Doyle’s friend engaged? If the latter, is that tantamount to the position that it was enough that Mr. Doyle’s friend subjectively believed that Mr. Doyle would not use or misuse the information?
OUR TAKE: Although Mr. Doyle may have misused information that he was not supposed to have – and, perhaps, might be liable for theft of the information under state law – it is not clear that he should have been liable for insider-trading unless there were facts sufficient to establish a duty on his part. Because the SEC’s complaint and settlement release do not describe those facts, it is difficult to tell what constituted that duty.
The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.
You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander. A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.
Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used. For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.
AND and OR may be used in a search. Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance."
The + and - sign operators may be used. The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".
To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks. For example, "Project Finance".
Searches are not case sensitive.