Question

1. Although Platt did not intend on disclosing the information to Switzer, could Platt’s choice to discuss confidential corporate matters with his spouse in a public place where one could easily overhear him constitute the requisite breach of duty required for a tipper-tippee case?
2. The SEC never appealed this case. Do you believe that the SEC prosecuted Switzer because of his high profile?
3. Did Switzer’s partners have a legal and/or ethical duty to inquire about the source of Switzer’s information?

Switzer inadvertently overheard Platt, an executive at TIC discuss highly confidential information about one of TIC’s subsidiaries, Phoenix, in a casual conversation with his wife while in the bleachers at a track meet. The next day Switzer convinced several investors to form a partnership for the purposes of purchasing large amounts of Phoenix stock, which neither Switzer nor his partners ever heard of. Ultimately, Switzer and his partners earned a substantial profit from the purchase and sale of the stock and after an investigation, the SEC filed a complaint alleging that Switzer was a tippee in violation of rule 10(b)(5) of the ’34 Act.



$1.99
Sales1
Views132
Comments0
  • CreatedNovember 06, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000