decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Rule 10b5-1 - Trading "on the Basis of" Material Nonpublic Information
Monday, August 18 2003 @ 02:51 PM EDT

If you're like me, you had never heard of Rule 10b5-1 before McBride alluded to it in his remarks about insider trading, reported here:
Bench submitted a sale plan in January, months before any legal action against IBM was contemplated, McBride said. His agreement called for the sales to begin on March 8. He planned to sell 5,000 shares a month for the next 12 months, according to the plan.
If so, you might like to know what he was referring to and how insiders can trade under a sales plan.

Rule 10b-5 is here and says:
Rule 10b-5 -- Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

a. To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

b. To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

c. To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

Rule 10b5-1 provides affirmative defenses. You can read about that here:
Subject to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, a person's purchase or sale is not "on the basis of" material nonpublic information if the person making the purchase or sale demonstrates that:

Before becoming aware of the information, the person had:

Entered into a binding contract to purchase or sell the security,

Instructed another person to purchase or sell the security for the instructing person's account, or

Adopted a written plan for trading securities; . . .

The SEC explains:
Rule 10b5-1 addresses the issue of when insider trading liability arises in connection with a trader's "use" or "knowing possession" of material nonpublic information. This rule provides that a person trades "on the basis of" material nonpublic information when the person purchases or sells securities while aware of the information. However, the rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses, which we have modified in response to comments, to permit persons to trade in certain circumstances where it is clear that the information was not a factor in the decision to trade.
Rule 10b5-1 was designed to make it possible for insiders to safely trade, as explained here:
Benefits -- Rule 10b5-1's affirmative defenses are intended to provide relief, as they effectively serve as a safe harbor from Rule 10b5-1 liability. The Rule 10b5-1 Sales Plan sets forth a written contract for the sale of securities, based on a systematic plan/formula set forth by the executive. With a Rule 10b5-1 Sales Plan in place, insiders will now have the ability to sell or buy pursuant to the written plan, even if they have material nonpublic information.
The SEC explains it like this:
Rule 10b5-1 (entitled "Trading 'on the Basis of' Material Nonpublic Information in Insider Trading Cases") provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.
They have another page to explain that the term "insider trading" may be associated in the public mind with something illegal, but actually it isn't necessarily so:
"Insider trading" is a term that most investors have heard and usually associate with illegal conduct. But the term actually includes both legal and illegal conduct. The legal version is when corporate insiders -- officers, directors, and employees -- buy and sell stock in their own companies. . . .

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. . . .

Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is "aware" of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.

Here is one lawyer's explanation of how it works:
The most important requirement is that the trading plan be entered into at a time when the person was not aware of material nonpublic information about the security or issuer in question. Equally important is that the trading plan be "entered into in good faith, and not part of a plan or scheme to evade the prohibitions" against insider trading. . . . .

The Rule does not require a company to disclose the existence or contents of its executives' trading plans. At the extreme -- but only at the extreme -- the adoption of a trading plan by a significant shareholder might itself constitute an event for which disclosure is required. Other than at that point, disclosure is discretionary. . . .

Disclosure in an SEC filing also may increase the probability that in a private securities lawsuit, a court would take judicial notice of a trading plan.

Under Delaware corporate law -- which should apply to all Delaware corporations, even in lawsuits based in other States -- there should not be any difficulty with trades made pursuant to a trading plan. This is because the few reported Delaware decisions rely on the theory that an insider should not use information garnered in her position as a corporate insider for her own private profit by making a sale on the basis of that information. As one Delaware court explained, an insider trading plaintiff "must allege a 'causal link' between specific inside information and each stock sale by each defendant by presenting specific facts showing each sale was entered into and completed on the basis of and because of non-public information." By definition, under a good faith trading plan, an insider's sales are not made on the basis of information garnered in her position as a corporate insider. Rather, trades are made pursuant to a trading plan adopted before the insider was aware of any material nonpublic information.

So the issue is, I gather, was a plan adopted in good faith before the insider was aware of any material nonpublic information? Here is a 1998 speech by Thomas C. Newkirk, Associate Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, that goes in depth into the rule. More info here and here. Groklaw collected news reports on SCO from January here, the second story down. As to what all this means in any particular fact pattern, I couldn't say. You'd need to ask a lawyer. This information is so you can follow news events with greater comprehension by knowing what Rule 10-5b-1 is.

  


Rule 10b5-1 - Trading "on the Basis of" Material Nonpublic Information | 5 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT
One thought about these trading plans - if they had been prepared before those preparing them were aware of the meteoric rise in SCOs share price and were to cover a tax bill then surely there would have been a fixed bill to cover so the plan would be to sell so many $ worth of shares, not so many shares. The number of shares sold would constitute most of if not more than the sellers entire holding if that value of shares had been sold at anything like the January price. If the rise in value was for genuine reasons that would not be a problem as the information was public by the time the sale happened but if they were trading because they were aware that the price hike was based on smoke and mirrors then they are trading on inside information and this plan won't necessarily protect them.

Other points: Several people have asked if anyone is going to SCOForum - over on http://messages.yahoo.com/ ?action=q&board=SCOX korbomite who has made some sensible postings is attending - expect a posting from him when the programme finishes tonight.

I've had an idea for why Mark Heise might have made his comments about the GPL. Short of having proof that SCO are acting illegally I don't think he can now get himself off the case - could this be his way of saying he thinks SCOs case is a pack of lies to boost the share price but he hasn't got enough evidence to prove it? He could then point to this as evidence that he wasn't colluding with them.


Adam Baker

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 03:16 PM EDT
"And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you darn kids!" style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">SCOobyDoo

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 04:12 PM EDT
Adam,

Boies apparently didn't turn up today

Heise did

You say: Heise may be unable to excuse himself from the case, even if he wanted to

Even so, why would he appear at SCO's marketing forum - I think that goes beyond representing your client's case.


quatermass

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Think "Human Shield". Darl needs all the extra bodies around him he can find with the kind of attention he has been drawing on himself lately. And now Darl has made his intentions towards Linux clear, that prank call from Linus suing him may soon be real.
Supa

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 05:49 PM EDT
Adam Baker: "I've had an idea for why Mark Heise might have made his comments about the GPL."

I think his remarks probably have a much more limited scope of applicability than we are willing to admit. I assume he was speaking to the issue of SCO's authority for relicensing the copyrighted code that SCO owns and claims to have inadvertently released under the GPL. Copyright owners don't derive their rights from the GPL, they derive them from Copyright Law, which of course does pre-empt the GPL. Can SCO get a court to agree that it can change the licensing terms of their copyrighted code once it has been released under the GPL? I think that's what he is talking about. I don't see how the other circumstances in this case would allow them to use even a minor victory like that to any advantage. For example, copyright law applies the first sale doctrine. That might in some cases pre-empt or waive their rights to enforce any pregnant cow "licensing" schemes on mere users. Oddly enough, I have a few old copies of Caldera's products that I purchased at a Hastings Bookstore before I got a broadband connection. I assumed it was GPL'd, and would suggest that SCO go get their money from Hastings. Hastings has a sign that claims all SOFTWARE SALES ARE FINAL, and that defective items can only be returned for replacement with an identical item:)

SCO executives are threatening Linux end users, not the distributors. SCO executives compare their actions to the RIAA. But the RIAA are attempting to identify folk who are "distributing" MP3's.

Copyrights are for controlling the making of copies and their distribution. If the Linux kernel sources were a collection of Greatest Hits MP3s you might understand that SCO cannot volunteer to serve as a commercial distributor without the consent of the original publishers or copyright owners. SCO Linux is a derivative work and SCO Group has no rights in it except those granted to them by the GPL or other copyright licenses. It's true as SCO claims that a copyright owner can't accidentally release their proprietary code under a GPL license. No third party can release someone else's code under the GPL either. Neither of those situations is the case with SCO Group.

SCO Group assembles their own collection of licensed works and publishes them under it's own trademarks and licenses. They also are the exclusive distributor and seller of that collective work or "distribution". Those things distinguish them from normal hackers, and impose some unavoidable legal liabilities on them. After they filed a complaint against IBM for illegally incorporating their proprietary code into Linux, their own corporate officers caused the code in question to be published and distributed commercially under a Caldera License Agreement that said in part:

"GPL Software" consists of the following computer programs: 1. Linux packages as selected, arranged and coordinated by Caldera Systems for inclusion in this OpenLinux distribution."

Hint: If you find a piece of paper signed by a Novell corporate officer saying that you own the copyrights to UNIX, you can probably break out the beer - even if it was a mistake. If Caldera distributes OpenLinux accompanied by the "Caldera License Agreement" and the kernel source code hasn't had the GPL license or so-called proprietary SCO code stripped off - it's obviously GPL'd. Caldera had an independent duty to insure it had secured the necessary rights to copy and distribute all of the software, not me. If they want to relicense their code, they need to identify it for exclusion from the code I can freely copy and distribute somehow.

Does SCO know that being a distributor somehow makes them special - of course! SCO v IBM: "49. Prior to the events complained of in this action, SCO was the undisputed global leader in the design and DISTRIBUTION of UNIX-based operating systems on Intel-based processing platforms." (emphasis added).

Does SCO know that DISTRIBUTION carries legal liabilities- sure they do! SCO v IBM "101. On information and belief, IBM has knowingly induced, encouraged, and enabled others to DISTRIBUTE proprietary information in an attempt to conceal its own LEGAL LIABILITY FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTIONS: “What is wrong about this [Linux] distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We don’t know if there are any patent infringements [in this code] with somebody we don’t know. We don’t want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we don’t do distributions, and that’s why we have distributors. Because distributors are not so much exposed as we are. So that’s the basic deal as I understand it.” "Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer, IBM The Register, 11/19/2002, www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28183.html" (emphasis added) Note that IBM simply said that they DIDN"T KNOW if Linux contained any patent infringements, and therefore wouldn't do any distributions of their own. That risk and the warning from IBM apparently went unheeded by SCO. They continued to make and sell their own commercial Linux distribution.


Harlan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )