United States v. O'Hagan | Misappropriation Theory of Insider Trading

The Court approves of the SEC's Misappropriation Theory of insider trading under §10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

[wouldntyoulikeknow.]

Hi! I am usually more of a silent subscriber, but I just wanted to take a second to let you know how incredibly much I appreciate your videos! I am in my first semester of law school right now, and I cannot tell you how helpful I find your videos to be. You're my total go-to, and I can't imagine this semester without your help! So thank you so much!!! I have no idea how you have so little views, but I'm spreading the word from where I am in Louisiana :)

[jansvancara]

Hi, you make great videos, really interesting stories well explained. I do not have any background in law yet I am able to comprehend most of it. Imagine I am an officer in a firm that is a significant purchaser (lets say the biggest purchaser) of goods made by publicly traded firm. My firm is about to cancel the vendor agreement, which we know is going to hit the publicly traded firm hard, as it will lose their biggest client. Can I trade their stock/options/… based on that information? Since it is not any information obtained from the publicly traded firm, I am not sure whether we have duty to that company.
Disclaimer: I am 23 and not an officer in any company lol

[Jokercard]

Wishing you the best on your bar results Ex Ante!!

[trench]

As you said in the end it was probably tactical in who they chose. LOL
question. Everything is broad it seems. If their is no law that is stated clearly then why should one be charged? Since if I say i drew a line you can not cross and do not state clearly you are bound to cross it since no one knows well where the line begins or ends. Just like a school zone that physically indicates this is the actual zone.

But the law only applies if one makes money since if they knew and lost then its ok.
And if a person does make money does the company lose and if they loses does that mean that company gains? In short who is the victim since that is the core of the case with criminal law in what the law is about.

And if one has info that others dont have well I dont have info on what the best marketing is than others if I saw selling sneaker which its not fair as well in that too. their is no equality it seems in anything. Yet when companies that make money for example $10 with planned obsolescent and they pay a fine of $5 that is the a benefit to them.

Since example many companies kept buying their own stocks and they had insider knowledge it seems and kept buying or how big companies buy their own stock knowing something others don't. It seems like the rules are being bent and only people can play to lose to have as little change to gain is allowed which is why over 80% lose in the market.

So isn't what the speak of the house how they have access to make super trades how the family member knew to make the best choices isn't that also an issue?
So if it was the lawyer relative then it would be also I assume. But even news papers get info on things 1st and I assume with that info buy before the news is out since they sometimes move the market with the news.


In short society does not seem to thrive when 20, 000 new laws come out every year which no one knows the laws which puts the encouragement of innovation at risk which it does which seems like why things go over seas where they dont mind ripping off consumers at times. It all discouraged independence and just tells people be only employees which goes against the American way of things which is also against the law too.


One person that bought restaurant equipment from so many closing stores said that 80% of restaurants close the 1st year (maybe closer to 20%), they say yet big companies that have contracts and their for a long time get tax subsidies (form especially the people that lost money in the failed business) to help them out which shows its to keep the ones on top and the others out to not get ahead it implies.
So it seems to me.

Suggestion to do a video on the the 1st lawyer president John Adams. Well most of the constitution was due to him and he was the main force of independence. Yet he and his son seem to be the only ones that do not have a statue at DC despite they help set it all up. Talk about no gratitude to them.