U.S. vs. O'Hagan

(redirected from United States v. O'Hagan)

U.S. vs. O'Hagan

A U.S. Supreme Court case holding that a person who profits from nonpublic information may be held liable even if he/she does not owe a fiduciary duty to a company in question. O'Hagan was a lawyer representing a company considering buying Pillsbury. He discovered this information and bought call options on Pillsbury, to which he had no responsibility as he only represented the buyer. In the decision, the Supreme Court upheld O'Hagan's conviction. It was decided in 1997.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
References in periodicals archive ?
United States v. O'Hagan, (14) (2) recent state court decisions
(16) The three defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's disclosure loophole in United States v. O'Hagan, (17) Mrs.
(19.) 470 F.3d at 5 (citing United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S.
It wasn't until 1997, in United States v. O'Hagan, that the Supreme Court approved die misappropriation theory.
In United States v. O'Hagan, the Supreme Court sustained the validity of SEC Rule 14e-3 by focusing on the rule's prophylactic nature.
See United States v. O'Hagan, 139 F.3d 641 (8th Cir.
In United States v. O'Hagan, the Supreme Court concluded that the misappropriation theory is a valid basis upon which to base [sections] 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 liability.
(165) Petitioner's Brief at 3-4, United States v. O'Hagan, 117 S.
In United States v. O'Hagan, the Court decided that under certain circumstances, a person who trades in securities on the basis of inside information, even when he is not an insider of the company whose securities he trades, may be criminally liable under the securities laws.
The decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. O'Hagan expands the potential range of conduct that can give rise to criminal and civil liability under the federal securities laws.
Returning to United States v. O'Hagan, the dual information approach would, if implemented by Congress, provide a principled means of imposing section 10(b) liability.
(10.) See United States v. O'Hagan, 92 R3d 612, 615 n.4 (8th Cir.
Full browser ?