U.S. v. O'Hagan case Facts In the U.S. v. O'Hagan case, the defendant, James Herman O'Hagan, was a partner in a major Minneapolis firm, and was involved in a corporate acquisition as a representative of the acquiring corporation (Corley, et al., 2002). D allegedly used insider information to purchase stock before the details of the acquisition...
Introduction Want to know how to write a rhetorical analysis essay that impresses? You have to understand the power of persuasion. The power of persuasion lies in the ability to influence others' thoughts, feelings, or actions through effective communication. In everyday life, it...
U.S. v. O'Hagan case Facts In the U.S. v. O'Hagan case, the defendant, James Herman O'Hagan, was a partner in a major Minneapolis firm, and was involved in a corporate acquisition as a representative of the acquiring corporation (Corley, et al., 2002). D allegedly used insider information to purchase stock before the details of the acquisition were made public. History discovered in 1988 that Grand Met PLC, one of his clients, planned to acquire Pillsbury Company (Corley, et al.). D purchased Pillsbury stock and options to acquire Pillsbury stock.
D made four million dollars when the acquisition was announced. D's actions caught the attention of the plaintiff, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the local U.S. attorney. D was convicted of 57 counts of securities fraud, mail fraud and money laundering, and received a 41-month prison term. This decision was based mainly on the "misappropriation theory," which prohibits using any information to defraud in the sale of securities as stated in Rule 10b-5. Issue However, the U.S.
Court of Appeals overturned the decision, stating that Rule 10b-5 did not reach the use of inside information by a non-insider, as long as the non-insider did not deceive a participant in the trade (Corley, et al.). In addition, it ruled that, because there was no breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant to the company that owned the stock or the trade participants, there was inadequate association between the misappropriation and the sale to allow the use of the proposed Rule 10b-5.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the SEC could not define fraud to include the misuse of inside information where there was no breach of fiduciary duty.
The case was sent to the Supreme Court, which overruled the Court of Appeals' decision Reasoning The Supreme court overruled the decision of the Court of Appeals, saying that Rule 10b-5's prohibition against the use of deception in connection with a stock transaction is indeed violated when an outsider breaches a duty to someone who holds insider information, and buys stock based on that information (Corley, et al.). This meant that D.
was subject to prosecution for using inside information, even if he did not work for the company or owe any legal duty to it. D's conviction was reinstated. Result The U.S. v.
The remaining sections cover Conclusions. Subscribe for $1 to unlock the full paper, plus 130,000+ paper examples and the PaperDue AI writing assistant — all included.
Always verify citation format against your institution's current style guide.