Securities & Exchange Commission v. Switzer
1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15303, 590 F. Supp. 756 (1984)
Rule of Law:
Tippee liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 requires that an insider breached a fiduciary duty to shareholders by disclosing material non-public information for personal benefit, and the tippee knew or should have known of this breach.
Facts:
- Texas International Company (TIC) considered options for its subsidiary, Phoenix Resources Company (Phoenix), including liquidation, and G. Platt, Chairman of TIC and a Phoenix Director, decided to recommend retaining Morgan Stanley to evaluate these options.
- On June 6, 1981, G. Platt and his wife Linda attended a state invitational secondary school track meet, where they encountered Barry Switzer, the head football coach at the University of Oklahoma, who was there to watch his son compete.
- While sunbathing on the bleachers behind the Platts, Switzer overheard G. Platt talking to his wife about his recent trip to New York, mentioning Morgan Stanley, his desire to dispose of or liquidate Phoenix, several companies bidding on Phoenix, and a possible announcement about Phoenix the following Thursday.
- G. Platt was not conscious of Switzer's presence behind him and did not intentionally communicate any material, non-public corporate information to Switzer; he was discussing his upcoming business schedule with his wife to arrange for child care.
- After the track meet, Switzer informed Sedwyn Kennedy, Lee Allan Smith, Harold Hodges, Robert Amyx, and Robert Hoover about the overheard information, leading them to collectively purchase significant shares of Phoenix stock between June 8-9, 1981.
- On June 10, 1981, Phoenix publicly announced its consideration of the prompt disposition of the company or its assets and the retention of an investment banking firm.
- Following the public announcement, Switzer, Kennedy, Smith, Deem, Hodges, Amyx, and Hoover sold their Phoenix shares between June 10-12, 1981, realizing substantial pre-tax profits.
- None of the defendants had a relationship of trust and confidence with Phoenix, its shareholders, or G. Platt, nor did G. Platt receive any direct or indirect personal benefit, financial or otherwise, from Switzer's inadvertent receipt of the information.
Procedural Posture:
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an action against defendants Barry L. Switzer, Lee Allan Smith, Sedwyn T. Kennedy, Harold D. Deem, Harold L. Hodges, Robert E. Amyx, Robert M. Hoover, Jr., and James Hart in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
- Defendant James Hart was granted summary judgment on May 20, 1983.
- The case against the remaining defendants was tried to the court on March 19-22, 1984.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who inadvertently overhears material non-public information from an insider, who did not disclose the information for an improper purpose or personal benefit, incur tippee liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5?
Opinions:
Majority - Saffels, District Judge
No, a person who inadvertently overhears material non-public information from an insider does not incur tippee liability if the insider did not disclose the information for an improper purpose or personal benefit. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the SEC failed to prove a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Citing Dirks v. SEC, the court reaffirmed that tippee liability is derivative of an insider's breach of fiduciary duty. For an insider to breach this duty by disclosing information, the disclosure must be made for an 'improper purpose,' which means the insider personally benefits, directly or indirectly, from the disclosure. The court found that G. Platt did not breach a fiduciary duty to Phoenix shareholders because his conversation with his wife was for the purpose of informing her of his upcoming business schedule, not for personal gain, and the information was inadvertently overheard by Switzer. Since G. Platt did not breach a fiduciary duty, there was no derivative breach by Switzer or the other defendants, and thus no tippee liability. Furthermore, the court found that even if G. Platt had breached a duty, the defendants did not know, nor had reason to know, that the information was disseminated for an improper purpose, failing the second prong of the Dirks test.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the Dirks v. SEC standard for tippee liability, emphasizing that mere possession of material non-public information is insufficient to trigger a duty to disclose or abstain from trading. It clarifies that the insider must breach a fiduciary duty for personal benefit, and the tippee must have knowledge of this breach. The ruling underscores the high bar for proving insider trading, particularly in situations involving overheard or unintentional disclosures, by requiring a showing of an insider's improper motive and the tippee's awareness of it. This interpretation limits the scope of insider trading liability, preventing accidental eavesdroppers from automatically being deemed 'insiders' or 'tippees' with derivative duties, thereby protecting those who trade on information not intentionally and improperly leaked.
