SEC v. Bankosky
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
716 F.3d 45 (2013)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
As a senior employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Takeda), Brent C. Bankosky (defendant) obtained inside information that Takeda was discussing potential transactions with other companies. Bankosky then bought call options in the shares of the other companies. After the transactions were publicly announced, Bankosky sold the options and made a profit. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (plaintiff) filed an enforcement action, accusing Bankosky of insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) and Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC motioned for an injunction barring Bankosky from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company. The district court assessed Bankosky’s fitness to serve as an officer or director by considering various factors. The district court found that Bankosky’s conduct was not highly egregious and that Bankosky had no history of violating securities laws. However, the court determined that Bankosky acted as a fiduciary for Takeda’s shareholders, knew that the insider trading was illegal, had a financial interest in the insider-trading activity, and would not guarantee that Bankosky would refrain from future securities-law violations. After balancing the various factors, the court concluded that Bankosky was unfit to serve as an officer or director of a publicly traded company and banned Bankosky from doing so for a period of 10 years. Bankosky appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.