''Chiarella v. United States'', 445 U.S. 222 (1980), is a case in which the

Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...

held that an employee of a printer handling corporate takeover bids who deduced target companies' identities and dealt in their stock without disclosing his knowledge of impending takeovers, had not violated § 10(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (also called the Exchange Act, '34 Act, or 1934 Act) (, codified at et seq.) is a law governing the secondary trading of securities (stocks, bonds, and debentures) in the United States of America. A landma ...

. and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Background

After working in a position that gave petitioner Vincent Chiarella inside information on particular corporate takeover bids, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) investigated his trading activities. Chiarella and the SEC allegedly came to an agreement where Chiarella "agreed to return the profits he made in the sellers of the shares." A short time after, he was indicted on seventeen counts of violating the

Question before the Court

Did Chiaraella "violate Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by failing to disclose the impending takeover before trading in the target company's securities?"

Decision of the Court

In a 6–3 decision in favor of Chiarella,

Justice Powell Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. (September 19, 1907 – August 25, 1998) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1972 to 1987. Born in Suffolk, Virginia, he gradua ...

wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court. The Court held that "a duty to disclose under section 10(b) does not arise from the mere possession of nonpublic market information." Chiarella had no "fiduciary relationship" with either company, nor was he an agent of either company, Chiarella had no duty to disclose the privileged information, and he did not receive confidential information from the targeted companies.

References

External links

* 1980 in United States case law United States securities case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court {{SCOTUS-stub