• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

California And Rule 10b5-1

By Keith Paul Bishop on February 14, 2013 in California Securities Laws

In October of 2000, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Rule 10b5-1, which among other things, created an “affirmative defense” for pre-planned trading provided that specified conditions were met.   At the time, I pointed out that California has its own insider trading prohibition, Corporations Code Section 25402 and urged the adoption of a conforming state rule.  In July 2001, Commissioner Demetrios A. Boutris adopted Rule 260.402 which provides:

For purposes of Section 25402 of the Code, an issuer or person described in Section 25402shall not be deemed to have purchased or sold an issuer’s security at a time when that person knows material information about the issuer if the issuer or such person demonstrates that the purchase or sale of the issuer’s security was in accordance will Rule 10b5-1(c) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 17 CFR Section 240.10b5-1(c).

See my article, ”California Adopts Emergency Regulation in Response to SEC’s Affirmative Defense Rule for Insider Trading,” 15 Insights 21 (April, 2001).  In “California’s Unique Approach to Insider Trading,” 17 Insights 21 (July 2003), I discuss some of the significant differences in scope, elements and penalties between the California statute and federal law.

10b5-1affirmative defenseInsider TradingRule 260.402Section 25402
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders
  • The Salon Sub Rosa And Nevada Corporate Law
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

February 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me