SEC v. Cuban: The Fifth Circuit Reverses

September 21, 2010

You may recall that last year a federal district court in Texas dismissed the SEC's insider trading case against Mark Cuban, on the theory that a simple confidentiality agreement without an agreement not to trade did not create the basis for a Rule 10b-5 enforcement action. Our memo at the time cautioned against undue reliance on that decision pending further developments, including the SEC's appeal. That appeal was decided today by the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the lower court decision.


The big picture question at issue here is what kind of relationship is necessary to support a violation of Rule 10b-5: is the "duty of trust and confidence" required by Supreme Court precedents limited to fiduciary-like relationships and express agreements not to trade or, as the SEC asserts, does it apply wherever there is a confidentiality agreement? The Fifth Circuit, however, decided to reserve the big picture for another day. Applying a de novo review standard, the appeals court ruled that the SEC's original complaint could be read to allege that Mr. Cuban had in fact orally agreed not to trade. The case was thus remanded to the district court for further proceedings including discovery.


Our advice continues to be that:

  • if you want a recipient of confidential information to refrain from trading, get an express agreement not to trade or, if that is impracticable, at least seek a "sole use" limitation on the use of the information; and
  • if you've received information that you've agreed to keep confidential, don't assume you can trade on it just because the confidentiality agreement doesn't literally prevent you from doing so.

See the Fifth Circuit decision here.




If you have questions regarding this newsflash, please call any of the lawyers listed below or your regular Davis Polk contact.

William J. Fenrich 212 450
Michael Kaplan212 450
William M. Kelly650 752
Richard D. Truesdell, Jr.212 450
Janice Brunner212 450
Notice: This is a summary that we believe may be of interest to you for general information. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented and should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you would rather not receive these memoranda, please respond to this email and indicate that you would like to be removed from our distribution list. If you have any questions about the matters covered in this publication, the names and office locations of all of our partners appear on our website,
© 2010 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP