Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

IN AN EFFORT to curb insider trading, the Insider Trading Sanctions Act (ITSA) was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on August 10, 1984. ITSA amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which reflects a longstanding concern with fair and equitable markets. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Division of Enforcement, insider trading is the most difficult and most serious challenge they face. Curiously, neither the Securities Act (1933) nor the Exchange Act define insider trading, forcing the SEC to construct various legal theories on the basis of the general anti-fraud provisions of these acts.

Reflecting this longstanding perspective on flexibility in defining insider trading, Congress (in its deliberations for ITSA) took no action in defining the term but favored continuing to give the SEC the widest possible flexibility in dealing with potential new versions of insider trading schemes. Both ITSA and its 1988 counterpart, Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act (ITSFEA), are designed to curb trading on “inside information”—the use of confidential information entrusted to insiders and not available to the investing public.

ITSA increased the sanctions under the Exchange Act for insider trading violations with the possibility of a civil penalty equal to three times the profit gained or loss avoided against persons who unlawfully traded in securities while in possession of material non-public information, or who unlawfully communicated such information to others who then traded (that is, on the basis of that information or tip). ITSA also increased from $10,000 to $100,000 the maximum criminal fine for any violation of the Exchange Act (which was later moved to $250,000 by the Criminal Fine Improvements Act).

Punitive Thrust

The General Accounting Office (GAO) specifically points to the ITSA's “punitive thrust” in that, prior to 1984, the civil monetary sanction was only remedial and required that the insider give back any profits realized or losses avoided. SEC enforcement officials also cite the combined impact of ITSA with ITSFEA with the latter extending the scope of civil penalties (controlling persons who fail to take measures to prevent insider trading by their employees). However, these officials also cite the high threshold of proof for the commission to establish, given the complexity of these dealings and the many routes of access to inside information (for example, lawyers, accountants, and printers of legal documents).

To understand ITSA's impact, an assessment of the past enforcement activities of the SEC can aid in evaluating its ability to use available sanctions and remedies. SEC enforcement officials cited the continuing impact of act well into the 1990s in celebrated insider-trading cases surrounding large corporations like Pillsbury. Reflecting the broadened SEC authority, there was a dramatic increase between 1978 and 1985 in insider-trading cases and the GAO found that the number of insider-trading cases increased dramatically in the wake of the Act—from 12 to 45, while the amount of profits surrendered by perpetrators jumped from $2 million in 1985 to $30 million in 1986. The immediate impact of ITSA (identified by GAO) can be observed in the jump in ITSA-specific penalties from $158,492 in 1985 to $3,889,269 in 1986.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading