United States v. O'Hagan
| United States v. O'Hagan | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 16, 1997 Decided June 25, 1997 | |
| Full case name | United States, Petitioner v. James Herman O'Hagan |
| Citations | 521 U.S. 642 (more) 117 S. Ct. 2199; 138 L. Ed. 2d 724 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 92 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 1996); cert. granted, 519 U.S. 1087 (1997). |
| Subsequent | On remand, 139 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 1998). |
| Holding | |
| A person who trades in securities for personal profit, using confidential information misappropriated in breach of a fiduciary duty to the source of the information, may be held liable for violating § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and so the SEC did not exceed its authority under § 14(e) by adopting Rule 14e-3(a) without requiring a showing that such trading entailed a breach of fiduciary duty. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer; Scalia (parts I, III, IV) |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| Securities Exchange Act of 1934 § 10(b), Rule 10b-5 | |
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning insider trading and breach of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b) and 10(b)-5. In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that an individual may be found liable for violating Rule 10(b)-5 by misappropriating confidential information. The Court also held that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not exceed its rulemaking authority when it adopted Rule 14e-3(a), "which proscribes trading on undisclosed information in the tender offer setting, even in the absence of a duty to disclose".