<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (7) TMI 496 - BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103711</link>
    <description>Insider trading liability under the securities regulations turns on whether the trader was connected to the company and had access to unpublished price sensitive information, including merger information that was not generally known and was likely to affect price. The text also states that a purchase made in the shadow of an impending merger may support an inference of trading on that information where surrounding circumstances show a nexus between the deal and the transaction. It further notes that the regulator cannot impose compensation or order prosecution by bypassing the specific regulatory scheme for inquiry, notice, findings and directions; pecuniary or penal action requires clear legal authority and procedural safeguards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 496 - BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103711</link>
      <description>Insider trading liability under the securities regulations turns on whether the trader was connected to the company and had access to unpublished price sensitive information, including merger information that was not generally known and was likely to affect price. The text also states that a purchase made in the shadow of an impending merger may support an inference of trading on that information where surrounding circumstances show a nexus between the deal and the transaction. It further notes that the regulator cannot impose compensation or order prosecution by bypassing the specific regulatory scheme for inquiry, notice, findings and directions; pecuniary or penal action requires clear legal authority and procedural safeguards.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>