Fidelity Director May Be Liable For Insider Trading
US Legal News
The 9th Circuit reversed and remanded a ruling for attorney J. Thomas Talbot, a member of the board of directors of Fidelity National Financial, who was accused of insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Judge Wardlaw found that Talbot may be held liable for misappropriating confidential information that a third party was looking to buy LendingTree - a deal which would allegedly net Fidelity $50 million as a shareholder. Talbot bought 10,000 shares of LendingTree after finding out about the impending acquisition.
The court considered Talbot's actions insider trading, even though Fidelity's CEO never told the board of directors that the information was confidential.
Talbot can be held liable for misappropriating the information from Fidelity, the court ruled, but the case heads back to the district court to settle whether that information was "material" under the law.
Related listings
-
NY Sets Bar High for Adult Victims of Predatory Clergy
US Legal News 06/30/2008New York’s highest court has set the bar prohibitively high for proving certain civil cases against predatory clergy by ruling that a woman cannot sue a rabbi who had an affair with her because she was not “uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-p...
-
"Parrot Fever" Suit May Not Fly
US Legal News 06/27/2008The family of a Texas man who allegedly died of a disease contracted from a sick cockatiel has sued PetSmart for wrongful death, but the fate of similar cases around the country suggests their products liability theory will not fly.The cockatiel that...
-
Naked Cowboy Sues M&M's
US Legal News 06/24/2008"This is the case of The Naked Cowboy versus The Blue M&M," afederal judge wrote in allowing The Naked Cowboy's lawsuit against Marscandy and Chute Gerdeman ad agency to proceed. "Plaintiff Robert Burckis a 'street entertainer' who performs in Ne...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.