221. In SEC v. Ginsburg, Ginsburg was CEO of a company that merged with another company, and he told his
relatives that the merger might occur. Knowing that the stock price might then rise, the relatives bought stock in the
company and profited. Ginsburg was prosecuted by the SEC for insider trading. The appeals court held that
Ginsburg:
a. violated the criminal statute against insider trading and was sent to five years in prison
b. had misappropriated company information by passing information on to his relatives, but that was not insider
trading, so he could not be convicted of insider trading
c. may have used poor judgment but his relatives have no obligation to the company, so there is no legal issue
here
d. had violated his fiduciary obligation and can be sued for any losses that the company suffers as a result, but
has not violated the rule against insider trading
e. none of the other choices
222. In SEC v. Ginsburg, Ginsburg was CEO of a company that merged with another company, and he told his
relatives that the merger might occur. Knowing that the stock price might then rise, the relatives bought stock in the
company and profited. Ginsburg was prosecuted by the SEC for insider trading. The appeals court held that:
a. there was not enough evidence to reasonably permit the inference that Ginsburg conveyed nonpublic
information to his family members
b. there was enough evidence to reasonably permit the inference that Ginsburg conveyed nonpublic information
to his family members, so he was liable for securities fraud
c. Ginsburg did not have a fiduciary obligation to the company, so could not be guilty of insider trading
d. Ginsburg had a fiduciary obligation to the company, but his conduct could not be proven to have violated it
e. Ginsburg did not use the information himself so there was no fraud