Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorKickerFeaturesTopicsCommercial LawSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Brophy Revisited

By Robert S. Reder, David Schwartz and Roxana Azizi
September 28, 2011

A current “hot button” issue in corporate law is the extent to which federal law can ' or should ' pre-empt state corporate law regimes. Due to its prominence as the state of incorporation for so many U.S.-domiciled corporations, Delaware has frequently found itself at the epicenter of this debate. One area in which this tension recently flared is in the context of insider trading. When one thinks of insider trading actions, ' 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder naturally come to mind. However, as long ago as 1949, in “the venerable case” Brophy v. Cities Service Co., 70 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 1949), the Delaware Court of Chancery recognized the right of Delaware stockholders to sue corporate fiduciaries derivatively to recover profits derived from insider trading on the basis of “confidential corporate information.” According to the Brophy court, “[e]ven if the corporation did not experience actual harm, equity requires disgorgement of that profit.”

In 2010, the Court of Chancery had the opportunity to re-visit the continued viability of Brophy. In Pfeiffer v. Toll, 989 A.2d 683 (Del. Ch. 2010), the Court of Chancery rejected the argument that Brophy is a “misguided vehicle for recovering the same trading losses that are addressed by the federal securities laws.” Instead, the Court of Chancery declared, the “federal insider trading regime as currently structured rests on a foundation of state law fiduciary duties.” However, in so ruling, the Pfeiffer court limited Brophy by observing that the harm addressed is “not measured by insider trading gains or reciprocal losses,” as under the federal regime, but rather by “harm to the corporation” measured by its “ costs and expenses for regulatory proceedings and investigations, fees paid to counsel and other professionals, fines paid to regulators, and judgments in litigation.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office Image

A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.

Bit Parts Image

Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights

Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes Image

“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.

Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel Image

'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.