Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Harold was a broker-dealer who provided investment analyses of insurance company securities to institutional investors. In early 2015 Harold received information from a former officer

Harold was a broker-dealer who provided investment analyses of insurance company securities to institutional investors. In early 2015 Harold received information from a former officer of American Funding, Inc. (AFI) alleging that AFI was involved in fraudulent conduct. This former officer asked Harold to investigate, and if he agreed that the firm was guilty of these fraudulent practices, to make the information public. Harold personally investigated the firm and found evidence that it was, in fact, guilty of a number of fraudulent practices. While neither

Harold nor his investment firm dealt in AFI securities, Harold openly discussed his investigation and his opinions with a number of his clients and investors. Some of these clients and investors divested themselves of AFI securities worth more than $16 million before Harold broke the story.

During the course of Harolds investigation, word spread of what he had discovered and AFI stock fell from $26 per share to less than $13 per share. Shortly thereafter the Wall Street Journal published an article on the fraudulent conduct of AFI, using much of the information gathered by Harold and supplied to the Journal articles author. The SEC then began investigating Harolds role in exposing the fraudulent conduct. In its investigation the SEC determined that Harold had aided and abetted in violating various provisions of the 33 and 34 Acts by repeating his allegations of fraud to a number of investors who then divested themselves of AFI stock. Based on its investigation, the SEC censured Harold for his conduct.

Harold did not take advantage of any relationship with AFI to gain access to material inside information intended to be treated confidentially, nor did he take advantage of the information that he acquired to make any transactions in AFI securities. He owed no fiduciary duties to AFI.

Required: Based on these facts, should Harold be found in violation of either the 33 or the 34 Act? Be certain that you explain and justify your reasoning for the application of each of the statutes.

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image_2

Step: 3

blur-text-image_3

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Exchange Rate Chaos 25 Years Of Finance And Consumer Democracy

Authors: Geisst, Charles R.

1st Edition

0415109817, 9780415109819

More Books

Students also viewed these Finance questions