Trudy, a private practice attorney, was hired by Food Corporation - a publicly traded corporation - to handle a products liability lawsuit brought against it alleging that it distributed dangerous dog biscuits. Trudy's investigation brought to light facts establishing that the biscuits were not defective and that the problem actually involved improper retention policies on the part of retailers. Trudy believes that this information will result in the stock of Food Corporation to increase dramatically when the results of the investigation are made public. Trudy's boyfriend, Frank, is an investment banker and always teases Trudy telling her that lawyers are nothing more than glamorized paper pushers. In an effort to impress Frank, Trudy tells him about the case she is handling for Food Corporation, including the results of the investigation. Later that week, Frank buys 100 shares of Food Corporation stock for $10 per share. The next day, the results of the investigation are released to the public; however, the stock price of Food Corporation drops to $9 per share. The day after, an investigator from the U.S. Attorney's Office reaches out to Frank wanting to know about the purchases of stock he made in Food Corporation. Frank comes to you and wants to know if he should be concerned about having any criminal liability for the purchases of Food Corporation stock he made.

Issue (i.e., what is the legal issue presented in the fact pattern?):

Rule (i.e., describe the legal rule(s) that would be best applied to resolve the issue):

Analysis and Conclusion (i.e., applythe rule(s) you specify above to the facts presented in the hypothetical to reach a final conclusion as to how the issue will likely be resolved):