[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72590-72611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33492]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 230, 240, 243, and 249

[Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99]
RIN 3235-AH82


Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is proposing new rules 
to address three issues: the selective disclosure by issuers of 
material nonpublic information; whether insider trading liability 
depends on a trader's ``use'' or ``knowing possession'' of material 
nonpublic information; and when the breach of a family or other non-
business relationship may give rise to liability under the 
misappropriation theory of insider trading. The proposals are designed 
to promote the full and fair disclosure of information by issuers, and 
to clarify and enhance existing prohibitions against insider trading.

DATES: Public comments are due on or before March 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of your comment letter to Jonathan 
G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments can also be sent electronically 
to the following e-mail address: [email protected]. Your comment 
letter should refer to File No. S7-31-99. If e-mail is used, include 
this file number on the subject line. Anyone can inspect and copy the 
comment letters in the Commission's Public Reference Room at 450 5th 
St., NW,

[[Page 72591]]

Washington, DC 20549. Electronically submitted comments will be posted 
on the Commission's Internet web site (http://www.sec.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Levine, Assistant General 
Counsel, Sharon Zamore, Senior Counsel, or Elizabeth Nowicki, Attorney, 
Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 942-0890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission 
(Commission) today is proposing for comment new rules: Regulation 
FD,\1\ Rule 181 under the Securities Act,\2\ Rule 10b5-1,\3\ Rule 10b5-
2,\4\ and amendments to Forms 8-K \5\ and 6-K.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 243.100 and 243.101.
    \2\ 17 CFR 230.181.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.10b5-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.10b5-2.
    \5\ 17 CFR 249.308.
    \6\ 17 CFR 249.306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Executive Summary

    Information is the lifeblood of our securities markets. Congress 
enacted the federal securities laws to promote fair and honest 
securities markets, and a critical purpose of these laws is to promote 
full and fair disclosure of important information by issuers of 
securities to the investing public. The Securities Act of 1933 
(Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange 
Act), as implemented by Commission rules and regulations, provide for 
systems of mandatory disclosure of certain material information in 
securities offerings and in periodic reports.
    The antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws also play a 
very important role in furthering full and fair disclosure. Among other 
things, the antifraud provisions prohibit insider trading, or the 
fraudulent misuse of material nonpublic information. Unlike the law 
underlying the issuer disclosure requirements, which generally has been 
developed through statutes and rules, the law of insider trading has 
largely been developed through a series of Commission and judicial 
decisions in civil and criminal enforcement cases involving fraud 
charges. As a result, a few areas of insider trading law have been 
marked by disagreement among the courts.
    Today's proposals address several issues related to full and fair 
disclosure of information, and insider trading law. The proposed rules 
are the following:
     Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), a new issuer disclosure 
rule, deals with the problem of issuers making selective disclosure of 
material nonpublic information to analysts, institutional investors, or 
others, but not to the public at large. Although analysts play an 
important role in gathering and analyzing information, and 
disseminating their analysis to investors, we do not believe that 
allowing issuers to disclose material information selectively to 
analysts is in the best interests of investors or the securities 
markets generally. Instead, to the maximum extent practicable, we 
believe that all investors should have access to an issuer's material 
disclosures at the same time. Regulation FD, therefore, would require 
that: (1) When an issuer intentionally discloses material information, 
it do so through public disclosure, not through selective disclosure; 
and (2) whenever an issuer learns that it has made a non-intentional 
material selective disclosure, the issuer make prompt public disclosure 
of that information.
     Rule 10b5-1 addresses an important unsettled issue in 
insider trading law: whether the Commission must show in its insider 
trading cases that the defendant ``used'' the inside information in 
trading, or merely that the defendant traded while in ``knowing 
possession'' of the information. The Rule would state the general 
principle that insider trading liability arises when a person trades 
while ``aware'' of material nonpublic information, but also provides 
four exceptions to liability. In these four situations, where a trade 
resulted from a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was 
made in good faith, it will be clear that the trader did not use the 
information he or she was aware of.
     Rule 10b5-2 addresses another unsettled issue in current 
insider trading law: what types of family or other non-business 
relationships can give rise to liability under the misappropriation 
theory of insider trading. The Rule would set forth three non-exclusive 
bases for determining that a duty of trust or confidence was owed by a 
person receiving information: (1) When the person agreed to keep 
information confidential; (2) when the persons involved in the 
communication had a history, pattern, or practice of sharing 
confidences that resulted in a reasonable expectation of 
confidentiality; and (3) when the person who provided the information 
was a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the person who received the 
information, unless it were shown affirmatively, based on the facts and 
circumstances of that family relationship, that there was no reasonable 
expectation of confidentiality.

II. Selective Disclosure: Regulation FD

A. Background

    Full and fair disclosure of information by issuers of securities to 
the investing public is a cornerstone of the federal securities laws. 
In enacting the mandatory disclosure system of the Exchange Act, 
Congress sought to promote disclosure of ``honest, complete, and 
correct information'' \7\ to facilitate the operation of fair and 
efficient markets.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ S. Rep. No. 73-1455, at 68 (1934).
    \8\ ``The idea of a free and open public market is built upon 
the theory that competing judgments of buyers and sellers as to the 
fair price of a security brings about aq situation where the market 
price reflects as nearly as possible a just price. . . . [T]he 
hiding and secreting of important imformation obstructs the 
operation of the markets as indices of real value,'' H.R. Rep. No. 
73-1383, at 11 (1934). See also S. Rep. No. 73-792, at 10-11, 19-20 
(1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite this well-recognized principle, the federal securities laws 
do not generally require an issuer to make public disclosure of all 
important corporate developments when they occur. Periodic reports 
(e.g., Forms 10-K and 10-Q) call for disclosure of specified 
information on a regular basis, and domestic issuers are additionally 
required to report some types of events on a Form 8-K soon after they 
occur. However, in the absence of a specific duty to disclose, the 
federal securities laws do not require an issuer to publicly disclose 
all material events as soon as they occur. While we encourage prompt 
disclosure of material information as the best disclosure practice,\9\ 
and self-regulatory organization (SRO) rules often require this,\10\ 
issuers retain some control over the precise timing of many important 
corporate disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Timely Disclosure of Material Corporate Developments, 
Securities Act Release No. 5092 (Oct. 15, 1970) (35 FR 16733).
    \10\ See, e.g., NYSE Listed Company Manual, para. 202.05 (Timely 
Disclosure of Material News Developments); NASD Rules 4310(c)(16), 
4320(e)(14), and IM-4120-1 (Disclosure of Material Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In practice, issuers also retain control over the audience and 
forum for some important disclosures. If a disclosure is made at a time 
when no Commission filing is immediately required, the issuer 
determines how and to whom to make its initial disclosure. As a result, 
issuers sometimes choose to disclose information selectively--i.e., to 
a small group of analysts or institutional investors--before making 
broad public disclosure by a press release or Commission filing.
    Many recent cases of selective disclosure have been reported in the 
media.\11\ In some cases, selective

[[Page 72592]]

disclosures have been made in conference calls or meetings that are 
open only to analysts and/or institutional investors, and exclude other 
investors, members of the public, and the media. In other cases, 
company officials have made selective disclosures directly to 
individual analysts. Commonly, these situations involve advance notice 
of the issuer's upcoming quarterly earnings or sales figures--figures 
which, when announced, have a predictable and significant impact on the 
market price of the issuer's securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Susan Pulliam and Gary McWilliams, Compaq Is 
Criticized for How It Disclosed PC Troubles, Wall St. J., Mar. 2, 
1999, at C1; Susan Pulliam, Abercrombie & Fitch Ignites Controversy 
Over Possible Leak of Sluggish Sales Data, Wall St. J., Oct. 14, 
1999, at C1; Randall Smith, Conference Calls to Big Investors Often 
Leave Little Guys Hung Up, Wall St. J., June 21, 1995, at C1; George 
Anders and Robert Berner, Webvan to Delay IPO in Response to SEC 
Concerns, Wall St. J., Oct. 7, 1999, at C16 (disclosure to 
institutional investors in road-show presentations). In addition, a 
recent study of corporate disclosure practices by the National 
Investor Relations Institute reported that 26% of responding 
companies stated that they engaged in some types of selective 
disclosure practices. National Investor Relations Institute, A Study 
of Corporate Disclosure Practices, Second measurement, 18 (May 1998) 
(NIRI Corporate Disclosure Study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are troubled by the many recent reports of selective disclosure 
and the potential impact of this practice on market integrity. As the 
Supreme Court has recently emphasized, promoting investor confidence in 
the fairness of our securities markets is an ``animating purpose'' of 
the Exchange Act.\12\ Clearly, one critical component of that mission 
is protecting investors from the prospect that others in the market 
possess ``unerodable informational advantages'' \13\ obtained through 
superior access to corporate insiders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 658 (1997).
    \13\ Id. (citing Brudney, Insiders, Outsiders, and Informational 
Advantages Under the Federal Securities Laws, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 322, 
356 (1979)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our view, the current practice of selective disclosure poses a 
serious threat to investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of 
the securities markets. We have recognized that benefits may flow to 
the markets from the legitimate efforts of securities analysts to 
``ferret out and analyze information'' \14\ based on their superior 
diligence and acumen. But we do not believe that selective disclosure 
of material nonpublic information to analysts--or to others, such as 
selected investors--is beneficial to the securities markets. As a 
recent academic study indicated, selective disclosure has the immediate 
effect of enabling those privy to the information to make a quick 
profit (or quickly minimize losses) by trading before the information 
is disseminated to the public.\15\ Indeed, while issuer selective 
disclosure is not a new practice,\16\ the impact of such selective 
disclosure appears to be much greater in today's more volatile, 
earnings-sensitive markets. Accordingly, we think that a continued 
practice of selective disclosure by issuers inevitably will lead to a 
loss of public confidence in the fairness of the markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Raymond L. Dirks, 47 S.E.C. 434, 441(1981). This concern 
about protecting the legitimate functions of securities analysts was 
a basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 
646 (1983), which addressed an analyst's liability under Rule 10b-5 
insider trading law. See also Daniel R. Fischel, Insider Trading and 
Investment Analysts: An Economic Analysis of Dirks v. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 13 Hofstra L. Rev. 127, 142 (1984). But see 
Donald C. Langevoort, Investment Analysts and The Law of Insider 
Trading, 76 Va. L. Rev. 1023, 1044 (1990) (stating that the argument 
favoring special treatment for analyst disclosures is 
``substantially overstated''). We discuss the Dirks case in greater 
detail at infra pp. 12-13.
    \15\ See Richard Frankel, Marilyn Johnson, and Douglas J. 
Skinner, An Empirical Examination of Conference Calls as a Voluntary 
Disclosure Medium, 37 J. Acct. Res. 133 (Spring 1999). This study 
revealed that, during and immediately following teleconference calls 
between analysts and issuers, trading volume in the issuers' stock 
increased, average trade size increased, and stock price volatility 
increased. This led the researchers to conclude that material 
information is released during these selective disclosure periods, 
which is immediately filtered to a subset of large investors who are 
able to trade on the information before it is fully disseminated to 
the market.
    \16\ The NIRI Corporate Disclosure Study indicates that a higher 
percentage of issuers engaged in possible selective disclosure 
practices in 1995 than in 1998. See NIRI Corporate Disclosure Study, 
supra note 11 at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even apart from the issue of fundamental fairness to all investors, 
selective disclosure poses other real threats to the health and 
integrity of our securities markets. Corporate managers should be 
encouraged to make broad public disclosure of important information 
promptly. If, however, they are permitted to treat material information 
as a commodity that can be parceled out selectively, they may delay 
general public disclosure so that they can selectively disclose the 
information to curry favor or bolster credibility with particular 
analysts or institutional investors.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See SEC v. Phillip J. Stevens, Litigation Release No. 12813 
(Mar. 19, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, if selective disclosure were to go unchecked, 
opportunities for analyst conflicts of interests would flourish. We are 
greatly concerned by reports indicating a trend toward less independent 
research and analysis as a basis for analysts' advice, and a 
correspondingly greater dependence by analysts on access to corporate 
insiders to provide guidance and ``comfort'' for their earnings 
forecasts.\18\ In this environment, analysts are likely to feel 
pressured to report favorably about particular issuers to avoid being 
``cut * * * off from access to the flow of non-public information 
through future analyst conference phone calls'' or other means of 
selective disclosure.\19\ This raises troubling questions about the 
degree to which analysts may be pressured to shade their analysis in

[[Page 72593]]

order to maintain their access to corporate management. We believe that 
these pressures would be reduced if issuers were clearly prohibited 
from selectively disclosing material information to favored analysts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Fred Barbash, Companies, Analysts A Little Too Cozy, Wash. 
Post, Oct. 31, 1999, at H1 (``Companies coddle analysts to obtain 
the most favorable coverage, which is critical to their stock price. 
Analysts covet their access to companies, because special knowledge 
is the only thing they have to offer clients.''); Andrew Hill, Let 
the buyer beware, Fin. Times, Oct. 27, 1999, at 14 (``The death of 
the `sell' note is perhaps the clearest signal that big securities 
houses are suppressing or toning down negative analysis of companies 
that are clients or potential clients. In a snapshot of 27,700 
individual analyst reports, taken at the beginning of this month, 
First Call/Thomson Financial, the research company, found nearly 70 
per cent recommended that investors buy the stock, and just under 1 
per cent advised they should sell.''); Gretchen Morgenson, The 
Earnings Waltz: Is the Music Stopping?, N.Y. Times, Oct. 24, 1999, 
at 3 (``As quarterly earnings numbers became paramount, analysts 
grew more dependent upon company management for `guidance' to the 
correct earnings forecast. The more help they received, the less 
work they did.''); Robert McGough, One Analyst Anticipated IBM News, 
Wall St. J., Oct. 22, 1999, at C1 (``Too often analysts rely on 
executives at the companies they cover to let them know what's going 
on in the business.''); Jonathan Weil, In Stock Ratings, Many 
Analysts Say `Sell' Is a Four-Letter Word, Wall St. J., May 6, 1998, 
at T2 (attributing analysts' ``speak no evil'' motto to fact that 
``most analysts don't want to risk offending corporate executives, 
who have been known to retaliate by restricting access to 
information or selecting competitors' corporate-finance departments 
to do lucrative investment-banking deals. So analysts issue watered-
down critiques, and shareholders have to read between the lines for 
suggestions on when to get out of a stock.''); Jeffrey M. Landerman, 
Who Can You Trust? Wall Street's Spin Game, Stock Analysts Often 
Have a Hidden Agenda, Bus. Wk., Oct. 5, 1998, at 148 (referencing a 
recent survey of Wall Street research, sales, and trading practices 
in which nearly one-third of the 272 responding large U.S. companies 
said that in response to an analyst's sell recommendation they would 
`` `reduce communications and reduce access' . . . . The great fear 
of the analyst when he or she goes calling on a company is to find 
the door shut.'').
    \19\ John C. Coffee, Jr., Is Selective Disclosure Now Lawful?, 
N.Y.L.J., July 31, 1997, at 5. Professor Coffee also argues that 
selective disclosure may impair market efficiency in one other 
respect. If market efficiency is measured by the width of bid/asked 
spreads, market makers will widen spreads to protect themselves if 
they fear that others possess and will exploit asymmetric 
informational advantages. See also Amitabh Dugar, Siva Nathan, 
Analysts' Research Reports: Caveat Emptor, 5 J. Investing 13 (1996) 
(``Analysts depend on corporate management for accurate and timely 
information about the companies they follow. It is no secret that 
companies wield restriction of access as a weapon against analysts 
who issue a negative research report on their stock. Retribution 
ranges from refusing the analyst's calls for information, to barring 
the analysts from mailings, conference calls, and meetings, and even 
threats of legal action and physical harm.'' (citations and footnote 
omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These concerns about selective disclosure are widely shared, as 
reflected both in stock exchange listing standards and in ``best 
practices'' guidelines of investor relations and analyst groups. The 
New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual and the NASD Rules both 
require listed issuers to disclose promptly ``to the public'' 
information about material developments.\20\ The National Investor 
Relations Institute (NIRI) guidance in this area also states that an 
issuer ``should not disclose in selective situations--such as 
conference calls and analyst meetings--information that it is unwilling 
to make available for general public use.'' \21\ Similarly, the 
Association of Investment Management and Research Standards of Practice 
Handbook states that if an analyst selectively receives disclosure of 
information that he deems material, ``the member must encourage the 
public dissemination of that information and abstain from making 
investment decisions on the basis of that information unless and until 
it is broadly disseminated to the marketplace.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 10.
    \21\ National Investor Relations Institute, Standards of 
Practice for Investor Relations, 30 (Apr. 1998).
    \22\ Association for Investment Management and Research, 
Standards of Practice Handbook, 232 (8th ed. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, revolutions in communications and information technologies 
have made it much easier for issuers today to disseminate important 
information broadly and swiftly. A generation ago, issuers may have 
relied on conferences attended by a handful of interested parties, or 
news releases that led to delayed, indirect retransmission of 
information to the public. Lacking effective means to communicate 
directly to large numbers of investors, issuers may have relied on 
analysts to serve as information intermediaries. In the last few years, 
however, new, effective methods for mass communications have become 
widely available. Today, issuers can--and many do--use a variety of 
these new methods to communicate with the market, including: live 
transmissions of annual meetings and news conferences on the Internet 
or closed circuit television; listen-only telephone transmission of 
meetings and analyst conferences; and company websites.\23\ With the 
availability of these new technologies, issuers can much more easily 
reach a wide investor audience with their disclosures, and do not need 
to rely on analysts as heavily as in the past to serve as information 
intermediaries.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., National Investor Relations Institute, Executive 
Alert, Investor Relations Officers Report Dramatic Change in Ways 
Companies Communicate With Key Audiences (June 18, 1999); Lynn 
Cowan, Internet Broadcast of Conference Calls Creates Buzz and Niche 
for Businesses, Wall St. J., May, 24, 1999, at B9D.
    \24\ We also have greater flexibility and improved technology 
for widespread dissemination of information. The Commission's EDGAR 
system permits investors to access issuer information almost as soon 
as it is filed with us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, issuers are continuing to engage in selective 
disclosures of material nonpublic information, perhaps due in part to 
the uncertainty in current law about when selective disclosures are 
prohibited. For at least the past 30 years, the issue of potential 
liability for selective disclosure has been addressed under the 
principles of fraud law, particularly the law of insider trading. Under 
early insider trading case law, which appeared to require that traders 
have equal access to corporate information,\25\ selective disclosure of 
material information to securities analysts could lead to 
liability.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 849 (2d Cir. 
1968) (en banc), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 976 (1969.
    \26\ See SEC v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 565 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1977). 
At the same time, however, issuers were encouraged to divulge 
tidbits of non-material information to analysts to help them piece 
together more informed opinions. Id. The courts reasoned that 
although giving analysts direct, nonpublic, material information was 
prohibited, the law should permit ``[a] skilled analyst with 
knowledge of [a] company and the industry [to] piece seemingly 
inconsequential data together with public information into a mosaic 
which reveals material non-public information.'' Elkind v. Liggett & 
Myers, Inc., 635 F.2d 156, 165 (2d Cir. 1980). This theory is known 
as the `'mosaic theory.'' The resulting tension between prohibited 
material disclosures and acceptable non-material disclosures led one 
judge to compare the corporate official's encounter with an analyst 
to a `'fencing match conducted on a tightrope.'' Bausch & Lomb, 565 
F.2d at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This changed with the Supreme Court's decisions in Chiarella v. 
United States \27\ and Dirks v. SEC.\28\ In Chiarella, the Court 
rejected the ``parity of information'' approach, which considered 
trading to be fraudulent whenever the trader possessed material 
information not generally available. The Court instead held that there 
must be a breach of a fiduciary or other relationship of trust and 
confidence before the law imposes a duty to disclose information or 
refrain from trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 445 U.S. 222 (1980).
    \28\ 463 U.S. 646 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Dirks, the Supreme Court addressed the disclosure, or 
``tipping,'' of material nonpublic information by an insider to an 
analyst.\29\ The Court rejected the idea that a person is prohibited 
from trading whenever he knowingly receives material nonpublic 
information from an insider. Instead, it stated that a recipient of 
inside information is prohibited from trading only when the information 
has been made available to him ``improperly''--that is, in breach of 
the insider's fiduciary duty to shareholders. To determine whether a 
breach of duty occurred, ``courts [must] focus on objective criteria, 
i.e., whether the insider receives a direct or indirect personal 
benefit from the disclosure, such as a pecuniary gain or a reputational 
benefit that will translate into future earnings.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ In Dirks, a securities analyst had been informed about a 
major fraud at Equity Funding of America by a former officer of the 
company. Although Dirks made an effort to make the fraud public, he 
also told his clients, enabling them to sell their Equity Funding 
securities and avoid losses when the fraud became publicly known. 
The Commission charged that Dirks was a ``tippee'' of the insider, 
and in turn tipped his clients.
    \30\ 463 U.S. at 663. On the facts of the case, the Court found 
that Dirks' source did not breach a duty in disclosing information 
to Dirks because he did not receive a personal benefit from the 
disclosure and was clearly motivated by a desire to expose the 
fraud. Because a tippee's duty is ``derivative'' from the duty of 
the tipper, and the insider source did not breach a duty, the Court 
held that Dirks did not violate Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or 
Rule 10b-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Dirks, there have been very few insider trading cases based 
on disclosure to, or trading by, securities analysts. In some 
situations, an insider's selective disclosure can be viewed as 
improper, because the disclosure was motivated by a desire for some 
type of personal benefit.\31\ In other cases, however, the evidence to 
support the ``personal benefit'' argument under Dirks is less clear. As 
a result, many have viewed Dirks as affording considerable protection 
to insiders who make selective disclosures to analysts, and to the 
analysts (and their clients) who receive selectively disclosed 
information.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ SEC v. Phillip J. Stevens, supra note 17 (allegation of 
personal benefit based on corporate official's desire to protect and 
enhance his reputation).
    \32\ See, e.g., Paul P. Brountas Jr., Note: Rule 10b-5 and 
Voluntary Corporate Disclosures to Securities Analysts, 92 Colum. L. 
Rev. 1517, 1529 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the antifraud provisions of the securities laws do not 
require that all traders possess equal information when they trade, we 
believe that our disclosure rules should promote fair

[[Page 72594]]

treatment of large and small investors by, among other things, giving 
all investors timely access to the material information an issuer 
chooses to disclose. Therefore, we are today proposing new rules, which 
use a different legal approach, to address selective disclosure.
    The approach we propose does not treat selective disclosure as a 
type of fraudulent conduct or revisit the insider trading issues 
addressed in Dirks. Rather, we propose to use our authority to require 
full and fair disclosure from issuers, primarily under Section 13(a) of 
the Exchange Act, as a basis for proposed Regulation FD. This 
Regulation is designed as an issuer disclosure rule, similar to 
existing Commission rules under Exchange Act Sections 13(a) and 
15(d).\33\ We believe this approach would further the full and fair 
public disclosure of material information, and thereby promote fair 
dealing in the securities of covered issuers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) and 78o(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Description of Proposed Regulation FD

    Rule 101 of Regulation FD sets forth the basic rule regarding 
``selective disclosure.'' Under this Rule, whenever:
    (1) an issuer, or any person acting on its behalf,
    (2) discloses material nonpublic information
    (3) to any other person outside the issuer,
    (4) the issuer must
    (a) simultaneously (for intentional disclosures), or
    (b) ``promptly'' (for non-intentional disclosures)
    (5) make public disclosure of that same information.
    Several definitional and other provisions in the Regulation 
establish the scope and effect of the general rule. As a whole, the 
Regulation would require that whenever an issuer makes an intentional 
disclosure of material nonpublic information, it must do so in a manner 
that provides general public disclosure, rather than through a 
selective disclosure. In the case of an unintentional selective 
disclosure, the issuer must make full public disclosure promptly after 
it learns of the selective disclosure. Regulation FD does not mandate 
that issuers make public disclosure of all material developments when 
they occur. What it does require, however, is that when an issuer 
chooses to disclose material nonpublic information, it must do so 
broadly to the investing public, not selectively to a favored few.
    The key provisions of the Regulation are discussed in greater 
detail below.
1. Disclosures by ``An Issuer or Person Acting on its Behalf''
    Regulation FD applies to all issuers with securities registered 
pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act, and those issuers required 
to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, including 
closed-end investment companies but not including other investment 
companies.\34\ It would apply not only to a selective disclosure 
formally made in the name of the issuer, but also to a selective 
disclosure made by a ``person acting on behalf of an issuer.'' This 
term is defined by Rule 101(c) as any officer, director, employee, or 
agent of the issuer who discloses material nonpublic information while 
acting within the scope of his or her authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Proposed Rule 101(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition of ``person acting on behalf of an issuer'' 
distinguishes between cases where a properly authorized employee or 
agent of the issuer makes a selective disclosure, and cases where an 
employee or agent discloses material nonpublic information for his or 
her own benefit--i.e., provides a ``tip'' that would violate Rule 10b-5 
if securities trading ensued. This distinction means that the issuer 
would not automatically be liable under Regulation FD (or be 
responsible for making simultaneous or prompt public disclosure) 
whenever one of its employees or agents improperly trades or tips.\35\ 
The Rule also would not apply if an official disclosed information to 
another person who owed him or her a duty of trust or confidence--such 
as a medical professional. By focusing on employees and agents acting 
within the scope of their authority, the Rule would make an issuer 
responsible only for the disclosures of company officials, employees, 
or agents who are properly authorized or designated to speak to the 
media, the analyst community, and/or investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The proper response in this type of case is to hold the 
employee or agent responsible for illegal insider trading, not to 
force the issuer to make a public disclosure due to the misconduct 
of one of its employees or agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on this approach. Is the definition of ``person 
acting on behalf of an issuer'' appropriate? Should it be narrower--for 
example, limited to executive officers and directors, and persons 
acting on their behalf? Or should it be broader, to prevent evasion--
for example, covering any person authorized to act on behalf of the 
issuer?
2. Disclosure of Material Nonpublic Information
    Regulation FD addresses the selective disclosure of ``material 
nonpublic information.'' The Regulation does not define the term 
``material,'' but instead relies on the same definition as is generally 
applicable under the federal securities laws: information is material 
if ``there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder 
would consider it important'' in making an investment decision, or if 
it would have ``significantly altered the `total mix' of information 
made available.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 
(1976); see Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231 (1988); see also 
Securities Act Rule 405, 17 CFR 230.405; Exchange Act Rule 12b-2, 17 
CFR 240.12b-2; Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 (Aug. 12, 1999) (64 
FR 45150) (discussing materiality for purposes of financial 
statements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that materiality judgments can be difficult. Corporate 
officials may therefore become more cautious in communicating with 
analysts or selected investors, or may feel compelled to consult with 
counsel more frequently about their ability to respond to questions 
from analysts and investors. We understand that these communications 
take many forms, including unrehearsed question-and-answer sessions, 
and responses to unsolicited inquiries. We are mindful of the potential 
burdens of requiring instant materiality judgments to be made by those 
put in the position of responding immediately to questions.
    We believe that these concerns are significant but can be mitigated 
in several ways, many of which involve practices already in place at 
many issuers.\37\ First, issuers can designate a limited number of 
persons who are authorized to make disclosures or field inquiries from 
analysts, investors, or the media. Second, issuers can make sure that 
some record is kept of the substance of private communications with 
analysts or selected investors--for example, by having more than one 
person present during these contacts or by recording conversations. 
Third, issuer personnel can decline to answer questions that raise 
issues of materiality until they have had an opportunity to consult 
with others. Fourth, issuer personnel can secure the agreement of 
analysts not to make use of certain information for a limited time 
until they have had the opportunity to review their notes of the 
conversation and engage in whatever consultation they deem necessary to 
reach a conclusion as to

[[Page 72595]]

materiality; \38\ then, if the issuer determines that public disclosure 
of the information is necessary, it can do so. Finally, and most 
importantly, as described in greater detail below, the Regulation 
recognizes that issuers may sometimes unintentionally make a selective 
disclosure of material nonpublic information, and it treats such 
unintentional disclosures differently from cases in which the issuer 
makes a planned selective disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See NIRI Corporate Disclosure Study, supra note 11.
    \38\ If a person receives material nonpublic information subject 
to such a confidentiality agreement, the use or disclosure of the 
information for securities trading purposes will lead to insider 
trading liability under Rule 10b-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also believe that a heightened awareness of materiality issues 
may well have overall benefits to the disclosure process. Senior 
corporate officials who are responsible for dealing with analysts, 
investor relations, and disclosure issues already should be sensitive 
to materiality questions. When particularly difficult issues arise, 
responsible officials should seek the advice of counsel. Though it is 
likely that this Regulation will require corporate officials to 
consider more thoughtfully precisely what to disclose, it is unlikely, 
given the robust, active capital market, that the flow of information 
to the market will be significantly chilled.
    Although materiality issues do not lend themselves to a bright-line 
test, we believe that the majority of cases are reasonably clear. At 
one end of the spectrum, we believe issuers should avoid giving 
guidance or express warnings to analysts or selected investors about 
important upcoming earnings or sales figures; such earnings or sales 
figures will frequently have a significant impact on the issuer's stock 
price. At the other end of the spectrum, more generalized background 
information is less likely to be material. We request comment on 
whether use of the procedures discussed above or similar procedures can 
significantly reduce the risk of ``chilling'' the flow of corporate 
information to the marketplace.
    The Regulation also does not specifically define the term 
``nonpublic.'' It is well established that information is nonpublic if 
it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to 
investors generally.\39\ In order to make information public, ``it must 
be disseminated in a manner calculated to reach the securities market 
place in general through recognized channels of distribution, and 
public investors must be afforded a reasonable waiting period to react 
to the information.'' \40\ The Regulation does specify means by which 
``public disclosure'' is to be made.\41\ We request comment on whether 
to rely on existing standards for the term ``nonpublic.'' Should we 
provide further guidance, or is the specific definition of ``public 
disclosure'' provided in Rule 101(e) sufficient?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., Texas Gulf Sulphur, 401 F.2d at 854; In re 
Investors Management Co., 44 S.E.C. 633, 643 (1971).
    \40\ Faberge, Inc., 45 S.E.C. 249, 255 (1973). Thus, for 
purposes of insider trading law, insiders must wait a ``reasonable'' 
time before trading. What constitutes a reasonable time prior to 
trading depends on the circumstances of the dissemination. Id., 
citing Texas Gulf Sulphur, 401 F.2d at 854.
    \41\ See, infra Section II.B.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Selective Disclosure ``To Any Other Person Outside the Issuer''
    Rule 100(a) covers selective disclosures made to ``any person or 
persons outside the issuer.'' Therefore, the Rule would not apply to 
communications of confidential information by officials and employees 
of issuers to each other. Only selective disclosures to outsiders, such 
as analysts or selected investors, are covered by the Regulation.
    To make clear the scope of the Regulation, paragraph (b) of Rule 
100 expressly states that the Rule does not apply to disclosures of 
material information to persons who are bound by duties of trust or 
confidence not to disclose or use the information for trading. 
Paragraph (b) expressly refers to several types of persons whose misuse 
of the information would subject them to insider trading liability 
under Rule 10b-5: (1) ``temporary'' insiders of an issuer--e.g., 
outside consultants, such as its attorneys, investment bankers, or 
accountants; \42\ and (2) any other person who has expressly agreed to 
maintain the information in confidence, and whose misuse of the 
information for trading would thus be covered either under the 
``temporary insider'' or ``misappropriation'' theory.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ ``Classical'' insiders--an issuer's officers, directors, or 
employees--are of course also subject to duties of trust and 
confidence and to Rule 10b-5 insider trading liability if they trade 
or tip.
    \43\ United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997); Dirks, 463 
U.S. at 655 n.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approach recognizes that issuers and their officials may 
properly share material nonpublic information with outsiders when those 
outsiders agree to keep the information confidential. This would permit 
issuers to discuss confidential strategies or plans with outsiders, as 
necessary for business purposes, without need to make public disclosure 
under this Rule. For example, issuers could share material nonpublic 
information with other parties to a business combination transaction or 
with a purchaser in a private placement without having to make public 
disclosure if the party receiving the information agrees to hold the 
information in confidence. Similarly, if it served an issuer's 
corporate interests to make disclosure of material information to 
selected analysts--for example, to give the analysts sufficient time to 
analyze complex information before its public release, or to solicit 
analysts' views on a business strategy under consideration--it could do 
so, provided that the recipients of the information expressly agreed 
not to use the information and to keep it confidential prior to public 
disclosure. Such a confidentiality agreement would also include an 
agreement not to trade on the nonpublic information.
    We request comment on whether the proposed Regulation covers the 
appropriate categories of persons. Should other types of persons be 
enumerated in Rule 100(b) as proper recipients of material nonpublic 
information? By permitting disclosures to outsiders who agree to 
confidentiality requirements, does the Regulation adequately permit 
issuers to engage in legitimate business communications with customers 
or suppliers, potential co-venturers, and others? Would purchasers in 
private offering who receive material nonpublic information be willing 
to sign confidentiality agreements? How would this affect the resale 
market for private offerings and the flow of information in these 
transactions? Would the proposals reduce liquidity in the 144A market? 
How should the Regulation account for practices in this market? Should 
we require that confidentiality agreements take any specific form--
i.e., be written--or include certain required provisions?
4. Timing of Public Disclosure Required by Regulation FD
    An important provision of Regulation FD is that the timing of 
required public disclosure differs depending on whether the issuer has 
made an ``intentional'' or a ``non-intentional'' selective disclosure.
    When an issuer makes an ``intentional'' disclosure of material 
nonpublic information, Rule 100(a)(1) requires the issuer to publicly 
disclose the same information simultaneously. In effect, this 
requirement for simultaneous disclosure means that issuers cannot 
engage in an intentional selective disclosure consistent with the terms 
of Regulation FD.
    Under the definition provided in Rule 101(a), a selective 
disclosure is

[[Page 72596]]

``intentional'' when the individual making the disclosure either knew 
prior to making the disclosure, or was reckless in not knowing, that he 
or she would be communicating information that was material and 
nonpublic. This definition would cover, for example, situations where 
an issuer official determined to hold a conference call or meeting that 
excluded the public, or selectively contacted a particular analyst or 
investor, to disclose material nonpublic information. The individual 
making the disclosure must know (or be reckless in not knowing) that 
the information he or she is going to disclose is both material and 
nonpublic. Thus, for example, a communication would not be 
``intentional'' under this Rule if it was disclosed inadvertently 
through an honest slip of the tongue, or because the individual 
mistakenly (but not in reckless disregard of the truth) believed that 
the information had already been made public.
    Under Rule 100(a)(2), when this type of ``non-intentional'' 
disclosure of material nonpublic information occurs, the issuer is 
required to make public disclosure promptly. In this situation, because 
the disclosure was unplanned, the Rule does not require simultaneous 
public disclosure. Instead, the Rule requires ``prompt'' public 
disclosure, with ``promptly'' defined to mean ``as soon as reasonably 
practicable'' (but no later than 24 hours) after a senior official of 
the issuer knows (or is reckless in not knowing) of the non-intentional 
disclosure.\44\ ``Senior official'' is defined as any executive officer 
of the issuer, any director of the issuer, any investor relations 
officer or public relations officer, or any employee possessing 
equivalent functions.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Proposed rule 101(d)(1). Although requirements for 
``prompt'' disclosure exist elsewhere in the securities laws--e.g., 
the requirement that amendments to Schedules 13D be filed 
``promptly''--Proposed Rule 101(d)(1) defines ``prompt'' disclosure 
for purposes of Regulation FD. This definition is not meant to apply 
in any other contexts.
    \45\ See Proposed Rule 1010(d)(2). For closed-end investment 
companies that are subject to Regulation FD, the term ``senior 
official'' would also cover directors, officers, and employees of 
the fund's investment adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By creating a separate requirement for ``prompt'' public disclosure 
in the case of a non-intentional selective disclosure, the Rule 
recognizes that corporate officers may sometimes make mistakes without 
the intent to selectively disclose material nonpublic information. When 
mistakes are made, absent intent or recklessness, we do not believe 
that the issuer should be held in violation of Regulation FD for not 
having made simultaneous public disclosure.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Of course, a pattern of ``mistaken'' selective disclosures 
would make less credible the claim that any particular disclosure 
was not intentional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, however, an inadvertent selective disclosure of material 
information occurs, the issuer must take prompt ``corrective'' action 
when it knows (or is reckless in not knowing) that the disclosure of 
material information has occurred. The requirement to take corrective 
action arises when a senior official of the issuer (as defined above) 
becomes aware of the selective disclosure.\47\ When that occurs, the 
issuer is required to act ``as soon as reasonably practicable'' to make 
full public disclosure of the information that has been selectively 
disclosed.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ For example, a senior official may become aware of his 
mistake when he sees a significant change in the market price and/or 
trading volume of his company's securities. Alternatively, a senior 
official might learn that a lower-level employee mistakenly 
disclosed material information, because an analyst or investor who 
received the information called the officer to confirm the 
information.
    \48\ Proposed Rule 101(d)(1) states that the required public 
disclosure must be made no later than 24 hours after the issuer or a 
senior official of the issuer knows (or is reckless in not knowing) 
of the selective disclosure. The 24-hour period takes into account 
the issuer's potential difficulty in making the disclosure any 
sooner because of the need to marshal all the information necessary, 
and reach the appropriate personnel. In other cased, however, the 
issuer may well be able to make public disclosure before the maximum 
allowable 24-hour disclosure period. In such cases, the requirement 
to disclose ``as soon as reasonably practicable'' means that the 
issuer should act sooner than 24 hours later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the distinction between ``intentional'' and 
``non-intentional'' disclosures for purposes of the timing of public 
disclosure. Does the proposed definition of ``intentional'' disclosure 
draw the appropriate distinction? Does the definition of ``promptly'' 
provide an appropriate time period for the required public disclosure? 
Should the time period be shorter (e.g., same trading day); or longer 
(e.g., next business/trading day or 48 hours later)? Is the definition 
of senior official appropriate, or should it be narrower (e.g., 
executive officers only) or broader (e.g., all employees)?
5. Definition of ``Public Disclosure''
    Rule 101(e) defines the type of ``public disclosure'' that will 
satisfy the requirements of the Regulation. This definition provides 
issuers with considerable flexibility in determining how to make the 
required public disclosure.
    In general, the Rule states that issuers can comply with the 
``public disclosure'' requirement by filing a Form 8-K with the 
Commission containing the information (or, in the case of foreign 
private issuers, by filing a Form 6-K).\49\ We are proposing to add a 
new Item 10 to Form 8-K for disclosures made under Regulation FD. 
Should we permit issuers to make Regulation FD disclosures on existing 
Item 5 of Form 8-K as an alternative to proposed new Item 10? Item 5 is 
not confined to material disclosures; accordingly, if a registrant used 
Item 5 it would not acknowledge that the information disclosed was 
necessarily material. Is this a preferable approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Proposed Rule 101(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As alternatives to making a Commission filing, the Rule permits an 
issuer to choose other methods of public disclosure. Under Rule 
101(e)(2), an issuer will be exempt from the filing requirement if it 
uses one of the following alternative methods of public disclosure:
     First, an issuer could make public disclosure by 
disseminating a press release containing the information through a 
widely circulated news or wire service. Under current practice and SRO 
rules, corporate issuers typically provide press releases to services 
such as Dow Jones, Bloomberg, Business Wire, PR Newswire, or Reuters. 
Any of these services would continue to be a satisfactory means of 
making public disclosure.
     Second, an issuer could make public disclosure by 
disseminating information through any other method of disclosure that 
is reasonably designed to provide broad public access, and does not 
exclude access to members of the public--such as announcement at a 
press conference to which the public is granted access (for example, by 
personal attendance or by telephonic or electronic transmission). In 
order to afford broad public access, an issuer must provide notice of 
the disclosure in a form that is reasonably available to investors.
    As noted above, current technology provides various means that 
issuers can use to transmit announcements and press conferences to the 
public. The Rule would not require use of any particular technological 
means, but would give issuers their choice of any method that did not 
limit public access to announcements and conferences.
    An additional method for issuer dissemination of material 
information is posting the information on the issuer's website.\50\ We 
encourage issuers who maintain websites to post information

[[Page 72597]]

on their websites whenever they make public disclosure through one of 
the means described above. However, the proposed Rule would not 
consider a website posting by itself to be a sufficient means of public 
disclosure.\51\ Will this limitation make issuers less willing to post 
information on their websites?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See NIRI Corporate Disclosure Study, supra note 11, at 9, 
21 (finding that 82% of responding issuers used their websites to 
post disclosures of quarterly finanical results).
    \51\ Despite the rapid expansion of Internet access, a 
significant number of households do not have access. Moreover, 
simply putting information on a website does not alert investors 
that it is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the proposal's approach for making public 
disclosure. We acknowledge that filings on EDGAR may only be made 
during specified hours, and only on business days of the Commission. In 
the case of filings permitted to be made in paper (as in the case of 
foreign private issuers), there are similar constraints because of our 
filing desk hours. Therefore, when an issuer is required to make public 
disclosure within 24 hours, the timing of a weekend or holiday may mean 
that EDGAR filing is not an available method of public disclosure. 
Issuers would therefore have to use one of the other methods. We 
solicit comment on whether this approach is workable, or whether we 
should alter the timing requirements of the Rule so that filing is 
always an available method. How else can we promote issuer flexibility 
and investor access?
    We are also considering whether to require a delayed filing of a 
Form 8-K (within two business days) when an issuer chooses one of the 
other methods of making public disclosure. This would ensure that the 
information is part of the Commission's public files. Should we adopt 
this alternative approach? If so, is two business days the appropriate 
time period, or should it be shorter (e.g., one business day) or longer 
(e.g., five business days)?
    Are the current technologies that we discuss available to all 
issuers? Are they prohibitively costly? Would they provide all 
investors with sufficient access? Are there other methods of public 
disclosure that might be as effective as a press release or an open 
press conference? Should these methods be specified in the Rule? Would 
an open press conference alone provide adequate dissemination of 
information in all circumstances (e.g., for smaller companies with less 
media or analyst coverage)? Should we require that information be 
posted on an issuer's website, if it has one, in addition to the other 
methods of publicizing the information?
6. Issuers Covered by the Regulation
    Regulation FD would apply to all issuers with securities registered 
under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, and all issuers required to file 
reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, including closed-end 
investment companies but not including other investment companies. Are 
there any categories of issuers that should not be included? Should we 
have different and/or modified rules for small business issuers? If so, 
what modifications are warranted?
    We are proposing to apply Regulation FD to foreign private issuers 
that are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, 
although these foreign issuers would be permitted to make filings under 
the Regulation on Form 6-K rather than Form 8-K.\52\ The vast majority 
of these issuers have subjected themselves to such reporting 
requirements by their election to access U.S. markets. Most of the 
issuers have a class of securities listed on the New York or American 
Stock Exchanges, or are admitted to trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. 
The listing standards of these markets make no distinction between 
domestic and foreign issuers in requiring timely disclosure of material 
information.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As is the case currently, Form 6-K used to mkae Regulation 
FD disclosure would not be deemed to be ``filed'' for purposes of 
Section 18 of the Exchange Act or subject to liability under that 
section.
    \53\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The content and timing of submissions on Form 6-K currently are 
based on a foreign private issuer's disclosure obligations and 
practices in its home jurisdiction and in any other jurisdiction where 
its securities are listed. We recognize that this Rule proposes for the 
first time to add a substantive disclosure requirement to Form 6-K, 
thereby changing the fundamental character of the form. We understand 
that some foreign issuers may view Regulation FD as requiring a change 
in what they consider to be normal communications with major 
shareholders, analysts, the press, labor unions, and other 
constituencies. In many cases, the disclosure requirements of 
Regulation FD also will impose a translation requirement on the 
information disclosed to the public and/or filed on Form 6-K. On the 
other hand, the benefits of the proposal to shareholders in all 
markets, not just the U.S. capital markets, may warrant the additional 
steps required of foreign issuers.
    Regulation FD permits issuers to use other means for publicly 
disseminating non-intentional selective disclosures as alternatives to 
Forms 8-K or 6-K. Under current Form 6-K requirements, however, foreign 
private issuers are required to submit a Form 6-K containing any 
material information that is disseminated publicly, promptly after the 
dissemination. As proposed, foreign private issuers would not have to 
file a Form 6-K if they use one of the alternative means of disclosure 
permitted by Regulation FD.
    We note that Forms 6-K are not currently required to be filed on 
EDGAR, which may impede investor access to information. Does this 
limitation make the requirement to file on Form 6-K less useful? If so, 
how should we address this issue?
    We request comment on the proposed coverage of Regulation FD. Would 
it be appropriate to exempt all foreign private issuers from compliance 
with Regulation FD? If so, what would be the basis for this exemption 
and how would we address the impact on U.S. investors of having 
different requirements for selective disclosures by U.S. issuers and 
foreign private issuers? Would it be more appropriate to limit the 
application of Regulation FD to only certain foreign private issuers, 
such as those issuers with equity securities listed on a registered 
national securities exchange or the Nasdaq Stock Market National Market 
System, or foreign private issuers whose number of U.S. shareholders or 
volume of trading in our capital markets exceeds certain levels? If so, 
what levels should trigger the application of Regulation FD? Are there 
other ways the proposal could be modified to reduce the burden on 
foreign private issuers? Should foreign and domestic issuers be treated 
similarly with respect to the application of Section 18 to Regulation 
FD disclosure?
    We are proposing to apply Regulation FD to closed-end investment 
companies, but not other types of investment companies. Investment 
companies that are continually offering their securities to the public 
already are required to update their prospectuses to disclose material 
changes subsequent to the effective date of the registration statement 
or any post-effective amendment, and are not permitted to sell, redeem, 
or repurchase their securities except at a price based on their 
securities' net asset value. While we believe that Regulation FD would 
offer little additional protection to investors in these types of 
investment companies and therefore they should be excluded from its 
coverage, these considerations do not apply in the case of closed-end 
investment companies.

[[Page 72598]]

We are thus proposing to include closed-end investment companies within 
the requirements of Regulation FD.
    At present, no form used by registered closed-end investment 
companies is equivalent to Form 8-K. In order to provide closed-end 
investment companies with the same disclosure options under Regulation 
FD available to operating companies, we propose to permit registered 
closed-end investment companies to file on Form 8-K for the sole 
purpose of making the public disclosure required by Regulation FD. The 
Commission does not intend by this rule proposal to otherwise require 
registered investment companies to file on Form 8-K.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Business development companies (``BDCs''), a category of 
closed-end investment companies not required to register under the 
Investment Company Act, are already required to file reports on Form 
8-K. Under this proposal, BDCs would continue to be subject to Form 
8-K filing obligations, including those imposed by Regulation FD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on whether any investment companies should be 
covered by Regulation FD, and if so, which types of investment 
companies should be covered. Commenters should address whether there 
are specific types of information relating to investment companies that 
could be the subject of problematic selective disclosure (e.g., the 
impending departure of a portfolio manager who is primarily responsible 
for day-to-day management of the fund, or information relating to the 
fund's portfolio investments). We also request comment on whether it is 
appropriate for closed-end investment companies to file on Form 8-K for 
purposes of making disclosure under Regulation FD, and whether there 
should be a separate Item 11 for closed-end investment companies making 
disclosure on Form 8-K, so that members of the public can easily 
distinguish filings by closed-end investment companies from those of 
operating companies. Commenters that oppose the use of Form 8-K by 
closed-end investment companies should discuss other methods for 
obtaining equivalent disclosure from those companies.
7. Liability Issues and Securities Act Implications
    Regulation FD is an issuer disclosure rule that is designed to 
create duties only under Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act 
and Section 30 of the Investment Company Act. It is not an antifraud 
rule, and unlike other Section 13(a) and 15(d) reporting requirements, 
it is not intended to create duties under Section 10(b) of the Exchange 
Act or any other provision of the federal securities laws. As a result, 
no private liability will arise from an issuer's failure to file or 
make public disclosure.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Courts have held that there is no implied private right of 
action under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. Lamb v. Phillip 
Morris, Inc., 915 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 
1086 (1991); J.S. Service Center Corp. v. General Electric Technical 
Services Co., 937 F. Supp. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an issuer fails to comply with Regulation FD, however, it will 
be subject to an SEC enforcement action.\56\ We could bring an 
administrative action seeking a cease and desist order, or a civil 
action seeking an injunction and/or civil money penalties.\57\ In 
appropriate cases, we could also bring an enforcement action against 
the individual(s) at the issuer responsible for the violation, either 
as ``a cause of'' the violation in a cease and desist proceeding,\58\ 
or as an aider and abetter of the violation in an injunctive 
action.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ In addition, eligibility to file on a number of ``short-
form'' Securities Act registration statements requires, in part, 
that the registrant be timely in filing its Exchange Act reports. 
The obligation to be timely in these filings includes the filing of 
a required Form 8-K. As such, any required Form 8-K filing under 
proposed Item 10 would have to be made in a timely manner for the 
registrant to be eligible to file such a short-form registration 
statement. If, under today's proposals, the registrant would not be 
required to file under Item 10 of Form 8-K because it uses an 
alternative means of public dissemination, the failure to file an 
Item 10 Form 8-K would not affect that registrant's form 
eligibility.
    \57\ Regulation FD does not expressly require insurers to adopt 
policies and procedures to avoid violations, but we expect that most 
issuers will consider implementing appropriate disclosure policies 
to guard against selective disclosure. We are aware that many, if 
not most, issuers already have policies and procedures regarding 
disclosure practices, the dissemination of material information, and 
the question of which issuer personnel are authorized to speak to 
analysts, the media, or investors. The existence of this type of 
policy, and the issuer's general adherence to it, may often be 
relevant to determining the issuer's intent with regard to a 
selective disclosure.
    \58\ Section 21C of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78u-3.
    \59\ Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78t(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Regulation FD does not affect or undermine any 
existing bases of liability under Rule 10b-5. Thus, for example, 
liability for ``tipping'' under Rule 10b-5 may still exist if a 
selective disclosure is made in circumstances that meet the Dirks 
``personal benefit'' test.\60\ In addition, an issuer's failure to make 
a public disclosure still may give rise to liability under a ``duty to 
correct'' or ``duty to update'' theory in certain circumstances.\61\ 
And in other cases, an issuer's contacts with analysts may lead to 
liability under the ``entanglement'' or ``adoption'' theories.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See SEC v. Phillip J. Stevens, supra note 17.
    \61\ See generally Backman v. Polaroid Corp., 910 F.2d 10 (1st 
Cir. 1990); In re Phillips Petroleum Sec. Litig. 881 F.2d 1236 (3rd 
Cir. 1989).
    \62\ See, e.g., Elkind v. Ligget & Myers, Inc., 635 F.2d 156 (2d 
Cir. 1980); In the Matter of Presstek, Inc. Exchange Act Release No. 
39472 (Dec. 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, if an issuer's filing or public disclosure made under 
Regulation FD contained false or misleading information, or omitted 
material information, the issuer could incur liability for those 
misstatements or omissions. Rule 10b-5 would apply to any materially 
false or misleading statements made to the public, and if an issuer had 
filed a Form 8-K containing false or misleading information, Section 18 
of the Exchange Act \63\ would apply as well. If a Form 8-K filed under 
Regulation FD was required to be incorporated into an issuer's 
registration statement, it would be subject to liability under Section 
11 of the Securities Act.\64\ If the public disclosure is not filed on 
a Form 8-K, it may nevertheless be subject to Section 11 liability if 
the information is otherwise required to be included in a registration 
statement subject to Section 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78r.
    \64\ 15 U.S.C. 77k. This proposal is not intended to change 
existing liability for forms incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Regulation FD applies only to issuers that have 
securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or that are 
required to file reports under Section 15(d) of that Act. Accordingly, 
the Regulation would not apply during an issuer's initial public 
offering (IPO) of its securities prior to effectiveness of the 
registration statement.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ After the registration statement for the IPO becomes 
effective, however, and the issuer becomes subject to Section 15(d) 
of the Exchange Act, it would be subject to Regulation FD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Regulation would, however, apply to disclosures made 
by reporting issuers while they have pending registration statements 
for securities offerings. For example, the Regulation would apply to 
statements made in a ``roadshow'' for a reporting issuer's offering. In 
that situation, if an issuer made oral selective disclosure of material 
information, Regulation FD would require the issuer also to make public 
disclosure of the same information. This would be a departure from 
current distinctions in the Securities Act between oral and written 
communications around the time of an offering.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Our staff is currently engaged in a more comprehensive 
review of the regulatory issues raised by ``roadshows.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The required public disclosure could also be considered an 
``offer'' of the securities for purposes of Section 5 of

[[Page 72599]]

that Act,\67\ and when made by writing or broadcast could be considered 
a ``prospectus'' for purposes of section 2(a)(10) of the Act.\68\ This 
creates the possibility that an issuer may violate sections 5(c) or 
5(b)(1) of the Securities Act by making the public disclosures required 
by Regulation FD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 77e.
    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To permit an issuer that has already filed a registration statement 
to make the required public disclosure without violating section 
5(b)(1) of the Securities Act, we are proposing new Rule 181 under the 
Securities Act. Under this Rule, any public disclosure required by Rule 
100(a) of Regulation FD would not be required to satisfy the 
requirements of section 10 of the Securities Act \69\ for a prospectus, 
as long as the disclosure was made in compliance with Regulation FD. We 
request comment on whether this Rule should apply only to non-
intentional disclosures. Should we place other conditions on the use of 
this Rule--for example, requiring the material information to be 
included in the registration statement at the time it is declared 
effective?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 77j.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more difficult situation arises when a reporting company is 
planning an offering, but has not yet filed a registration statement. A 
company may find itself in the position of being required by Regulation 
FD to disclose to the public information which could constitute an 
``offer'' of its securities prior to the filing of a registration 
statement, contrary to section 5(c). While companies are not supposed 
to make offers to anyone prior to filing a registration statement, an 
inadvertent disclosure of material nonpublic information to one person 
could result in an obligation to disclose information to the public, 
thus resulting in offers being made to many persons. If the company 
complies with the Regulation FD requirement in that situation, its 
disclosure would violate section 5(c), and subject it to liability 
under section 12(a)(1) if it proceeds with its offering. The public 
disclosure also could constitute a general solicitation and therefore 
preclude the company from undertaking a private exempt offering.
    If the Commission were to adopt an exemption from section 5(c) for 
Regulation FD-required disclosure, however, companies could abuse that 
exemption to make public communications that hype an offering before 
filing a registration statement with the Commission. In that event, the 
balanced full disclosure, against which to test the hyping information, 
would not be available. The protections of section 5 could thus be 
eroded. While we have published proposals that, if adopted, would allow 
offers to be made prior to the filing of a registration statement in 
some offerings, those proposals did not extend to offerings by 
unseasoned companies to less sophisticated investors.\70\ We proposed 
to retain the pre-filing prohibition on offers in those cases because 
of the continued need for this aspect of investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The Regulation of Securities Offerings, Securities Act 
Release No. 7606A (Nov. 13, 1998) (63 FR 67174). As discussed below, 
we also have adopted rules that allow offers in the business 
combination context to be made before filing a registration 
statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on whether we should also adopt an exemption 
from liability under section 5(c) of the Securities Act for 
communications made before the filing of a registration statement. If 
we do so, should the exemption apply only to non-intentional 
disclosures? Do the same reasons for providing a section 5(b)(1) 
exemption also apply to section 5(c), either for all issuers, or for 
offerings made by very large issuers or to more sophisticated 
investors? Or could a section 5(c) exemption provide issuers with such 
freedom to make public disclosures prior to filing a registration 
statement that issuers could engage in the hyping of an offering that 
Section 5(c) is designed to prevent?
    With respect to the interplay between Regulation FD and the 
Securities Act, we request comment on the proposed approach described 
above. Should the Regulation also apply to issuers engaged in IPOs? 
Alternatively, given the liability questions under the Securities Act 
for these disclosures and the pending proposals in the Securities Act 
Reform release, should the Regulation not cover communications made as 
part of securities offerings under the Securities Act?
    In our recent release on business combinations,\71\ we adopted non-
exclusive exemptions under the Securities Act, proxy rules, and tender 
offer rules that permit communications with respect to business 
combinations \72\ for an unrestricted length of time without a cooling-
off period between the end of communications and the filing of 
definitive disclosure documents. Those communication exemptions apply 
regardless of materiality, so long as the conditions to the exemption 
are satisfied. All written communications must be filed on the date of 
first use. Those communications must contain a prominent legend 
advising investors to read the registration, proxy, or tender offer 
statement, as applicable, when it becomes available. Under those rules, 
oral statements are not required to be reduced to writing and filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Regulation of Takeovers and Security Holder Communications, 
Securities Act Release No. 7760 (Oct. 22, 1999) (64 FR 61408) 
(effective date Jan. 24, 2000).
    \72\ The proxy rule amendments are not limited to communications 
concerning business combinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Regulation FD would impose requirements on material 
communications, written and oral, that are in addition to the filing 
and legend requirements of the new business combination rules. Any 
material information disclosed to the public, whether oral or written, 
would be required to be publicly disseminated by filing, press 
conference, news release, or otherwise.\73\ Issuers may use 
confidentiality agreements to protect communications in the context of 
business combinations or other transactions which the issuers expressly 
mean to reserve from public disclosure. Early discussions among parties 
negotiating a transaction that are subject to confidentiality 
agreements among the parties and are kept confidential generally would 
not be subject to disclosure requirements of Regulation FD or the 
communications exemptions. Similarly, discussions between a party to a 
transaction and a security holder regarding a possible ``lock-up'' or 
other agreement generally would not be subject to these requirements so 
long as a confidentiality agreement is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Written information must be disseminated by filing in order 
to satisfy the communication exemptions. A news release or other 
means of dissemination would not meet the requirements of the 
business combination rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current practice, parties negotiating a transaction do not 
always enter a confidentiality agreement, so Regulation FD may effect a 
change to current practice. Does this provide a practicable solution 
for parties seeking to negotiate transactions or to discuss ``lock-
ups''?

III. Insider Trading Issues

    The prohibitions against insider trading in our securities laws 
play an essential role in maintaining the fairness, health, and 
integrity of our markets. We have long recognized that the fundamental 
unfairness of insider trading harms not only individual investors, but 
also the very foundations of our markets, by undermining investor 
confidence in the integrity of the markets. Congress, by enacting two 
separate laws providing enhanced

[[Page 72600]]

penalties for insider trading,\74\ has expressed its strong support for 
our insider trading enforcement program. And the Supreme Court in 
United States v. O'Hagan has recently endorsed a key component of 
insider trading law, the ``misappropriation'' theory, as consistent 
with ``an animating purpose'' of the federal securities laws: ``to 
insure honest securities markets and thereby promote investor 
confidence.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-376, 
98 Stat. 1264; Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act 
of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-704, 102 Stat. 4677.
    \75\ O'Hagan, 521 U.S. at 658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither we nor Congress have expressly defined insider trading in a 
statute or rule. Instead, insider trading law has developed on a case-
by-case basis under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities 
laws, primarily Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. As a 
result, from time to time there have been issues on which various 
courts have disagreed. With the Supreme Court's O'Hagan decision, the 
fundamental issues in insider trading law are now settled. Today's 
proposals address two issues on which disagreement remains.

A. Rule 10b5-1: Trading ``On the Basis of'' Material Nonpublic 
Information

1. Background
    One unsettled issue in insider trading has been what, if any, 
causal connection must be shown between the trader's possession of 
inside information and his or her trading. In enforcement cases, we 
have argued that a trader may be liable for trading while in ``knowing 
possession'' of the information. The contrary view is that a trader 
will not be liable unless it is shown that he or she ``used'' the 
information for trading.
    Until recent years, there has been little case law discussing this 
issue. Although the Supreme Court has variously described an insider's 
violations as involving trading ``on'' \76\ or ``on the basis of'' \77\ 
material nonpublic information, it has not addressed the use/possession 
issue. Three recent court of appeals cases address the issue, but have 
reached different results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Dirks, 463 U.S. at 654.
    \77\ See O'Hagan, 521 U.S. at 651-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three court of appeals cases recognize the practical difficulty 
of divorcing a trader's knowing possession, or awareness, of inside 
information from its ``use'' in a trade. In United States v. 
Teicher,\78\ the Second Circuit suggested that ``knowing possession'' 
is sufficient to trigger insider trading liability, for precisely this 
reason.\79\ In SEC v. Adler, the Eleventh Circuit held that ``use'' was 
the ultimate issue, but that proof of ``possession'' provides a 
``strong inference'' of ``use'' that suffices to make out a prima facie 
case.\80\ In United States v. Smith, the Ninth Circuit required that 
``use'' be proven in a criminal case.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 987 F.2d 112 (2d Cir), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976 (1993).
    \79\ Teicher was a criminal case premised on the 
misappropriation theory of insider trading. The court reasoned, in 
dicta, that the simplicity of a ``knowing possession'' standard 
recognizes the informational advantage that a trader with inside 
information has over other traders. ``Unlike a loaded weapon which 
may stand ready but unused, material information can not lay idle in 
the human brain.'' Id. at 120.
    \80\ 137 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1998). Adler was a civil action 
under ``classical'' insider trading theory. The court stated that 
trading while ``in possession of'' the material nonpublic 
information gives rise to a ``strong inference'' that the defendant 
``used'' the information in trading, thereby allowing the Commission 
to establish a prima facie case based on possession of the 
information. The court reasoned that this inference addresses the 
Commission's proof difficulties by allowing the Commission to make 
out a prima facie case without establishing direct proof of a causal 
connection between possession of the information and its use. Id. at 
1337-38. The defendant, however, has the opportunity to rebut this 
inference by introducing evidence to establish that the information 
was not used in making the trade. It is left to the fact finder to 
weigh the evidence to determine whether the information was used. 
Id. at 1337.
    \81\ 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 804 
(1999). Smith was a criminal case under ``classical'' insider 
trading theory. The court expressed no view on whether the Adler 
presumption could be permitted in a civil enforcement case. Id. at 
1069 & n.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Adler court suggested that we could adopt a new rule or amend 
existing Rule 10b-5 to adopt a presumption approach or to provide for 
liability for trading while in ``knowing possession'' of material 
nonpublic information.\82\ In view of the differing opinions expressed 
in the three cases discussed above, we agree that it would be useful to 
define the scope of Rule 10b-5, as it applies to the use/possession 
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ ``We note that if experience shows that this approach 
unduly frustrates the SEC's enforcement efforts, the SEC could 
promulgate a rule adopting the knowing possession standard, as the 
SEC has done in the context of tender offers * * * or a rule 
adopting a presumption approach in which proof that an insider 
traded while in possession of material nonpublic information would 
shift the burden of persuasion on the use issue to the insider.'' 
Adler, 137 F.3d at 1337 n.33 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our view, the goals of insider trading prohibitions--protecting 
investors and the integrity of securities markets--are best 
accomplished by a standard closer to the ``knowing possession'' 
standard. Whenever a person purchases or sells a security while aware 
of material nonpublic information that has been improperly obtained, 
that person has the type of unfair informational advantage over other 
participants in the market that insider trading law is designed to 
prevent.\83\ As a practical matter, in most situations it is highly 
doubtful that a person who knows inside information relevant to the 
value of a security can completely disregard that knowledge when making 
the decision to purchase or sell that security. In the words of the 
Second Circuit, ``material information can not lay idle in the human 
brain.'' \84\ Indeed, even if the trader could put forth purported 
reasons for trading other than awareness of the inside information, 
other traders in the market place would clearly perceive him or her to 
possess an unfair advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Under the classical theory, there is an additional argument 
why trading in ``possession'' of inside information is fraudulent. A 
``classical'' insider has a fiduciary duty to the corporation's 
shareholders. The insider violates this duty, and thereby commits 
fraud, if he or she trades in the company's securities while in 
possession of inside information without disclosing the information 
to the other party. The insider violates this duty regardless of 
whether he or she ``uses'' the insider information. See Brief of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission at 22-24, SEC v. Soroosh (9th 
Cir. 1998) (No. 98-35006); Brief of the Securities and Exchange 
Commission at 18, SEC v. Adler (11th Cir. 1997) (No. 96-6084).
    \84\ Teicher, 987 F.2d at 120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, we recognize that an absolute standard based on 
knowing possession, or awareness, could be overbroad in some respects. 
Sometimes a person may reach a decision to make a particular trade 
without any awareness of material nonpublic information, but then come 
into possession of such information before the trade actually takes 
place. A rigid ``knowing possession'' standard would lead to liability 
in that case. We believe, however, that for many cases of this type, a 
reasonable standard would not make such trading automatically illegal.
    The Adler case attempted to balance these considerations by means 
of a ``use'' test with a strong inference of use from ``possession.'' 
We propose a somewhat different approach today: A general rule based on 
``awareness'' of the material nonpublic information, with several 
carefully enumerated exceptions. We believe our proposed Rule would 
lead to the same outcome as Adler in almost all insider trading cases, 
but will provide greater clarity and certainty than a presumption or 
``strong inference'' approach. Our proposed approach will better enable 
insiders and issuers to conduct themselves in accordance with the law.
2. Proposed Rule 10b5-1
    Proposed Rule 10b5-1 is designed to address only the use/possession 
issue in insider trading cases under Rule 10b-5.

[[Page 72601]]

As the Preliminary Note states, the Rule does not modify or address any 
other aspect of insider trading law, which has been established by case 
law under Rule 10b-5.
    Paragraph (a) sets forth the general prohibition of insider trading 
contained in existing case law. Under existing law, it is illegal to 
trade a security ``on the basis of material nonpublic information about 
that security or issuer, in breach of a duty of trust or confidence 
that is owed directly, indirectly, or derivatively, to the issuer of 
that security or the shareholders of that issuer, or to any other 
person who is the source of the material nonpublic information.'' \85\ 
This language incorporates all theories of insider trading liability 
under the case law--classical insider trading, temporary insider 
theory, tippee liability, and trading by someone who misappropriated 
the inside information.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Proposed Rule 10b5-1(a).
    \86\ See United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997); Dirks v. 
SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983); Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222 
(1980). In O'Hagan, the Supreme Court recognized that under the 
misappropriation theory of insider trading liability, the fraud is 
consummated when the defendant, without proper disclosure to the 
source, ``uses the information to purchase or sell securities.'' 
Proposed Rule 10b5-1 is consistent with this view in that it 
provides for no liability when a trader can meet one of the stated 
defenses in paragraph (c) demonstrating lack of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b) defines trading ``on the basis of'' material 
nonpublic information. A trade is on the basis of material nonpublic 
information if the trader ``was aware of'' the information when he or 
she made the purchase or sale. Thus, the general rule is that 
``awareness'' of the inside information inevitably leads to use of the 
information, and provides a sufficient basis for liability.
    Paragraph (c) provides specific affirmative defenses against 
liability. A purchase or sale is not ``on the basis of'' information 
when a person can establish that one of four exclusive situations is 
true. These four defenses cover situations in which a person can show 
that the information he or she possessed was not a factor in the 
trading decision.
    First, an affirmative defense is available if, before becoming 
aware of material nonpublic information, a person had entered into ``a 
binding contract'' to trade ``in the amount'' and ``at the price'' and 
on the date at which he or she ultimately traded.\87\ This defense 
permits persons to carry out pre-existing contracts to purchase or sell 
a specified number (or dollar amount) of shares of a particular 
security at a specified price (or at the market price), as long as the 
person was not aware of material nonpublic information when he or she 
entered into the contract.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Proposed para. (c)(1)(i)(A).
    \88\ Proposed para. (c)(1)(iii) defines the terms ``[i]n the 
amount(s)'' and ``[a]t the price(s)'' for purposes of all of 
paragraph (c)(1)(i)'s affirmative defenses. These definitions are 
designed to ensure that a contract, plan, or instruction is 
sufficiently defined to foreclose the use of any inside information 
of which the person later becomes aware. A trade specified ``in an 
amount'' must specify either the number of securities to be traded 
or the total monetary proceeds to be realized from or spent on the 
securities to be traded. Thus, a person could plan a sale of, for 
example, either 1,000 shares or $10,000 worth of stock; however, the 
person could not plan a trade within a range--for example, a sale of 
between 1,000 and 2,000 shares. The term ``at the price(s)'' 
includes a purchase or sale at the market price for a particular 
date. Therefore, persons would not be required to commit to trading 
at a particular price, but could merely contract, plan, or provide 
instructions to trade at the market price on the date of the trade.
    Under the Rule, a defense would not be available for a contract, 
plan, or instruction to trade that used a limit order. By using a 
limit order, the person would not firmly be committing to make a 
trade, because if the market price at the relevant date exceeded the 
limit order price, the trade would not be made. We request comment 
on whether this restriction on the use of limit orders is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, an affirmative defense is similarly available if, before 
becoming aware of material nonpublic information, a person ``had 
provided instructions to another person to execute'' a trade for the 
instructing person's account, ``in the amount, at the price, and on the 
date'' at which that trade was ultimately executed.\89\ This defense 
would apply, for example, to an insider who instructs his or her broker 
to execute a plan to sell stock in accordance with Rule 144 at the 
expiration of a required holding period. If the insider provides the 
instructions without awareness of any material nonpublic information, 
the Rule would permit him or her to complete the previously instructed 
sales plan even if he or she later became aware of inside information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Proposed para. (c)(1)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Rule provides an affirmative defense if, before becoming 
aware of material nonpublic information, a person ``[h]ad adopted, and 
had previously adhered to, a written plan specifying purchases or sales 
of the security in the amounts, and at the prices, and on the dates at 
which the person purchased or sold the security.'' \90\ This provision 
is designed to apply in the case of an insider who wishes to establish 
a regular, pre-established program of buying or selling his or her 
company's securities. If the plan is established before the insider is 
aware of material nonpublic information, and provides for specified 
trades at specified times, the insider will be permitted to engage in 
those trades even if he or she later becomes aware of material 
nonpublic information. As discussed below, plans of this type must be 
entered into in good faith, and not as part of a plan or scheme to 
evade insider trading prohibitions.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Proposed para. (c)(1)(i)(C).
    \91\ This exception does not cover trading for a person's 
account through a ``blind trust.'' We have not included any express 
defenses for blind trust trading, because we do not believe this 
trading creates difficulties under existing insider trading law. 
When a person places securities in a blind trust, by definition he 
or she does not make the decisions to purchase or sell securities in 
that account. Therefore, those trading decisions (which are made by 
the trustee of the blind trust) should not be attributed to the 
person for purposes of potential insider trading liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Rule provides an affirmative defense for purchases or 
sales that result from a written plan for trading securities that is 
designed to track or correspond to a market index, market segment, or 
group of securities.\92\ This defense would permit trading by an index 
fund, for example, where the fund's trading strategy was pre-
established by the fund or its manager, even if the manager later 
became aware of material nonpublic information regarding one of the 
securities in the index. The defense would be available if the plan was 
sufficiently circumscribed to prevent trading decisions from being 
affected by the manager's later awareness of material nonpublic 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Proposed para. (c)(1)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule provides one important limitation on the availability of 
all of the affirmative defenses. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) states that a 
defense would be available only if a contract, plan, or instruction to 
trade relied on for a defense was entered into in good faith, and not 
as part of a plan or scheme to evade the prohibitions of this Rule. If 
a person changes a previous contract, plan, or instruction in any 
respect after becoming aware of material nonpublic information, he or 
she will lose any defense against liability. Thus, for example, if an 
insider enters into a contract or plan to sell 1,000 shares of his or 
her company's stock without being aware of material nonpublic 
information, then learns negative material nonpublic information and 
doubles his or her planned sale to 2,000 shares, he or she will lose 
the defense for the entire sale of 2,000 shares. Similarly, if the 
insider accelerates the timing of a planned sale in order to complete 
it before the release of negative corporate news that he or she has 
recently learned, he or she will have no defense for the transaction.

[[Page 72602]]

    Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) also specifies that a person will lose any 
defense for a trade if he or she enters into or alters a 
``corresponding or hedging transaction or position'' with respect to 
the planned securities trade. This requirement is designed to prevent 
persons from devising schemes to exploit inside information by setting 
up pre-existing hedged trading programs, and then canceling execution 
of the unfavorable side of the hedge, while permitting execution of the 
favorable transaction. By altering the corresponding position, the 
insider would lose any defense for the transaction that he or she 
permitted to be executed.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ As a general matter, the Rule requires that any written 
plan specifying trading at a particular time must be made in good 
faith. Similarly, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) requires that a person have 
``previously adhered to'' the written plan, as a means of 
demonstrating its bona fides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule provides an additional, separate affirmative defense 
designed solely for entities that trade.\94\ This defense is derived 
from the defense against liability currently provided in Exchange Act 
Rule 14e-3(b) \95\ regarding insider trading in a tender offer 
situation. To meet this defense, an entity must demonstrate two things: 
first, that the individual(s) making the decision on behalf of the 
entity was not aware of the inside information; and second, that the 
entity had implemented reasonable policies and procedures (e.g., 
informational barriers, restricted lists) to prevent insider trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Proposed para. (c)(2).
    \95\ 17 CFR 240.14e-3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Request for Comments
    We request comments on all aspects of proposed Rule 10b5-1. Is the 
approach we propose--a general standard of ``awareness'' of the 
information, with specific affirmative defenses--the appropriate one? 
Are the proposed affirmative defenses appropriate? Should we provide 
additional defenses to liability, and if so, what should they be? Are 
the provisions defining the ``amount'' and ``price'' of pre-planned 
trades specific enough to permit plans to be made? Should we require 
written plans or instructions in all cases? Should we require that 
contracts, instructions, or trading plans be approved by counsel?
    We also request comment on whether the defense for institutional 
traders is appropriate and adequate. Has this provision worked 
effectively for entities subject to Rule 14e-3? Is there any reason the 
same type of provision would not be adequate for this Rule?

B. Rule 10b5-2: Duties of Trust or Confidence in Misappropriation 
Insider Trading Cases

1. Background
    In United States v. O'Hagan, the Supreme Court upheld the 
misappropriation theory of insider trading.\96\ Under that theory, a 
person commits fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act 
and Rule 10b-5 by misappropriating material nonpublic information for 
securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty of loyalty and 
confidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 521 U.S. 642 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain types of business relationships by themselves provide the 
duty of trust or confidence necessary in a misappropriation theory 
case. In O'Hagan, for example, the attorney-client relationship 
established the duty of confidence. In other cases, the agency 
relationship inherent in an employer-employee relationship provides the 
duty.\97\ It is not as settled, however, under what circumstances 
certain non-business relationships, such as family and personal 
relationships, may provide the duty of trust or confidence required 
under the misappropriation theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See e.g., United States v. Carpenter, 791 F.2d 1024, 1028 
(2d Cir. 1986), aff'd, 484 U.S. 19 (1987); SEC v. Materia, 745 F.2d 
197, 203 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1053 (1985); United 
States v. Newman, 664 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1981), aff'd after 
remand, 722 F.2d 729, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two courts have considered this issue in criminal cases: United 
States v. Chestman \98\ and United States v. Reed. \99\ Although 
Chestman and Reed took into account common law notions of fiduciary and 
confidential relationships, they both took a relatively narrow view of 
when a duty of confidence exists in the context of criminal liability 
for insider trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 947 F.2d 551 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1004 
(1992).
    \99\ 601 F. Supp. 685 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd on other grounds, 773 
F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Reed, the court did not find a father-son relationship 
sufficient in itself to provide the required duty of confidence. But it 
stated that if family members have a prior history of sharing 
confidences, such that one family member has a reasonable expectation 
that the other will keep those confidences, there may be a sufficient 
relationship of trust and confidence. The final determination is left 
to the fact finder.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Reed, 601 F. Supp. at 717-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Chestman, a narrow majority of the Second Circuit en banc, while 
not overruling Reed, took a more restrictive view.\101\ The Chestman 
majority held that marriage alone does not suffice to create a 
fiduciary relationship.\102\ It stated that in the absence of an 
``express agreement of confidentiality,'' or a ``pre-existing 
fiduciary-like relationship between the parties'' to a family 
relationship, there is not a sufficient basis for establishing the 
necessary duty to support a fraud conviction under the misappropriation 
theory.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Although the facts alleged in Reed were that the father 
and son had a prior history of sharing business confidences, 601 F. 
Supp. at 690 n.6, the Reed court's analysis states, without 
limitation to business confidences, that ``[t]he repeated disclosure 
of secrets by the parties or by one party to the other'' or a ``pre-
existing confidential relationship'' could be sufficient to 
establish a duty of trust and confidence. Id. at 717-18. The 
Chestman majority, however, limited Reed's holding in a criminal 
context to its facts--that the repeated sharing of business 
confidences between family members could be the basis of a finding 
of a relationship of trust and confidence, the functional equivalent 
of a fiduciary relationship. Chestman, 947 F.2d. at 569.
    \102\ Id. at 568.
    \103\ Id. at 571
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chestman makes clear that its narrow approach, in contrast to the 
``elastic'' definition of confidential relations employed by courts of 
equity in the civil context, was influenced by the criminal context of 
the case before it.\104\ In our view, however, the Chestman majority's 
approach does not fully recognize the degree to which parties to close 
family and personal relationships have reasonable and legitimate 
expectations of confidentiality in their communications.\105\ For this 
reason, we believe the Chestman majority view does not sufficiently 
protect investors and the securities markets from the misappropriation 
and resulting misuse of inside information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Chestman recognized that although concern about the ``rule 
of lenity'' did not permit the use of ``an elastic and expedient 
definition of confidential relations'' in criminal cases, such an 
approach may be useful in the civil context. Id. at 570 See also 
O'Hagan, 521 U.S. at 679 (concurring and dissenting opinion of 
Scalia, J.) (noting applicability of ``principle of lenity'' in 
criminal insider trading prosecution, and potential distinction 
between criminal and civil construction of Rule 10b-5).
    \105\ Cf. Chestman, 947 F.2d at 580 (concurring and dissenting 
opinion of Winter, J.) (calling majority's view ``unrealistic'' in 
that ``it expects family members to behave like strangers to each 
other''). Nor does Chestman consider the recognition of a fiduciary 
duty between family members as a matter of common law or statutory 
enactments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have investigated and prosecuted a large number of insider 
trading cases that involved trading by friends or family members of 
insiders. In many of these cases, the evidence supports the claim that 
the insider intended to give the information to the friend or family 
member for trading.\106\ The evidence in

[[Page 72603]]

such cases supports liability under a classical tipper-tippee 
theory.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See, e.g., SEC v. Michelle Nguyen, et al., Litigation 
Release No. 16199 (June 29, 1999); SEC v. Bharat Kotecha, et al. 
Litigation Release No. 16151 (May 18, 1999); SEC v. Hahn Truong, et 
al., Litigation Release No. 16080 (Mar. 9, 1999); SEC v. Eugene 
Dines, et al., Litigation Release No. 13900 (Dec. 10, 1993); SEC v. 
Steven L. Glauberman, et al., Litigation Release No. 12574 (Aug. 9, 
1990).
    \107\ See Dirks, 463 U.S. at 664 (noting that tipping liability 
can exist ``when an insider makes a gift of confidential information 
to a trading relative or friend'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other circumstances, however, the evidence does not support the 
view that the disclosing insider intended or expected that the 
recipient of the inside information would trade. Instead, the evidence 
indicates that the insider confided the material nonpublic information 
to the friend or relation with the reasonable expectation that the 
recipient of the information would maintain the confidence. In those 
situations, a classical tipper-tippee theory of liability would 
probably not be available under the Dirks analysis. The 
misappropriation theory of liability would fit the facts better, 
because the trader breached a duty of confidentiality to the disclosing 
insider when he or she traded on the basis of the inside information. 
However, misappropriation liability is very difficult to establish in 
these situations under the restrictive analysis of Chestman, because 
Chestman appears to require either an express agreement of 
confidentiality, or a pre-existing fiduciary-like relationship that 
included the prior sharing of business confidences. Stated differently, 
under Chestman, it is not sufficient that the disclosing insider had a 
reasonable expectation of confidentiality based on his or her prior 
relationship with the trader.
    Chestman thus leads to the following anomalous result. A family 
member who receives a ``tip'' (within the meaning of Dirks) and then 
trades violates Rule 10b-5. A family member who trades in breach of an 
express promise of confidentiality also violates Rule 10b-5. A family 
member who trades in breach of a reasonable and legitimate expectation 
of confidentiality, however, does not necessarily violate Rule 10b-5.
    We think that this anomalous result harms investor confidence in 
the integrity and fairness of the nation's securities markets. The 
family member's trading has the same impact on the market and investor 
confidence in the third example as it does in the first two examples. 
In all three examples the trader's informational advantage ``stems from 
contrivance, not luck,'' and the informational disadvantage to other 
investors ``cannot be overcome with research or skill.'' \108\ We 
believe that permitting the trader in the third example to trade 
legally is inconsistent with investors' expectations about what types 
of informational advantages can be properly exploited. Moreover, this 
result provides all trading family members--including those in the 
classical tipper-tippee example--with a roadmap for concocting a story 
that could provide a lawful explanation for the trading. Finally, the 
need to distinguish between the three types of cases may require an 
unduly intrusive examination of the details of particular family 
relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ O'Hagan, 521 U.S. at 658-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we believe that there is good reason for the broader 
approach we propose today for determining when family or personal 
relationships create ``duties of trust or confidence'' under the 
misappropriation theory. Our proposed approach is not designed to 
interfere with particular family or personal relationships; rather, our 
goal is to protect investors and the fairness and integrity of the 
nation's securities markets against improper trading on the basis of 
inside information.
2. Proposed Rule 10b5-2
    Proposed Rule 10b5-2 sets forth a non-exclusive definition of 
circumstances in which a person has a duty of trust or confidence for 
purposes of the ``misappropriation'' theory of insider trading under 
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. As stated 
in the Preliminary Note to the Rule, the law of insider trading is 
otherwise defined by judicial opinions interpreting Rule 10b-5, and 
this Rule is not intended to address or modify the scope of insider 
trading law in any other respect.
    Paragraph (a) states that the Rule applies to any cases based on 
the misappropriation theory of insider trading, whether involving 
trading or tipping. Paragraph (b) enumerates a non-exclusive list of 
circumstances under which a ``duty of trust or confidence'' shall 
exist.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Proposed para. (b) does not enumerate relationships that 
existing case law already recognizes as providing a clear basis for 
misappropriation liability: for example, lawyer-client, O'Hagan; 
employee-employer, Carpenter; pshchiatrist-patient, United States v. 
Willis, 737 F. Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), appeal dismissed, 778 F. 
Supp. 205 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). As the O'Hagan case demonstrates, an 
individual working at a professional firm may be liable for 
misappropriating information about a particular matter even if he or 
she is not personally working on that matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Agreement Between the Parties. First, whenever a person agrees 
to maintain information in confidence, a duty of trust or confidence 
exists.\110\ This reflects the common-sense notion, acknowledged in 
Reed and Chestman, that reasonable expectations of confidentiality, and 
corresponding duties, can be created by an agreement between two 
parties. Although sometimes, most commonly in a business context, the 
parties will sign an express, written confidentiality agreement, the 
Rule does not require either a written or an express confidentiality 
agreement. This approach recognizes the fact that in everyday personal 
interactions, individuals frequently rely on reasonable, implicit 
understandings of confidentiality. In some situations, it may not be 
realistic or socially acceptable to insist that a close friend or 
relative execute a signed confidentiality agreement, or expressly 
consent to an oral agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Proposed para. (b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Relationships With a History, Pattern, or Practice of Sharing 
Confidences. Second, the Rule provides that a duty of trust or 
confidence exists when two people have a ``history, pattern, or 
practice of sharing confidences, such that the person communicating the 
material nonpublic information has a reasonable expectation that the 
other person would maintain its confidentiality.'' \111\ This part of 
the Rule does not use a bright line test that enumerates specific 
relationships, but instead sets forth a ``facts and circumstances'' 
analysis derived from Reed. This standard recognizes that in some 
circumstances a past pattern of conduct between two parties will lead 
to a legitimate, reasonable expectation of confidentiality on the part 
of the confiding person. This analysis does not require that the 
history, pattern, or practice of sharing confidences include the 
sharing of business confidences for there to be a duty of trust or 
confidence for purposes of misappropriation liability. However, 
evidence about the type of confidences shared in the past might be 
relevant to determining the reasonableness of the expectation of 
confidentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Proposed para. (b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comments on the approach proposed in paragraph (b)(2). 
Does the requirement of a prior ``history, pattern, or practice'' of 
sharing confidences provide a sufficiently well-defined standard? 
Should other factors be relevant to the analysis as well?
    c. Enumerated Family Relationships. Third, paragraph (b)(3) sets 
forth a bright line liability rule for certain enumerated close family 
relationships,

[[Page 72604]]

but allows for an affirmative defense. Spousal, parent-child,\112\ and 
sibling relationships would be sufficient in themselves as a basis for 
misappropriation theory liability. Our enforcement experience 
demonstrates that these are the relationships in which family members 
most commonly share information with a legitimate expectation of trust 
or confidentiality.\113\ These also are normally the types of close 
familial relationships in which the parties have a history, pattern, or 
practice of sharing confidences that would lead to a reasonable 
expectation of confidentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ We do not intend to limit this to minor children. Our 
enforcement cases in this area typically involve communications 
between parents and adult sons or daughters.
    \113\ See e.g., SEC v. Judy Hockett, et al. Litigation Release 
No. 15377 (May 30, 1997) (spouse); SEC v. Linda Lou Taylor, et al., 
Litigation Release No. 14775 (Jan. 4, 1996) (spouse); SEC v. Robert 
J. Young, et al. Litigation Release No. 14661 (Sept. 29, 1995) 
(brother); SEC v. Jonathan J. Sheinberg, et al., Litigation Release 
No. 13465 (Dec. 10, 1992) (son-father); SEC v. Thomas C. Reed, et 
al., Litigation Release No. 9537 (Dec. 23, 1981) (son-father).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (b)(3) permits the person receiving or obtaining the 
information to assert an affirmative defense by demonstrating that 
under the facts and circumstances of that particular family 
relationship, no duty of trust or confidence existed. To demonstrate 
this, the person must establish that the disclosing family member did 
not have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality because the 
parties had neither: (a) a history, pattern, or practice of sharing 
confidences; nor (b) an agreement or understanding to maintain the 
confidentiality of the information. If the person receiving or 
obtaining the information can satisfy the requirements of the 
affirmative defense set forth in paragraph (b)(3), he or she would not 
be liable under Rule 10b5-2.
    Paragraph (b)(3) does not reach non-traditional relationships 
(e.g., domestic partners) or more extended family relationships. 
However, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) could reach these relationships, 
depending on the factual context of the relationship. We request 
comment on whether this is an appropriate distinction.
    Are the family relationships enumerated in paragraph (b)(3) the 
proper ones to cover, or is the list too narrow or too broad? Should 
the list of enumerated relationships be limited to family members 
residing in the same household? Should it expressly encompass step-
parents and step-children? Should it expressly encompass non-
traditional relationships, and if so, which ones? Should it include 
additional family relationships, such as the list of family 
relationships covered in our Section 16 rules?
    3. Request for Comments. We request comment on all aspects of 
Proposed Rule 10b5-2. For non-enumerated relationships, does paragraph 
(b)(2) focus on the proper factors for determining whether a reasonable 
expectation of confidentiality exists? Is the approach of paragraph 
(b)(3)--a per se rule with an affirmative defense for certain 
enumerated family relationships--the most suitable one, or should a 
different standard be employed?

IV. General Request for Comments

    We invite you to submit comments on proposed Regulation FD, Rule 
10b5-1, and/or Rule 10b5-2. If you have empirical data relevant to 
proposed Regulation FD, Rule 10b5-1, or Rule 10b5-2, please include it 
with your comments. Please submit three copies of your comment letter 
to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. You may 
also submit comments electronically to the following e-mail address: 
[email protected]. Refer to File No. S7-31-99. If you are 
commenting by e-mail, include this file number on the subject line. We 
will make comments available for public inspection and copying in the 
Commission's public reference room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20549. In addition, we will post electronically 
submitted comment letters on our Internet Website (http://www.sec.gov).

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of Regulation FD, and the related amendments to 
Form 8-K and Form 6-K under the Exchange Act, contain ``collections of 
information'' requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995,\114\ and the Commission has submitted the 
proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for review in 
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control 
number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Form 8-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0060) \115\ was adopted pursuant to 
Sections 13, 15, and 23 of the Exchange Act. Form 8-K prescribes 
information, such as material events or corporate changes, that a 
registrant must disclose. Form 6-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0116)\116\ was 
adopted pursuant to sections 13 and 15 of the Exchange Act. Form 6-K 
prescribes information that foreign private issuers subject to the 
reporting requirements of the Exchange Act must disclose. The 
Commission is also proposing to create a new information collection 
entitled ``Reg. FD--Other Disclosure Materials.'' This information 
collection will encompass press releases, webcasts, announcements, 
conference calls, etc. that are conducted pursuant to Regulation FD, 
which is proposed pursuant to sections 13, 15, 23, and 36 of the 
Exchange Act, and that are not filed under cover of Form 8-K or Form 6-
K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 17 CFR 249.308.
    \116\ 17 CFR 249.306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission currently estimates that Form 8-K results in a total 
annual compliance burden of 140,500 hours. The burden was calculated by 
multiplying the estimated number of Form 8-K filings annually 
(approximately 28,100) by the estimated average number of hours each 
entity spends completing the form (approximately 5 hours). The 
Commission based the number of entities that would complete and file 
each of the forms on the actual number of filers during the 1999 fiscal 
year. The staff estimated the average number of hours each entity 
spends completing each of the forms by contacting a number of law firms 
and other persons regularly involved in completing the forms.
    The Commission currently estimates that Form 6-K results in a total 
annual compliance burden of 91,848 hours and $515,000 non-labor burden 
costs. This was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of Form 
6-K filings annually (approximately 11,481) by the estimated average 
number of hours each entity spends completing the form (approximately 8 
hours) and adding the non-labor burden costs. The Commission based the 
number of entities that would complete and file each of the forms on 
the actual number of filers during the 1999 fiscal year. The staff 
estimated the average number of hours each entity spends completing 
each of the forms by contacting a number of law firms and other persons 
regularly involved in completing the forms.
    We believe that the proposed Regulation is necessary to provide for 
fairer and more effective disclosure of issuer information to all 
investors and thereby bolster investor confidence in

[[Page 72605]]

the securities markets. Under the proposed Regulation, issuers would be 
required to simultaneously (or, in some instances, promptly), upon 
first disclosure of material, nonpublic information, publicly disclose 
the information broadly. The disclosure could be made by filing a Form 
8-K or Form 6-K with the Commission, disseminating a press release to a 
widely circulated news or wire service, or disseminating the 
information through any other method of disclosure that is reasonably 
designed to provide broad public access to the information and does not 
exclude any members of the public from access.
    We estimate that, on average, completing and filing a Form 8-K 
under proposed Regulation FD would require the same amount of time 
currently spent by entities completing the Form--approximately 5 hours. 
We estimate that, on average, completing and filing a Form 6-K under 
proposed Regulation FD would require the same amount of time spent 
completing Form 6-K--approximately 8 hours. As noted, however, under 
the proposed Regulation, companies are exempt from the requirement to 
file a Form 6-K or Form 8-K if they disseminate a press release to a 
widely circulated news or wire service or disseminate the information 
through any other method of disclosure that is reasonably designed to 
provide broad public access to the information and does not exclude any 
members of the public from access. We estimate that other methods of 
disclosure, such as press releases and press conferences, will require 
no more than the preparation time of Form 8-K--less than 5 burden 
hours.
    We anticipate that, under Regulation FD, companies will make five 
\117\ disclosures per year.\118\ Since there are approximately 14,000 
companies affected by this Regulation, we estimate that there will be 
70,000 additional disclosures per year under Regulation FD. Based on a 
burden hour estimate of five hours, we anticipate that companies will 
incur 350,000 additional burden hours under Regulation FD.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ In many cases, information disclosed under Regulation FD 
would be information that an issuer was ultimately going to disclose 
to the public. Under Regulation FD, that issuer likely will not make 
any more public disclosure than it otherwise would, but it may make 
the disclosure sooner and now would be required to file or 
disseminate that information in a manner reasonably designed to 
provide broad public access to the information and which does not 
exclude any members of the public from access.
    \118\ We anticipate that issuers will make one disclosure each 
quarter under Regulation FD. We also assume that issuers will, on 
average, make one additional disclosure per year.
    \119\ Although eight burden hours are incurred by issuers filing 
a Form 6-K, we assume that, since issuers have the option of how to 
make disclosure under Regulation FD, they will make disclosure under 
the least burdensome option. Therefore, our burden number for 
estimation purposes is five burden hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with the disclosure requirements is mandatory. There 
would be no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed, 
and responses to the disclosure requirements will not be kept 
confidential.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits 
comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information; (iii) determine 
whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected; and (iv) evaluate whether there are 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Persons submitting comments on the collection of information 
requirements should direct the comments to the Office of Management and 
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, 
DC 20503, and should send a copy to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20549-0609, with reference to File No. S7-31-99. Requests for 
materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard to these 
collections of information should be in writing, refer to File No. S7-
31-99, and be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Records Management, Office of Filings and Information Services. OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information 
between 30 and 60 days after publication of this release. Consequently, 
a comment to OMB is assured of having its full effect if OMB receives 
it within 30 days of publication.

VI. Cost-Benefit Analysis

A. Regulation FD: Selective Disclosure

    Proposed Regulation FD would require that when an issuer 
intentionally discloses material nonpublic information to any person 
outside the issuer, it must simultaneously make public disclosure, and 
when it unintentionally discloses material nonpublic information, it 
must promptly make public disclosure.
    Proposed Regulation FD is intended to produce several important 
benefits to investors and the securities markets as a whole. First, 
Regulation FD will inhibit current practices of selective disclosure, 
which damage investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the 
markets. One recent study indicates that analysts and institutional 
investors immediately use information received in conference calls to 
trade.\120\ Traders on the other side of these transactions, who are 
excluded from the conference calls, do not have the same information as 
the more informed analysts and selected investors. Numerous individual 
investors have complained about this practice. By addressing selective 
disclosure of material information, the proposed Regulation will foster 
fairer disclosure of information to all investors, and thereby increase 
investor confidence in market integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See supra Section II.A. and note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By enhancing investor confidence in the markets, we believe the 
proposed Regulation will encourage continued widespread investor 
participation in our markets, which will enhance market efficiency and 
liquidity, and foster more effective capital raising.
    Second, we believe that issuers may also benefit from more open and 
fair disclosure practices. One study concluded that companies that more 
liberally disclose information have a larger analyst following, a 
narrower consensus in earnings estimates, and a low stock price 
volatility, which likely leads to a lower cost of equity capital.\121\ 
Proposed Regulation FD would encourage these beneficial disclosure 
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See National Investor Relations Institute, Standards of 
Practice for Investor Relations, 7 (1st ed. Apr. 1998) (citing 
Russell Lundholm and Mark Lang, ``The Benefits of More Forthcoming 
Disclosure Practices,'' University of Michigan School of Business 
Administration, Ann Arbor, MI, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the proposed Regulation likely will also provide benefits to 
securities analysts and others in the market for information. This 
Regulation will place all analysts on equal competitive footing with 
respect to access to material information. As well, this Regulation 
will allow analysts to express their honest opinions without fear of 
being denied access to valuable corporate

[[Page 72606]]

information.\122\ Analysts will continue to be able to use and benefit 
from superior diligence or acumen, without facing the prospect that 
other analysts will have a competitive edge based solely on better 
access to corporate insiders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See supra Section 11.A and notes 18 & 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not currently have sufficient information to quantify these 
or other benefits. We therefore request your comments, including 
supporting data, on the benefits of the Regulation.
    The proposed Regulation would impose some costs on issuers. First, 
there will be some additional cost to publicly disclose material 
nonpublic information on a non-selective basis. This proposal gives 
issuers three options for making public disclosure. The issuer can: (1) 
File a Form 8-K \123\ or Form 6-K;\124\ (2) disseminate a press release 
containing the material nonpublic information through a widely 
circulated news or wire service; or (3) disseminate the information 
through any other method of disclosure that is reasonably designed to 
provide broad public access to the information and does not exclude any 
members of the public from access (e.g., teleconference, web-
conference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 17 CFR 249.308.
    \124\ 17 CFR 249.306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Regulation does not require issuers to disclose 
material information (just to make any disclosure on a non-selective 
basis), we cannot predict with certainty how many issuers will actually 
make disclosures under this Regulation. For purposes of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, however, we estimate that issuers will make five \125\ 
public disclosures under Regulation FD per year.\126\ Since there are 
approximately 14,000 issuers affected by this Regulation, we estimate 
that the total number of disclosures under Regulation FD per year will 
be 70,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ We anticipate that issuers will make one disclosure each 
quarter under Regulation FD. We also assume that issuers will, on 
average, make one additional disclosure per year.
    \126\ In many cases, information disclosed under Regulation FD 
would be information that an issuer was ultimately going to disclose 
to the public. Under Regulation FD, that issuer is not going to make 
any more public disclosure than it otherwise would, but it may make 
the disclosure sooner and now would be required to file or 
disseminate that information in a manner reasonably designed to 
provide broad public access to the information and does not exclude 
any members of the public from access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an issuer files a Form 8-K, we estimate that the issuer would 
incur, on average, five burden hours per filing. This estimate is based 
on current burden hour estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act for 
filing a Form 8-K and the staff's experience with such filings. We 
believe that approximately 75% of the burden hours are expended by the 
company's internal professional staff, and the remaining 25% by outside 
counsel. Assuming a cost of $85/hour for in-house professional staff 
and $125/hour for outside counsel, we believe the total cost is $475 
per filing.
    If an issuer files a Form 6-K, we estimate that the issuer would 
incur, on average, eight burden hours per filing and other 
miscellaneous costs of $45 per filing. This estimate is based on 
estimates under the Paperwork Reduction Act for filing a Form 6-K and 
the staff's experience with such filings. We believe that approximately 
75% of the burden hours are expended by the issuer's internal 
professional staff, and the remaining 25% by outside counsel. Assuming 
a cost of $85/hour for in-house professional staff and $125/hour for 
outside counsel, we believe the total cost is $805 per filing.
    We have no hard data on which to base estimates of the costs of 
other disclosure options. However, we anticipate that other methods of 
disclosure, such as press releases, may require less preparation time 
than a Form 8-K. If the costs of the other methods of disclosure are 
less than the cost of filing the Form 8-K, we presume issuers will 
choose the other methods of public disclosure. Issuers may, however, 
choose to use methods of dissemination with higher out-of-pocket costs, 
presumably because they believe these methods provide additional 
benefits to the issuer or investor.
    Given that we estimate that there will be 70,000 disclosures under 
Regulation FD per year at a cost of approximately $475 per 
disclosure,\127\ we estimate that the total paperwork burden of 
preparing the information for disclosure per year will be approximately 
$33,250,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ While, as discussed, the staff estimates that filing a 
Form 6-K costs slightly more than filing a Form 8-K, fewer than 
1,000 issuers filed Forms 6-K in fiscal 1999. Therefore, for 
estimation purposes, we are not accounting for this slightly higher 
cost in estimating the cost of other disclosure options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request your comments, including supporting data, on our 
estimates of the costs of each disclosure option, the number of times a 
company will make a disclosure in a year, and which method companies 
are likely to use.
    The proposed Regulation may also lead to some increased costs for 
issuers resulting from new or enhanced systems and procedures for 
disclosure practices. We believe that many, if not most, issuers 
already have internal procedures for communicating with the public; for 
many issuers, therefore, new procedures to prevent selective 
disclosures will not be needed. There might be a cost to these issuers, 
however, for enhancing and strengthening existing procedures to ensure 
that nonpublic material information is not inadvertently disclosed and 
for disclosing inadvertently released materials promptly. We do not 
have data to quantify the cost of enhancing and strengthening existing 
internal monitoring procedures, and we seek your comments and 
supporting data on these costs.
    We are sensitive to the concern that the proposed Regulation might 
``chill'' corporate disclosures to analysts, investors, and the media. 
Issuers may speak less often out of fear of a post hoc assessment that 
disclosed information was material. If the Regulation has such a 
chilling effect, there would be a cost to overall market efficiency. 
However, there are numerous practices that issuers may employ to 
continue to communicate freely with analysts and investors, while 
becoming more careful in how they disclose information. Moreover, the 
Regulation only covers the selective disclosure of material nonpublic 
information; the level of ``soft'' or non-material information 
available to the market need not decrease. As well, we believe issuers 
have strong reasons to continue releasing information, given the market 
demand for information and a company's desire to promote its products 
and services. Further, we note that, in light of existing SRO rules and 
disclosure practice guidance provided by organizations such as NIRI, 
many issuers are currently conducting their disclosure practices in a 
manner consistent with the proposed Regulation. In light of these 
factors, we request your comments on the effect the proposed Regulation 
will have on information flow. Please support your comments and 
conclusions with data.
    Today's proposal is designed to create duties only under Sections 
13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and the Regulation does not create 
new duties under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. We nevertheless 
request comments on liability exposure, including the underlying case 
law if applicable, and we request your estimates of any costs that may 
result from increased risk of liability.
    Are there other costs we have not identified? Please supply data to 
help us estimate the cost.

B. Proposed Rule 10b5-1: Trading ``On The Basis Of'' Material Nonpublic 
Information

    Proposed Rule 10b5-1 would define when a sale or purchase of a 
security

[[Page 72607]]

occurred ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic information. Under the 
proposed Rule, a person trades ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic 
information if the person making the purchase or sale was aware of the 
material nonpublic information at the time of the purchase or sale. 
However, the proposed Rule provides affirmative defenses to liability 
when a trade resulted from a pre-existing plan, contract, or 
instruction that was made in good faith.
    We anticipate two significant benefits arising from proposed Rule 
10b5-1. First, the Rule should increase investor confidence in the 
integrity and fairness of the market because it clarifies and 
strengthens existing insider trading law. Second, the proposed Rule 
will benefit corporate insiders by providing greater clarity and 
certainty on how they can plan and structure securities transactions. 
The Rule provides specific guidance on how a person can plan future 
transactions at a time when he or she is not aware of material 
nonpublic information without fear of incurring liability. We believe 
that this guidance will make it easier for corporate insiders to 
conduct themselves in accordance with the laws against insider trading. 
We seek your comments and supporting data on these or other benefits 
that we have not identified.
    The Rule does not require any particular documentation or 
recordkeeping by insiders, although it would, in some cases, require a 
person to document a particular plan, contract, or instruction for 
trading if he or she wished to establish an affirmative defense that 
his or her trading was not ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic 
information. We therefore do not attribute any costs to this aspect of 
the proposed Rule. We seek comments and data on any costs that this 
Rule would impose.

C. Rule 10b5-2: Duties of Trust or Confidence in Misappropriation 
Insider Trading Cases

    Proposed Rule 10b5-2 would enumerate three non-exclusive bases for 
determining when a person receiving information was subject to a duty 
``of trust or confidence'' for purposes of the misappropriation theory 
of insider trading. Two principal benefits are likely to result from 
this Rule. First, the Rule will provide greater clarity and certainty 
to the law on the question of when a family relationship will create a 
duty of trust or confidence. Second, the Rule will address an anomaly 
in current law under which a family member receiving material nonpublic 
information may exploit it without violating the prohibition against 
insider trading. By addressing this potential gap in the law, the Rule 
would enhance investor confidence in the integrity of the market. We do 
not attribute any costs to this aspect of the proposed Rule. We seek 
comments and data on any costs that this Rule would impose.

VII. Consideration of the Burden on Competition, and Promotion of 
Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996,\128\ the Commission is requesting information regarding 
the potential impact of the proposals on the economy on an annual 
basis. Commenters should provide empirical data to support their views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, 110 Stat. 857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 23(a) of the Exchange Act \129\ requires the Commission, 
when adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the anti-
competitive effects of any rule it adopts. Because we do not believe 
the rules would affect companies differently, we do not believe that 
the proposals would have any anti-competitive effects. We request 
comment on any anti-competitive effects of the proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, section 3(f) of the Exchange Act \130\ requires the 
Commission, when engaging in rulemaking that requires it to consider or 
determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public 
interest, to consider whether the action will promote efficiency, 
competition, and capital formation. We believe that the proposals would 
bolster investor confidence in the securities markets by improving both 
the actual and perceived equity of the information available to 
investors from all companies. Accordingly, the proposals should promote 
capital formation and market efficiency. We anticipate no impact on 
competition. We request comment on these matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603. It relates to proposed new Regulation FD, 
Rule 10b5-1, and Rule 10b5-2 under the Exchange Act, as amended. The 
proposed Regulation and Rules address the selective disclosure of 
material information and clarify two unsettled issues under current 
insider trading law.

A. Reasons for the Proposed Action

    The proposed Rules address three separate issues. Regulation FD 
addresses the problem of issuers making selective disclosure of 
material nonpublic information to analysts or particular investors 
before making disclosure to the investing public. Rules 10b5-1 and 
10b5-2 address two unsettled issues in insider trading case law: (1) 
whether the Commission needs to show that a defendant ``used'' material 
nonpublic information in an insider trading case, or merely that the 
defendant traded while in ``knowing possession'' of the information; 
and (2) when a family or other non-business relationship can give rise 
to liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. By 
addressing these issues, the proposals will enhance investor confidence 
in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets.

B. Objectives

    Proposed Regulation FD would require that when an issuer 
intentionally discloses material nonpublic information it do so through 
public disclosure, not selective disclosure. When an issuer has made a 
non-intentional selective disclosure, Regulation FD would require the 
issuer to make prompt public disclosure thereafter. The proposed 
Regulation provides for several alternative methods by which an issuer 
can make the required public disclosure. We believe that this proposal 
will provide for fairer and more effective disclosure of important 
information by issuers to the investing public.
    Proposed Rule 10b5-1 would resolve the unsettled case law on 
whether the Commission must prove that a defendant ``used'' or traded 
while in ``knowing possession'' of material nonpublic information in 
order to prove insider trading liability. The proposal would provide a 
general rule that liability arises when a person trades while ``aware'' 
of material nonpublic information. It provides four defenses against 
liability, in cases where a trade resulted from a pre-existing plan, 
contract, or instruction that was made in good faith. It also provides 
a defense against liability for trading by entities, including small 
entities, when the individual making the trade was not aware of the 
information, and the entity had implemented reasonable procedures to 
prevent insider trading. We believe this proposed Rule would clarify an 
important issue in insider trading law, and thereby enhance investor 
confidence in market integrity.

[[Page 72608]]

    Proposed Rule 10b5-2 would define when a non-business relationship, 
such as a family or personal relationship, may provide the duty of 
trust and confidence required under the misappropriation theory of 
insider trading. This issue currently is also unsettled in the case 
law. Moreover, we believe that the main case on the issue, which arose 
in a criminal prosecution, does not fully recognize the degree to which 
parties to close family and personal relationships have reasonable and 
legitimate expectations of confidentiality in their communications, and 
leads to anomalous results in certain situations. Accordingly, the 
proposed Rule defines the scope of ``duties of trust and confidence'' 
for purposes of the misappropriation theory in a manner that more 
appropriately serves the purposes of insider trading law. Proposed Rule 
10b5-2 will have no direct effect on small entities.

C. Legal Basis

    We are proposing Regulation FD, Rule 181, the amendments to Forms 
6-K and 8-K, Rule 10b5-1, and Rule 10b5-2 under the authority set forth 
in sections 10, 19(a) and 28 of the Securities Act,\131\ sections 3, 9, 
10, 13, 15, 23, and 36 of the Exchange Act,\132\ and section 30 of the 
Investment Company Act.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 15 U.S.C. 77j, 77s(a), and 77z-3.
    \132\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78i, 78j, 78m, 78o, 78w, and 78mm.
    \133\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Regulation and Rules

    Proposed Regulation FD would affect issuers and closed-end 
investment companies that are small entities.\134\ As of July 31, 1999, 
the Commission estimated that there were approximately 830 issuers, 
other than investment companies, that may be considered small 
entities.\135\ As of December 14, 1999, the Commission estimated that 
there are approximately 62 closed-end investment companies that may be 
considered small entities subject to Regulation FD.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Exchange Act Rule 0-10(a) defines an issuer, other than an 
investment company, to be a ``small business'' or ``small 
organization'' if it had total assets of $5 million or less on the 
last day of its most recent fiscal year. 17 CFR 240.0-10(a). 
Investment Company Act Rule 0-10(a) defines an investment company as 
a ``small business'' or ``small organization'' if it, ``together 
with other investment companies in the same group of related 
investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of 
the end of its most recent fiscal year.'' 17 CFR 270.0-10(a).
    \135\ The Commission bases its estimate on information from the 
Insight database from Compustat, a division of Standard and Poors.
    \136\ The Commission bases its estimate on information from 
Lipper Directors' Analytical Data, Lipper Closed-End Fund 
Performance Analysis Service, and reports investment companies file 
with the Commission on Form N-SAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 10b5-1 would apply to any small entities that engage 
in securities trading while aware of inside information and therefore 
are subject to existing insider trading prohibitions of Rule 10b-5. 
This could include issuers, broker-dealers,\137\ investment 
advisers,\138\ and investment companies. As of July 31, 1999, the 
Commission estimated that there were approximately 830 issuers, other 
than investment companies, that may be considered small entities. As of 
December 31, 1998, the Commission estimated that there were 
approximately 970 broker-dealers that may be considered small 
entities.\139\ As of December 15, 1999, the Commission estimated that 
there were approximately 2,000 investment advisers that may be 
considered small entities.\140\ As of December 14, 1999, the Commission 
estimated that there are approximately 227 investment companies that 
may be considered small entities. The Commission cannot estimate with 
certainty how many small entities engage in securities trading while 
aware of inside information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Exchange Act Rule 0-10(c) defines a broker-dealer as a 
small entity if it had total capital (net worth plus subordinated 
liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal 
year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared and 
it is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) 
that is not a small entity. 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).
    \138\ Advisers Act Rule 0-7 defines an investment adviser as a 
small entity if it (i) manages less than $25 million in assets, (ii) 
has total assets of less than $5 million on the last day of its most 
recent fiscal year, and (iii) is not in a control relationship with 
another investment adviser that is not a small entity. 17 CFR 275.0-
7.
    \139\ The Commission bases its estimate on information from 
FOCUS Reports.
    \140\ The Commission bases its estimate on information from the 
Commission's database of registration information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Reporting, Recordkeeping, And Other Compliance Requirements

1. Regulation FD
    When an issuer, large or small, discloses material nonpublic 
information, proposed Regulation FD would require it to do one of the 
following: (1) File a Form 8-K or, in the case of a foreign private 
issuer, a Form 6-K; (2) disseminate a press release containing the 
information through a widely circulated news or wire service; or (3) 
disseminate the information through any other method of disclosure that 
is reasonably designed to provide broad public access to the 
information and does not exclude any members of the public from access 
(i.e., a press conference to which the public is granted access such as 
by a teleconference or other electronic transmission).
    The Regulation's ``public disclosure'' requirement would give small 
entity issuers flexibility in how to disseminate information (such as 
telephonic or Internet conference calls). This flexible performance 
element enables small entity issuers the freedom to select the method 
of public disclosure that best suits their business operations, and 
makes it unlikely that this ``public disclosure'' requirement would 
have a disproportionate affect on small entity issuers.
2. Rule 10b5-1
    Proposed Rule 10b5-1 does not directly impose any recordkeeping or 
compliance requirements on any small entities. To the extent that an 
entity engaged in securities trading wished to rely on one of the 
defenses against liability provided in the Rule, it might be required 
to take certain steps. For example, to assert the affirmative defense 
in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(D) for trades that result from a written plan 
for trading securities designed to track or correspond to a market 
index, market segment, or group of securities, an entity, large or 
small, would have to maintain a written record of the trading plan. 
More generally, any entity, large or small, that sought to rely on the 
affirmative defense in paragraph (c)(2) for institutional traders would 
be required to comply with the specific provisions of that defense, 
including implementing reasonable policies and procedures to prevent 
insider trading. We believe that most entities to whom this defense 
would be relevant--i.e., broker-dealers and investment advisers--
already have the required procedures in place, because of existing 
statutory requirements.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See Section 15(f) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(f)); 
Section 204A of the Investment Advisers Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-4a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rule 10b5-2
    Proposed Rule 10b5-2 affects individuals and not entities. 
Accordingly, we believe that proposed Rule 10b5-2 would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission believes that there are no rules that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with proposed Regulation FD, Rule 10b5-1, or Rule 
10b5-2.

[[Page 72609]]

G. Significant Alternatives

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs the Commission to consider 
significant alternatives that would accomplish the stated objective, 
while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entity 
issuers. In connection with proposed Regulation FD and Rule 10b5-1 we 
considered the following alternatives: (a) The establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (b) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the Rule for small entities; (c) the use 
of performance rather than design standards; and (d) an exemption from 
coverage of the Regulation or Rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    With respect to proposed Regulation FD, we believe that different 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small entities 
would interfere with achieving the primary goal of protecting 
investors. For the same reason, we believe that exempting small 
entities from coverage of proposed Regulation FD, in whole or part, is 
not appropriate. In addition, we have concluded preliminarily that it 
is not feasible to further clarify, consolidate, or simplify the 
proposed Regulation for small entities. We have used performance 
elements in proposed Regulation FD in two ways. Regulation FD does not 
require that an issuer satisfy its obligations in accordance with any 
specific design, but rather allows each issuer, including small 
entities, flexibility to select the method of compliance that is most 
efficient and appropriate for its business operations. First, each 
issuer can select what method(s) to use to avoid selective disclosure 
(e.g., by designating which authorized official(s) will speak with 
analysts). Second, each issuer can choose what method(s) to use for 
``public disclosure'' (e.g., filing a Form 8-K, issuing a press 
release, holding a conference call transmitted telephonically or over 
the Internet, etc.). We do not believe different performance standards 
for small entities would be consistent with the purpose of the proposed 
Regulation.
    With respect to proposed Rule 10b5-1, we believe that different 
compliance requirements for small entities would interfere with 
achieving the primary goal of protecting investors. For the same 
reason, we believe that exempting small entities from coverage of 
proposed Rule 10b5-1, in whole or part, is not appropriate. In 
addition, we have concluded that it is not feasible to further clarify, 
consolidate, or simplify the proposed Rule for small entities. First, 
the aspects of proposed Rule 10b5-1 that indirectly involve compliance 
requirements are affirmative defenses that are not required to comply 
with the proposed Rule. Second, we have used performance elements for 
the affirmative defenses based on an index trading plan or an 
institutional investor implementing proper informational barriers set 
forth in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(D) and (c)(2) of proposed Rule 10b5-1. If 
an entity decides to assert either of these affirmative defenses, 
proposed Rule 10b5-1 does not require that it satisfy its obligations 
under either of the affirmative defenses in accordance with any 
specific design, but rather allows it flexibility to select which 
measure(s) it wants to put in place to satisfy the elements of each 
affirmative defense. We do not believe different performance standards 
for small entities would be consistent with the purpose of the proposed 
Rule.

H. Solicitation of Comments

    We encourage the submission of comments with respect to any aspect 
of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In particular, we 
request comments regarding: (i) The number of small entity issuers that 
may be affected by the proposed Regulation and Rules; (ii) the 
existence or nature of the potential impact of the proposed Regulation 
and/or Rules on small entity issuers discussed in the analysis; and 
(iii) how to quantify the impact of the proposed Regulation and Rules. 
Commentators are asked to describe the nature of any impact and provide 
empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. Such comments will 
be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, if the proposed Regulation and/or Rules are adopted, and will 
be placed in the same public file as comments on the proposed 
Regulation and Rules themselves.

IX. Statutory Bases

    We are proposing Regulation FD, Rule 181, the amendments to Forms 
6-K and 8-K, Rule 10b5-1 and Rule 10b5-2 under the authority set forth 
in Sections 10, 19(a), and 28 of the Securities Act, Sections 3, 9, 10, 
13, 15, 23, and 36 of the Exchange Act, and Section 30 of the 
Investment Company Act.

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 230

    Securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Investment 
companies.

17 CFR Part 240

    Fraud, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

17 CFR Parts 243 and 249

    Securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Text of Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

    1. The authority citation for Part 230 continues to read in part as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77sss, 
78c, 78d, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, 78ll(d), 79t, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-
28, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    2. Section 230.181 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 230.181  Public disclosures required under Regulation FD.

    Notwithstanding Section 5(b)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 77e(b)(1)), 
any public disclosure that constitutes a prospectus need not satisfy 
the requirements of Section 10 (15 U.S.C. 77j) of the Act if the 
prospectus is used only as required under Rule 100(a) of Regulation FD 
(17 CFR 243.100(a)) and the registrant otherwise complies with the 
requirements of Regulation FD.

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 
1934

    3. The authority citation for Part 240 continues to read, in part, 
as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77eee, 
77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78f, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 
78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll(d), 
78mm, 79q, 79t, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, and 
80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
    4. Section 240.10b5-1 is added after Sec. 240l.10b-5 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 240.10b5-1  Trading ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic 
information in insider trading cases.

    Preliminary Note to Sec. 240.10b5-1: This provision defines when 
a purchase or sale constitutes trading ``on the basis of'' material 
nonpublic information in insider trading cases brought under Section 
10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The law of insider 
trading is otherwise defined by judicial opinions construing Rule 
10b-5, and

[[Page 72610]]

Rule 10b5-1 does not address or modify the scope of insider trading 
law in any other respect.

    (a) General rule. The ``manipulative and deceptive devices'' 
prohibited by Section 10(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78j) and 
Sec. 240.10b-5 thereunder are defined to include, among other things, 
the purchase or sale of a security of any issuer, on the basis of 
material nonpublic information about that security or issuer, in breach 
of a duty of trust or confidence that is owed directly, indirectly, or 
derivatively, to the issuer of that security or the shareholders of 
that issuer, or to any other person who is the source of the material 
nonpublic information.
    (b) Definition of ``on the basis of.'' Subject to the affirmative 
defenses in paragraph (c) of this section, a purchase or sale of a 
security of an issuer is ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic 
information about that security or issuer if the person making the 
purchase or sale was aware of the material nonpublic information when 
the person made the purchase or sale.
    (c) Affirmative defenses.
    (1)(i) Subject to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, a purchase 
or sale is not ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic information if 
the person making the purchase or sale demonstrates that, before 
becoming aware of the information, the person:
    (A) Had entered into a binding contract to purchase or sell the 
security in the amount, at the price, and on the date which the person 
purchased or sold the security;
    (B) Had provided instructions to another person to execute a 
purchase or sale of the security for the instructing person's account, 
in the amount, at the price, and on the date which that purchase or 
sale was executed;
    (C) Had adopted, and had previously adhered to, a written plan 
specifying purchases or sales of the security in the amounts, and at 
the prices, and on the dates at which the person purchased or sold the 
security; or
    (D) Had adopted, and had previously adhered to, a written plan for 
trading securities that is designed to track or correspond to a market 
index, market segment, or group of securities, and the amounts, prices, 
and timing of the purchases or sales actually made were the result of 
following the previously adopted plan.
    (ii) The defenses provided in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section 
shall be available only when the contract, plan, or instruction to 
purchase or sell securities was entered into in good faith, and not as 
part of a plan or scheme to evade the prohibitions of this section. For 
example, if, after becoming aware of material nonpublic information, a 
person alters a previous contract, plan, or instruction to purchase or 
sell securities (whether by changing the amount, price, or timing of 
the purchase or sale), or enters into or alters a corresponding or 
hedging transaction or position with respect to those securities, the 
person shall not be able to assert the contract, plan, or instruction 
as a defense to liability.
    (iii) For purposes of paragraph (c), the following definitions 
shall apply:
    (A) In the amount(s). A contract, plan, or instruction for a 
purchase or sale of securities in specified ``amount(s)'' must specify 
either the aggregate number of shares or other securities to be 
purchased or sold, or the aggregate dollar amount of securities to be 
purchased or sold.
    (B) At the price(s). A contract, plan, or instruction for a 
purchase or sale of securities at specified ``price(s)'' includes one 
that specifies a purchase or sale at the market price for a particular 
date.
    (2) In the case of a person other than a natural person, a purchase 
or sale of securities is not ``on the basis of'' material nonpublic 
information if the person demonstrates that:
    (i) The individual(s) making the investment decision on behalf of 
the person to purchase or sell the securities was not aware of the 
information; and
    (ii) The person had implemented reasonable policies and procedures, 
taking into consideration the nature of the person's business, to 
ensure that individuals making investment decisions would not violate 
the laws prohibiting trading on the basis of material nonpublic 
information. These policies and procedures may include those that 
restrict any purchase, sale, and causing any purchase or sale of any 
security as to which the person has material nonpublic information, or 
those that prevent such individuals from becoming aware of such 
information.
    5. Section 240.10b5-2 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 240.10b5-2  Duties of trust or confidence in misappropriation 
insider trading cases.

    Preliminary Note to Sec. 240.10b5-2: This section provides a 
non-exclusive definition of circumstances in which a person has a 
duty of trust or confidence for purposes of the ``misappropriation'' 
theory of insider trading under Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 
10b-5. The law of insider trading is otherwise defined by judicial 
opinions construing Rule 10b-5, and this section is not intended to 
address or modify the scope of insider trading law in any other 
respect.

    (a) Scope of Rule. This section shall apply to any violation of 
Section 10(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78j(b)) and Sec. 240.10b-5 
thereunder that is based on the purchase or sale of securities on the 
basis of, or the communication of, material nonpublic information 
misappropriated in breach of a duty of trust or confidence.
    (b) Enumerated ``duties of trust or confidence.'' For purposes of 
this section, the circumstances under which a ``duty of trust or 
confidence'' exist shall include, among others, the following:
    (1) Whenever a person agrees to maintain information in confidence;
    (2) Whenever the person communicating the material nonpublic 
information and the person to whom it is communicated have a history, 
pattern, or practice of sharing confidences, such that the person 
communicating the material nonpublic information has a reasonable 
expectation that the other person would maintain its confidentiality; 
or
    (3) Whenever a person receives or obtains material nonpublic 
information from the person's spouse, parent, child, or sibling; 
provided, however, that the person receiving or obtaining the 
information may demonstrate that no duty of trust or confidence existed 
with respect to the information, by establishing that the spouse, 
parent, child, or sibling that was the source of the information had no 
reasonable expectation that the person would keep the information 
confidential, because the parties had neither a history, pattern, or 
practice of sharing confidences, nor an agreement or understanding to 
maintain the confidentiality of the information.
    6. Part 243 is added to read as follows:

PART 243--REGULATION FD

Sec.
243.100  General rule regarding selective disclosure.
243.101  Definitions.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78i, 78j, 78m, 78o, 78w, 78mm, and 
80a-29, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 243.100  General rule regarding selective disclosure.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever 
an issuer, or any person acting on its behalf, discloses any material 
nonpublic information regarding that issuer or its securities to any 
person or persons outside the issuer, the issuer shall:
    (1) In the case of an intentional disclosure, make public 
disclosure of that information simultaneously; and

[[Page 72611]]

    (2) In the case of non-intentional disclosure, make public 
disclosure of that information promptly.
    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply when a disclosure 
is made to a person who owes a duty of trust or confidence to the 
issuer (including, for example, an outside consultant such as an 
attorney, investment banker, or accountant) or to a person who has 
expressly agreed to maintain such information in confidence.


Sec. 243.101  Definitions.

    For purposes of this Regulation FD (Sec. 243.101), the following 
definitions shall apply:
    (a) Intentional. A selective disclosure of material nonpublic 
information is ``intentional'' when the individual making the 
disclosure either knew prior to the disclosure, or was reckless in not 
knowing, that he or she would be communicating information that was 
material and nonpublic.
    (b) Issuer. Every issuer having securities registered pursuant to 
section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l), or 
which is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)), including closed-end 
investment companies (as defined in Section 5(a)(2) of the Investment 
Company Act of 1940) (15 U.S.C. 80a-5(a)(2)) but not including other 
investment companies, shall be subject to this Regulation.
    (c) Person acting on behalf of an issuer. Any officer, director, 
employee, or agent of an issuer, who discloses material nonpublic 
information while acting within the scope of his or her authority, 
shall be considered to be a ``person acting on behalf of the issuer.'' 
An officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer who discloses 
material nonpublic information in breach of a duty of trust or 
confidence to the issuer shall not be considered to be acting on behalf 
of the issuer.
    (d) Promptly.
    (1) ``Promptly'' shall mean disclosure as soon as reasonably 
practicable (but in no event more than 24 hours) after a senior 
official of the issuer (or, in the case of a closed-end investment 
company, a senior official of the issuer's investment adviser) knows, 
or is reckless in not knowing, of the non-intentional disclosure.
    (2) For purposes of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a ``senior 
official'' means any director, any executive officer (as defined in 
Sec. 240.3b-7 of this chapter), any investor relations or public 
relations officer, or any other person with similar functions.
    (e) Public disclosure.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, an 
issuer shall make the ``public disclosure'' of information required by 
Sec. 243.100(a) of this chapter by filing with the Commission a Form 8-
K (17 CFR 249.308) disclosing that information, or if the issuer is a 
foreign private issuer it shall file a Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306).
    (2) An issuer shall be exempt from the requirement to file a Form 
8-K or Form 6-K if it instead does one of the following:
    (i) Disseminates a press release containing that information 
through a widely circulated news or wire service; or
    (ii) Disseminates the information through any other method of 
disclosure that is reasonably designed to provide broad public access 
to the information and does not exclude any members of the public from 
access, such as announcement at a press conference to which the public 
is granted access (e.g., by personal attendance or by telephonic or 
other electronic transmission).

PART 249--FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

    7. The authority citation for Part 249 is amended by adding the 
following citations:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a, et seq., unless otherwise noted;
    Section 249.308 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 80a-29.
* * * * *
    8. Form 6-K (referenced in Sec. 249.306) is amended by revising the 
phrase ``and any other information which the registrant deems of 
material importance to securityholders'' in the second paragraph of 
General Instruction B to read ``information required to be publicly 
disclosed under Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100) except information 
publicly disclosed in accordance with Rule 101(e)(2) of Regulation FD 
(17 CFR 243.101(e)(2)); and any other information which the registrant 
deems of material importance to securityholders''.

    Note: Form 6-K does not and the amendments will not appear in 
the Code of Federal Regulations.

    9. Section 249.308 is revised (Ed. Note remains unchanged) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 249.308  Form 8-K, for current reports.

    This form shall be used for the current reports required by Rule 
13a-11 or Rule 15d-11 (Sec. 240.13a-11 or Sec. 240.15d-11 of this 
chapter) and for reports of material nonpublic information required to 
be disclosed by Regulation FD (Sec. 243.100 and Sec. 243.101 of this 
chapter).
    10. Form 8-K (referenced in Sec. 249.308) is amended:
    a. in General Instruction A, by revising the phrase ``Rule 13a-11 
or Rule 15d-11'' to read ``Rule 13a-11 or Rule 15d-11, and for reports 
of material nonpublic information required to be disclosed by 
Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 and 243.101)''.
    b. by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph 1 of General 
Instruction B;
    c. in General Instruction B.4., by revising the phrase ``other 
events of material importance pursuant to Item 5,'' to read ``other 
events of material importance pursuant to Item 5 and of reports 
pursuant to Item 10,'';
    d. by adding a new Item 10 under ``Information To Be Included in 
the Report'' to read as follows:

    Note: Form 8-K does not and the amendments will not appear in 
the Code of Federal Regulations.

Form 8-K

* * * * *

General Instructions

* * * * *
B. Events To Be Reported and Time for Filing of Reports
    1. * * * A report on this form pursuant to Item 10 shall be filed 
in accordance with the requirements of Rule 100(a) of Regulation FD (17 
CFR 243.100(a)).
* * * * *

Information to be Included in the Report

* * * * *
    Item 10. Regulation FD Disclosure.
    Report under this item the material nonpublic information required 
to be disclosed by Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 and 243.101).
* * * * *
    By the Commission.

    Dated: December 20, 1999.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-33492 Filed 12-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P