Stephen M. Bainbridge (University of California, Los Angeles – School of Law) has posted The Iconic Insider Trading Cases on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This essay traces the evolution of insider trading jurisprudence, focusing on the three iconic Supreme Court decisions: Chiarella, Dirks, and O’Hagan. The essay argues that all three cases were seriously flawed because each failed to cohere as to either policy or doctrine. Just as a child might break his toy by attempting to force a square peg into a round hole, the Supreme Court made a hash of insider trading law (and Rule 10b-5 generally) by attempting to force insider trading into a paradigm – securities fraud – that does not fit.