An extensive literature addresses the substance of insider trading law. For example, should new techniques of high frequency trading be penalized as a species of “insider trading 2.0?” Should all insider trading be decriminalized? Far less attention has been devoted to the domain of insider trading law. Insider trading law applies to stock, but does it cover bonds? How about commercial real estate, coveted artworks, or copper? Should it? The question of domain is distinct from the questions of whether we ought to have insider trading law at all or what precise form that law ought to take.
In a forthcoming article, I provide a limiting principle, which demarks the outer boundary of insider trading law. In building up the case for this principal, I carefully attend to an asset class that is commonly thought to lie beyond the domain of insider trading law and policy, and which are important in their own right: crypto assets, such as Bitcoin.
Subscribe
‘Enforcement 40’ for 2020
Our Sponsors
Join Us On LinkedIn
Join the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Group on LinkedIn