In US Supreme Court case O'Hagan v. United States (1997), O'Hagan was a lawyer working for Grand Met, a company that was secretly planning to make a tender offer for the stock of Pillsbury, the 'target' firm. O'Hagan bought call options on that stock before Grand Met offer went public. The misappropriation theory articulated by the Court's majority in this case is also called the theory of 'outsider' (rather than 'insider') trading. That is because 0'Hagan was not an insider of Pillsbury, the target. He was an outsider who did not owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of Pillsbury. The Court's majority held that he did, however, owe a fiduciary duty to Grand Met, the outside firm holding private material information releyant to the future value of Pillsbury stock.(T/F/U and Why?)

In US Supreme Court case O'Hagan v. United States (1997), O'Hagan was a lawyer working for Grand Met, a company that was secretly planning to make a tender offer for the stock of Pillsbury, the 'target' firm. O'Hagan bought call options on that stock before Grand Met offer went public. The misappropriation theory articulated by the Court's majority in this case is also called the theory of 'outsider' (rather than 'insider') trading. That is because 0'Hagan was not an insider of Pillsbury, the target. He was an outsider who did not owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of Pillsbury. The Court's majority held that he did, however, owe a fiduciary duty to Grand Met, the outside firm holding private material information releyant to the future value of Pillsbury stock.(T/F/U and Why?)