Expand

Question 120.01

Question: On January 1, a person adopts a written plan for selling securities that satisfies the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c). The first sale of securities under the plan will take place on March 1 in reliance on Rule 144. The person will need to file a Form 144. Does adoption of the Rule 10b5-1 plan change the due date for the Form 144?
Answer: No. The Form 144 must be transmitted for filing concurrently with either the placement of a sell order for a brokerage transaction, or the execution of such sale directly with a market maker, as provided in Rule 144(h). The adoption of the plan itself may not be the same as placement of a sell order. The notice on Form 144 is effective for a maximum of three months, so that sales over longer periods will involve multiple requirements of notice under Rule 144(h). [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.02

Question: A person who has adopted a written trading plan or given trading instructions to satisfy Rule 10b5-1(c) plans to sell the securities in reliance on Rule 144. Can the person modify the Form 144 to state that the representation regarding the seller’s knowledge of material information regarding the issuer is as of the date the Rule 10b5-1 plan was adopted or instructions given, rather than the date the person signs the Form 144?
Answer: The form already includes the representation, so modification is unnecessary. [Apr. 24, 2009]

Question 120.03

Question: At a time when she is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person establishes a trust. In establishing the trust, she specifies that the trust shall sell 1,000 shares of issuer stock each quarter. Apart from this specification, she does not have or share any control over the trust's assets. Is a defense available under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) for the quarterly sales by the trust?
Answer: Yes. Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) contemplates that a person, while not aware of material nonpublic information, may delegate to a third party under a contract, instruction or written trading plan, all subsequent influence over how, when or whether to effect purchases or sales. Reliance on this affirmative defense does not prevent the person from setting some of the terms of the purchases or sales at the creation of the contract, instruction or plan so that no one has subsequent discretion as to those terms.
For example, this defense would be available if, in creating the contract, instruction or plan, the person specifies one or two of the amount, price or date of transactions. Whether or not any terms are set at creation, for a Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) defense to be available, the person is not permitted to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when, or whether a transaction occurs. The third party who has been granted discretion must not be aware of material nonpublic information when exercising that discretion. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.04

Question: At a time when he is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person will establish a blind trust to which he will contribute some, but not all, of the issuer securities that he owns. The person intends to delegate investment control over trust assets to the trustee so as to establish a defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) for trust transactions. Within the meaning of Rule 144(a)(2), the person and the trust will be a single person.
During any three-month period, sales of issuer securities by the trust will share the Rule 144(e) volume limitation with the person's sales of other issuer securities he owns. Does the manner of allocating the Rule 144(e) volume limitation between sales by the trust and the person's other sales of issuer securities affect whether the person is permitted to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales under the trust within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3)?
Answer: Yes. If during the term of the trust the person can control what portion of the Rule 144(e) volume limitation is available for trust sales, the person would be permitted to exercise subsequent influence over trust sales within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3). As a result, the Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) defense would be unavailable.
However, the person would not be permitted to exercise subsequent influence over trust sales if the instrument creating the trust specified either (1) the percentage of the volume limit to be allocated to sales by the trust and other sales by the person, or (2) that the trustee would determine that allocation for each applicable three-month period without consulting the person. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.05

Question: At a time when he is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person buys a put option, giving him the right at any time during the 12-month term of the option to sell 10,000 shares at a fixed exercise price. Two months later, he wishes to exercise the option. If he is aware of material nonpublic information at the time of exercise, can he rely on a Rule 10b5-1(c) defense in exercising the option?
Answer: No. The exercise of the option is a separate investment decision from the purchase of the option. See Securities Act Release No. 7881 (Aug. 15, 2000) at fn. 115. For a defense to be available under Rule 10b5-1(c), each of the amount, price and date of the transaction must be specified or determined by formula, or all subsequent discretion over purchases and sales must be delegated to a third party who must not be aware of material nonpublic information when exercising that discretion. The person must make this specification or delegation in good faith before becoming aware of material nonpublic information.
In this example, the person has retained discretion over the timing of the option exercise. Consequently, if he is aware of material nonpublic information at the time of exercise, no defense will be available under Rule 10b5-1(c). The same analysis applies whether the option is a put or a call. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.06

Question: At a time when he is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person purchases a put option. At the same time, the person instructs his broker to exercise the option on its expiration date, June 30, 2001, if the option is in-the-money on that date. Is the exercise of the option covered by a Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(1) defense despite the fact that the amount, price and date are not specified by the same method?
Answer: Yes. The terms of the option, which is a binding contract within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(1), specify the amount of shares to be sold and the price at which they will be sold under the option. The instruction to the broker, which is an instruction to another person within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(2), specifies the date of the transaction and imposes a limit on the price, within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(iii)(B). Viewed together, the option and the instruction specify the amount of securities, the price and the date of the transaction for purposes of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(1). The same analysis applies whether the option is a put or a call. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.07

Question: At a time when she is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person writes a call option, giving the option purchaser the right at any time during the life of the option to buy 10,000 shares from her at a fixed exercise price. Two months later, the option writer receives an exercise notice, requiring her to sell the shares to the counterparty at the exercise price. Is the sale pursuant to the option exercise covered by an affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)?
Answer: Yes. As long as the terms of the option contract do not permit the person to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when or whether she sells the shares covered by the option, and she does not in fact influence the timing of the option exercise, a defense would be available under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3). [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.08

Question: At a time when she is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person obtains a bank loan to invest in real estate, and pledges securities as collateral. She fails to pay the loan as due. The bank proceeds against the stock that was posted as collateral and sells it in the open market. Is the Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) defense available to the person when the bank sells the stock?
Answer: No. The sale was not pursuant to a contract, instruction or plan that did not permit the person to exercise any subsequent discretion over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales. First, the person could have exercised discretion not to pay the loan, resulting in default and the transfer of the securities. Also, she may have had the discretion to substitute collateral or provide additional collateral or cash to prevent foreclosure and sale of the stock. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.09

Question: At a time when he is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person obtains a $1 million loan from a brokerage firm and places $2 million of stock in a margin account with the broker. The stock price falls and the broker issues a margin call. The person does not deposit additional securities in the margin account (although he could have), so the broker sells sufficient margined securities to satisfy the margin call. Is the Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) defense available to the person for the broker's sales?
Answer: No. Where the person retains any discretion to substitute or provide additional collateral, or to repay the loan before the pledged securities may be sold, Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) does not provide a defense. This is because the terms of the margin account contract would permit him to exercise subsequent influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales.
If the margin account contract did not permit the insider to exercise any subsequent influence over how, when, or whether to effect purchases or sales, and the broker did not in fact give the person the opportunity to substitute or provide additional collateral or cash, a defense would be available under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) if the broker is not aware of material nonpublic information in selling the margined securities. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.10

Question: At a time when she is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person establishes a written trading plan to sell 5,000 shares each month, on a date to be selected by her broker during the second or third week of each month, at or above $20 per share. The person does not communicate any information to the broker that could influence when sales would occur. Does Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) provide a defense for sales under this plan?
Answer: Yes, assuming two additional facts are present: (1) the terms of the plan do not permit her to exercise any subsequent influence over the timing of sales under the plan; and (2) the broker is not aware of material nonpublic information when selling securities under the plan. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.11

Question: At a time when she is not aware of material nonpublic information, a person establishes a written trading plan to sell 10,000 shares each month, at or above $20 per share. To implement the sales, the plan provides that on the last day of each month the person will place a limit order with a broker, valid until the last day of the next month, to sell 10,000 shares at or above $20 per share. The person may be aware of material nonpublic information when she places the limit order. Do Rules 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) and (B)(1) provide a defense for sales under this plan if the limit order is non-discretionary (requiring the broker to execute a sale as soon as a buyer is available at or above $20 per share)?
Answer: Rules 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) and (B)(1) could provide a defense if the limit order is non-discretionary. The written trading plan would need to specify the amount, price and dates of the sales. As defined in Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(iii)(C), in the case of a limit order, "date" means a day of the year on which the limit order is in force. For Rules 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) and (B)(1) to provide a defense, the terms of the plan must specify the dates on which the monthly non-discretionary limit orders will be in force. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.12

Question: How does the analysis in Question 120.11 change if the written trading plan doesn't specify when the non-discretionary limit order will be in force?
Answer: If the written trading plan by its terms doesn't specify these dates, the analysis would focus on each transaction, and depend on whether the person is aware of material nonpublic information at each time she places a non-discretionary limit order. A defense would be available under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(2) and (B)(1) if: (1) she acts in good faith and is not aware of material nonpublic information at the time she instructs the broker; and (2) in placing a non-discretionary limit order, she specifies the dates on which that limit order will be in force. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.13

Question: Do Rules 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) and (B)(1) provide a defense for sales under the written trading plan described in Question 120.11 when the limit order is discretionary (where the broker is granted discretion such that the broker is not required to execute a sale as soon as a buyer is available at or above $20 per share)?
Answer: If a limit order is discretionary, the discretion granted to the broker over the timing of a sale would require the conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3) to be satisfied for a defense to be available. Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(1) would not be available. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.14

Question: Assume that the written trading plan described in Question 120.11 also includes a provision requiring the number of securities to be sold during each month to be reduced, if necessary, to comply with applicable volume limitation under Rule 144(e). What effect does this have on the availability of a Rule 10b5-1(c) defense?
Answer: The analysis depends on the manner in which the adjustment is effected:
(a) First, the written plan could provide for adjustment of the amount of securities to be sold each month based on a written formula specified in the plan within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(2). Where a written formula specifies one or more of the price, amount and dates of transactions that are all specified in a contract, instruction or written plan, the Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(2) defense would apply.
(b) Alternatively, the written plan could provide for adjustment of the amount of securities to be sold each month based on a delegation of discretion to the broker. In this case, where one or more of the price, amount and dates of transactions under a contract, instruction or written plan are to be determined based on a delegation of discretion to another person, the availability of a defense depends upon satisfaction of the conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(3). [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.15

Question: During a month when the written trading plan described in Question 120.11 is in effect, the person calls the broker to place an order to sell an additional 15,000 shares at the market. How is this transaction analyzed for purposes of Rule 10b5-1(c)?
Answer:
(a) The written trading plan defense is not available for the market order to sell the 15,000 additional shares. Instead, the analysis would focus on whether the person was aware of material nonpublic information at the time she places the market order.
(b) The market order transaction would not affect the availability of the written trading plan defense for the limit order sales under the written trading plan. The market order does not effect an alteration or deviation of a plan transaction within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(C) because the 10,000 share limit order under the plan will continue to be executed when the price limit is met. The market order is not a corresponding or hedging transaction within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(C) because it does not reduce or eliminate the economic consequences of the limit order sales under the written trading plan. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.16

Question: During a month when the written trading plan described in Question 120.11 is in effect, the person calls the broker to increase the non-discretionary limit order currently in force from 10,000 shares to 15,000 shares. How is this analyzed for purposes of Rule 10b5-1(c)?
Answer: Changing the amount to be sold under a written limit order trading plan currently in force effects an alteration or deviation within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(C). Consequently, sales pursuant to the altered limit order would not be pursuant to the existing plan. Securities Act Release No. 7881 (Aug. 15, 2000) at fn. 111 provides that "a person acting in good faith may modify a prior contract, instruction, or plan before becoming aware of material nonpublic information. In that case, a purchase or sale that complies with the modified contract, instruction, or plan will be considered pursuant to a new contract, instruction, or plan." [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.17

Question: After the written trading plan described in Question 120.11 has been in effect for several months, the person terminates the selling plan by calling the broker and canceling the limit order. Standing alone, does the act of terminating a plan while aware of material nonpublic information, and thereby not engaging in the planned securities transaction, result in liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5?
Answer: No. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 apply to any fraudulent conduct "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security." The “in connection with” requirement is satisfied when a fraud “coincides” with a securities transaction. See, e.g., SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002) and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006). [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.18

Question: Does termination of a plan affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions? Does canceling one or more plan transactions affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions?
Answer: Termination of a plan, or the cancellation of one or more plan transactions, could affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior plan transactions if it calls into question whether the plan was "entered into in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade" the insider trading rules within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii). The absence of good faith or presence of a scheme to evade would eliminate the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for prior transactions under the plan. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.19

Question: Does canceling one or more plan transactions affect the availability of the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for future plan transactions?
Answer: The cancellation of one or more plan transactions would be an alteration or deviation from the plan, which would terminate that plan. The Rule 10b5-1(c) defense would be available for transactions following the alteration only if the transactions were pursuant to a new contract, instruction or plan that satisfies the requirements of Rule 10b5-1(c). See Securities Act Release No. 7881 (Aug. 15, 2000), at fn. 111 and Question 120.16. Moreover, if a person established a new contract, instruction or plan after terminating a prior plan, then all the surrounding facts and circumstances, including the period of time between the cancellation of the old plan and the creation of the new plan, would be relevant to a determination whether the person had established the contract, instruction or plan “in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade” the prohibitions of Rule 10b5-1(c). [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.20

Question: Is the Rule 10b5-1(c) affirmative defense available where a person establishes a Rule 10b5-1 written trading plan while aware of material nonpublic information if the plan is structured so that plan transactions will not begin until after the material nonpublic information is made public?
Answer: No. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.21

Question: A person purchases employer stock through her participation in the employer's 401(k) plan. These purchases are made pursuant to bi-weekly payroll deductions. The 401(k) plan also allows employees to transfer the assets in their accounts among funds within the plan (including the employer stock fund) through fund-switching transactions. Is a Rule 10b5-1(c) defense available for payroll deduction purchases under the 401(k) plan?
Answer: If an employee acts in good faith and is not aware of material nonpublic information at the time she provides written or oral instructions as to payroll deduction purchases, a defense would be available for those purchases under Rule 10b5-1(c). See Securities Act Release No. 7881 (Aug. 15, 2000), text at fn. 117-121. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.22

Question: Under the 401(k) plan described in Question 120.21, is a Rule 10b5-1(c) defense available for fund-switching transactions that result in purchases or sales of employer stock?
Answer: If an employee acts in good faith and is not aware of material nonpublic information at the time she provides written or oral instructions as to a fund-switching transaction under the 401(k) plan, a defense would be available for that transaction under Rule 10b5-1(c). See Securities Act Release No. 7881 (Aug. 15, 2000), text at fn. 117-121. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.23

Question: Could fund-switching transactions under the 401(k) plan described in Question 120.21 be considered "corresponding or hedging transactions" within the meaning of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(C) with respect to payroll deduction purchases under the 401(k) plan?
Answer: Possibly, depending upon the facts and circumstances. Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(C) requires, as a condition to the exemption, that the purchase or sale be pursuant to the contract, instruction, or plan. The rule provides that a purchase or sale is not "pursuant to a contract, instruction, or plan" if, among other things, the person entered into or altered a corresponding or hedging transaction or position with respect to those securities.
As a general matter, a fund-switching transaction that effects a sale could be a corresponding or hedging transaction under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(C) with respect to a payroll deduction purchase under the 401(k) plan. If, however, the person is acting in good faith and provides instructions for the fund-switching transaction at a time when she is not aware of material nonpublic information, the fund-switching transaction would not disturb the Rule 10b5-1(c) defense for a payroll deduction purchase under the 401(k) plan. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.24

Question: Under applicable state law, an oral agreement would be considered a binding contract. Does the contract nevertheless need to be written to establish a defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)?
Answer: No. The rule specifies when a writing is necessary to establish a defense. The rule does not require a binding contract (Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(1)) or an instruction to another person (Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)) to be written. In contrast, the rule requires a plan for trading securities (Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(A)(3)) and a formula, algorithm or computer program for determining amounts, prices and dates of transactions (Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(i)(B)(2)) to be written. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.25

Question: Is the institutional defense provided by Rule 10b5-1(c)(2) available to the issuer of the securities for a repurchase plan?
Answer: Yes, assuming the conditions of that rule are satisfied. [Mar. 25, 2009]

Question 120.26

Question: When are companies required to begin providing the quarterly Item 408(a) disclosures and the annual Item 402(x) and Item 408(b) disclosures (Item 16J of Form 20-F disclosures for foreign private issuers) in periodic reports?
Answer: Release No. 33-11138 states that companies other than smaller reporting companies will be required to comply with the new disclosure and tagging requirements in Exchange Act periodic reports on Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 20-F “in the first filing that covers the first full fiscal period that begins on or after April 1, 2023.” Therefore, the following compliance dates apply:
  • December 31 fiscal year-end company – Quarterly disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2023, and should continue to be provided in the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2023 and the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.
  • June 30 fiscal year-end company – Quarterly disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.
  • December 31 fiscal year-end company – Annual disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-K or 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.
  • June 30 fiscal year-end company – Annual disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-K or 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024.

Smaller reporting companies must comply with these new disclosure and tagging requirements in the first filing that covers the first full fiscal period that begins on or after October 1, 2023. Therefore, the following compliance dates apply:
  • December 31 fiscal year-end company – Quarterly disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.
  • June 30 fiscal year-end company – Quarterly disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2023.
  • December 31 fiscal year-end company – Annual disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-K or 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.
  • June 30 fiscal year-end company – Annual disclosures must first be provided in the Form 10-K or 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. [May 25, 2023]

Question 120.27

Question: When are companies required to begin providing the disclosures in proxy or information statements?
Answer: For transition purposes only, companies other than smaller reporting companies must first provide this information in proxy statements for the first annual meeting for the election of directors (or information statements for consent solicitations in lieu thereof) after completion of the first full fiscal year beginning on or after April 1, 2023. Smaller reporting companies must first provide this information in proxy statements for the first annual meeting for the election of directors (or information statements for consent solicitations in lieu thereof) after completion of the first full fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 2023. [May 25, 2023]

Question 120.28

Question: The Rule 10b5-1(c) affirmative defense generally is not available if a person has multiple Rule 10b5-1 contracts, instructions, or plans in place. However, Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(D)(2) permits a person (other than the issuer) to maintain two separate Rule 10b5-1 plans at the same time so long as trading pursuant to the later-commencing plan is not authorized to begin until after all trades under the earlier-commencing plan are completed or have expired without execution. If an individual terminates the earlier-commencing plan (i.e., the earlier-commencing plan does not end by its terms and without any action by the individual), when can trading begin under the later-commencing plan?
Answer: Pursuant to Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(D)(2), if an individual terminates the earlier-commencing plan, the later-commencing plan will be subject to an “effective cooling-off period.” The effective cooling-off period will begin on the termination date of the earlier-commencing plan and will last for the time period specified in Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(B). On the other hand, if the earlier-commencing plan ends by its terms without action by the individual, the cooling-off period for the later-commencing plan is not reset and trading may begin as soon as the plan’s original cooling-off period is satisfied. Depending on when the later-commencing plan was adopted, this could be as soon as immediately after the earlier-commencing plan ends. See Footnote 180 of Release No. 33-11138. [May 25, 2023]

Question 120.29

Question: Under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(B)(1), the required cooling-off period for directors and officers subject to Exchange Act Section 16 reporting is the later of 90 days after the adoption of the contract, instruction, or plan or “[t]wo business days following the disclosure of the issuer’s financial results in a Form 10-Q or Form 10-K for the completed fiscal quarter in which the plan was adopted.” Does the filing date count as the first business day for the purposes of the Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(B)(1) required cooling-off period?
Answer: No. For purposes of the cooling-off period specified in Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(B)(1), the date of disclosure of the issuer’s financial results is the filing date of the relevant Form 10-Q or Form 10-K, and the first business day would be the next business day that follows the filing date. To determine the filing date of the relevant form, refer to Rule 13(a)(2) of Regulation S-T. For example, if the relevant form is filed on a Monday, trading may commence under the contract, instruction, or plan on Thursday (assuming no intervening Federal holidays). In addition, whether a form is filed before or after trading opens on a given day has no bearing on the calculation. [August 25, 2023]

Question 120.30

Question: Under a 401(k) plan, an issuer advances cash to the plan administrator who purchases stock in the open market to make matching grants of the issuer’s common stock to plan participants. If a participant relies on Rule 10b5-1 to participate in the 401(k) plan, would the Rule 10b5-1 affirmative defense be available to the participant for a concurrent plan for purchases or sales on the open market?
Answer: Yes. Even though participants elect how much to contribute to their individual 401(k) accounts, an open-market transaction conducted at the direction of the plan administrator, and not at the direction of the plan participant, to match a contribution by the participant with employer stock would not be an overlapping plan for purposes of Rule 10b5-1(c)(1)(ii)(D) that would disqualify a plan participant’s reliance on Rule 10b5-1 for a concurrent open market trading plan. [August 25, 2023]

Question 120.31

Question: Does the Rule 10b5-1(c) check box on Form 4 for securities transactions made pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan apply to trading plans that were adopted prior to the effective date of the amendments to Rule 10b5-1?
Answer: No. The Rule 10b5-1 check box on Form 4 applies to transactions that are made pursuant to a contract, instruction, or written plan for the purchase or sale of equity securities of the issuer that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of amended Rule 10b5-1(c). See Release No. 33-11138 (Dec. 14, 2022). [August 25, 2023]

This is a work of the U.S. Government

Expand Expand
Resize
Tools
Rcl
Add to favorites
Please ensure
that you select
Print Background (colors and images) when printing.
CONTINUE
PwC image modal

This content is copyright protected. It is for your own use only - do not redistribute. These materials were downloaded from PwC's Viewpoint (viewpoint.pwc.com) under license.

Warning 2

✕

Welcome to Viewpoint, the new platform that replaces Inform. Once you have viewed this piece of content, to ensure you can access the content most relevant to you, please confirm your territory.

Viewpoint allows you to save up to 25 favorites.

Consider removing one of your current favorites in order to to add a new one.

Go to favorites

Are you sure you would like to remove this page from your list?

Yes
You are already signed in on another browser or device.
Click Continue if you want to automatically close other logged in sessions and continue. If you want to manually check for other active logged in sessions first, please select Cancel to go back to the previous page.
Need some help? Contact us
signin option menu option suggested option contentmouse option displaycontent option contentpage option relatedlink option prevandafter option trending option searchicon option search option feedback option end slide
✕

Hello and welcome to Viewpoint

Your go-to resource for timely and relevant accounting, auditing, reporting and business insights. Follow along as we demonstrate how to use the site

Before we start.

Choose your preferred language below.