Clarification of the term inside information
Supreme Court judgment 4 April 2022, HR-2022-695-A, (case no. 21-134824SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
SJI Equities Limited (Counsel Per Magne Ristvedt) v. A, B, C, D, E, F, G (Counsel Nanette Christine Flatby Arvesen) (Assisting counsel Stig Berge)
An investor claimed damages for losses on shares from the board members of a listed company that had gone bankrupt, see section 17-1 of the Public Companies Act. It was held that the board members had acted negligently by not having ensured timely disclosure of inside information – specifically information about circumstances that had not yet occurred. Unlike the lower instances, the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase "reasonably expected to occur" in section 3-2 of the repealed Securities Trading Act had to be interpreted to mean that the minimum degree of probability that a possible future circumstance could constitute inside information is close to equality of probability, but somewhat lower. Considerable emphasis was placed on the wording of the relevant EU Directives and Regulations, which apply as Norwegian law, and on the case law of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Appeal's judgment, which had concluded that preponderance of probability was required, was set aside.
Area of law: Securities law
Justices: Skoghøy, Matheson, Normann, Bergh, Thyness