| 英文摘要 |
Based on Cady, Roberts and TGS, especiailly the latter, this article explores the meaning of the equal access theory on the US insider trading jurisprudence. Tracing back to the context at that time, this article argues that, although being classified under the category of equal access theory, Cady, Roberts and TGS differ significantly. From the reasoning, literatures cited or its following treatment, TGS is more controversial than Cady, Roberts. First, TGS, without adequate reasoning, jumped into the conclu-sion that anyone in possession of material nonpublic information should bear the liability of insider trading. Second, the precedents TGS cite were made before the enactment of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Third, the articles TGS cites does not mention equal access of information. Four, TGS is read narrowly in the following cases by the US court. The courts in Taiwan generally hold that Article 157-1 adopts the equal access theory, but they do not specify the version of equall access theory to be adopted and what does such equal access theory means. This article tries to provide some observations and thoughts through the lens of the comparative study of the US law. |
