bank forces employee's spouse to hold stock for 30 days or more
My wife works for a bank, which recently enforces a policy that restricts me from selling any stocks that I buy within thirty days of purchase. I have suffered financial losses time and again because I had to hold money losing positions that I would have sold earlier had I not been required to hold them for at least thirty days. Can the bank legally enact such a policy? Isn't it interfering with interstate commerce (as I live in California and my brokerage firms and the NYSE are out of state)? Is the bank violating my civil right to conduct commerce freely and legally?
Please advise.
Thanks!
Re: bank forces employee's spouse to hold stock for 30 days or more
This has been answered under another topic heading. If the answers are insufficient, please contact the answering attorneys directly.
Re: bank forces employee's spouse to hold stock for 30 days or more
Rule 144 is a possibility, but more likely the bank is concerned about insider trading, or trading on insider information. The reason I don't think it's a 144 concern is that you say the policy appiies to ALL stocks, not just ones that have been involved in a recent IPO or such.
Your wife is probably employed in a capacity where she has access to trading information, recommendations and advice, or something else where she (and therefore you) could gain a trading advantage that would violate a rule under the Securities Exchange Act.
Frankly, you are much better off being forbidden to trade in such a position than being allowed to do so, then having to face the consequences of an enforecment action.
My suggestion is to ask the bank to explain the purpose of the policy, rather than chafing under a belief that the policy is at least unfair and possibly illegal.
I'm almost certain there is no restraint of interstate commerce or civil rights issue here.
Re: bank forces employee's spouse to hold stock for 30 days or more
Rule 144 is a possibility, but more likely the bank is concerned about insider trading, or trading on insider information. The reason I don't think it's a 144 concern is that you say the policy appiies to ALL stocks, not just ones that have been involved in a recent IPO or such.
Your wife is probably employed in a capacity where she has access to trading information, recommendations and advice, or something else where she (and therefore you) could gain a trading advantage that would violate a rule under the Securities Exchange Act.
Frankly, you are much better off being forbidden to trade in such a position than being allowed to do so, then having to face the consequences of an enforecment action.
My suggestion is to ask the bank to explain the purpose of the policy, rather than chafing under a belief that the policy is at least unfair and possibly illegal.
I'm almost certain there is no restraint of interstate commerce or civil rights issue here.
Re: bank forces employee's spouse to hold stock for 30 days or more
Rule 144 is a possibility, but more likely the bank is concerned about insider trading, or trading on insider information. The reason I don't think it's a 144 concern is that you say the policy appiies to ALL stocks, not just ones that have been involved in a recent IPO or such.
Your wife is probably employed in a capacity where she has access to trading information, recommendations and advice, or something else where she (and therefore you) could gain a trading advantage that would violate a rule under the Securities Exchange Act.
Frankly, you are much better off being forbidden to trade in such a position than being allowed to do so, then having to face the consequences of an enforecment action.
My suggestion is to ask the bank to explain the purpose of the policy, rather than chafing under a belief that the policy is at least unfair and possibly illegal.
I'm almost certain there is no restraint of interstate commerce or civil rights issue here.
