Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plan

A Rule 10b5-1 trading plan is a written contract between an executive and a broker that schedules share sales in advance. Because the sale decision is made before the executive has access to inside information, the executive cannot be accused of trading on that information when the sale eventually occurs. The rule is a safe harbour for executives who want to diversify their holdings without running afoul of insider-trading laws.

The insider-trading problem and why executives need a solution

Executives and directors hold shares of their companies. They may want to sell for legitimate reasons—to diversify, fund a home purchase, or retire—but insider-trading law makes sales risky. If an executive sells shares while aware of bad news that hasn’t been disclosed yet, and the stock later falls, the Securities and Exchange Commission and private plaintiffs can sue, claiming the executive traded on inside information. Proving intent is hard; the appearance of suspicious timing is enough to invite investigation.

Rule 10b5-1 solves this by allowing executives to prove they did not trade on inside information. If the executive adopted a written plan to sell shares on predetermined dates and prices before learning the inside information, then the sale cannot have been motivated by that information. The executive’s subjective intent is irrelevant; the law presumes good faith if the plan was properly adopted.

How the plan works: pre-arrangement and automaticity

An executive working with a broker creates a written plan specifying the number of shares to sell, the timing (e.g., every quarter on the 15th), and the price (e.g., any price above a minimum floor, or a fixed date regardless of price). The plan is irrevocable—the executive cannot cancel or modify it. The broker holds the shares and executes the sales according to the schedule without further instruction from the executive.

This automaticity is essential. Because the broker, not the executive, decides when exactly to sell within the parameters set, and because the executive cannot intervene once the plan is adopted, the law treats the plan as having been adopted before the executive gained the inside information. Even if the executive later learns that earnings will miss, or a lawsuit is pending, or a major customer is leaving, the sales proceed as scheduled. The executive cannot claim discretion over the sale decision.

Good faith is the gatekeeper

Rule 10b5-1 requires that the plan be adopted “in good faith and not as part of a plan or scheme to evade” insider-trading rules. This is the rule’s only real condition. An executive cannot adopt a 10b5-1 plan on the same day she learns that the company is about to announce a huge loss, timing the plan so that sales will go through after the loss is disclosed but while the stock is still high. That would not be good faith.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has provided guidance on good faith factors: Does the executive have a history of adopting such plans? Is the timing consistent with past behaviour? Is the amount to be sold consistent with the executive’s known financial needs? Has the executive adopted similar plans in ordinary circumstances? Courts recognize that good faith is subjective but look for patterns. A CEO who adopts a 10b5-1 plan every two years is more credible than one who suddenly adopts a massive plan the week before a scandal breaks.

Notably, the rule does not require the executive to prove he lacked inside information when adopting the plan—only that the plan was adopted in good faith. But if the timing looks suspicious, the Securities and Exchange Commission can challenge it, and the defendant will have a harder time defending.

The waiting period: a brake on abuse

Rule 10b5-1 requires a waiting period between adoption and first sale. For most executives, it is 90 days. For directors and certain officers, it is as short as two business days. This cooldown is meant to prevent an executive from adopting a plan in the moment of excitement about a transaction and then claiming the plan was in place before learning material information.

The 90-day wait is short enough that executives can actually use the rule for genuine liquidity needs, but long enough that the Securities and Exchange Commission can see whether the executive later attempts to cancel the plan if bad news arrives. If the plan has been in place for two months and the executive then tries to rescind it because earnings are about to be disappointing, that looks like an admission that the executive knew the information and was trying to game the rule.

Corporate policies often tighten the rule

Many public companies impose stricter requirements than the law requires. A company’s insider-trading policy might mandate that 10b5-1 plans be adopted only during open trading windows (periods after earnings releases when the company believes material information has been digested). Some require board pre-approval. Others mandate longer waiting periods (six months instead of 90 days) or limit the number of shares an executive can sell under a single plan.

These internal policies serve two purposes. First, they reduce reputational risk—investors and the media are less likely to cry foul if the company’s policy is stricter than law requires. Second, they make it easier for the board and counsel to defend the company if a 10b5-1 sale looks suspicious. If the CEO adopted the plan during a designated open window, after board approval, with a six-month wait, a lawsuit asserting that the CEO traded on inside information is harder to make stick.

The plan is not a guarantee of innocence

Rule 10b5-1 creates an affirmative defence to insider-trading liability, but it is not an absolute shield. If the Securities and Exchange Commission can prove that the plan itself was part of a scheme to evade insider-trading rules, the defence fails. If the executive cancelled the plan the day before bad news broke, a court may infer that the executive knew the information. If the executive adopted the plan while recklessly avoiding knowledge of inside information (deliberately not attending a board meeting where bad news would be disclosed), some courts might find bad faith.

Moreover, Rule 10b5-1 only protects against insider-trading liability. It does not prevent the executive from paying back profits under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (which requires officers and directors to disgorge profits from any purchase and sale of company stock within six months, regardless of intent). An executive who adopts a 10b5-1 plan to sell shares, then buys them back before the six-month window closes, still owes profits to the company.

Adoption and disclosure are routine

For large public companies, 10b5-1 plan adoption is a regular, almost bureaucratic affair. The executive tells compliance, compliance vets the timing against the company’s trading windows and any pending transactions, counsel signs off, and the broker is instructed. The company discloses the plan (usually as a Form 4 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission), and the stock market typically ignores it.

The routine nature of the process is, itself, a signal of good faith. Executives do not agonize over 10b5-1 plans; they use them as a standard tool for diversifying their holdings over time. The fact that an executive adopts such a plan is, by itself, not evidence of suspicious timing—it is expected behaviour.

See also