The "in connection with" requirement of Rule 10b-5 as an expectation standard

This article contrasts three approaches to Section 10(b): (1) the initial Supreme Court treatment, (2) the Chemical Bank case, and (3) the current Supreme Court approach. The author summarizes a few of the more persistent fallacies in interpreting the "in connection with" requirement and elaborates on the expectation theory and its robe in the larger Section 10(b) scheme. He addresses the applicability of the expectation theory to nonstandard categories of fraud, with particular attention to the contentious subject of "misappropriation" insider trading.