If you work in capital markets, compliance or securities law, this one matters. On 16 April 2026, the European Court of Justice ruled in Brännelius (C-229/24) on a deceptively simple question with far-reaching implications: when exactly does inside information stop being inside information?
Here's what happened: A Swedish municipal company told a handful of bidders they'd lost a public contract. Two shareholders in the losing company caught wind through a tip and sold their shares — minutes before a press release tanked the stock price. Their defense? The information was already "public" under Sweden's open-access laws.
The Court wasn't buying it. Three critical takeaways:
- Telling a small group doesn't make it public. Notifying a limited circle of recipients is not non-discriminatory disclosure.
- "Available on request" isn't enough. Even if anyone could ask for the information under national law, that doesn't satisfy EU market abuse standards.
- The only standard that counts: disclosure under Article 17 MAR and Implementing Regulation 2016/1055 — simultaneous, non-discriminatory, and free to the widest possible public in the EU.
The Court has drawn a clear and consequential line. Organizations that equate "accessible" with "public" in their compliance frameworks should revisit that assumption.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.