Important developments in U.S. securities law, white collar criminal defense, regulatory enforcement and other emerging issues impacting financial services institutions, publicly traded companies and private investment funds
The Second Circuit ruled today that a “meaningfully close personal relationship” is not required for insider-trading liability where a tipper discloses inside information as a gift or in exchange for some other type of nonpecuniary personal benefit. The requisite personal benefit exists “whenever the information was disclosed ‘with the expectation that [the recipient] would trade … Continue Reading
The SEC has continued to pursue a number of insider trading cases this year, both large-scale and small. Some of those matters involved trades that yielded relatively small amounts of profits: $40,000-$60,000. Why does the enforcement division spend resources on these smaller cases? First, they serve as a reminder that violations can be identified, even … Continue Reading
A Pennsylvania federal court held yesterday that an agreement not to use confidential inside information for trading purposes need not precede the receipt of that information in order to create liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. The ruling in SEC v. Cooperman (E.D. Pa.) appears to be the first decision to address the “novel … Continue Reading
In what appears to be the first appellate decision since the Supreme Court’s December 2016 ruling in Salman v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed an insider-trading conviction based on a tip of material, nonpublic information. The February 24, 2017 decision in United States v. Bray held that the jury had … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court confirmed today that the “personal benefit” required to establish a claim for insider trading can consist of making a gift of material, nonpublic information to a family member or friend and that an exchange of “something of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” is not required. The decision in Salman v. United … Continue Reading
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial after a jury found the defendants civilly liable for insider trading. The decision in SEC v. Payton (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2016) held that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the initial tipper of inside information had … Continue Reading
On Friday, the SEC filed a complaint against James C. Cope, a former member of the Executive Committee of Pinnacle Financial Partners’ (“PFP”) board of directors, alleging that he engaged in insider trading. The same day, Cope pleaded guilty to related insider trading charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of … Continue Reading
All eyes were on the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday as it heard arguments in Salman v. United States (No. 15-628) concerning the “personal benefit” required to establish a claim for insider trading. After an hour punctuated by the Justices’ constant questioning of attorneys for both the defendant and the government, it appears unlikely that the Supreme Court … Continue Reading
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held yesterday that friends’ gifts of wine, steak dinners, and other luxury items can constitute the types of personal benefit needed to establish a breach of duty in connection with a prosecution for insider trading. The court’s May 26, 2016 decision in United States v. Parigian also … Continue Reading
The Second Circuit last week affirmed the conviction of a former corporate executive on charges of insider trading. The court’s unpublished decision on January 14 in United States v. Riley held that the Government had adduced sufficient evidence that the defendant had received a personal benefit – in the form of investment advice – in exchange … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court agreed today to review the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision concerning the “personal benefit” required to establish a claim for insider trading. The grant of certiorari in Salman v. United States (No. 15-628) could resolve a possible split between the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit on the type of … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court today refused to grant review of the Second Circuit’s restrictive insider-trading decision in United States v. Newman. The Government, through the Solicitor General, had asked the Supreme Court to clarify the nature of the “personal benefit” that a tipper must receive in order to create liability for insider trading. But the Supreme … Continue Reading
After months of will-he-or-won’t-he speculation about whether the U.S. Solicitor General would ask the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s restrictive insider-trading decision in United States v. Newman, the question has now been answered. The Government filed a certiorari petition on July 30, 2015 asking the Supreme Court to clarify the nature of the “personal … Continue Reading
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appears to have rebuffed aspects of the Second Circuit’s recent effort to narrow liability for insider trading. The Ninth Circuit’s decision today in United States v. Salman holds that insiders can engage in insider trading if they disclose material nonpublic information with the intent to benefit … Continue Reading
A federal judge in the Southern District of New York recently sustained the SEC’s insider-trading complaint against two alleged tippees, holding that, under the pleading standard applicable to a motion to dismiss, the SEC need not plead specific facts showing that the tip was exchanged as part of a quid pro quo relationship and that … Continue Reading
Another insider-trading case has survived a motion to dismiss under the more stringent standards that the Second Circuit adopted last year in United States v. Newman. On May 12, 2015, a federal District Court in Massachusetts declined to dismiss the indictments in United States v. McPhail and held that the Government had alleged sufficient facts showing … Continue Reading
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff issued a decision in SEC v. Payton (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015) denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss a civil insider-trading suit filed by the SEC. The court held that the SEC’s complaint had adequately alleged that the tipper of material nonpublic information had received a personal benefit for the disclosure and … Continue Reading
The Second Circuit today denied the request by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York for panel or en banc rehearing of the landmark U.S. v. Newman decision, which overturned insider-trading convictions of two remote tippees by (i) holding that a tippee must know that the insider tipper received a personal benefit … Continue Reading
On March 25, 2015, U.S. Representative Jim Himes introduced the Insider Trading Prohibition Act. The bill is the latest in a series of efforts to define insider trading following the Second Circuit’s decision last year in United States v. Newman. We have blogged previously about similar legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Bob … Continue Reading
Ever since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its landmark decision in United States v. Newman, debate has raged about whether the court has sanctioned insider trading or has appropriately restrained the Government’s efforts to prosecute innocent market conduct – and whether the judiciary, rather than Congress, should be defining and … Continue Reading
On Thursday, February 5, 2015, Ralph C . Ferrara, Robert J. Cleary and Jonathan E. Richman were invited to Proskauer’s Hedge Fund Breakfast Seminar to speak about the Second Circuit’s insider-trading ruling in Newman/Chaisson. The litigators provided the group of hedge fund professionals with a helpful overview of insider-trading laws, followed by an interesting discussion … Continue Reading
The U.S. Government filed a petition seeking panel and en banc rehearing of the Second Circuit’s December 2014 decision in United States v. Newman and Chiasson, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 6911278 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2014). That highly publicized decision – about which we blogged here – overturned insider-trading convictions of two remote tippees by (i) holding that a tippee must know … Continue Reading
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. rejected the argument by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to limit the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman to classical insider-trading cases. Judge Carter’s order, vacating four insider-trading guilty pleas in United States v. Conradt, represents another setback for U.S. Attorney Preet … Continue Reading
Over the last five years, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, has aggressively pursued insider-trading cases against a broad spectrum of defendants. As a result, insider trading remains a topic of public interest—especially in the compliance community. On December 23, 2014, Compliance Week published an article on the Second … Continue Reading
