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 benefit” that a tipper must receive in order to create liability for insider trading – and to resolve what the Government characterizes as a split between the Second Circuit and other appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit in its recent decision in United States v. Salman.
9th Circuit’s Insider-Trading Decision in US v. Salman
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 a trading relative or friend, even if they do not receive a pecuniary gain or other quid pro quo type of benefit in exchange for the disclosures.
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion was written by Judge Jed Rakoff, a Senior District Judge for the Southern District of New York, who sat by designation on the Ninth Circuit panel – and whose recent opinions seem to have struggled with the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman. The Ninth Circuit’s decision might now create a circuit split – and enhance the chances that the Government will seek and perhaps obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court in Newman and/or Salman.
Ninth Circuit Clarifies Pleading Standard for Securities-Fraud Claims
The Ninth Circuit recently joined the debate on whether the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) or the more relaxed notice-pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) applies to pleading loss causation for a federal securities-law claim. The Ninth Circuit sided with those Circuits holding that Rule 9(b) applies to loss causation as to other elements of a securities-fraud claim. Oregon Pub. Emp. Ret. Fund v. Apollo Group Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 7139634 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2014).