As discussed more fully in our alert when Blaszczak I was issued, the crux of this case was that four individuals were charged with and convicted of an alleged scheme to obtain nonpublic information from the Centers for...more
In Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), the United States Supreme Court found that a tippee may be liable for trading on the basis of material, nonpublic information if he or she knows that the tipper disclosed inside...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently cast doubt on the criminal convictions of the one-time “King of Political Intelligence” David Blaszczak and three others for their role in an insider trading scheme. The Court’s action could...more
The question of what constitutes insider trading has been litigated for decades. Many thought that a series of Supreme Court cases such as Dirks v. SEC, 462 U.S. 646 (1983) and its progeny had largely resolved the question...more
On January 11, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the 2019 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Blaszczak, which substantially broadened the scope of criminal insider trading...more
In a ruling with far-reaching implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that pre-announcement information at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) about reimbursement rates...more
The Second Circuit recently took an unexpected plunge into the torrid waters of insider trading law. Following several years of decisions limiting the government’s broad interpretation of what constitutes a personal benefit...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Blaszczak on December 30, 2019 that could significantly affect the prosecution of criminal insider trading cases. The Second Circuit...more
On December 30, 2019, the Second Circuit issued its landmark decision in United States v. Blaszczak, which widened the berth for federal prosecution of insider trading activities under Title 18 of the United States Code. The...more
On December 30, 2019, the Second Circuit issued a consequential insider trading decision in United States v. Blaszczak. In Blaszczak, the Second Circuit faced the question whether the “personal benefit” test set forth in...more
Insider trading has frequently been splashed across headlines in recent months, with a congressman, an NFL player, a comedy writer, and a Silicon Valley executive all facing charges. In the background of these headlines are...more
A decision last week from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York illustrates the broad reach of prosecutors and regulators in pursuing recipients of insider trading tips, despite the case-law...more
A lot of ink has been spilled over the crime of insider trading, which – in the view of U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff – “is a straightforward concept that some courts have managed to complicate.” In his recent decision in...more
On June 25, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a revised opinion in United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599, Dkt No. 226. (2d Cir. Jun. 25, 2018) (“Martoma”). While the outcome for Matthew Martoma does not...more
In the last four years, the Federal Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court have addressed the significant question of what constitutes a personal benefit in determining whether an insider has breached a fiduciary duty in...more
On June 25, 2018, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed the insider trading conviction of a hedge fund portfolio manager in United States v. Martoma on different grounds from...more
On June 25, 2018, a divided three-judge panel of the Second Circuit amended its decision in United States v. Martoma. We previously reported on the facts of Martoma and the panel’s original decision, which held that the...more
The Second Circuit confirmed this week that a "meaningfully close personal relationship" is not required for insider-trading liability where a tipper discloses inside information as a gift with the intent to benefit the...more
On Aug. 23, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a split decision in United States v. Martoma, upholding a portfolio manager’s insider trading conviction and finding that a tippee need not...more
In a case likely to have ongoing ramifications, the Second Circuit recently upheld the conviction of Matthew Martoma, a former portfolio manager for Stephen Cohen’s SAC Capital. In so doing, the court clarified, at least for...more
The court’s Martoma decision reinvigorates the US government’s ability to prosecute insider trading cases. Key Points: - The majority opinion overrules recent case law requiring that an insider have a meaningfully close...more
On August 23, 2017, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the insider trading conviction of SAC Capital Advisors, LLC (“SAC”) portfolio manager Mathew Martoma. United...more
As noted in our December 9, 2016, Client Alert, the Supreme Court in Salman v. U.S. ruled that the required “personal benefit” to the person disclosing inside information (the tipper) does not need to be “pecuniary” or...more
Last week's dueling Second Circuit opinions in United States v. Martoma – Chief Judge Katzman’s 37-page majority opinion and Judge Pooler vigorous 44-page dissent – once again transformed insider trading law. In the aftermath...more
A divided Second Circuit panel (Katzmann, Pooler (dissenting), Chin) on Wednesday upheld the insider trading conviction of former SAC Capital portfolio manager Mathew Martoma. Confronting its precedent in United States v....more