Episode 286 -- Matt Stankiewicz on the Ripple Decision and Celsius CEO Indictment
Blue Sky Laws: Defending State-Level Securities Violations
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
Four Decision Points in SEC Securities Investigations
Crypto Enforcement Is Here, and Always Has Been
Cryptocurrency: The Regulator’s Perspective
Investment Management Roundtable Discussion – Regulatory and Enforcement Update
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
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
Chapter 2: Insider Trading: Focus on Subtle and Complex Issues - Many hedge funds routinely face insider trading concerns as they trade equity or debt. Sometimes these issues are fairly obvious, such as where the fund...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
Welcome to the 2017 Year-End Report from the BakerHostetler Securities Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement Practice Team. The purpose of this report is to provide a periodic survey of matters we believe to be of interest...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
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
In Salman v. United States, decided on December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for criminal violations of insider trading laws. The Court, however, declined to adopt the expansive theories of insider trading...more
Insider Trading: Supreme Court Affirms Salman - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016 the Supreme Court decided Salman v. U.S., in which it upheld the petitioner’s insider trading conviction. The Court found its 1983...more
The United States Supreme Court recently rendered a decision in Salman1 resolving a circuit split over whether the government prosecuting an insider trading case must show that the person giving an insider tip received...more
Just in time for the annual season of work holiday parties and family gatherings, the United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that leaking material non-public information to a close relative who then trades in...more
In its first insider trading ruling in almost 20 years, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that a person can be held criminally liable for passing inside information to a friend or...more
A recent Supreme Court decision provides new guidance in the area of insider trading liability without personal benefit, and resolves an existing split between the Ninth Circuit and Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In Salman...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision in an insider trading case in nearly two decades to resolve a split between the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. In its unanimous decision in...more
On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Salman v. United States, affirming what it had set out in dicta in its 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC by finding that a factfinder may infer...more
On December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first insider trading decision in nearly two decades unanimously affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding that an insider’s “gift” of confidential information to a...more
Friends and relatives of corporate insiders who knowingly receive and trade on inside information now confront greater exposure for federal securities laws violations. On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court held in United...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified what constitutes illegal insider trading by making it easier for the government to bring such cases. In a Dec. 6, 2016, unanimous decision in Salman v. United States, the court held that...more
Today, the United States Supreme Court held that an individual may be convicted of insider trading after receiving an investment tip from an insider who obtained no direct financial benefit from the disclosure. In a unanimous...more
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its decision in Salman v. United States, the first insider trading case to reach the Court in decades. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court affirmed the criminal...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld a man’s conviction for insider trading based on a tip provided by his brother-in-law and rejected his contention that, in order to convict him, the...more
In its decision issued yesterday in Salman v. United States, 580 U.S. __ (2016), the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a criminal insider trading conviction even though there was no evidence that the tipper...more
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Salman v. United States, holding that a tipper’s gift of confidential, inside information to a trading relative constituted a sufficient personal benefit...more
Significant decision comes after nearly two decades of silence. For the first time in nearly 20 years, the US Supreme Court has weighed in on insider trading law and handed a victory to the government and its insider...more
A unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed the “gifting” theory of insider trading under Dirks and rejected Newman “to the extent” it required more. The Court’s long-standing rule in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 664 (1983)...more