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
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
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
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
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
• A divided 2nd Circuit holds that there is no requirement for a “meaningfully close personal relationship” between a tipper and tippee in order for the tipper to reap a personal benefit from the disclosure sufficient to give...more
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...more
January 2017 - The last several years have seen law enforcement and regulatory bodies sharpen their focus on trading activity in the securities and derivatives markets. This focus has coincided with the advent of new and...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