United States: Past, Present, And Future: Insider Trading's Personal Benefit Test After Martoma, Gupta, And Other Recent Cases

Last Updated: February 6 2019
Article by Andrew Bauer, Jonathan E. Green and Daniel M. Hawke


Late last week, former SAC Capital Advisors portfolio manager Mathew Martoma petitioned the Supreme Court to review his 2014 conviction for insider trading. Martoma's conviction stems from activity in 2008 when he paid a doctor from the University of Michigan for tips about clinical trials of a potential Alzheimer's medication. Before the results of the clinical trial were announced, Martoma caused SAC Capital to enter into substantial short-sale and options trades that resulted in approximately $275 million in gains and losses avoided. Martoma's appeal is the latest in a series of insider trading cases, mostly in the Second Circuit, attempting to provide guidance on what type of "personal benefit" an insider or tipper must receive in order for there to have been a breach of duty.

The Personal Benefit Test

According to the SEC, illegal insider trading is "buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security."1 For decades, criminal insider trading charges have been brought pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Any successful prosecution for insider trading requires proof of each of the elements above, including, in cases involving the sharing of material, non-public information with someone who subsequently trades, whether the insider/tipper breached a duty in disseminating the information to the tippee. The issue of what constitutes a breach, which was first established decades ago, has been the subject of significant litigation in recent years.

In Dirks v. SEC,2 the Supreme Court held that a breach of duty occurs when, based on objective criteria, "the insider personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure."3 The Court explained:

For example, there may be a relationship between the insider and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or an intention to benefit the particular recipient. The elements of fiduciary duty and exploitation of nonpublic information also exist when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. The tip and trade resemble trading by the insider himself followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient.4

For decades, courts deemed the personal benefit requirement of Dirks to be satisfied if the government proved either tangible (e.g., money) or intangible (e.g., friendship) benefits to the tipper. Then, in 2014, the Second Circuit narrowed the definition of a personal benefit. In U.S. v. Newman,5 Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson were charged with insider trading after material, nonpublic information had been shared with acquaintances, rather than good friends or relatives. These acquaintances later passed the tips along to others who ultimately told Newman and Chiasson. For Newman, the insider initially gave the information to a colleague and fellow alumnus of the same school while receiving casual career advice. In Chiasson's case, the initial tip was given from one acquaintance to another through a church relationship. Each tip eventually reached the defendants, who traded on it and were convicted in December 2012.

The Second Circuit reversed the convictions in 2014 on the bases that (1) the initial exchanges of information were not for a personal benefit, and (2) the government failed to prove the defendants knew of any such benefit. The court held that an inference of a personal benefit is "impermissible in the absence of proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature."6 The casual career advice given between colleagues and the conversation between church acquaintances at issue in Newman were insufficient to make that inference. Without such a benefit, the court reasoned, the insider-tippers had not breached a fiduciary duty, and tippees Newman and Chiasson could not be held liable.

The Supreme Court declined to review Newman directly but addressed it two years later in another case from the Ninth Circuit, Salman v. United States.7 The insider-tipper in Salman, Maher Kara, was an investment banker who gave information to his brother, Michael Kara. Maher testified at trial that he gave the information to his brother to "fulfill whatever needs he had," along with the knowledge that Michael would trade on it. Michael also passed the information along to Bassam Salman, whose sister was engaged to Maher. Salman used that information to trade and was convicted in the Northern District of California in 2013.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction in an opinion that rejected the Second Circuit's formulation of Newman. Notably, the opinion was written by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who was sitting on the Ninth Circuit by designation from the Southern District of New York. The Supreme Court then decided to resolve the circuit split in favor of the Ninth Circuit, although narrowly, holding that the additional requirements of Newman's personal benefit were inconsistent with Dirks when information is shared with the intent to benefit a "trading relative or friend." Thus, the facts at issue in Salman—an insider giving information to his trading brother—clearly qualified as the type of gift giving that was prohibited by Dirks.

The Second Circuit's next opportunity to revisit Newman came in Martoma. As discussed, Martoma was convicted after being found to have caused SAC Capital to trade on information about confidential clinical trials that he received after paying at least one doctor as a consultant for a number of months. The Second Circuit upheld the conviction, holding that the personal benefit requirement was satisfied by Martoma's payments to the doctor. The court, however, issued two lengthy opinions in an effort to further clarify the personal benefit analysis. Ultimately, the court attempted to marry Salman and Newman with a slightly more nuanced version of the personal benefit test, which it said could be satisfied in one of two ways: (1) if the tipper and tippee share a quid pro quo relationship (akin to the "meaningfully close personal relationship" test of Newman), or (2) if the tipper simply intended to benefit the tippee.8

The Second Circuit's latest opportunity to wrestle with the personal benefit test came earlier this month, when the court affirmed the conviction of Rajat Gupta, a board member at Goldman Sachs who shared material, nonpublic information to a friend and business colleague Raj Rajaratnam, founder of the hedge fund family Galleon Group. Gupta's initial appeal, based on the admission and exclusion of certain pieces of evidence, was denied. The Newman decision sparked Gupta's second appeal in which he argued that the jury instructions were improper as to how personal benefit was defined and whether he had received such a benefit. The Second Circuit rejected Gupta's argument, reiterating its decision in Martoma that the personal benefit need not be pecuniary, and held that the "good relationship with a frequent business partner was consistent" with the personal benefit requirement in Dirks.9 Gupta is yet another case in which Newman's additional personal benefit requirements were confirmed as inconsistent with Dirks, this time in the context of business partners.

What's next?

The Second Circuit's latest decision in Gupta appears to further distance personal benefit jurisprudence from the Newman decision almost five years ago. Although some questions linger after Martoma, the court took another step in Gupta to delineate the limits of Newman's heightened burden. First, Salman eliminated the need for a "meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that . . . represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature" test in the context of trading relatives and friends. Then, Martoma made clear that Newman is inapplicable when either a quid pro quo is involved or, more broadly, the tipper intends to benefit the tippee. And, finally, Gupta indicated that business relationships need nothing from Newman and can be assessed under Dirks alone.

One might argue that potential circumstances exist under which Newman's version of the personal benefits test could be validly applied. Perhaps the factual circumstances exist under which the Second Circuit could breathe new life into Newman, but that possibility appears to have grown smaller with every new decision on the topic. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will see Martoma as an opportunity to weigh in. It did not feel the need to do so in Newman and only issued a succinct opinion in Salman to resolve a circuit split. Given the clear exchange of money for information in Martoma, it would seem that there is little reason for the Court to hear the appeal.

In the meantime, prosecutors may choose to avoid the challenges posed by the personal benefit test altogether. Later this year, the Second Circuit will review another set of high profile insider trading convictions in U.S. v. Blaszczak.10 In that case, David Blaszczak obtained inside information from a former colleague at the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) and then provided it to several individuals, who traded on the information. Blaszczak and three others were convicted in the Southern District of New York last year. In addition to the typical charges under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, prosecutors charged the Blaszczak defendants with violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1348 (Securities and Commodities Fraud). Section 1348 was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but it had seldom been used to charge insider trading prior to Blaszczak. Significantly, the defendants were convicted on the Section 1348 charges but acquitted on the more traditional insider trading charges under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Unlike the jury instructions for those traditional charges, the instructions for the Section 1348 charge included no discussion of any breach of duty or personal benefit as an element of the crime. The Second Circuit may choose to address this disparity between the two legal standards.

If the Blaszczak convictions stand up on appeal, prosecutors may have a simple path forward that enables them to obtain convictions while side-stepping the burdens imposed by the personal benefit test. Regardless of which path prosecutors choose, all eyes remain on the Second Circuit for the next development in insider trading law.


1 SEC, Fast Answers: Insider Trading.

2 463 U.S. 646 (1983).

3 Id. at 662.

4 Id. at 664.

5 United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014).

6 Id. at 452.

7 137 S. Ct. 420 (2016).

8 United States v. Martoma, 894 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2017) (amended Jun. 25, 2018).

9 Gupta v. United States, No. 15-2707, 2019 WL 165930, at *3 (2d Cir. Jan. 11, 2019).

10 308 F. Supp. 3d 736, 738 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions