United States: A Step Too Far: U.S. Appeals Court Throttles Back "Tippee" Insider Trading Prosecutions

Last Updated: February 5 2015
Article by Robert N. Rapp

On December 10, 2014, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that federal prosecutors and a lower court had gone too far in the imposition of criminal liability for insider trading violations of the federal securities laws on two individuals who were "tippees" of inside information. In U.S. v. Newman, et al., the Court of Appeals reversed criminal convictions, and went further to direct the dismissal of indictments against them with prejudice, of two hedge fund portfolio managers - - Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson -- who had been found guilty and sentenced to prison terms in a Manhattan federal district court on charges of insider trading. The two were remote tippees of material non-public information about two publicly traded technology companies that they used to make profitable trades for their respective hedge funds. Although they were in possession of material non-public information when directing these profitable trades, Newman and Chiasson were several steps removed from the corporate insiders who originally divulged the information that ultimately came into their possession, and indeed, there was no evidence that either was even aware of the source of the inside information, much less any circumstances in which the information had been disclosed.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Newman and Chiasson had been convicted on a prosecution theory, on which the lower court instructed the jury, that ignored a fundamental basis for insider trading liability of a tippee, namely, that the tippee have actual knowledge that the information was originally disclosed by an insider in breach of a fiduciary-based duty of confidentiality, in exchange for some personal benefit in doing so. A tippee who is merely in possession of material non-public information, and who trades advantageously on the basis of it, does not violate any prohibition on insider trading unless that tippee has actual knowledge that the insider source of the information disclosed it in exchange for some personal benefit. Newman and Chiasson were convicted on an erroneous standard advanced by the Government and embraced by the lower court that required only that the Government prove that they "must have known" that material non-public information was originally disclosed by the corporate insider in violation of a duty of confidentiality. But for purposes of imposing insider trading liability on a tippee, a corporate insider's disclosure of confidential information, standing alone, is not the breach of a duty on which liability of a tippee of the information may be premised. The breach of duty by the corporate insider comes with receipt of a personal benefit. Without actual knowledge of the personal benefit received by the insider, a tippee is not liable for insider trading when he or she trades advantageously using it, as was the case with Newman and Chiasson trading for their respective hedge funds.

Although the decision in U.S. v. Newman has been widely seen as repudiating unbridled prosecutions for insider trading orchestrated by Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in recent years, it is much more importantly an exclamation point as a matter of law, and a statement of the fundamental principle of actual culpable misconduct that underlies the broad notion of "insider trading" in U.S. securities markets. Some commentators have suggested that the decision in Newman will make prosecutions for insider trading more difficult; with others suggesting that the Court of Appeals has "raised the bar" for these prosecutions, both views implying that the case alters an applicable legal standard. It does not. As discussed below, the decision in Newman is solidly anchored in a legal standard that has been in place for decades, and the court has firmly stated that "although the Government might like the law to be different," insider trading liability is a function of much more than one simply being knowingly in possession of material non-public information.

"Tippee" Liability For Insider Trading

Insider trading is most often considered in the context of trading by one who has possession of material non-public information by virtue of a position, and who is disabled from using that information by reason of an extant duty associated with his or her position. A traditional corporate insider, for example, is barred by the long established legal principle of "disclose or abstain" from trading in the stock of her corporation based on material non-public information obtained in that insider capacity. Traditional corporate insiders owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders of the company to protect the confidentiality of information to which they have access by virtue of their position, and which is intended to be used only for corporate purposes and not for personal gain. Others who are not corporate insiders may also be positioned or become positioned to have or take on the same duty as a traditional corporate insider regarding company information entrusted to them or to which they have been provided access as, for example, attorneys and accountants. Likewise, persons who are "outsiders" will be guilty of insider trading when they trade advantageously on the basis of material non-public information "misappropriated" from the owner in violation of a duty owed to the owner. The key consideration for establishing insider trading liability in all of these circumstances is the breach of a duty owed by the person who actually trades on the basis of the material non-public information.

Liability of a "tippee" for insider trading has an entirely different premise. Tippee liability is based on a breach of duty by someone else: the "tipper," or source, of the inside information. A tippee does not occupy any position in relation to the source, or owner, of material non-public information that would necessarily prevent him or her from trading on the basis of the information. The critical consideration for insider trading liability of a tippee is whether the tipper - - the source of the inside information -- violates a duty in divulging it, and whether the tippee recipient knows of that breach of duty. Most importantly, the breach of duty by the source of the information is not simply divulging the information to another, but rather doing so for some direct or indirect personal benefit. Absent some personal gain, there is no breach of duty by the person divulging the inside information. And absent a breach of duty, a tippee does not violate any prohibition on insider trading when he or she trades advantageously on the basis of it. Moreover, even if there is a breach of an extant duty by the original tipper who may, for example, be a traditional corporate insider who divulges the information, the Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Newman explained that in order for a tippee to be held liable, he or she must have actual knowledge that the original tipper/insider received a personal benefit. In the case of "remote" tippees like Newman and Chiasson, who have little or no knowledge regarding the original disclosure of the information, proving actual knowledge of a personal benefit received by the original tipper/insider is problematic.

The Court of Appeals did not create this standard for tippee insider trading liability in U.S. v. Newman. It is rather a standard established by the United States Supreme Court in 1983. The Government's prosecution of Newman and Chiasson, and their convictions for insider trading, were premised on a view of insider trading liability that disregarded the long-established requirement for tippee liability that the defendant have actual knowledge that the original tipper had received a personal benefit, thus establishing a breach of duty by the original tipper. The jury was not instructed that to convict Newman and Chiasson the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of them actually knew that the insiders who originally divulged the material non-public information that made its way to them through a chain of analysts to whom the original disclosures had been made, received a personal benefit. The lower court, consistent with the prosecution theory, only instructed the jury that Newman and Chiasson could be found guilty of insider trading if the Government proved that each of them "must have known" that the information was originally disclosed by insiders in violation of a "duty of confidentiality." Aside from the fact that "must have known" is obviously different from actual knowledge, the jurors were not instructed on the meaning of the applicable duty, which can be based only on the tipper/insiders having received some personal benefit from disclosing the information.

The Faulty Premise: The Step Too Far

"Insider trading" is not defined by one being in possession of material non-public information and trading advantageously on the basis of it. In U.S. v. Newman, the Court of Appeals made the simple observation that nothing in the law requires a "symmetry of information" in securities markets. There will in fact be information asymmetries; some market participants will always have, and make investment decisions on the basis of, more or better information than others. That is how price discovery and asset valuation in securities markets works. Insider trading liability is not based on informational asymmetries. It is rather defined by one being in possession of material non-public information and who, in violation of an extant duty, trades advantageously on the basis of it or tips it to another who does.

The United States Attorney who prosecuted Newman and Chiasson had compiled an enviable, if not amazing, record of success in criminal insider trading cases. This case, however, went a step too far in seeking to convict two remote tippees simply for being in possession of material nonpublic information that they "must have known" had originally been divulged in violation of a duty that could only be defined in terms of a personal benefit of which Newman and Chiasson had to have actual knowledge if they were to be convicted as tippees. To underscore the point that the Government and the lower court simply ignored what the law required, and to drive home the point by dismissing the Newman and Chiasson indictments with prejudice, the Court of Appeals went on to consider the evidence that showed not only that the two knew "next to nothing" about the original insider/tippers, but also that there was no sufficient evidence that the insider/tippers had ever received any benefit of which Newman and Chiasson could have had knowledge in the first place.

Will the decision in U.S. v. Newman make prosecutions for insider trading more difficult? The answer is obviously no. The case quite boldly reaffirms the basis for tippee insider trading liability, of which prosecutors had apparently lost sight in seeking to continue their successful run. Rather than inhibiting prosecutions for insider trading, the decision in Newman simply makes clear what is the wrong case to pursue.

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
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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