United States: Court Upholds SEC’s Insider-Trading Complaint And Questions Second Circuit’s Newman Decision

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff issued a decision in SEC v. Payton (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015) denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a civil insider-trading suit filed by the SEC. The court held that the SEC's complaint had adequately alleged that the tipper of material nonpublic information had received a personal benefit for the disclosure and that the remote tippees had had sufficient knowledge of that benefit under the "recklessness" standard applicable to civil cases. In so ruling, however, Judge Rakoff observed that the Second Circuit's restrictive reading of the personal-benefit requirement in United States v. Newman "may not be obvious" in light of the Supreme Court's controlling decision in Dirks v. SEC.

The Payton case involved allegedly material nonpublic information about a potential corporate acquisition. The information came from one of the bidder's outside attorneys, who allegedly told a friend named Martin (the initial tipper) in circumstances where the two allegedly shared a duty of trust and confidence. Martin allegedly tipped his roommate, Conradt, who "shared a close, mutually-dependent financial relationship, and had a history of personal favors" with Martin. Conradt allegedly told another registered representative, who allegedly tipped the two defendants. Conradt also allegedly spoke to the two defendants about the information. The SEC brought these civil proceedings against the two defendants for their trading.

Judge Rakoff framed his analysis of the defendants' motion to dismiss by noting the need to distinguish criminal liability – which requires proof that the defendant "committed the offense 'willfully,' i.e., knowingly and purposely" – from civil liability, which requires only that the defendant "committed the offense recklessly, that is, in heedless disregard of the probable consequences." Based on that lower standard, the court denied the defendants' motion.

The court began with the Second Circuit's Newman decision, which held that a remote tippee cannot be liable unless the tipper received a personal benefit for disclosing material nonpublic information and the tippee knew about that benefit. (We previously blogged about Newman here.) The SEC argued that Newman applies only to "classical" insider-trading cases, where the tip came from a corporate insider, not to "misappropriation" cases, where (as here) the information originated from an outsider. The court noted that, "[w]hatever the abstract merits of this argument," the Second Circuit had foreclosed it by stating "unequivocally" that the elements of tipping liability are the same under both the classical and the misappropriation theories. This ruling is consistent with another Southern District of New York judge's decision in Conradt's case, about which we blogged here.

Judge Rakoff then turned to the personal-benefit requirement and compared the Supreme Court's enunciation of that test in Dirks with Newman's construction of Dirks. The Supreme Court had defined a personal benefit in Dirks as "a pecuniary gain or a reputational benefit that will translate into future earnings. . . . 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." Judge Rakoff observed that, "in Newman, a criminal case, the Second Circuit held that, to the extent Dirks suggests that a benefit may be inferred from a personal relationship, 'such an inference 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.'"

Judge Rakoff appears to have questioned the Second Circuit's interpretation of Dirks: "Whether this is the required reading of Dirks may not be obvious, and it may not be so easy for a lower court, which is bound to follow both decisions, to reconcile the two." He added in a footnote that "the Dirks decision seems to distinguish a quid pro quo relationship from instances where an insider makes a 'gift' of confidential information to a relative or friend; whereas, the Newman decision suggests that the latter type of relationship (i.e. mere friendship) can lead to an inference of personal benefit only where there is evidence that is generally akin to a quid pro quo."

Nevertheless, Judge Rakoff held that, for purposes of a civil SEC enforcement action, the SEC's complaint met "any definition of 'benefit' set forth in either Dirks or Newman." The SEC alleged that Martin (the initial tipper) and Conradt (the initial tippee) "'shared a close mutually-dependent financial relationship, and had a history of personal favors,'" that "their expenses were 'intertwined,' that Conradt took the lead in organizing and initially paying their shared expenses, and that [Conradt] negotiated reductions in their utilities and rent payments." In addition, "Conradt assisted Martin with a criminal legal matter that threatened Martin's ability to remain legally in the United States, . . . and subsequently, 'Martin thanked Conradt for his prior assistance with the criminal legal matter and told Conradt he was happy that Conradt profited from the . . . trading because Conradt had helped him.'"

Judge Rakoff also ruled that the SEC had sufficiently pled, for civil-enforcement purposes, that the defendants had known of Martin's personal benefit. The defendants allegedly had known about Martin's and Conradt's friendship and about Martin's legal problems. The court also observed that, unlike in Newman, where the remote tippees "'knew next to nothing' about the tippers, were unaware of the circumstances of how the information was obtained, and 'did not know what the relationship between the [tipper] and the first-level tippee was,'" the defendants here allegedly "knew the basic circumstances surrounding the tip" and "recklessly avoided discovering additional details." In addition, the defendants allegedly had taken "multiple steps to conceal their own trading in [the target's] securities."

Judge Rakoff's decision, coming only several days after the Second Circuit denied panel and en banc rehearing in Newman, will likely add to the debate about whether Newman correctly construed Dirks's personal-benefit requirement. The Government is deciding whether to petition for certiorari in Newman, and three bills are pending in Congress to displace Newman (see our blog posts here and here). Indeed, Judge Rakoff observed that, "if unlawful insider trading is to be appropriately deterred, it must be adequately defined. The appropriate body to do so, one would think, is Congress . . . ."

The case also could illustrate the difference between civil and criminal standards of liability. Martin, Conradt, and Payton had pled guilty to insider trading before Newman, but a different Southern District judge (Judge Andrew Carter) vacated the pleas after Newman. However, Judge Rakoff sustained the SEC's complaint under civil-liability standards.

Court Upholds SEC's Insider-Trading Complaint And Questions Second Circuit's Newman Decision

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