United States: Getting By With A Little Help From Friends: United States Supreme Court To Clarify Insider Trading Liability In Tipping Cases

Last Updated: February 2 2016
Article by Jodi L. Avergun, Kendra Clayton, Douglas H. Fischer, Adam S. Lurie and Martin Seidel

Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2017

On January 19, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Salman, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the government may prove a "personal benefit" to a tipper of inside information—a necessary element of an insider trading case involving tipping—by showing evidence that an insider made a "gift" of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.1

The Supreme Court's attention to this issue is important because many have questioned the government's ability to aggressively pursue insider trading cases involving tipping since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals December 2014 decision in United States v. Newman.2  Indeed, a review of the Supreme Court's seminal 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC,3 Newman, and the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Salman, respectively, have left unclear the government's burden in insider trading cases involving tipping.  Dirks held that a tipper will only be liable for insider trading where he or she provides the information for "personal gain" in violation of his or her fiduciary duty.  However, the Court in Dirks did not define fully what constitutes "personal gain."  In December 2014, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman that to prove such "personal gain," the government must present evidence "of an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature."4  However, in Salman, the Ninth Circuit took a different approach by holding that the government may prove a benefit to the tipper merely by showing evidence that an insider gifted confidential information to a trading friend or relative.5

The Supreme Court's decision in Salman could provide much needed clarity concerning when insider trading liability may exist in tipping cases, especially those involving family and friends.

Dirks v. SEC:  The Supreme Court Explains That A Tipper's "Personal Gain" Is Required For Insider Trading Liability

In Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), the Supreme Court held that "[n]ot only are insiders forbidden by their fiduciary relationship [to the corporation's shareholders] from personally using undisclosed corporate information to their advantage, but they also may not give such information to an outsider for the same improper purpose of exploiting the information for their personal gain."6  While Dirks made clear that personal gain was an essential element of proving liability in an insider trading case involving tipping, Dirks and its progeny have left unclear what constitutes sufficient evidence of such gain.  The personal gain is clearest when an insider shares material, nonpublic information with an outsider in exchange for a pecuniary benefit.  Yet, in other instances, an insider may "gift" such information to a close relative or friend so that individual can trade on the information.7  Specifically, the Court said in Dirks that a personal benefit can be inferred where there are "objective facts and circumstances that often justify such an inference," such as where the "relationship between the insider and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter."8  The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") have argued that even in cases involving "remote tippees," or outsiders who are many steps removed from corporate insiders,  evidence of a friendly or familial relationship between the tipper and tippee satisfies the burden of proving personal benefit.9  Thus, in a 2014 case involving trading in advance of GSI Commerce's acquisition by eBay, the SEC brought and settled insider trading charges against three tippees who received insider information from friends or family, even where it was doubtful the SEC could prove that the original source received a personal benefit from sharing the information.10

U.S. v. Newman:  The Second Circuit Appears To Make It More Difficult For the Government To Pursue Tipping Cases

In December 2014, the Second Circuit issued a decision which appeared to deal a serious blow to the government's prosecution of remote tippees when it reversed the convictions of Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson.11  At trial, the government proved that Newman and Chiasson received and traded on insider information from several financial analysts, who in turn had received that information through a chain of other sources.  The government argued at trial that the jury could infer that the corporate insiders received a personal benefit because sharing the inside information with a former classmate and colleague and a "family friend" conferred a personal benefit to the tippers.  In particular, because the tippers maintained a social relationship with the tippees, including receiving occasional career advice, a personal benefit to the tipper could be found.12  On December 17, 2012, a jury found Newman and Chiasson guilty of insider trading.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the convictions, holding that to the extent a personal benefit may be inferred from a relationship between the tipper and tippee, "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."13  In other words, there must be "evidence of 'a relationship between the insider and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or an intention to benefit the [latter].'"14  The Second Circuit further explained that, while the government cannot prove a personal benefit to the tipper simply based on the "ephemeral" value of the friendship between the tipper and tippee, the government need not prove the tipping resulted in immediate pecuniary gain.15  Otherwise, the court explained, the personal benefit requirement would be rendered null as the government could satisfy its burden by proving only that "two individuals were alumni of the same school or attended the same church."16

Following the Second Circuit's decision, the DOJ filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to address "whether the [Second Circuit] erroneously departed from this Court's decision in Dirks by holding that liability under a gifting theory requires "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."17  The Supreme Court denied the DOJ's petition. 

The decision in Newman and the Supreme Court's denial appeared to undermine significantly the government's ability to prosecute aggressively tipper and tippee insider trading cases.  In the wake of Newman, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the Southern District of New York vacated four defendants' guilty pleas, explaining that the Court "was skeptical that the pleas were sufficient in light of Newman's clarification of the personal benefit and tippee knowledge requirements of tipping liability for insider trading."18  And in October 2015, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, moved to dismiss insider trading charges against seven individuals connected to SAC Capital Advisors.19  Bharara stated that, in light of Newman, "insisting on maintaining guilty pleas in these cases would not be in the interests of justice."20  More recently, the SEC agreed that it would not oppose the return of a $21.5 million settlement paid by Newman's and Chiasson's hedge fund, Level Global Investors LP, which the fund had moved to vacate on the basis of Newman's reversal.21

However, some district courts have read Newman more narrowly.  For example, in United States v. Gupta, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York rejected Rajat Gupta's argument that Newman "requires that a tipper (here Gupta) receive from his tippee ([Raj] Rajaratnam) a 'quid pro quo' in the form of a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature."22  In that case, the court held that a quid pro quo is not required to establish a personal benefit, referencing the Second Circuit's use of the phrase "or an intention to benefit the [latter]" in Newman.23  Thus, while Newman has presented hurdles for the government, it has not completely undermined the DOJ's and SEC's ability to pursue tipping cases.24

United States v. Salman:  The Ninth Circuit Boosts The Government In Tipping Cases

In United States v. Salman, the government proved that defendant Salman traded on material, nonpublic information he obtained through a chain of tips originating with his brother-in-law.  Maher Kara, an investment banker, testified at trial to having shared confidential information about certain mergers and acquisitions with, and to help financially, his brother, Michael Kara.25  Michael then shared this information with defendant Salman, Michael's brother-in-law, and encouraged Salman to trade on the information.26  The government also presented evidence that the Kara brothers were particularly close—for example, that Michael Kara helped to pay for Maher's college and stood in for their father at Maher's wedding.27  The jury found Salman guilty of insider trading.

On appeal, Salman urged the Ninth Circuit to adopt Newman and rule that the government's evidence regarding the relationship between Maher and Michael was insufficient for a jury to find that Maher disclosed the inside information to his brother in exchange for a personal benefit.28  The Ninth Circuit panel, however—on which  Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York sat by designation—affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Salman's reading of Newman was too narrow.29  The Ninth Circuit reasoned that Salman's reading of Newman would depart too far from Dirks, which explained that liability may exist where the "insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend."30  The Ninth Circuit further explained that if Salman's argument prevailed, a corporate insider could disclose confidential information to trading relatives, provided only that the insider asked for no "tangible" compensation in return.31  The Ninth Circuit did not expressly disagree with Newman, but rejected Salman's argument that Newman requires proof of "tangible" gain to the tipper.32    

The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Salman Over the DOJ's Objection

On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Salman's appeal.  In his petition for certiorari, Salman urged the Court to address the following question:

Does the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), require proof of "an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature," as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, No. 15-137 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2015), or is it enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close family relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?33

The DOJ, which had unsuccessfully petitioned for the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari in Newman, opposed Salman's petition.  In doing so, the DOJ argued that the Salman decision is correct and wholly consistent with Dirks.34  The Supreme Court could hear oral arguments in Salman as early as April.  

Conclusion

The government's opposition to certiorari in Salman suggests it is concerned that the Supreme Court could render a decision consistent with Newman.  Indeed, if the Supreme Court holds that demonstrating a personal benefit requires evidence of a quid pro quo or pecuniary gain to the tipper, the DOJ's and SEC's prosecutions of insider trading violations in tipping cases will be significantly hampered.  On the other hand, should the Court affirm Salman's conviction and adopt the Ninth Circuit's "personal benefit" test, the DOJ and the SEC may feel emboldened to continue their aggressive pursuit of insider trading violations in tipping cases.  Either way, the Supreme Court's decision is likely to provide a more definitive view concerning when insider trading liability will exist in tipping cases.

Footnotes

1 792 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 2015).

2 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014).

3 463 U.S. 646 (1983).

4 Newman, 773 F.3d at 452.

5 Salman, 792 F.3d at 1093-94.

6 463 U.S. 646, 659 (1983).

7 Id. at 664.

8 Id.

9 See, e.g., Newman, 773 F.3d at 451-52; Salman, 792 F.3d at 1089.

10 See U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM'N, SEC Charges Six Individuals With Insider Trading in Stock of E-Commerce Company Prior to Acquisition by eBay (Apr. 25, 2014) available at http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370541642140#.VIizNNLF-nk.

11 See Jodi L. Avergun and Douglas H. Fischer, Friends With Benefits: Second Circuit Overturns Newman and Chiasson Convictions And Raises the Government's Burden in Insider Trading Cases Against Tippees, Bloomberg Corporate Law and Accountability Report, Dec. 12, 2014.

12 Id. at 452.

13 Id.

14 Id. (quoting United States v. Jiau, 734 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2013).

15 Id. The Second Circuit cited several cases in which evidence of a quid pro quo between the tipper and tippee was sufficient to show a benefit to the tipper, even though there was no pecuniary gain to the tipper. See SEC v. Yun, 327 F.3d 1263, 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (finding evidence of personal benefit where tipper and tippee worked closely together in real estate deals and commonly split commissions on various real estate transactions); SEC v. Sargent, 229 F.3d 68, 77 (1st Cir. 2000) (finding evidence of personal benefit when the tipper passed information to a friend who referred others to the tipper for dental work).

16 Id. at 452.

17 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Newman, cert denied, No. 15-137 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2015).

18 United States v. Conradt, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16263, *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015).

19 Matthew Goldstein, U.S. Prosecutor to Drop Insider Trading Cases Against Seven, N.Y. Times (Oct. 22, 2015).

20 Id.

21 See Mot. to Vacate, SEC v. Adondakis, No. 1:12-cv-00409 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2014).

22 United States v. Gupta, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86635, *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2015).

23 Id. at *5.

24 See also Securities and Exchange Commission v. Megalli, case no. 1:13-cv-03783 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2015) (stating that "Newman has made waves, but the court is not convinced it is a total sea change.").

25 Salman, 792 F.3d at 1092.

26 Id. at 1089.

27 Id.

28 Id. at 1093.

29 Id.

30 Id. (quoting Dirks, 463 U.S. at 664).

31 Id.

32 It is noteworthy that the evidence that Salman knew of personal benefit to the tipper was much stronger than in Newman, where one of the defendants did not even know the identity of the original tipper.

33 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Salman v. United States, cert granted, No. 15-628 (U.S. Jan. 19, 2016).

34 Opposition to Petition, Salman v. United States, cert granted, No. 15-628 (U.S. Jan. 19, 2016).

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.