United States: Government's Decision Not to Charge Phil Mickelson Illustrates Difficulties in Proving Insider Trading Cases Against Tippees

Last Updated: May 25 2016
Article by Douglas H. Fischer, Kendra Wharton and Joseph V. Moreno

Most Read Contributor in United States, August 2018

On May 19, 2016, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced insider trading charges against Las Vegas sports bettor William ("Billy") Walters and former Dean Foods chairman Thomas Davis for allegedly trading on nonpublic company information.1  Tellingly, no charges were brought against professional golfer Phil Mickelson, who was named as a relief defendant and agreed to repay close to $1 million in trading profits made as part of the alleged scheme.  The government's decision not to charge Mickelson as an outsider "tippee" is a likely result of the Second Circuit's 2014 decision in United States v. Newman, which required a heightened showing to prove insider trading cases against individuals many steps removed from corporate insiders.2  However, future tippees may not be as fortunate as Mickelson, depending on whether the Supreme Court this term adopts the Newman standard or opts for the seemingly lower burden accepted last year by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Salman.3

I. The Government's Case against Walters and Davis

According to the charging documents, over the course of five years Davis provided Walters with nonpublic information about Dean Foods, including business plans and earnings forecasts, as well as confidential information about Darden Restaurants of which Davis was a potential investor.  The information was passed along in part using a prepaid cellular phone and cryptic code words used to disguise its content.  Walters allegedly benefited by $40 million in profits and avoided losses from trading on this information.  In exchange, Davis purportedly received various forms of financial assistance from Walters, including investment capital and approximately $1 million in forgiven loans.

For his part, Mickelson is alleged to have accepted a tip from Walters to buy Dean Foods stock approximately one week before plans were publicly announced to spin off a profitable business segment.  According to the SEC, Walters called Mickelson the day after he learned about the spin-off plans from Davis, and the two exchanged text messages later that day and again over the weekend.  After the markets opened, Mickelson, who had never before traded in Dean Foods stock, purchased approximately 240,000 shares using three brokerage accounts.  Mickelson then sold all of his Dean Food shares the day after the spin-off announcement for a profit of approximately $931,000.  Mickelson allegedly repaid a gambling debt owed to Walters a month later, in part with the trading profits.

II. Difficulty Proving Outsider Tipping Cases in the Second Circuit

In December 2014, the Second Circuit in Newman reversed the insider trading convictions of former hedge fund traders Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, dealing a significant blow to the government's ability to prosecute insider trading cases involving tipping.4

Not only insiders are forbidden from trading on material, nonpublic information.  An outsider can be held liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, when trading on information that was obtained in violation of a duty of trust and confidence owed to another party.5  Newman and Chiasson were alleged to have traded on inside information received through a group of analysts, who themselves received the information through a chain of other sources.  The government presented no evidence that either was aware of the personal benefit provided to the insiders, or even of the insiders' identities.  Rather, the government argued that it was sufficient that Newman and Chiasson knew that insiders breached their duties of confidentiality by disclosing the information.  After receiving jury instructions in line with the government's theory, a jury convicted Newman and Chiasson of insider trading

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, criticizing the government for bringing prosecutions which are "increasingly targeted at remote tippees many levels removed from corporate insiders."  The court rejected the government's positions, as well as its alternative argument that the specificity, timing, and frequency of the updates were so "overwhelmingly suspicious" that Newman and Chiasson must have known that the information originated with insiders and that those insiders disclosed the information in exchange for a personal benefit.  As a result, the government must prove that "the tippee knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that he did so in exchange for a personal benefit."

III. Ninth Circuit Takes a Narrow Reading of Newman

Following the Newman decision, Bassam Yacoub Salman, who was convicted for trading on inside information he obtained through a chain of tips originating with his brother-in-law, urged the Ninth Circuit to adopt Newman and overturn his conviction.  He argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient under Newman to find that his brother-in-law disclosed the information in exchange for a personal benefit, or, if he did, that Salman knew of such benefit.

The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the conviction, finding that Salman's reading of Newman was too narrow.  The court did not, however, address Newman's holding that the tippee must have some knowledge of the personal benefit, because the jury in Salman was instructed to find that Salman "knew that Maher Kara personally benefitted in some way, directly or indirectly, from the disclosure."

On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Salman's appeal.6

IV. Conclusion

The government's case against Walters and Davis appears to include both direct and circumstantial evidence that Walters knew Davis breached his duty as a director to Dean Foods not to reveal confidential company information.  As a successful businessman, Walters was likely to be well-versed in the legal obligations owed by insiders and prohibitions against insider trading.  Walters' actions, including the purchase of a prepaid cellular phone for Davis and the use of code words, also suggest he knew Davis owed a duty of trust and confidence to Dean Foods.  Walters' knowledge of the personal benefit to Davis is even more obvious—he provided Davis capital for joint business ventures and two loans of nearly $1 million.

However, the government does not appear to have evidence that Mickelson knew that Davis breached his duty to the Dean Foods, knew that Davis disclosed the information to Walters in exchange for a personal benefit, or knew the identity of Walter's source.  Rather the government appears to rely on the timing of Mickelson's conversations with Walters and his trading activity.  And even though the alleged events may be described as "suspicious," the Second Circuit rejected similar arguments in Newman.  Under the circumstances, the decision not to bring charges against Mickelson was likely a wise one.  Until the Supreme Court hands down a decision in Salman, the government may choose to reserve insider trading cases against outsider tippees to those situations where knowledge is more apparent.

In the meantime, we should consider this valuable lesson:  taking a stock tip from your bookie can result in one expensive mulligan.

1   Indictment, United States v. Walters, No. 16-338 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/852356/download; Criminal Information, United States v. Davis, No. 16-338 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/852361/download; Complaint, SEC v. Walters, 1:16-cv-03722 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2016/comp-pr2016-92.pdf.

2   773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 84 U.S.L.W. 3170 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2015) (No. 15-137).

3   792 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 84 U.S.L.W. 3405 (U.S. Jan. 19, 2016) (No. 15-628).

4   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, http://www.bna.com/friends-benefits-second-n17179918853/#!.

5   See, e.g., Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 649 (1983).

6   See Jodi L. Avergun, Martin L. Seidel, Douglas H. Fischer and Kendra Wharton, Getting By With a Little Help From Friends:  United States Supreme Court to Clarify Insider Trading Liability in Tipping Cases, The National Law Review, Jan. 27, 2016, https://www.cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/getting-by-with-a-little-help-from-friends-united-states-supreme-court-to-clarify-insider-trading-liability-in-tipping-cases.

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