SEC Enforcement Co-Directors Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peiken issued a March 23 public statement warning that the novel Coronavirus pandemic increases material non-public information and reminding corporate insiders of their obligation to disclose or abstain.
“Corporate insiders are regularly learning new material nonpublic information that may hold an even greater value than under normal circumstances. This may particularly be the case if earnings reports or required SEC disclosure filings are delayed due to COVID-19. Given these unique circumstances, a greater ...
A unanimous Supreme Court reaffirmed the "gifting" theory of insider trading under Dirks and rejected Newman "to the extent" it required more.
The Court's long-standing rule in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 664 (1983) allows a jury to infer a tipper's personal benefit "where the tipper receives something of value in exchange for the tip or 'makes a fit of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.'"
Recently, the Second Circuit appeared to limit the "gifting" theory. In United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438, 452 (2nd Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), the Court ...
On October 5, 2016, the Supreme Court in Salman v. United States will hear oral argument on its first insider trading case in nearly 20 years. At issue is whether a tipper must receive a pecuniary benefit for a tipper and tippee to be held criminally liable under 10b-5, or whether disclosure by itself can trigger liability. This case will resolve a circuit split that ranges from the broad view that a tipper and tippee are liable if the disclosed inside information is a "gift" to the narrow view that the tipper must receive a tangible pecuniary benefit in exchange for the inside information.
The SEC granted two petitions for review last week that tee-up significant issues for full Commission consideration late next Spring. The Commission will consider the application of the Second Circuit's Newman decision restricting the "gifting theory" of insider trading and also will take up the constitutionality of the agency's administrative enforcement forum. Insider-Trading After Newman. ALJ Patil dismissed insider-trading charges against trader Joseph Ruggieri last fall, finding that his tipper hadn't provided the inside information in return for any personal ...
The citadel of the SEC's administrative forum has been under assault from several vectors over the past year or so, as a chorus of dissenting Respondents have mounted increasing challenges to its constitutional legitimacy, as well as it policy wisdom. The arguments were starting to get some traction, but two recent appellate decisions have repulsed the attack, including the D.C. Circuit's September 29 Jarkesy opinion. The arguments were gaining some momentum. First, they elevated the policy discussion to new prominence. SDNY Judge Jed Rakoff weighed in expressing doubt about the ...
Recent decisions try to clarify insider trading liability, but may have caused more confusion. In United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), the Second Circuit explained that to be convicted of insider trading, the tippee must have knowledge that the insider tipper disclosed information in exchange for a personal benefit. What does this mean? In Newman, the tipper and tippee attended business school together and had been colleagues, but they were not "close." The tippee provided career advice and assistance to tipper, but the advice began before the tipper gave the ...
An SEC administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that former Wells Fargo trader Joseph Ruggieri traded on material nonpublic information tipped him by former analyst Greg Bolan, but dismissed the insider-trading charges against Ruggieri, because the Division of Enforcement did not prove personal benefit to his tipper. The bottom line: It doesn't violate anti-fraud rules to trade on material non-public information obtained from a casual acquaintance who "simply could not follow the rules and keep his mouth closed," where there is no clearly-demonstrable personal benefit to ...
The Department of Justice today appealed the Second Circuit's Newman decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, after several extensions. United States v. Newman, No. 15-137 (U.S. filed July 30, 2015). Last December's ruling narrowed the scope of tippee liability in insider-trading cases. The latest extension of the cert-petition deadline resulted in a bit of row, when the government hand-delivered the request June 15 and Justice Ginsburg granted it June 16, (extending the filing deadline to August 1). But Newman's counsel apparently wasn't even served with the government's request ...
On January 29, the Commission dismissed its insider-trading suit against Canadian analyst Jordan Peixoto in connection with his purchase of puts on the stock of Herbalife in advance of a negative hedge fund presentation on the company. The SEC instituted proceedings against Peixoto last September in its administrative forum - something it could not have done before Dodd-Frank against the non-registered Canadian-citizen research analyst. In the Matter of Jordan Peixoto, AP File No. 3-16184 (SEC Sept. 30, 2014)(OIP here) Dodd-Frank reforms expanded the availability of the ...
The US Second Circuit this Wednesday narrowed the scope of "tippee" liability for insider trading, rejecting the "doctrinal novelty" of recent government prosecution theories. In United State v. Newman, Nos. 13-1837-cr c/w 13-1917-cr (2nd Cir. Dec. 10, 2014), the Court reversed the insider-trading and conspiracy convictions of two portfolio managers. They were downstream tippees, who traded on information passed along from corporate insiders to securities analysts and, ultimately, Newman and Chaisson. The Court of Appeals reversed, because the jury instructions had ...
In an unusual three-page concurrence to a November 10 cert denial, Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) virtually called for a case that would subject the SEC's insider-trading interpretations to scrutiny. Because courts owe no deference to a prosecutor's interpretation of a criminal law, asked Scalia, then why should they owe Chevron deference to an executive agency's interpretation of a law [like '34 Act § 10(b)] that's enforced both criminally and administratively? Scalia also criticized deferring to the SEC's expansive insider-trading theory in the case as turning ...