October 2, 2022

Volume XII, Number 275


September 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Bharara Appeals Second Circuit’s Decision Vacating Insider Trading Convictions

Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a rehearing en banc of last month’s landmark decision vacating multiple insider trading convictions, arguing that the decision creates a new “deeply confounding” standard that splits from precedent in this and other circuits, and threatens the effective enforcement of the securities laws.

As covered previously here, in United States v. Newman the Second Circuit held that to convict a tippee for insider trading under Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tippee had knowledge of the benefit received by the tipper, and not mere knowledge that the tipper had breached his or her duty of confidentiality. Finding that the Government had not proven that hedge fund managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson—who had received tips from financial analysts, who themselves had allegedly received tips from insiders at Dell and NVIDIA—knew of the original tippers’ personal benefit from providing such information, the Second Circuit overturned their convictions for insider trading.

The Government has challenged this heightened standard as contrary to Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983) and other precedent. In particular, the Government contends that the Second Circuit “effectively nullified part of the Dirks benefit test” by “eliminating Dirks’s express recognition that an improper but uncompensated gift of information by an insider suffices.” The Government also claims that the new standard, which considers, among other things, a “meaningfully close personal relationship,” lacks any “familiar meaning in this or any analogous area of law.”

In its petition, the Government contends that Newman will severely hamper its ability to prosecute “some of the most common, culpable, and market-threatening forms of insider trading.” The Government warns that the “ambiguous and diluted notion” of a tipper’s personal benefit will allow hedge fund managers and other traders to “insulate themselves from tippee liability by knowingly placing themselves at the end of a chain of inside information” and turning a blind eye to the sources of inside information.

The SEC, which filed an amicus brief, has largely seconded the Government’s arguments.

United States v. Newman et al., Cases No. 13-1837(L), 1301917(CON) (2d Cir. 2015).

©2022 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLPNational Law Review, Volume V, Number 31

About this Author

Michael Rosensaft, white collar criminal litigator, Katten, New York Law Firm

Michael M. Rosensaft focuses his litigation practice on representing individuals and businesses in white collar criminal matters, regulatory enforcement matters, corporate internal investigations, insurance and health care fraud and complex civil litigation.

Prior to joining Katten, he served as an Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. In that capacity, Michael oversaw the investigation and prosecution of numerous criminal cases involving terrorism, international money laundering, export violations, bribery of foreign...

Tenley Mochizuki, Katten Muchin Law Firm, Litigation Lawyer

Tenley Mochizuki concentrates her practice in litigation and dispute resolution matters.

While attending law school, Tenley participated in the Advocacy for the Elderly Clinic and worked on the Virginia Environmental Law Journal. Before joining the firm, she worked in a medical office, a primate cognition laboratory and various nonprofit organizations.