August 17, 2017

August 16, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 15, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 14, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Justices Appear Hesitant to Narrow the Scope of Insider Trading Liability

Since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ December 2014 decision in United States v. Newman,1 the government’s ability to aggressively pursue insider trading cases involving tipping has been in doubt.  But, on October 5, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Salman v. United States,2 a case that should clarify the government’s burden in proving insider trading cases against tippers and tippees.3


In its seminal 1983 insider trading decision in Dirks v. SEC, the Supreme Court held that a tipper of material, non-public information will be liable for insider trading only where he or she provided the information for “personal gain” in violation of his or her fiduciary duty.4  However, the Court in Dirks did not define fully what constitutes “personal gain.”  In Newman, the Second Circuit held 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.”  Under Newman, a benefit to the tipper such as career advice or friendship is insufficient to establish a personal gain.  Because concrete proof of a personal gain can be difficult to come by in cases involving long tipping chains, Newman appeared to be a big blow to the prosecution of such cases.

However, many courts have not followed Newman closely.  Most notably, in Salman, the Ninth Circuit took a broader view of personal gain.  In Salman, the government proved at trial that defendant Bassam 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.  Michael Kara then shared this information with Salman, and encouraged Salman to trade upon it.  There was no proof at trial of any pecuniary gain for the original tipper (Maher Kara), but the government did present evidence that the Kara brothers shared a very close relationship.  The Ninth Circuit upheld Salman’s conviction, 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  Thus, Newman has not completely undermined the DOJ’s and SEC’s ability to pursue tipping cases.

Oral Arguments

At oral argument in Salman, Salman’s counsel urged the Court to adopt a rule similar to Newman, whereby a tippee could be held liable only if the government proved the tippee’s knowledge of a “tangible” or “concrete” benefit.  Salman’s counsel argued that insider trading liability must be construed narrowly because no statute specifically defines the parameters of the offense.  Several of the Justices expressed skepticism towards these arguments.  Justice Sotomayor commented that Congress deliberately used general language to proscribe a broad range of more specific activities and that insider trading fell within the established understanding of fraud prohibited by the statute.  And Justice Kagan pointed out that “Congress has shown no indication that it’s unhappy” with Dirks and the body of insider trading law deriving therefrom.  Justice Kagan also noted that Dirks did not limit the definition of personal gain to things which are “concrete” or “tangible,” but rather stated that the element of personal gain is satisfied when the tipper gives a “gift” of confidential information to a tippee; this point that was echoed by Justice Breyer. 

The government advocated for a broader view of “personal gain,” arguing that liability should exist when a tipper provides inside information knowing that a tippee would trade on that information.  The Justices appeared more receptive to the government’s arguments, but still challenged the extent to which the government’s proposal would expand liability.  Chief Justice Roberts questioned the government’s argument, asking why liability should be premised upon the tipper’s belief as to whether the tippee would trade.  And Justice Sotomayor posited that the government’s position was “way out of existing law.”  The government responded that it did not believe it was asking the Court to go “beyond Dirks” and that it would be happy if the Court upheld Salman’s conviction and reaffirmed Dirks.  The government also noted that no court besides the Second Circuit has adopted a standard like the one proposed by Salman. 


The Justices seemed largely unmoved by Salman’s arguments that insider trading liability must be construed more narrowly because the offense is not precisely defined by statute.  Indeed, Justice Kagan expressed concern that by narrowing the scope of what constitutes insider trading, Salman was asking the Court “essentially to change the rules in a way that threatens that integrity [of the markets].”  Therefore, it would be surprising if the Court adopts Salman’s urged limitation on insider trading. 

It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court’s ruling will elaborate upon or clarify in some way Dirks’ personal gain requirement, or if it simply will maintain the status quo.  Either way, it seems likely that Newman will go down in history as a speed bump, rather than a serious impediment, to prosecuting insider trading cases involving tipping.

1   773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014).

2   Case No. 15-628.  Oral argument transcript available at


4   463 U.S. 646 (1983).

5   792 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 2015).

© Copyright 2017 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP


About this Author

Jodi L. Avergun, Cadwalader, Criminal regulatory Matters Lawyer, Foreign Corrupt Practices Attorney

Jodi Avergun’s practice focuses on representing corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory matters involving, among other things, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, securities enforcement, health care, and general white collar matters. Jodi has successfully represented both companies and senior executives in internal investigations, matters before regulatory bodies including the SEC and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and in civil and criminal matters in federal court. She has also designed and implemented compliance programs for a variety of her...

202 862 2456
Douglas H. Fischer, Cadwalader, Securities regulatory matters Lawyer, complex commercial litigation Attorney

Doug Fischer represents corporate and individual clients in an array of settings spanning white collar criminal, regulatory and complex commercial matters. He regularly represents clients before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Department of Justice and other government agencies in connection with alleged violations of securities laws and regulations, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the New York Martin Act and other laws. Additionally, he advises investors and other entities on compliance obligations related to the cannabis industry.

Doug negotiated, in an insider trading matter, the first ever non-prosecution agreement between the SEC and an individual.
Joseph V. Moreno, Cadwalader, White Collar Defense Lawyer, Government, Investigations Lawyer

Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor, is a partner in Cadwalader's White Collar Defense and Investigations Group. Mr. Moreno has extensive trial and appellate experience handling complex investigations and litigation involving the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other domestic and international law enforcement agencies. Representative matters have involved money laundering, cyber fraud, securities and accounting fraud, insider trading, international bribery (including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the UK Bribery Act...

202 862 2262
Emily J. Rockwood, Cadwalader, Criminal Regulatory Matters Lawyer, Internal Investigations Attorney

Emily Rockwood represents clients in a variety of criminal and regulatory matters, with a focus on white collar defense, compliance issues and internal investigations. Emily has assisted corporations and individuals in the energy, healthcare, financial, and telecommunications industries in responding to inquiries from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, among others.

Emily has conducted internal investigations regarding potential violations of the Foreign...

202 862 2225