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.