From: Richard Kahn

From: Richard Kahn To: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Supreme Court Rejects Newman Requirement Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 15:22:11 +0000 ; AL :L AI L :L AI L :L e: ; t: SECURITIES LITIGATION ALERT DECEMBER 7, 2016 Supreme Court Rejects Newman Requirement of "Pecuniary or Similarly Valuable" Personal Benefit for Insider Trading Liability for Tipping Family and Friends For further information about this Alert, please contact: Sam Lieberman Partner 212.571.8164 Please feel free to discuss any aspect of this Alert with your regular Sadis & Goldberg contact or with any of the partners whose names and contact information can be found at the end of the Alert. The U.S. Supreme Court gave the government a major victory in Selman I/. U.S.,[1] which lowers the standard for proving insider trading involving tipping family or friends, and will embolden the government to bring similar cases. Selman holds that a gift of inside information to a family or friend is sufficient to prove insider trading tipping liability - even if the tipper did not receive a valuable quid pro quo in exchange for the tip. This significantly narrows U.S. v. Newman, in which the Second Circuit (a lower appellate court) held that a tipper must receive "at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature," as a personal benefit necessary to be held liable for insider tradIng.[2] Selman will almost certainly embolden the SEC and federal prosecutors to bring more insider trading cases, because it is much easier for the government to prove a 'gift" to a "friend" than to prove a "pecuniary" or similar quid pro quo. In Selman, an investment banker at Citigroup tipped his Brother about certain pending healthcare mergers involving Citigroup clients. The Brother traded on that information for a profit, and also tipped his Brother-in-Law, Mr. Salman, who also traded for a profit. At trial, the government relied solely on the tippers giving a gift of inside information to a close family member to satisfy the 'personal benefit" requirement of tipper-Uppee insider trading liability. The government did not identify any money or other valuable quid pro quo paid for the tip. Salman was convicted at trial, and his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. EFTA01059837 The Supreme Court affirmed Salman's conviction, holding that a gift of inside information to family or friends Is sufficient to prove a "personal benefit" for insider trading tipping liability. The Court reasoned that such a gift can be inferred to "provide the equivalent of a cash gift."(3) Specifically, the Court reasoned that if the tipper personally traded on inside information himself for a profit, but gave the proceeds to his brother, the tipper receives a personal benefit (cash) and is liable for insider trading. So, it reasoned, where a tipper achieves effectively the same result by gifting the information to his brother with the expectation that the brother will trade on the information to obtain a cash profit, the result should be the same. Importantly, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was narrowing the Second Circuit's landmark Newman decision. It stated, "[t]c, the extent the Second Circuit held that the tipper must also receive something of a 'pecuniary or similarly valuable nature' in exchange for a gift to family or friends,... we agree with the Ninth Circuit that this requirement is inconsistent with Dirks," a prior Supreme Court ruling.(4) This significantly lowers the standard of proof for insider trading tipping liability in cases involving family or friends. The government often cannot find evidence of money or a similarly valuable quid pro quo between the tipper and tippee in insider trading cases. So it is much easier to prove a case of insider trading by arguing that the exchange of information was a "gift," which essentially only requires some evidence (even circumstantial evidence such as phone logs) that the tipper gave information to the tippee. So where does this leave the Newman decision? The Newman decision itself was not overturned by the Supreme Court, because Newman also relied on the lack of proof that the tippees who traded on inside information knew that the tippers provided inside information in exchange for a personal benefit - especially since the tippees were several steps removed from the original tippers. In addition, Newman's "pecuniary or similarly valuable" benefit test should still apply to cases that do not Involve tipping family or friends. Nevertheless, the Salman decision tips the scales back in favor of the government in tipping insider trading cases. The SEC and federal prosecutors have shown in the past that they will bring cases based on alleged gifts of inside information to mere social acquaintances, fellow employees, or networking contacts - using strained arguments of 'friendship." And they will bring insider trading cases based solely on circumstantial evidence (e.g., a pattern of phone calls) where there is no direct proof of trading based on inside information. Accordingly, with Salman imposing a lower standard of proof, it is imperative that clients contact counsel immediately at the first hint of a government insider trading investigation. [I] Salmi?' v. U.S., No. 15.628, 580 U.S. ., slip op. (Dec. 6, 2016). [2]773 F.3d 438, 452 (2d Cir. 2014). [3] Salman, Slip Op. at 9-10. [4] Id. at 10. Sadis & Goldberg LLP Please feel free to discuss any aspect of this Alert with your regular Sadis & Goldberg contact or with any of the partners, whose names and contact information are provided below. Alex Gelinas, Daniel G. Vio Danielle Epst Douglas Hir Erika Winkle Greg Hartma EFTA01059838 Jeffrey Goldber Jennifer Rossan Mitchell Taras, Paul Fasciano, 2 Ron S. Geffner, Sam Lieberman Steven Etkind, Steven Huttler, Yehuda Braunst Yelena Maltser, If you would like copies of our other Alerts, please visit our website at and choose "Library". The information contained herein was prepared by Sadis & Goldberg LLP for general informational purposes for clients and friends of Sadis & Goldberg LLP. Its contents should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information in this Tax Alert without consulting counsel. This information is presented without any representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or timeliness. Transmission or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship with Sadis & Goldberg LLP. Electronic mail or other communications with Sadis & Goldberg LLP cannot be guaranteed to be confidential and will not create an attorney-client relationship with Sadis & Goldberg LLP. Sadis & Goldberg 1.12 1551 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor 1 New York, NY 10176 21.2.4k113293 Copyright © 2016 Sadis Sr Goldberg LLP Sadis & Goldberg LLP, 551 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10176 SafetinsubscribeTM Forward this email I Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by EFTA01059839