The Supreme Court has granted cert in Salman v. United States, posing the following question for argument:
Whether the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks v. SEC requires proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman, or whether it is enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close family relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case.
The WSJ reports:
In the New York case, U.S. v. Newman, an appeals panel said prosecutors had to prove the insider disclosed the information for a personal benefit that included something valuable being exchanged. The decision upended multiple convictions and top prosecutors complained that the ruling could make it legal for traders to obtain and use confidential information from friends.
Mr. Salman, citing Newman, argued that evidence of a family relationship between the tipper and the tip recipient wasn’t enough to demonstrate that the insider received a personal benefit.
The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in a ruling last July. The Supreme Court will review the decision and could hear oral arguments as soon as April. Mr. Salman has been serving his prison sentence since August 2014.
Salman and Newman have been frequent topics. Here's some posts that may be of interest:
With Newman down, will Salman go? - ProfessorBainbridge ...
Newman was no game changer - ProfessorBainbridge.com
Supreme Court denies cert in US v. Newman insider trading ...
Insider Trading at the Supreme Court: With Newman down ...
US v Newman: A big win for coherence and fairness in insider
The personal benefit element of insider trading tipping ...
Alison Frankel on our brief in the US v. Newman insider ...
