Your hypothetical nicely demonstrates a potential problem with defining “personal benefit” to include non-monetary benefits. I would agree that it’s easiest to show a breach of fiduciary duty when the personal benefit is monetary. When someone receives money or something close to it in return for inside information, there will almost always be a strong case that there is a breach of fiduciary duty. It may also be the case, though, that passing on a non-monetary benefit could also look like such a breach. Consider a CEO who passes on inside information in hopes of wooing a potential love interest who trades on the information. The CEO does not receive anything monetary, but it seems like he is acting in a way at odds with his fiduciary duties with the shareholders.
In my view, your hypothetical demonstrates that we need something more to assess whether the receipt of personal benefit triggers a breach of fiduciary duty. One thought might be that we could also ask whether the receipt of a personal benefit reflects selfish behavior that is against the interests of the shareholders. Though you are careful to note that in your hypothetical part of the CEO’s motivation is personal, I would argue that the situation you describe would arguably not qualify as selfish behavior. The CEO is just trying to relieve his stress so he can work effectively on behalf of the shareholders. He does receive a personal benefit, but I’m not so sure that this benefit is substantially at odds with the interests of the shareholders. Thus, I think there’s an argument that the CEO would not be a tipper and that the psychologist would not be a tippee, at least under the classical theory of liability.
