Andrew E Tomback Karen Eisenstadt

March 24, 2020 | New York Law Journal

Much of the post-'Blaszczak' commentary has focused on how eliminating the personal-benefit requirement makes §§1343 and 1348 easier to satisfy than §10(b), and that the government may now shift to relying more on the Title 18 statutes in insider trading prosecutions. This article offers a slightly different view: namely, that with respect to remote tippees, the Title 18 statutes actually create a different hurdle to conviction, one which the logic of 'Blaszczak' actually reinforces.

By Andrew E. Tomback, Karen Eisenstadt and Julian Canzoneri

8 minute read