Attorneys Say 'Martoma' Does Little to Settle Insider Trading Concerns
The Second Circuit's split decision in an insider trading case 'United States v. Martoma' was a clear win for attorneys at the DOJ and SEC. But it may not put to rest uncertainty over the nature of relationships that may create liability under securities law.
August 25, 2017 at 06:03 PM
23 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's split decision in an insider trading case United States v. Martoma, 14â€3599 was a clear win for attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. But it may not put to rest uncertainty over the nature of relationships that may create liability under securities law.
After the circuit's previous narrowing of the kinds of relationships that must be proven to sustain charges in United States v. Newman and the uncertainty of how Newman would apply in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in United States v. Salman, the Martoma decision restored to prosecutors some of the power they feared gone after Newman.
“I think the majority is trying to go back to [United States v.] Dirks, and look at personal benefit and define it, indirectly, a little bit more broadly,” said Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Lori Echavarria.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
'Judicial Maturation': Judge Vacates Life Sentences That He Imposed on Brooklyn Man in 1997
5 minute read
A Motion to Dismiss, a Reduced Sentence Request, and a Motion to Remand
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
- 2Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
- 3Deal Watch: What Dealmakers Are Thankful for in 2024
- 4'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 5Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
