The recent insider trading decision in United States v. Newman, 2014 WL 6911278, has begun to impact cases and individuals beyond its caption. As has been widely reported, on Dec. 10, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down an opinion that reaffirmed the teachings of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dirks v. SEC, to wit, that for tippee liability to exist in an insider trading case, the government must prove that the tippee knew of a personal benefit received by the tipper. The widely discussed decision has raised questions before at least one jurist about guilty pleas already taken in an insider trading matter completely unrelated to Newman. The question the court in United States v. Durant had to resolve: Does Newman, a case brought under the classical theory of insider trading, apply with equal force to cases brought under the misappropriation theory?
After several rounds of briefing by the relevant parties, on Jan. 22, 2015, Judge Andrew L. Carter vacated the guilty pleas of the defendants in Durant and reserved as to whether an outright dismissal of the indictment is warranted.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
