Prompt reporting on federal, state, and international developments in the regulation of securities and futures trading, with objective coverage of the Securities and Exchange Commission,...
Aug. 31 — The argument most likely to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court not to review the Second Circuit's controversial Newman decision on criminal insider trading liability is that the case “turns on a factual inference in circumstances where the mental state standard–scienter–is a rigorous one,” Georgetown University law professor Donald Langevoort told Bloomberg BNA.
He noted that according to the Second Circuit, “there wasn’t a compelling enough showing of any appreciation of deliberate wrongdoing on the part of the tippers.”
“In other words,” Langevoort said in a Sept. 1 e-mail, “the case involves the kind of speculation courts have long been wary of in insider trading actions.”
“If this becomes simply a case about the facts,” given that the appeals court overturned the defendants' convictions, the high court “would probably be less inclined to take it.”
In United States v. Newman, , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the convictions of former hedge fund portfolio managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson. It said the government didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants—both downstream tippees—knew that information was disclosed by an insider in exchange for a personal benefit.
In late July, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli asked the high court to review the Second Circuit's ruling. He argued that the appeals court broke with the high court's decision” in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983) regarding what it means when an insider “personally benefits” by providing confidential information to a trading friend or relative.
They argued that even if the high court were to agree with federal prosecutors regarding the receipt of a “personal benefit” for insider trading purposes, it wouldn't change the outcome.
They reasoned that in seeking high court review, the government addressed only the evidence needed to show a personal benefit. The cert petition didn't raise a second, independent basis for the appeals court's ruling—the prosecution's failure to show that the defendants knew of the benefit.
“Enough is enough,” Chiasson told the justices. He said the government's “protean prosecution” of the case has devastated his business and imposed a heavy toll on him and his family. “This Court's review would prolong this ordeal for no reason.”
In other arguments, he said the question presented doesn't meet any of the criteria for Supreme Court review, such as a split among the circuits. High court review also would require “a fact-intensive inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence—something the Government routinely counsels this Court to avoid.”
Chiasson also took issue with the government's argument that the Second Circuit's decision “threatens to disrupt the securities markets.”
“To the contrary, the real threat to market stability is the possibility of a grant of certiorari in this case.”
Newman, too, argued that no high court decision on the “narrow issue presented for review would change the ultimate disposition of this case”—reason enough to deny the government's petition. “But there are other compelling reasons as well,” he contended.
First, Newman wrote, the Second Circuit's decision is consistent with Dirks because it also “limits the inference of a personal benefit” to cases in which the tipper “can reasonably be expected to have intended to make a gift of the equivalent of cash to the tippee.”
Not only is there no circuit split, he added, the government “greatly overstates Newman's impact on the ability of law enforcement agencies to pursue traditional insider trading cases.”
Newman was represented by Stephen R. Fishbein, John A. Nathanson and Brian Calandra, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York. Chiasson was represented by Mark F. Pomerantz, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York; and Gregory Morvillo, Morvillo LLP, New York.
To contact the reporter on this story: Phyllis Diamond at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan Jenkins at firstname.lastname@example.org.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)