1 October 5, 2015 Supreme Court Declines To Consider Second Circuit s Landmark Insider Trading Ruling Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the petition for a writ of certiorari (the Petition ) filed by the United States Department of Justice ( DOJ ) in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), a landmark decision that dismissed indictments against two insider trading defendants. By declining to hear the Petition, the Supreme Court ensured that the Second Circuit s decision in Newman will remain binding in the Second Circuit and influential across the country. As we explain below, two of Newman s holdings are particularly important: first, that the government must prove that a remote tippee knew or should have known of the personal benefit received by a tipper in exchange for disclosing nonpublic information; and second, that the benefits alleged by the government in United States v. Newman were not sufficient to support a conviction, as they were not sufficiently consequential. Newman has already had a significant impact on the law of insider trading. In this client alert, we begin by summarizing Newman. We next examine how courts have interpreted both of Newman s key holdings. We conclude by looking at how the legal issues addressed in Newman might play out in light of the Supreme Court s decision not to hear the Petition filed in Newman. United States v. Newman In United States v. Newman, the Second Circuit considered appeals from the insider trading convictions of Todd Newman, a former portfolio manager at Diamondback Capital Management, LLC, and Anthony Chiasson, a former portfolio manager at Level Global Investors, LP. 1 Newman and Chiasson were accused of trading Dell and NVIDIA securities based upon material, nonpublic information they received from their respective analysts. According to the testimony elicited during trial, the allegedly material, nonpublic information originated within Dell and NVIDIA, but it passed through numerous intermediaries before it was received by Newman and Chiasson. 773 F.3d at 443. They contended that there was insufficient evidence that the tipper received any personal benefit in exchange for the tip, and, in any event, that they certainly did not know of any such benefit. Id. at 444. Newman and Chiasson were each convicted after a five-week trial. They appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing, among other points, that they were convicted based on an improper jury instruction and that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. 1 Paul, Weiss was counsel for Anthony Chiasson on this appeal and was lead counsel at the Second Circuit argument Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. In some jurisdictions, this publication may be considered attorney advertising. Past representations are no guarantee of future outcomes.
2 The Second Circuit agreed with Newman and Chiasson, concluding that the jury instructions were improper and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The opinion turned on the Court s reading of Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983). In Dirks, the Supreme Court held that, under the classical theory of insider trading liability, 2 tippers are liable and, by extension, tippees are liable only when tippers breach a duty to the shareholders of a publicly traded company. 463 U.S. at 660. Before deciding Dirks, the Supreme Court had held in Chiarella v. United States that, without more, trading on material, nonpublic information is not illegal, as there is no general duty between all participants in market transactions to forgo actions based on material, nonpublic information. 445 U.S. 222, 233 (1980). Dirks built on Chiarella by setting forth when a tippee has a duty to disclose or abstain from trading on material, nonpublic information: a duty arises only when the insider has breached his fiduciary duty to the shareholders by disclosing the information to the tippee and the tippee knows or should know there has been a breach. Dirks, 463 U.S. at 660. Put another way, the tippee s duty derives from the tipper s duty, and the tipper s duty is created because of a fiduciary relationship with shareholders. Further, according to Dirks, courts will look to whether the tipper received a personal benefit to determine if the tipper breached a duty by disclosing nonpublic information. Id. at 662. In Newman, the Court explained that it was not sufficient for the government to show that the tippee received information that was material and nonpublic, or that the tipper was an insider, or even that the tipper breached a duty to the source of the information. [W]hile we have not yet been presented with the question of whether the tippee s knowledge of a tipper s breach requires knowledge of the tipper s personal benefit, the Court wrote, the answer follows naturally from Dirks. 773 F.3d at 447. Based on Dirks s explanation of the nature of an insider s fiduciary breach, we conclude that a tippee s knowledge of the insider s breach necessarily requires knowledge that the insider disclosed confidential information in exchange for personal benefit. Id. at 449. Further, the Newman panel concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the government s theory that the tipper received any personal benefit in exchange for providing inside information. Although the government contended that the evidence showed that the Dell tipper had sought career advice from the friend who was the initial tippee and that the NVIDIA tipper was a family friend of the initial tippee, the Court held that the circumstantial evidence in this case was simply too thin to warrant 2 Two theories of insider trading liability are available to prosecutors: the classical theory and the misappropriation theory. The prosecutions of Newman and Chiasson were brought under the classical theory of insider trading liability, which applies when a corporate insider trades in the securities of his corporation on the basis of material, nonpublic information. United States v. O Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, (1997). The misappropriation theory, by contrast, applies when an investor misappropriates confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information. Id. at 652.
3 the inference that the corporate insiders received any personal benefit in exchange for their tips. If the evidence of personal benefit proffered by the government was enough, the Court explained, practically anything would qualify. Id. at For evidence of a personal benefit to be sufficient, the Court wrote, there must be proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature. Id. at 452.] Developments Since Newman With respect to both of the key holdings of Newman i.e., that tippees either must have known or should have known of the personal benefit received by the tipper, and that the personal benefit received by the tipper must be consequential there have been significant developments since Newman was decided in December We summarize some of the most important of these developments below. Tippees Knowledge of the Personal Benefit Received by the Tipper Newman s holding that a tippee must have known or should have known of the personal benefit in a classical insider trading case has not been subject to significant challenges. To begin with, the Petition did not challenge this holding. Moreover, we are not aware of any court that has disagreed with this holding. Additionally, courts have applied the tippee knowledge holding of Newman which adjudicated a case brought under the classical theory of insider trading to misappropriation cases. While the USAO and the SEC have sought to limit Newman to only those cases brought under the classical theory, courts have rejected those arguments. Newman explained that [t]he elements of tipping liability are the same, regardless of whether the tipper s duty arises under the classical or the misappropriation theory. Id. at 446. Courts have adopted this proposition as if it were part of Newman s holding. In United States v. Conradt, Judge Carter wrote that even if Newman did not specifically resolve the issue [of its application to misappropriation cases], the Court is swayed by the fact that Newman s unequivocal statement on the point is part of a meticulous and conscientious effort by the Second Circuit to clarify the state of insidertrading law in this Circuit. No. 12 CR. 887 ALC, 2015 WL , at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015). Because it concluded that the evidence presented by the government was insufficient under Newman, the court in Conradt vacated the guilty pleas previously entered by four defendants. 3 Id. Similarly, Judge 3 In addition to their successful attempts to vacate their guilty pleas, defendants Thomas Conradt and David Weinhaus also sought to vacate the settlement agreements they had entered into with the SEC to resolve civil charges related to the same trading. See SEC v. Conradt, No. 12 Civ. 8676(JSR), 2015 WL (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2015). They argued that the settlement agreements should be vacated because they were based on guilty pleas that had been vacated and because they were based on law that had changed, in light of Newman. Judge Rakoff denied their motion. He explained as follows:
4 Rakoff rejected the SEC s argument that Newman did not apply to misappropriation cases, reasoning that Newman s statements on this point seem so clearly intended to give guidance to the lower courts of this Circuit that this Court takes them as binding. SEC v. Payton, No. 14 CIV. 4644, 2015 WL , at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2015). An SEC ALJ has also concluded that knowledge of a personal benefit must be proven in misappropriation cases. See Gregory T. Bolan & Joseph C. Ruggieri, Administrative Proceedings Ruling Release No. 2309, Administrative Proceeding File No (ALJ Feb. 12, 2015) (order). Two decisions, however, suggest that Newman s requirements for proving tippee knowledge have not changed the standard for pleading tippee knowledge in civil cases. In SEC v. Jafar, in separate trades executed six months apart, two defendants purchased large holdings in two biotechnology companies, in both instances shortly before a journalist from the Financial Post reported that the companies were engaged in merger negotiations. SEC v. One or More Unknown Traders in Sec. of Onyx Pharm., Inc., No. 13-CV-4645 JPO, 2014 WL , at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014) reconsideration denied sub nom. SEC v. Jafar, No. 13-CV-4645 JPO, 2015 WL (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2015). The SEC alleged that the defendants traded on inside information, but the complaint did not allege the tipper or the nature of the benefit received by the tipper the allegations were based entirely on the suspicious circumstances of the trades WL , at *1. Judge Oetken denied a motion to dismiss, reasoning that, since the SEC did not know the identity of the tipper, it could not have pleaded facts about the defendants knowledge of the tipper s personal benefit. Jafar held that, even without any allegation about the nature of the tip, the parallel nature of the alleged events, just six months apart, strongly supports an inference that Defendants, experienced traders, knew or should have known that the tipper received a personal benefit in exchange for the tip. Id. at *6. To similar effect, Judge Rakoff held that the SEC had sufficiently pleaded that the remote tippees knew of the personal benefit received by the tipper, even though the complaint had not specifically alleged that the remote tippees knew of the benefit. See Payton, 2015 WL , at *1. In Payton, the SEC alleged that the tipper and the first-level tippee were close friends, and that the first-level tippee had assisted the tipper with a criminal matter involving the tipper. Payton acknowledged that Newman lays out an Even if (contrary to the Court's view) Newman could be read to materially change the law, relief under Rule 60(b) is not intended to allow one side of a settlement agreement to obtain the benefits of finality while placing the other side at risk that future judicial decisions will deprive them of the benefit of their bargain. When it comes to civil settlements, a deal is a deal, absent far more compelling circumstances than are here presented. Id. at *2.
5 onerous standard for showing that a remote tippee knew of the tipper s receipt of a personal benefit. Id. However, a footnote noted that where matters are peculiarly with the defendant s knowledge, slightly relaxed pleading standards are appropriate. Id. at n.3. It therefore held that the remote tippees respective knowledge of the circumstances of the tip in particular, knowledge that the tip came from the tipper, and that the tipper and tippee were close friends was enough to raise an inference that the remote tippees knew that the relationship between the tipper and first-level tippee involved reciprocal benefits, even though the remote tippees did not know of the first-level tippee s assistance with the tipper s criminal matter. Id. at *5. Sufficiency of Evidence To Establish That the Tipper Received a Personal Benefit While Newman s holding relating to tippees knowledge of a personal benefit has largely avoided criticism, its holding relating to what evidence is sufficient to establish a personal benefit has been the subject of debate. In addition to the Petition filed by the DOJ, multiple courts have distinguished the facts and pushed back against aggressive readings of this aspect of Newman. At the heart of the issue is a question that is still unresolved after Newman: when does evidence of a non-tangible gain satisfy the personal benefit requirement? Importantly, an administrative law judge ( ALJ ) from the SEC has applied Newman s definition of personal benefit to dismiss charges brought by the SEC s Division of Enforcement (the Division ). See Gregory T. Bolan & Joseph C. Ruggieri, Administrative Proceedings Initial Decision Release No. 877, Administrative Proceeding File No (ALJ Sept. 14, 2015) (initial decision). The Division had alleged that Ruggieri, a former trader at Wells Fargo Securities LLC, traded on material, nonpublic tips from Bolan, a Wells Fargo research analyst, concerning forthcoming ratings changes for six stocks prior to their public dissemination in 2010 and As noted above, ALJ Jason S. Patil first explained that Newman s personal benefit standard applies to misappropriation cases. Then, though he found that Ruggieri had traded on four of these stocks based on tips from Bolan, ALJ Patil dismissed the charges because the Division did not prove, under the standard set forth in Newman, that Bolan had received a personal benefit in exchange for the alleged tips. While the Division argued that Ruggieri had provided a benefit to Bolan by mentoring him, providing positive feedback to him, and acting as his friend, ALJ Patil concluded that the evidence was insufficient, under Newman, to prove that that Ruggieri provided any of the alleged benefits to Bolan because of Bolan s tips. In other instances, however, courts have raised questions about Newman s standard for when evidence of a personal benefit is sufficient. Of particular importance, one Circuit court has expressly declined to follow Newman s holding or, at least, a defendant s interpretation of Newman s holding. In United States v. Salman, the tipper (Maher) worked for Citi s health care group, and passed nonpublic information about impending mergers involving Citi s clients to his brother (Michael), who in turn passed it to the defendant (Salman), whose sister had married Maher. No , 2015 WL (9th Cir.
6 July 6, 2015). The defendant Salman argued, based on Newman, that because there is no evidence that Maher received any such tangible benefit in exchange for the inside information, or that Salman knew of any such benefit, the Government failed to carry its burden. Id. at *6. Judge Rakoff, sitting by designation on a Ninth Circuit panel, wrote the opinion rejecting the defendant s argument: To the extent Newman can be read to go so far, we decline to follow it. Doing so would require us to depart from the clear holding of Dirks that the element of breach of fiduciary duty is met where an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. Id. (quoting Dirks, 463 U.S. at 664.) In Salman, the panel wrote, the Government presented direct evidence that the disclosure was intended as a gift of market-sensitive information, and this evidence permitted the jury to infer that the tipper had received a personal benefit for disclosing the information. Id. In effect, Salman wrote, if Newman had held that the tipper must always receive a tangible personal benefit, it would be inconsistent with Dirks. See id. The different results in Salman and Newman can be explained by factual distinctions between the cases: in Newman, an investment analyst and an IR employee exchanged information little different from that routinely discussed by analysts and IR employees; in Salman, family members exchanged highly confidential information rarely discussed in the absence of improper behavior. Nevertheless, the DOJ argued in the Petition that Salman had created a circuit split between the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. Additionally, a recent decision from the Southern District of New York again written by Judge Rakoff has drawn a distinction between the evidence required to establish tippee liability and the evidence required to establish tipper liability. United States v. Gupta considered the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Rajat Gupta, who was convicted of providing, while serving on Goldman Sachs board, confidential information about Goldman Sachs to the hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam. No. 11 Cr. 907(JSR), 2015 WL (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2015). Gupta argued that, under Newman, his casual friendship with Rajaratnam was insufficient to establish that he received a personal benefit for the tip he provided. Judge Rakoff rejected Gupta s argument. He wrote that the standard in Newman does not govern issues of tipper liability, as Newman was concerned with what a tippee must know about the tipper s personal benefit. For tippers such as Gupta, Judge Rakoff wrote, an intention to benefit the tippee is sufficient, even without evidence of a quid pro quo and without evidence of the type of meaningfully close relationship required by Newman. Id. at *3. The court s opinion then explained that, in any event, even if Newman s standard does govern the liability of tippers, the personal relationship and business connections between Gupta and Rajaratnam satisfied Newman s meaningfully close relationship standard. Id. at *4.
7 Other cases have simply distinguished Newman on its facts. For instance, a recent decision from the Southern District of New York rejected a defendant tipper s argument that a pre-newman jury instruction was plain error. United States v. Riley, No. 13-CR-339-1, 2015 WL (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2015). According to the jury instruction at issue in Riley, a tip provided for the purpose of maintaining or furthering a friendship satisfied the personal benefit requirement. Id. at *4. The defendant tipper argued that this instruction was not permitted under Newman, as it allowed the jury to find that he had received a personal benefit solely because he was friends with the tippee. See id. Judge Caproni held, among other things, that the defendant tipper had not been prejudiced by the jury instruction, as he had clearly received a personal benefit resulting from his friendship with the tippee. The court wrote that a tip given to a close friend is circumstantial evidence that the friendship is a quid pro quo relationship. Id. at *5. The opinion then described three concrete benefits received by the tipper on account of the tippee s friendship: assistance with finding his next job, networking opportunities, and investment advice. Id. at *6-*8. The court concluded that [e]ven if none of the specific benefits that [the tipper] provided to Riley were sufficient standing alone to satisfy Newman s personal benefit standard, the totality of the circumstances clearly meet the Newman threshold. Id. at *8. As such, the court refused to grant the defendant s motion for a new trial. Conclusion Given the Supreme Court s decision not to hear Newman, Newman will remain binding precedent in the Second Circuit. Accordingly, for insider trading cases brought in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, Newman will govern cases addressing issues of tippee liability. Moreover, given the Second Circuit s reputation in the area of securities law, it is likely that Newman will influence the law of insider trading in other circuits as well, even though the decision is not binding outside of the Second Circuit. That said, much remains for district courts and courts of appeal to work out. Of particular importance, courts will likely continue to struggle with the question of when non-tangible benefits are sufficient to satisfy the personal benefit standard. Unless and until the Supreme Court steps in to provide clarity on the many thorny issues raised by insider trading cases, uncertainty will remain. * * *
8 This memorandum is not intended to provide legal advice, and no legal or business decision should be based on its content. Questions concerning issues addressed in this memorandum should be directed to: Susanna M. Buergel (212) Brad S. Karp (212) Richard A. Rosen (212) Charles E. Davidow (202) Daniel J. Kramer (212) Audra J. Soloway (212) Andrew J. Ehrlich (212) Walter Rieman (212) Associate Matthew J. Carhart contributed to this client alert.
Scope of Criminal Insider Trading Liability for Remote Tippees United States v. Newman: Second Circuit Reverses Insider Trading Convictions; Requires That Tippee Know of Benefit Received by Insider; Strengthens
By Christopher LaVigne and Brian Calandra Introduction Christopher L. LaVigne is a partner in the Litigation Group of Shearman & Sterling LLP.* Brian Calandra is an associate in the Litigation Group of
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BASSAM YACOUB SALMAN, AKA Bessam Jacob Salman, Defendant-Appellant. No. 14-10204 D.C.
A Critical Look at SEC Insider Trading Policies By Roberta S. Karmel February 19, 2015 Trading on inside information is neither defined nor specifically outlawed in federal securities laws. Rather, insider
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INSIDER TRADING CASES: HAS THE PENDULUM SWUNG BACK TO THE DEFENCE? REPRINTED FROM: CORPORATE DISPUTES MAGAZINE APR-JUN 2015 ISSUE corporate CDdisputes Visit the website to request
Insider Trading & December 2015 In This Issue: Case Law & Market Updates Newman Revisited: With the Denial of Cert., Courts Must Continue to Grapple with the Second Circuit s Articulation of the Personal
Case 13-1837, Document 262-1, 12/10/2014, 1389615, Page 1 of 28 13 1837 cr (L) United States v. Newman and Chiasson In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2013 Nos. 13
2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case: 10-2878 Document: 39 Page: 1 06/07/2011 308084 6 10-2786 (L) USA v. Wolfson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2010 (Argued: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 7, 2011) UNITED
INSIDER TRADING Recent Cases Reduce the Impact of Newman on Insider Trading Enforcement By Marc R. Rosen Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with its
T.C. Memo. 2014-106 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WHISTLEBLOWER 10949-13W, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 10949-13W. Filed June 4, 2014. Sealed, for petitioner. Sealed,
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
Case 1:12-cv-00547-CWD Document 38 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ALBERT MOORE, v. Petitioner, Case No. 1:12-cv-00547-CWD MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Case 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. RAFAEL COMAS, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI
Case 2:08-cv-01593-DSC Document 67 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA US AIRWAYS, INC. in its capacity as Fiduciary and Plan Administrators
VOL. 38, NO. 2 AUTUMN 2012 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Eleventh Circuit Becomes Latest Circuit to Adopt Rebuttable Presumption That Fiduciaries Act Prudently by Investing in Employer Stock Douglas
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document 978 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X 5/7/2015
A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal Presented by the Office of the Richmond County District Attorney Acting District Attorney Daniel L. Master, Jr. 130 Stuyvesant
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 email@example.com 'Making Available' Cases Still Making Trouble
Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK GILBERT, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:05-CV-0325 (LEK)
THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 OFFICE OF STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES 89 Washington Avenue, Room 318-M EB Phone: (518) 486-6090; Fax: (518) 474-8299
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOSEPH GIBBS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 98-787-JJF JOHN P. DECKERS, et al., Defendants. Darryl K. Fountain, Esquire, LAW OFFICES OF
Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA KERRY CRAIG WALKER, Plaintiff(s), v. CHEROKEE COUNTY, GEORGIA SHERIFF ROGER GARRISON, PRESTON PEAVY, CHEROKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, ET.AL,
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-3229 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONY BAILEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellee. Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40822 DAMON MARCELINO LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 722 Filed: September 15, 2014 Stephen
Case 8:10-cv-02549-EAJ Document 20 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID 297 TORREY CRAIG, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION vs. Case No.: 8:10-CV-2549-T-EAJ
Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Case: 14-60087 Document: 00512938717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 18, 2015 SUPERIOR
Insider Trading: Protecting The Company and Yourself Panelists Daniel R. Alonso, Exiger LLC Mark S. Cohen, Cohen & Gresser LLP Bonnie J. Roe, Cohen & Gresser LLP Michael J. Sharp, Leucadia National Corp.
2:13-cv-12939-PJD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 07/06/13 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 1 DETROIT FREE PRESS, a Michigan corporation, STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OFMICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. Hon.
Case :-cv-00-lrh -WGC Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Stanley W. Parry Esq. Nevada Bar No. Jon T. Pearson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 0 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 00 North City Parkway, Suite 0 Las Vegas, NV 0 Telephone:
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
Case: 13-15155 Date Filed: 07/29/2015 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15155 D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cv-02592-ODE DENNIS SMITH, Individually
NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2013 ME 103 Docket: Wal-13-175 Argued: October 7, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
Criminal Law Reporter Reproduced with permission from The Criminal Law Reporter, 90 CrL 363, 12/14/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com WHITE COLLAR
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,343 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, v. DANIEL JACKSON, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court;
Case 4:06-cv-00191 Document 12 Filed in TXSD on 05/25/06 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BARBARA S. QUINN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-00191
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO. 2011-0912 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT Rule 7 Mandatory Appeal 2 nd Circuit District Division - Lebanon Bruce E. Kenna,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Borough of Versailles and : Barbara Warhold, : Business Privilege Tax Collector : : v. : No. 546 C.D. 2013 : Argued: November 12, 2013 Ingram's Cleaning Service,
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 05-10037-GAO-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GRANT BOYD, Defendant. O TOOLE,
No. 15-628 In the Supreme Court of the United States BASSAM YACOUB SALMAN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: CASE NO. JAMES MICHAEL WATSON 03-13355 DEBTOR CHAPTER 7 SECURITY RESOURCES, L.L.C. ADV. NO and INTERFACE SECURITY SYSTEMS, L.L.C. 04-1005
33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY ALERT JULY 2014 U.S. District Court Limits the Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Bankruptcy Law but Important Considerations for Foreign Investors Remain On July 6, 2014, Judge Jed
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 8, 2008; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2006-CA-000917-MR BILLY TANNER APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE MARTIN
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
M. REED HOPPER, Cal. Bar No. 1 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, Cal. Bar No. 0 E-mail: email@example.com Pacific Legal Foundation Sacramento, California Telephone: ( -1 Facsimile: (
DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1-0000 1 RODNEY M. KIDD, vs. ORDER AND DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL UNDER RULE (c) 1 Defendant. 1 1 1 0 1 Before
Case 1:07-cr-00220-BSJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. 07 Cr. 220 (BSJ) PAUL BARNABA, GOVERNMENT S MEMORANDUM
Case: 15-10629 Date Filed: 08/06/2015 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10629 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00868-CSC W.L.
VOL. 34, NO. 4 SPRING 2009 Employee Relations L A W J O U R N A L Split Circuits Does Charging Party s Receipt of a Right-to-Sue Letter and Commencement of a Lawsuit Divest the EEOC of its Investigative
2:13-cr-20371-VAR-LJM Doc # 19 Filed 07/12/13 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, D-1 DOREEN M. HENDRICKSON,
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06 No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERELL BUFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Insurance Limited For Insider Trading Defense Charles E. Leasure, III, Pepper Hamilton LLP The May 11, 2011 conviction of Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam cast a spotlight on a recent expansion
Case: 12-13381 Date Filed: 05/29/2013 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13381 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00281-RBD-JBT-1
Page 1 of 9 Guide to Small Claims Court 1. Introduction 2. What is Small Claims Court? 3. Who Can Sue and What Can You Sue About? 4. Before You Sue 5. When Must a Lawyer Represent Me in Small Claims? 6.
REL: 10/5/12 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
Determining Tax Liability Under Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code Section 505(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code ) provides the means by which a debtor or trustee in bankruptcy may seek a determination
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01390-CR LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal
LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller Occasionally, a defendant, while incarcerated and apparently having nothing better to do, will file a Motion under RCr. 11.42,
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
T.C. Memo. 2012-264 UNITED STATES TAX COURT PAUL A. BILZERIAN AND TERRI L. STEFFEN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 3648-98. Filed September 12, 2012. Paul A. Bilzerian
Case: 10-30447 Document: 00511371693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 3, 2011 Lyle
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 104 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 06-2026-CM
Lewis Tse Pui Lung/Shutterstock.com 34 February/March 2016 Practical Law Prosecutors and regulators increasingly use modern investigative techniques and aggressive enforcement tactics to pursue insider
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2007-CC-1091 FREY PLUMBING
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE : AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 8823-VCG : AT&T SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : MOTION TO STAY OCTOBER 14, 2013 LETTER OPINION
California Judges Association OPINION NO. 56 (Issued: August 29, 2006) ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN A JUDGE OR A MEMBER OF A JUDGE S FAMILY HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:15-cv-343-NT BRANCH RIVER PLASTICS, INC., et al., Defendants MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: All Directors, Officers and Covered Persons of Power Solutions International, Inc. and its Subsidiaries Catherine Andrews General Counsel and Insider Trading Compliance Officer
PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. No. 1 CA-SA 12-0201 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, DEPARTMENT A Petitioner, Maricopa County Superior Court
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed September 19, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D12-353 Lower Tribunal No.
[Cite as State ex rel. Parisi v. Heck, 2013-Ohio-4948.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., GEORGIANNA PARISI v. Relator MATHIAS H. HECK,
Briefing Insider Trading Risks August 2014 Overview In the United Kingdom there are two parallel sets of rules which cover insider trading. One is a civil market abuse regime under the Financial Services
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
Case 5:13-cv-04137-JWL-JPO Document 16 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE KEVIN WRIGHT,