United States: Second Circuit Again Holds That Tipper/Tippee Liability Can Arise From A Gift Of Inside Information Even Without A Close Personal Relationship

The Second Circuit confirmed this week that a "meaningfully close personal relationship" is not required for insider-trading liability where a tipper discloses inside information as a gift with the intent to benefit the tippee.  The June 25, 2018 decision on panel rehearing in United States v. Martoma (No. 14-3599) retreats from the panel's original decision and no longer effectively overrules a portion of the Second Circuit's 2014 decision in United States v. Newman, which had refused to infer a tipper's intent to benefit a tippee in the absence of a meaningfully close relationship and a pecuniary or similarly valuable benefit in exchange for the tip.  The new panel decision – again a 2-1 ruling – now holds that the requisite relationship described in Newman can be established by proving "either [i] that the tipper and tippee shared a relationship suggesting a quid pro quo or [ii] that the tipper gifted confidential information with the intention to benefit the tippee."

The latest decision again means that insider-trading liability can be established in the Second Circuit "by evidence that the tipper's disclosure of inside information was intended to benefit the tippee," regardless of the nature of the tipper's and tippee's personal relationship.  Whether the panel's new effort to avoid outright rejection of Newman will suffice to prevent en banc rehearing and a certiorari petition remains to be seen.

Background

The Martoma case arose out of the Government's investigation of a prominent hedge fund.  Mathew Martoma, a portfolio manager at the fund, had had dealings with two doctors who had been involved in the clinical trial of a drug for Alzheimer's disease.  The doctors had entered into paid consulting arrangements with the fund under contracts through expert-networking agencies.

The Government alleged that at least one of the doctors had shared confidential safety data about the drug with Martoma, leading Martoma and the hedge fund to build and maintain positions in the securities of the two companies that owned rights to the drug.  The Government also alleged that the doctor had given Martoma advance information of the drug trial's failure – and that the fund had then sold off its positions in the two drug companies' stock before the news became public.  Martoma was convicted of insider trading and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.

Martoma appealed, claiming that the Government had not proven that the doctor had received a legally sufficient personal benefit in exchange for providing the confidential information.  Martoma's argument focused on the interplay among the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC, the Second Circuit's 2014 decision in Newman, and the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Salman v. United States.

  • The Dirks case established the framework for tippee liability.  The Supreme Court held that the liability of a tippee (such as Martoma) derives from the liability of his or her tipper (such as the doctor) – and that a tipper breaches a fiduciary duty by disclosing confidential information only if he or she benefits directly or indirectly from the disclosure.  The Court gave examples of such a personal benefit, including "a pecuniary gain," "a reputational benefit that will translate into future earnings," "a relationship between the [tipper] and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or an intention to benefit the particular recipient," or "a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend" where "[t]he tip and trade resemble trading by the [tipper] himself followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient."
  • In 2014, the Second Circuit announced a more rigorous construction of Dirks's personal-benefit requirement.  The court ruled in Newman that, to the extent "a personal benefit may be inferred from a personal relationship between the tipper and tippee, . . . such an inference is impermissible in the absence of 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" (emphasis added).
  • In 2016, the Supreme Court decided Salman, which involved a family relationship:  the tipper had allegedly provided confidential business information to his brother, and the brother had then tipped Salman (the trader), whose sister had become engaged to and later married the original tipper.  The Court reemphasized Dirks's holding that "a tipper breaches a fiduciary duty by making a gift of confidential information to 'a trading relative'" and added:  "when a tipper gives inside information to 'a trading relative or friend,' the jury can infer that the tipper meant to provide the equivalent of a cash gift."  The Court rejected Salman's reliance on Newman for the proposition that the tipper must receive an objective, consequential personal benefit representing an actual or potential pecuniary gain.  Rather, the Court held that, "[t]o the extent the Second Circuit held that the tipper must also receive something of a 'pecuniary or similarly valuable nature' in exchange for a gift to family or friends, . . . this requirement is inconsistent with Dirks."

Martoma argued on appeal that the Salman decision did not undermine Newman's requirement that the tipper-tippee relationship be a "meaningfully close personal relationship," because the nature of that relationship had not been at issue in Salman, which had involved brothers.  Martoma insisted that he and the doctor had not shared a close personal relationship, so Salman's gift-giving analogy was inapposite, and a personal benefit more direct and consequential than mere friendship was required.  He also claimed that, even though the doctor had been paid under the consulting arrangement with the hedge fund, the doctor had not been paid for disclosing the drug-efficacy data.

The Second Circuit – in a 2-to-1 decision – affirmed the conviction.

Second Circuit's First Decision

The court first ruled that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Martoma's conviction on a simple pecuniary-benefit theory.  The doctor had been paid for his consultations with Martoma.  Even if the doctor had not billed Martoma for the specific meetings at which he had conveyed the nonpublic information about the drug trial's failure, "the tipper's gain need not be immediately pecuniary."  "In the context of their ongoing relationship of quid pro quo, . . . where [the doctor] regularly disclosed confidential information in exchange for fees, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime [of insider trading] beyond a reasonable doubt under a pecuniary quid pro quo theory."

The majority devoted more of its opinion to discussing the nonpecuniary, gift-giving aspect of insider-trading liability because Martoma had challenged the jury instructions, which had described the personal-benefit theory in terms of both financial and non-financial benefits.  The majority concluded that "the logic of Salman abrogated Newman's 'meaningfully close personal relationship' requirement" for a non-financial or non-quid pro quo personal benefit.  The court held that "an insider or tipper personally benefits from a disclosure of inside information whenever [i] the information was disclosed 'with the expectation that [the recipient] would trade on it' . . . and [ii] the disclosure 'resemble[s] trading by the insider followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient,' . . . whether or not there was a 'meaningfully close personal relationship' between the tipper and the tippee."

In the majority's view, "nothing in [Salman's] logic supports a distinction between gifts to people with whom a tipper shares a 'meaningfully close personal relationship' . . . and gifts to those with whom a tipper does not share such a relationship."  Newman's "meaningfully close personal relationship" requirement thus appeared to be a dead letter where a tipper discloses information expecting the tippee to trade on it, and the disclosure is equivalent to the tipper's trading and providing the profits to the tippee as a gift.

The dissent (by Judge Pooler) criticized the majority for rejecting Newman without convening the full court for en banc review.  But Judge Pooler also disagreed with what she viewed as a ruling that "an insider receives a personal benefit when the insider gives inside information as a 'gift' to any person.  In holding that someone who gives a gift always receives a personal benefit from doing so, the majority strips the long-standing personal benefit rule of its limiting power."

Martoma petitioned for panel or en banc rehearing.  The panel issued a new decision – again 2-to-1 – affirming Martoma's conviction, but at least facially modifying the initial decision's rejection of Newman.

Second Circuit's Decision on Rehearing

The majority's new decision retreats from abrogating Newman's "meaningfully close personal relationship" element.  Instead, the majority reached the same result through what might be called (depending on one's viewpoint) either a more nuanced reconciliation of Newman and Dirks or a work-around to reduce the risk of en banc rehearing and a certiorari petition.

Instead of holding that Salman undermined Newman's "meaningfully close personal relationship standard," the panel declared that, "because there are many ways to establish a personal benefit, we conclude that we need not decide whether Newman's gloss on the gift theory is inconsistent with Salman."  The requisite relationship can be established by proving "either [i] that the tipper and tippee shared a relationship suggesting a quid pro quo or [ii] that the tipper gifted confidential information with the intention to benefit the tippee."

The majority focused on what it called "the key sentence of Dirks," which it admitted is "ambiguous":  the Supreme Court's statement that "there may be a relationship between the [tipper] and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or an intention to benefit the particular recipient."  The majority concluded that "the comma separating the 'intention to benefit' and 'relationship . . . suggesting a quid pro quo' phrases can be read to sever any connection between them," so they stand as alternative elements.  Thus, according to the majority, this sentence "effectively reads, 'there may be a relationship between the [tipper] and the recipient that suggests a quid pro quo from the latter, or there may be an intention to benefit the particular recipient.'"

Under this disjunctive reading, the government may "prove a personal benefit with objective evidence of the tipper's intent, without requiring in every case some additional evidence of the tipper-tippee relationship."  The majority provided an example:  "the statement 'you can make a lot of money by trading on this,' following the disclosure of material non-public information, suggests an intention to benefit the tippee in breach of the [tipper's] fiduciary duty."  Under the dissent's interpretation, however, "this plain evidence that the tipper intended to benefit the tippee would be insufficient to show a breach of the tipper's fiduciary duty . . . due to the lack of [additional proof of] a personal relationship" between the tipper and the tippee.  The majority viewed its reading as more consistent with Dirks:  "The tipper's intention to benefit the tippee proves a breach of fiduciary duty because it demonstrates that the tipper improperly used inside information for personal ends and thus lacked a legitimate corporate purpose [for disclosing it].  That is precisely what, under Dirks, the personal benefit element is designed to test."

Based on this new reading of Newman, the majority held that the jury instructions at Martoma's trial had been erroneous.  The instructions had "allowed the jury to find a personal benefit based solely on the conclusion that [the doctor] had tipped Martoma in order to 'develop[] or maintain[] a friendship'" but had not told the jury that "it could find a personal benefit based on a 'gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend' only if it also found that [the doctor] and Martoma shared a relationship suggesting a quid pro quo or that [the doctor] intended to benefit Martoma with the inside information."

However, the majority concluded that the inaccurate instructions had not affected Martoma's "substantial rights" because (i) "the government produced compelling evidence that [the doctor], the tipper, 'entered into a relationship of quid pro quo' with Martoma" in light of the very substantial consulting fees he had received, and (ii) "even if a jury were inclined to accept Martoma's argument that there was no quid pro quo-like relationship because [the doctor] did not bill Martoma for the two key sessions [at which the doctor had disclosed the drug trial's results], a rational jury could nonetheless find that [the doctor] personally benefited by disclosing inside information with the 'intention to benefit' Martoma."

The majority observed:  "We think a jury can often infer that a corporate insider receives a personal benefit (i.e., breaches his fiduciary duty) from deliberately disclosing valuable, confidential information without a corporate purpose and with the expectation that the tippee will trade on it" – in other words, the standard in the now-vacated original panel decision.

Judge Pooler again dissented, opining that "the majority's attempt to undercut the meaningfully close personal relationship requirement is in derogation of circuit precedent and unnecessary to arrive at their disposition.  Only by abrogating Newman could my colleagues announce a new rule that a jury can infer a personal benefit based on a freestanding 'intention to benefit' and that this 'intention to benefit' is at the core of the meaningfully close personal relationship standard."

Implications

The Martoma majority's approach appears to dispense with the personal-relationship element in Dirks's and Salman's discussions of "trading relatives or friends."  The tipper's intent to benefit the tippee can now suffice, regardless of the parties' relationship.  The decision raises a number of interesting questions and issues.

First, and perhaps most obviously, one wonders whether the panel's new effort to deal with Newman will avoid the risk of en banc reconsideration.  Judge Pooler does not think so; she still believes that the majority has effectively rejected Newman without en banc review.

Second, although a meaningfully close personal relationship has again been rendered nonessential, another aspect of Newman – which the Martoma majority called "the central question in Newman" – remains intact:  the requirement that a tippee must have known (or at least have been reckless in not knowing) that the tipper breached his or her duty by providing inside information in exchange for a personal benefit, whatever that benefit might be.  Particularly in cases involving remote tippees, this requirement could be decisive – as it was in Newman.  Remote tippees at the end of a multi-person chain might have little, if any, idea of what happened at the initial tipper's level and might not know whether the tipper breached any duty in exchange for a personal benefit.  This prong of Newman remains the law in the Second Circuit and is likely to be the first line of defense for remote tippees.

Third, the court's ruling focuses only on tippers who disclose inside information with the expectation that the tippees will trade on it.  The majority stressed that its decision does not "mean that a tipper who accidentally or unknowingly reveals inside information can be found guilty.  Such a tipper would be protected by the requirement that the tipper know (or is reckless in not knowing) that the information is material and non-public . . . or by the requirement that the tipper expect the tippee to trade."  Martoma thus would not appear to apply to disclosures for whistleblowing purposes (as in Dirks) or to inadvertent disclosures; nor would it appear to apply to disclosures made for legitimate corporate purposes.

Fourth, the decision reaffirms that Dirks's articulation of tipper/tippee liability – including the personal-benefit requirement – applies in misappropriation-theory cases (such as Martoma) as well as in classical-theory cases (where a corporate insider breaches a duty by tipping).  The decision thus undercuts suggestions by the Government in other cases that a personal benefit is not required under the misappropriation theory.

Finally, the intense scrutiny of the Supreme Court's sentence structure in Dirks might cause one to ask whether the Supreme Court actually had focused so closely on the personal-relationship issue in its decisions.  Dirks had not involved a gift to a trading friend or relative at all.  An insider had tipped an investment adviser in the hope of disclosing a corporate fraud; the investment adviser had told his clients; and the insider had not received any benefit except, presumably, the personal satisfaction of having done what he thought was a public service.  Salman involved a gift to a brother, so the Court did not need to consider whether friendship – or what degree of friendship – could satisfy the personal-benefit requirement in the absence of a pecuniary or other "consequential" benefit.

The absence of a personal relationship in Dirks, however, was perhaps an anomaly.  In the real world, the existence of a personal relationship might not disappear from insider-trading law.  The scenario in which a tipper provides material nonpublic information to a tippee and then says "you can make a lot of money by trading on this" seems unlikely to occur unless some sort of relationship exists between them.

Second Circuit Again Holds That Tipper/Tippee Liability Can Arise From A Gift Of Inside Information Even Without A Close Personal Relationship

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions