Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
Second Circuit: 'Tipping' Liability for Insider Trading Requires Knowledge of Tipper's Benefit
On Dec. 10, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an insider-trading conviction because the government failed to prove that the defendants knew the ultimate source of their inside information had benefited from sharing the information. United States v. Newman, et al., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23190 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2014). In an opinion highly critical of recent insider-trading prosecutions, the Second Circuit emphasized past Supreme Court doctrine illustrating that “not every instance of financial unfairness constitutes fraudulent activity under [insider-trading laws].” Newman at *20 (quoting Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 232 (1980)).
In 2008, Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson worked as portfolio managers in investment firms. See Newman at *3. Through a network of friends, colleagues, and some other persons they had never met, Newman and Chiasson learned financial information about two companies, Dell and NVIDIA, before the information became public. See id. at *5. The various non-public facts, which originally came from corporate insiders, all passed to Newman and Chiasson through at least three other people. Id. at *6. In their capacity as portfolio managers, Newman and Chiasson made stock trades in Dell and NVIDIA based on the information they learned. See id. at *5. These trades earned Newman's firm $4 million and Chiasson's firm $68 million in profits. See id. at *6.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?