Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court to Hear Case That Will Affect Insider Trading Liability of Tippees
A case heading to the Supreme Court could dramatically change insider trading law that bars trades by recipients of stock tips. In consenting earlier this year to hear the defendant's appeal in United States v. Salman, 792 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court agreed to consider a case that raises the question of whether a trade based on an inside tip is permitted so long as the tipper was motivated by familial love rather than monetary gain.
Both government regulators and defense attorneys are closely following the case. A decision in favor of the defendant could mean that prosecutors will not be able to pursue a category of insider trades long thought to be subject to prosecution. By contrast, an affirmance of the conviction could curtail some of the defense arguments that have gathered momentum in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's prominent 2014 Newman decision that narrowed the liability of tippees.
Tippee liability concerns the liability of an individual who receives a tip of nonpublic, material information from an insider (or someone else with inside knowledge who has a duty not to exploit it). The liability of the recipient for trading on such information is one of the most hotly debated areas of insider trading law today.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.