On January 23, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc of a Second Circuit panel’s ruling issued on December 10, 2014.  The ruling held that to obtain an insider trading conviction against a tippee, the government must prove that the tippee knew both that an insider disclosed confidential information and that the insider did so in exchange for a personal benefit.  Because the district court’s jury instructions were not consistent with this holding, the Second Circuit vacated defendants’ convictions and remanded for dismissal.  In its petition for rehearing, the government argues that the panel incorrectly defined what constitutes a personal benefit and erroneously held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendants knew the tippers had acted for a personal benefit.  United States v. Newman, No. 13-1837-cr (2d Cir.).

Related preceding post