Lawyers React To High Court’s Decision To Hear Trading Case

January 19, 2016


On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the question of what sort of personal benefit needs to be shown in order to hold someone liable for trading on inside information. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the court’s decision to hear Salman v. U.S. is significant, as well as why the court may have opted to hear Salman instead of reviewing the Second Circuit’s landmark Newman decision.


Lathrop B. Nelson, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP

“Salman presented the court with another and perhaps juicier bite at the insider trading ‘personal benefit’ apple than Newman. Salman turned the Justice Department’s arguments in its Newman petition against the DOJ in his case, adopting the department’s prior argument that enforcement of the insider trading laws would be uneven and disorderly without court guidance. Salman also argued that while the Second Circuit provided an alternative ground for reversal, the Ninth Circuit’s ‘personal benefit’ holding was outcome determinative. With the DOJ previously on record that this issue warranted review, the court had no trouble granting certiorari when given a clean opportunity to do so.”


To view a PDF of the full article, click here.

— Editing by Mark Lebetkin.