
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: June 27, 2016
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comIn convicting a Massachusetts attorney of insider trading, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to impose the higher standard established by the Second Circuit in the United States v. Newman insider trading case. The decision adds to the circuit split regarding insider trading cases, which should be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court next term.
In Newman, the Second Circuit made it significantly more difficult for prosecutors to win insider trading cases involving “remote tippees” who lack a direct relationship with the individual who disclosed the confidential information. It specifically held that that in order to sustain a conviction for insider trading, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tippee knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that he did so in exchange for a personal benefit. With regard to establishing a personal benefit, the appeals court further ruled that the prosecution must provide “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.”
The First Circuit case, United States v. Parigian, involved information that Douglas Parigian received from his golfing buddy, who also happened to be a corporate insider. As alleged in the indictment, the tipper, Eric McPhail, solicited “getting paid back” by Parigian with wine, steak, and visits to a massage parlor. Parigian assured him that “I will take you for a nice dinner at Grill 23” (a high-end Boston steak restaurant).
In upholding Parigian’s conviction, the First Circuit held that that “the indictment’s allegations of a friendship between McPhail and Parigian plus an expectation that the tippees would treat McPhail to a golf outing and assorted luxury entertainment is enough to allege a benefit if a benefit is required.” While the panel acknowledged the Newman decision, it noted that, as a three-judge panel, it was bound by the First Circuit’s controlling precedent.
Thankfully, the growing circuit split will likely be resolved next term. While the Supreme Court denied a petition to consider the Newman decision, the justices appeared to have had a change of heart. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear , which also involves whether the requisite personal benefit requires something more than just a close personal or family relationship. The specific question that will be addressed is:
Does the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), require proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman or is it enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close family relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?
We will be closely following the status of this case and encourage our readers to check back for updates this fall.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
If you operate a business, you need to understand how commercial zoning rules may impact you. For instance, zoning regulations can determine how you can develop a property and what type of activities your business can conduct. To ensure that you aren’t taken by surprise, it is always a good idea to consult with experienced […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
In convicting a Massachusetts attorney of insider trading, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to impose the higher standard established by the Second Circuit in the United States v. Newman insider trading case. The decision adds to the circuit split regarding insider trading cases, which should be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court next term.
In Newman, the Second Circuit made it significantly more difficult for prosecutors to win insider trading cases involving “remote tippees” who lack a direct relationship with the individual who disclosed the confidential information. It specifically held that that in order to sustain a conviction for insider trading, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tippee knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that he did so in exchange for a personal benefit. With regard to establishing a personal benefit, the appeals court further ruled that the prosecution must provide “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.”
The First Circuit case, United States v. Parigian, involved information that Douglas Parigian received from his golfing buddy, who also happened to be a corporate insider. As alleged in the indictment, the tipper, Eric McPhail, solicited “getting paid back” by Parigian with wine, steak, and visits to a massage parlor. Parigian assured him that “I will take you for a nice dinner at Grill 23” (a high-end Boston steak restaurant).
In upholding Parigian’s conviction, the First Circuit held that that “the indictment’s allegations of a friendship between McPhail and Parigian plus an expectation that the tippees would treat McPhail to a golf outing and assorted luxury entertainment is enough to allege a benefit if a benefit is required.” While the panel acknowledged the Newman decision, it noted that, as a three-judge panel, it was bound by the First Circuit’s controlling precedent.
Thankfully, the growing circuit split will likely be resolved next term. While the Supreme Court denied a petition to consider the Newman decision, the justices appeared to have had a change of heart. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear , which also involves whether the requisite personal benefit requires something more than just a close personal or family relationship. The specific question that will be addressed is:
Does the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), require proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman or is it enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close family relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?
We will be closely following the status of this case and encourage our readers to check back for updates this fall.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!