
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: July 17, 2014
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comRengan Rajaratnam will not suffer the same fate as his younger brother, Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam. A federal jury recently cleared him of insider- trading charges.
The trial loss brings U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s five-year winning streak to an end. He was 81-0 in securing insider-trading convictions over the past four years. Bharara’s high-profile victories include Raj Rajaratnam, former Goldman Sachs director,McKinsey managing director Rajat Gupta, and SAC Capital’s Mathew Martoma.
In many ways, the most recent Rajaratnam case was doomed from the start. The only charge that made it to the jury was conspiracy to engage in insider trading. Rengan Rajaratnam initially faced six counts of securities fraud. However, prosecutors dropped four of the charges prior to trial, and the judge dismissed the remaining fraud charges at the close of the government’s case..
While acquitted of criminal insider-trading charges, Rajaratnam still faces an enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the agency is having insider-trading troubles of its own.
Earlier this year, the SEC suffered a much-publicized trial loss in its case against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. The agency alleged that Cuban sold his shares in Momma.com soon after being told by the company’s CEO that his shares would be diluted through a stock offering. However, the jury ultimately concluded that prosecutors failed to prove that Cuban violated any duty not to trade on the information. More recently, juries also found in favor of defendants in two additional insider trading cases brought by the agency.
The recent trial losses suggest that both the SEC and federal prosecutors may be overreaching in their zest to crackdown on insider trading. While both have been successful in the past, insider-trading cases are difficult to prove, particularly given the frequent need to rely on circumstantial evidence and the recent Second Circuit ruling that requires proof of knowledge by the person purportedly trading on inside information that the informer benefitted from the disclosure (see my July 8, 2014 blog “Will There Be a New Loophole for Insider Trading.”) One can expect defendants hereafter to gear up and focus their defense on the tipper’s lack of benefit, where the facts allow. In any event, it appears that, as a result of these recent developments, future defendants in insider trading cases may seek better terms in plea bargaining or elect to take their chances in the courtroom.
If you have any questions about this post or would like to discuss insider-trading violations, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
The Trump Administration’s new tariffs are having an oversized impact on small businesses, which already tend to operate on razor thin margins. Many businesses have been forced to raise prices, find new suppliers, lay off staff, and delay growth plans. For businesses facing even more dire financial circumstances, there are additional tariff response options, including […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!