Live Webcast/Rebroadcast – You watch the course online at the specified date and time shown below. You can ask questions and receive answers during the course.
On-Demand – You watch the course anytime and will have access to the course 24/7. Our On-Demand courses are available within 5-10 business days after the original recording and accessible for one year.
This program was recorded on February 14, 2019
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Salman v. United States, it was anticipated that it would provide much needed clarity to the financial community, the S.E.C. and U.S. prosecutors as to what activity does and does not constitute insider trading. However, the cases filed and the court decisions issued since the Salman decision have shown that there is still a significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the “personal benefit” which must be received by the tipper of inside information and the requisite relationship which much exist between the tipper and tippee, in order for insider trading liability to attach. This ambiguity was highlighted most recently in the original and revised Second Circuit decisions in the case involving Mathew Martoma.
This program will discuss the holding in the Salman case as well as the earlier Second Circuit decision in U.S. v. Newman, and how those decisions affected the landscape of the law governing insider trading and government prosecutions which followed. We will then review the Second Circuit decisions in the Martoma case, and how the second decision impacts the current landscape. We also will explore the facts of recent indictments, the conviction of Billy Walters, and the case of Joseph Reggierri in which the SEC Commissioners affirmed the dismissal of insider trading charges brought by the SEC’s Enforcement Division. Each of these cases offers insights as to how the court and prosecutors are navigating the altered landscape in the law of insider trading.
Political intelligence, as a form of inside information, also has become a focus of prosecutors, as reflected in the indictment filed in the case of U.S. v. Blaszcak. We will explore this “new frontier” of insider trading liability, as well.
As head of Tannenbaum Helpern’s Governmental and Regulatory Investigations Practice, Ralph Siciliano represents investment advisors, private funds, broker-dealers, and their associated persons, and officers and directors of publicly held companies in connection with investigations and enforcement proceedings brought by federal and state authorities and self-regulatory organizations, including the SEC, FINRA, offices of the United States Attorney, and State Attorneys General. Having held senior enforcement positions in the New York Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Ralph has extensive experience dealing with federal and state regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations, including structuring settlements with such agencies and seeking relief from SEC bar orders and the “bad actor” disqualification provisions under the federal securities laws.
1 General Credit
ProLawCLE will seek approval of any CLE program where the registering attorney is primarily licensed with exceptions stated below. Application is made at the time an attorney registers for a course, therefore approval may not be received at the time of broadcasting.
ProLawCLE does not seek approval in the state of Virginia.
Each state has its own governing rules and regulations with regards to CLE courses and formats, therefore please contact your state MCLE regulatory entity for further details about your state’s rules. Please visit our State Requirements page for information regarding your state’s CLE requirements and/or contact information for your state bar.
As stated in our Reciprocity Provision, ProLawCLE will grant credit in the following states through reciprocity, therefore direct application will not be made in these states:
AK, AR, CO, FL, ME, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, and PR.
ProLawCLE is dedicated to providing quality education from expert speakers and ensuring each attorney receives CLE credit for their participation. If for some reason a particular course does not receive approval in the attorney’s primary state of licensure, ProLawCLE will give credit for a future approved course or give a full refund, if applicable.
Each On-Demand course is available to you for 1 year from date of purchase. Additionally, CLE credit is only available within that year.
- Identifying the elements of an insider trading violation.
- Understanding the unresolved issues concerning insider trading liability.
- Helping attorneys advise their financial services clients on when they are deemed to be in possession of information which triggers a prohibition from trading.
- What constitutes “political intelligence” and when does possession of such information create potential liability for insider trading.
- Understanding the circumstances which are likely to trigger on insider trading prosecution.