1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you inside an analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,239
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Billy Walters was

6
00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:23,440
Speaker 1: one of the most successful sports gamblers in Las Vegas,

7
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:26,439
Speaker 1: but he just can't seem to win in court. Last week,

8
00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:30,000
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court turned down Walter's appeal of his seventeen

9
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:34,320
Speaker 1: conviction for masterminding a six year insider trading scheme with

10
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:38,680
Speaker 1: former Dean's Food chairman Tom Davis. Insider trading, time and

11
00:00:38,720 --> 00:00:41,760
Speaker 1: time again, seems to entrap people who should know better,

12
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:45,400
Speaker 1: from a former US congressman to a former student body

13
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:48,320
Speaker 1: president at the n y U Stern School of Business.

14
00:00:48,680 --> 00:00:51,040
Speaker 1: Joining me is Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State

15
00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:54,960
Speaker 1: University Law School. Peter, why did Billy Walters think the

16
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:58,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court should review his conviction? The basis for his

17
00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:04,520
Speaker 1: appeal was the fact that an FBI agent had been

18
00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 1: leaking information to the Wall Street Journal in the New

19
00:01:08,240 --> 00:01:13,360
Speaker 1: York Times, and Walter's claim was that that ended up

20
00:01:13,959 --> 00:01:19,760
Speaker 1: tainting his conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct. Now the Supreme

21
00:01:19,800 --> 00:01:24,280
Speaker 1: Court chose not to pursue the case, though I think

22
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 1: mainly because after the Salmon decision in ten they're pretty

23
00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:33,800
Speaker 1: much done with insider trading and they didn't see any

24
00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:38,920
Speaker 1: real basis to overturn his conviction. So he's left serving

25
00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:43,639
Speaker 1: out his approximately five years sentence. So Peter, insider trading

26
00:01:43,680 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 1: has been in the news a lot lately. We had

27
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:49,000
Speaker 1: a former congressman pleading guilty to tipping his son, a

28
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 1: former Parella Weinberg partners managing director convicted of tipping his father,

29
00:01:54,160 --> 00:01:56,840
Speaker 1: and a former student body president at n y U

30
00:01:56,960 --> 00:02:01,120
Speaker 1: Stern leading guilty to trading on inside in information himself,

31
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: all trading away their careers. Is there anything common to

32
00:02:05,320 --> 00:02:09,840
Speaker 1: all of them? Well, in each case you had essentially

33
00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:14,600
Speaker 1: a tipper. Congressman Collins tipped off his son, and then

34
00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:19,000
Speaker 1: his son in turn tipped off his fiancee's father. Both

35
00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:23,720
Speaker 1: of them have entered guilty pleas along with Congressman Collins,

36
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:28,000
Speaker 1: so they were able to get information in advance. And

37
00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 1: that's also been true of the Sean Stewart case, who

38
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 1: was at Parella Weinberg and also bilt to say, who

39
00:02:37,280 --> 00:02:40,920
Speaker 1: was a junior analyst at RBC and had been student

40
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 1: body president at the Stern School of Business. In each

41
00:02:44,200 --> 00:02:48,840
Speaker 1: of those instances, it's like they stumbled across very valuable

42
00:02:48,919 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: information and then either used it for themselves or, in

43
00:02:54,480 --> 00:02:58,200
Speaker 1: Sean Stewart's case, told his father and his father traded

44
00:02:58,240 --> 00:03:02,720
Speaker 1: on five different deal and made well over a million

45
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:06,240
Speaker 1: dollars with someone else who he provided the information to.

46
00:03:06,520 --> 00:03:11,400
Speaker 1: So inside information just has this allure to people that

47
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:16,359
Speaker 1: somehow they think that they can just trade on it

48
00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:19,119
Speaker 1: and no one's ever going to notice. Let's go into

49
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: a little bit more depth on these, So let's start

50
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:26,000
Speaker 1: with former New York Republican Congressman Chris Collins, who tipped

51
00:03:26,040 --> 00:03:28,519
Speaker 1: us on in a phone call on the White House

52
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:33,000
Speaker 1: lawn at Trump's first congressional picnic. And there's a wonderful

53
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:37,920
Speaker 1: picture where you can see Congressman Collins talking on the

54
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 1: phone over the shoulder of Jared Kushner, and he got

55
00:03:42,960 --> 00:03:49,040
Speaker 1: that information. It was an Australian pharmaceutical company and one

56
00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:52,520
Speaker 1: of their drug tests was not going to work, and

57
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:55,240
Speaker 1: so he knew that as soon as it got announced

58
00:03:55,760 --> 00:03:59,680
Speaker 1: that that would drive the stock price down substantially. And

59
00:03:59,720 --> 00:04:02,200
Speaker 1: so you can see him, and the government got all

60
00:04:02,280 --> 00:04:05,280
Speaker 1: his phone records from his cell phone. You can see

61
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 1: him trying to call his son, and eventually they talked

62
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:13,160
Speaker 1: for about six minutes, and then almost immediately the son

63
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:18,559
Speaker 1: calls his fiance's father and essentially tips him off. So

64
00:04:19,120 --> 00:04:22,680
Speaker 1: in these cases, it's really more of a matter that

65
00:04:23,240 --> 00:04:27,400
Speaker 1: you get valuable information and you want to avoid losing

66
00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:29,720
Speaker 1: a lot of money, and that was what happened in

67
00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 1: the Collins case, and his son and his fiance's father

68
00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:38,760
Speaker 1: avoided about seven hundred thousand dollars in losses by being

69
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:43,120
Speaker 1: able to dump their shares before the information was disclosed.

70
00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:46,800
Speaker 1: In your opinion, did a court ruling lead Collins to

71
00:04:46,880 --> 00:04:49,600
Speaker 1: make the guilty plea. I think it was that the

72
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: Judge Broderick in the Southern District of New York rejected

73
00:04:53,960 --> 00:04:58,880
Speaker 1: Congressman collins claim that what he was doing was protected

74
00:04:59,080 --> 00:05:03,159
Speaker 1: by the speech or debate clause of the Constitution. In fact,

75
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:06,680
Speaker 1: what Judge Broderick found was that the government didn't use

76
00:05:06,760 --> 00:05:10,799
Speaker 1: any information that it obtained in violation of the speech

77
00:05:10,880 --> 00:05:14,960
Speaker 1: or debate clause, and therefore that really wasn't going to

78
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:17,880
Speaker 1: be a defense for Congressman Collins. It would not have

79
00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:22,800
Speaker 1: applied to his son or his fiance's father, but it

80
00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 1: was one possible lineup defense for Congressman Collins. But as

81
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:30,920
Speaker 1: soon as Judge Brodrick rejected that, and I expected, his

82
00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 1: attorneys said that we're not going to have much luck

83
00:05:34,440 --> 00:05:38,599
Speaker 1: on appeal here. That's what led him to, I think,

84
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:43,520
Speaker 1: decide to plead guilty. And now prosecutors are recommending a

85
00:05:43,600 --> 00:05:46,960
Speaker 1: sentence of from forty six to fifty seven months, so

86
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:51,560
Speaker 1: that will be a substantial term of imprisonment for Congressman Collins.

87
00:05:52,200 --> 00:05:56,640
Speaker 1: And there are news reports that he has been begging

88
00:05:57,200 --> 00:06:02,200
Speaker 1: his associates and friends to write glowing letters about him

89
00:06:02,240 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 1: in an attempt to get leniency. Does that work It

90
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:09,680
Speaker 1: has in the past, for example, in the case of

91
00:06:10,640 --> 00:06:13,400
Speaker 1: inside or trading case of Rusjah Gupta, who had been

92
00:06:13,720 --> 00:06:18,440
Speaker 1: a head of Mackenzie. He ended up getting letters from,

93
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: among others, Bill Gates. And that can be persuasive to

94
00:06:23,080 --> 00:06:26,159
Speaker 1: a judge when people write and say that this is

95
00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:30,400
Speaker 1: really a good person who went off the rails this

96
00:06:30,520 --> 00:06:35,600
Speaker 1: one time. But how much it's going to persuade Judge

97
00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:40,120
Speaker 1: Broderick is a different question, because one of the basis

98
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:45,200
Speaker 1: for prosecutors seeking a significant sentence is that Congressman Collins

99
00:06:45,240 --> 00:06:50,080
Speaker 1: lied to the FBI, and so I suspect that the

100
00:06:50,200 --> 00:06:54,440
Speaker 1: government is going to argue very strenuously that lying to

101
00:06:54,520 --> 00:06:58,560
Speaker 1: the FBI and trading on inside information is not just

102
00:06:58,920 --> 00:07:02,880
Speaker 1: a one off, but in fact, this was something that

103
00:07:03,480 --> 00:07:07,320
Speaker 1: Congressman Collins not only engaged in but should be punished for.

104
00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:12,520
Speaker 1: Let's turn now to Sean Stewart, the former Perella Weinberg

105
00:07:12,560 --> 00:07:16,720
Speaker 1: Partners managing director. For the second time, he heard a

106
00:07:16,840 --> 00:07:20,200
Speaker 1: jury pronounce him guilty for insider training and it took

107
00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:24,040
Speaker 1: them just sixty five minutes. That's right, and that is

108
00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:27,720
Speaker 1: a very quick decision by the jury, which leads me

109
00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:32,240
Speaker 1: to think that Stewart's claimed that he really just kind

110
00:07:32,240 --> 00:07:36,280
Speaker 1: of accidentally told his father that they were drinking beers

111
00:07:36,320 --> 00:07:39,280
Speaker 1: and he was telling his father about his work. That

112
00:07:39,360 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 1: the jury did not buy that story and therefore convicted him,

113
00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:49,000
Speaker 1: and he was convicted on nine counts, and nine counts

114
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:53,920
Speaker 1: in sixty five minutes is very quick, and so will

115
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:57,200
Speaker 1: he be facing additional prison time He's already served over

116
00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:00,880
Speaker 1: a year in federal prison from his la your conviction.

117
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:04,920
Speaker 1: It will be an interesting question whether Judge Rakoff will

118
00:08:05,080 --> 00:08:09,160
Speaker 1: impose additional time on him. Now, Judge Rakoff has been

119
00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:12,640
Speaker 1: fairly tough on insider traders. For example, he gave Rajac

120
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,800
Speaker 1: gupt to two years in prison for tipping off Raj

121
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:20,880
Speaker 1: Raj Rottenham. So there is at least a chance that

122
00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 1: Sean Stewart will be sent back to a federal prison.

123
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:27,640
Speaker 1: Will find out at the end of January when his

124
00:08:27,680 --> 00:08:32,199
Speaker 1: sentencing is scheduled. What I've found fascinating about the trial

125
00:08:32,320 --> 00:08:35,880
Speaker 1: and the retrial of Sean Stewart was that we've discussed before,

126
00:08:35,920 --> 00:08:38,680
Speaker 1: the most important decision for a defendant is whether to

127
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:42,240
Speaker 1: take the stand or not. Stewart didn't take the stand

128
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:44,800
Speaker 1: in his second trial, but he did in his first,

129
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:48,240
Speaker 1: so it seems like nothing work for him. No, it didn't.

130
00:08:48,440 --> 00:08:51,160
Speaker 1: And by taking the stand in the first trial, that

131
00:08:51,240 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 1: was really because his father couldn't testify, and his father

132
00:08:56,760 --> 00:08:59,720
Speaker 1: didn't testify in the second trial either to say that

133
00:09:00,440 --> 00:09:04,280
Speaker 1: he just got the information from Sean more or less

134
00:09:04,320 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: by accident, and so really by not testifying, I think

135
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:14,720
Speaker 1: that let the jury see that there really wasn't that

136
00:09:14,880 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 1: much to the defense, that it was really just an

137
00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:21,280
Speaker 1: accident that his father took this information and went out

138
00:09:21,400 --> 00:09:24,960
Speaker 1: and tipped someone else and traded on it. I think

139
00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:29,160
Speaker 1: the power of the insider trading narrative is very, very strong,

140
00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:34,160
Speaker 1: and when jurors see confidential information being doled out, the

141
00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:39,440
Speaker 1: immediate reaction is you've done something wrong and therefore you're

142
00:09:39,480 --> 00:09:43,320
Speaker 1: guilty of a crime. And finally we have the former

143
00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:47,480
Speaker 1: student body president at the n y U Stern School

144
00:09:47,520 --> 00:09:51,360
Speaker 1: of Business who earned his graduate degree and is now

145
00:09:51,440 --> 00:09:56,120
Speaker 1: pleading guilty to insider trading. And the amount involved was

146
00:09:56,720 --> 00:09:59,760
Speaker 1: just a little bit under a hundred thousand dollars, which

147
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:03,120
Speaker 1: always leads me to the question would you sell your

148
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:06,560
Speaker 1: career on Wall Street for a hundred thousand dollars? And

149
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:10,320
Speaker 1: the answer to that question ought to be no. But

150
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:14,640
Speaker 1: in fact, in this situation built to siy is the

151
00:10:14,800 --> 00:10:18,240
Speaker 1: former student body president at the Stern School of Business,

152
00:10:18,840 --> 00:10:22,960
Speaker 1: And you just wonder what was the temptation there? What

153
00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:27,000
Speaker 1: was it that he saw and said to himself, well,

154
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:29,040
Speaker 1: I'm going to go ahead and make a hundred thousand

155
00:10:29,040 --> 00:10:32,720
Speaker 1: dollars because now he is likely to be sentenced to

156
00:10:32,760 --> 00:10:36,600
Speaker 1: a term in a federal prison, and any hopes that

157
00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:39,679
Speaker 1: he had of a Wall Street career are basically done.

158
00:10:40,080 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 1: No firm is ever going to touch someone who has

159
00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:47,240
Speaker 1: been convicted of insider trading. We've seen that repeatedly, and

160
00:10:47,960 --> 00:10:52,040
Speaker 1: so he has very little hope of a financial career

161
00:10:52,080 --> 00:10:55,080
Speaker 1: in the future. And you wonder, why what is it

162
00:10:55,120 --> 00:10:59,439
Speaker 1: that drew him to buy the options and then make

163
00:10:59,480 --> 00:11:02,760
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand dollars and get caught. You mentioned the

164
00:11:03,040 --> 00:11:06,080
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has sort of done with insider trading. Do

165
00:11:06,120 --> 00:11:10,000
Speaker 1: you think we've seen the last of all the high profile,

166
00:11:10,480 --> 00:11:13,760
Speaker 1: you know, appellate court rulings on insider trading. Is it

167
00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 1: a settled area now? I think it is a fairly

168
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:21,160
Speaker 1: settled area. And after the Salmon case in the Supreme

169
00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:25,719
Speaker 1: Court made it very clear that if you are providing

170
00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:31,120
Speaker 1: information to a family member or a close friend, that

171
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:34,760
Speaker 1: that's really the end of the analysis, that that is

172
00:11:34,920 --> 00:11:38,000
Speaker 1: enough to establish what the Supreme Court is called the

173
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:41,720
Speaker 1: quid pro quo for giving information and then getting something

174
00:11:41,760 --> 00:11:44,920
Speaker 1: in return. And it's that warm, fuzzy feeling that you

175
00:11:44,960 --> 00:11:48,200
Speaker 1: get when you give a gift. So in the Salmon case,

176
00:11:48,640 --> 00:11:51,560
Speaker 1: one brother was giving a gift to another brother to

177
00:11:51,840 --> 00:11:54,679
Speaker 1: be able to make some money. And the Supreme Court

178
00:11:55,080 --> 00:11:59,079
Speaker 1: I think has largely resolved the tipping issue, so whether

179
00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:03,120
Speaker 1: they'll really returned insider trading, it would have to be

180
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:06,360
Speaker 1: a case that really brings up some new issues. But

181
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:10,360
Speaker 1: for the most part, insider trading law is fairly well settled.

182
00:12:10,400 --> 00:12:15,120
Speaker 1: I would say the cases are easy to determine. There's

183
00:12:15,160 --> 00:12:18,600
Speaker 1: always a little bit at the edges, but for the

184
00:12:18,720 --> 00:12:22,760
Speaker 1: most part it is a fairly well settled area of law. Now,

185
00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:26,720
Speaker 1: thanks Peter. That's Peter Handing, professor at Wayne State University

186
00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:32,840
Speaker 1: Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

187
00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:37,280
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

188
00:12:37,360 --> 00:12:41,240
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. I'm June Brosso.

189
00:12:41,720 --> 00:12:45,680
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Yeah,