WEBVTT - Supreme Court Refuses to Curb Insider Trading Cases

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you inside an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:19.799
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Supreme Court

0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:23.160
<v Speaker 1>refused to undercut efforts to clean up insider trading on

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street. This week, the Justice has rejected an appeal

0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>in the largest insider trading case ever brought against an

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:34.000
<v Speaker 1>individual and former hedge fund manager. Matthew Martoma lost his

0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:37.760
<v Speaker 1>chance to shorten a nine year prison sentence. Joining me

0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:41.199
<v Speaker 1>is Peter Henning, professor at Wayne State University Law School.

0:00:41.520 --> 0:00:45.919
<v Speaker 1>Peter Martoma was convicted in for using tips to make

0:00:45.960 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 1>two D seventy five million dollars for his employer, S

0:00:49.720 --> 0:00:53.840
<v Speaker 1>a C. Capital Advisors on trades in two pharmaceutical stocks.

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.960
<v Speaker 1>What was his argument before the Supreme Court? The key

0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:02.280
<v Speaker 1>focus of his argument was that from an earlier Second

0:01:02.280 --> 0:01:05.920
<v Speaker 1>Circuit decision by United States versus Newman, that there was

0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:11.120
<v Speaker 1>no personal benefit. He had established a relationship with a

0:01:11.240 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>University of Michigan doctor who was conducting a clinical trial

0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:18.600
<v Speaker 1>and learned from him that in fact, the trial was

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:21.679
<v Speaker 1>going to be unsuccessful. But he said, look, there was

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:26.560
<v Speaker 1>no benefit there and therefore I should not have been convicted.

0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:32.119
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court, in another earlier decision had said that, well,

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 1>as long as there is some type of personal relationship,

0:01:36.400 --> 0:01:39.679
<v Speaker 1>that can be enough. And the Second Circuit found that

0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:43.200
<v Speaker 1>there was enough of a personal relationship that they upheld

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 1>in the two to one decision mar Thomas conviction. So

0:01:47.000 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the Justice is refusing the case leaves in place that

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:55.080
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit decision in mar Thomas case. Does that decision

0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:58.320
<v Speaker 1>actually widen the definition of who can be prosecuted for

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:03.480
<v Speaker 1>insider trading? Certainly it does, because what the Second Circuit did.

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>They issued two opinions in this case. In the first one,

0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:10.120
<v Speaker 1>they said that the personal benefit test simply didn't apply.

0:02:10.240 --> 0:02:13.160
<v Speaker 1>They then backtracked on that. But one of the things

0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>they did in the second opinion was they said, if

0:02:16.760 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 1>you make an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, So if

0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:23.960
<v Speaker 1>you walk up to a stranger on the street and

0:02:24.040 --> 0:02:28.359
<v Speaker 1>say IBM is about to be taken over go by IBM,

0:02:28.400 --> 0:02:32.440
<v Speaker 1>that that would be considered tipping, and therefore that would

0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:37.080
<v Speaker 1>be a violation of the insider trading laws, and that's

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:39.760
<v Speaker 1>really an extension of the law. I mean, normally we

0:02:39.840 --> 0:02:44.119
<v Speaker 1>don't think of talking to a stranger as triggering insider

0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:47.680
<v Speaker 1>trading liability, but in fact, according to the Second Circuit,

0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:51.200
<v Speaker 1>that could be enough if you're not authorized to disclose

0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>that information. So pater. For years there have been case

0:02:55.760 --> 0:03:00.880
<v Speaker 1>after case on the definition of insider trading. What is

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:03.880
<v Speaker 1>the state of the law right now? Why is it

0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:08.040
<v Speaker 1>so difficult to come up with a definition? Well, I

0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>think that because this is judge made law, and judges

0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:16.919
<v Speaker 1>sometimes tinker with it, it's hard to say exactly what

0:03:16.960 --> 0:03:21.720
<v Speaker 1>it is now. In about the cases, it's fairly straightforward.

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 1>It's really the ten on the edges where it can

0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:30.880
<v Speaker 1>become more difficult. But for example, Judge Jed Raikoff, who's

0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 1>one of the most famous district judges in the insider

0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:37.560
<v Speaker 1>trading area, said, really, insider trading law is quite simple

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>and that judges have made it far too complex, and

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 1>so in his view at least, it's really very straightforward

0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:50.560
<v Speaker 1>that if you have confidential information, if you give it

0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:53.960
<v Speaker 1>to someone else and you get some benefit back, and

0:03:54.040 --> 0:03:56.720
<v Speaker 1>it could be a warm, fuzzy feeling for that benefit,

0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 1>then that's enough. And that can establish inside or trading liability.

0:04:01.640 --> 0:04:05.960
<v Speaker 1>So because it's judge made, you know, judges aren't always

0:04:06.240 --> 0:04:10.120
<v Speaker 1>very clear in their opinions. Well, the fact that Judge

0:04:10.200 --> 0:04:14.080
<v Speaker 1>Rakoff says that does not bode well for Shawn Stewart,

0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:18.240
<v Speaker 1>an investment banker whose conviction for passing insider tips to

0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:21.440
<v Speaker 1>his father was overturned after he spent a year in

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:25.839
<v Speaker 1>prison on a three year sentence. Prosecutors are retrying that

0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:29.440
<v Speaker 1>and it's coming before Judge Rakoff. That's right. Well, it

0:04:29.520 --> 0:04:33.839
<v Speaker 1>was reassigned from Judge Swain and she withdrew from the case,

0:04:33.920 --> 0:04:37.640
<v Speaker 1>and now it has come up in front of Judge Rakoff,

0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:41.680
<v Speaker 1>who is although he has a reputation of being tough on,

0:04:41.800 --> 0:04:46.279
<v Speaker 1>for example, the SEC, he has a fairly clear view

0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:51.920
<v Speaker 1>of what constitutes insider trading. And so for Sean Stewart,

0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:54.800
<v Speaker 1>this might not have been the best judge that he

0:04:54.880 --> 0:04:58.159
<v Speaker 1>could draw, or at least not the most favorable judge.

0:04:58.160 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 1>Although it's not going to be an easy case for

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:03.360
<v Speaker 1>the government because this was a case in which they

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:06.840
<v Speaker 1>had a recording about how his father said, I gave

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:08.839
<v Speaker 1>this to you on a silver platter, but then his

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:12.840
<v Speaker 1>father later contradicted that and so really it's going to

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:16.279
<v Speaker 1>be an interesting evidentiary fight in Mr Stewart's case as

0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:19.839
<v Speaker 1>to who is the jury going to believe. So there

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:22.360
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have to be a quid pro quo there, or

0:05:22.400 --> 0:05:25.640
<v Speaker 1>the quid pro quo could be I'm doing something nice

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:28.840
<v Speaker 1>for my father, and that's the warm and fuzzy feeling.

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:31.760
<v Speaker 1>That the warm and fuzzy feeling, you know, I mean,

0:05:31.760 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court has never said that, but it said

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>if you you know, if you tip off a family member,

0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:40.039
<v Speaker 1>and that was in the Salmon case in which they

0:05:40.160 --> 0:05:42.680
<v Speaker 1>upheld a conviction that it was two brothers who were

0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:46.560
<v Speaker 1>very close, and the court said, that's good enough for

0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:49.120
<v Speaker 1>the quid pro quo. You don't need a bag of

0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:52.960
<v Speaker 1>cash like in the ivan Bowski days. If it makes

0:05:52.960 --> 0:05:55.680
<v Speaker 1>you feel better, if it's a gift, then that can

0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:59.880
<v Speaker 1>be good enough. So, Peter, there is another attempt to

0:06:00.520 --> 0:06:04.760
<v Speaker 1>try to clarify insider trading with a bill. Tell us

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:08.360
<v Speaker 1>about that, well, it was tasked by the House Financial

0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:13.800
<v Speaker 1>Services Committee. It is an effort to actually finally legislate

0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:17.279
<v Speaker 1>a definition of insider trading. But if you read the bill,

0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:21.640
<v Speaker 1>it actually expands what is going to constitute insider trading.

0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:25.640
<v Speaker 1>For example, if I were to break into your office

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:29.080
<v Speaker 1>and steal confidential information in other words, what's called a

0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:33.080
<v Speaker 1>conversion in the criminal law, then I could be prosecuted

0:06:33.120 --> 0:06:35.840
<v Speaker 1>for insider trading. And that's a little bit outside of

0:06:35.839 --> 0:06:39.440
<v Speaker 1>the norm, but it takes a broader view of what

0:06:39.640 --> 0:06:43.080
<v Speaker 1>is insider trading. And of course people don't really like

0:06:43.240 --> 0:06:48.760
<v Speaker 1>insider trading. There's really a pretty strong feeling against insider trading,

0:06:48.800 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 1>and that's what makes these cases so tough to win

0:06:51.800 --> 0:06:55.239
<v Speaker 1>for the defendants. I think juries just view insider trading

0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 1>as greed. Greed should be punished. Former US a turn

0:07:00.360 --> 0:07:03.800
<v Speaker 1>for Manhattan pret Berrara was known for his crackdown on

0:07:03.880 --> 0:07:08.159
<v Speaker 1>insider trading. Has the law held up? Have his prosecutions

0:07:08.160 --> 0:07:12.880
<v Speaker 1>held up over time? A couple of them failed, Newman

0:07:12.960 --> 0:07:15.680
<v Speaker 1>being probably the most famous one United States versus Newman.

0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 1>But since then, you know, if you were to go

0:07:18.320 --> 0:07:22.440
<v Speaker 1>back and re argue those cases in light of Mark Tooma,

0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:26.120
<v Speaker 1>they might well survive. And under the new bill it

0:07:26.160 --> 0:07:28.560
<v Speaker 1>would be easier. The government doesn't have to prove a

0:07:28.640 --> 0:07:32.560
<v Speaker 1>benefit to the source of the information, and if Congress

0:07:32.560 --> 0:07:35.560
<v Speaker 1>were to adopt that law, it would make prosecutors lives

0:07:36.160 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 1>much easier, and the sec for that matter. Thanks so much, Peter.

0:07:40.040 --> 0:07:43.360
<v Speaker 1>As always, as we delve into insider trading once again,

0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:47.360
<v Speaker 1>that's Peter Hending, a professor at Wayne State University Law School.

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:51.600
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:55.400
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:07:55.480 --> 0:07:59.320
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. I'm June brosso

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:06.720
<v Speaker 1>Is Bloomberg m