Insider Trading Landmark Cases
What is Insider Trading?
Insider trading involves buying or selling a publicly-traded company’s stock or other securities by someone who has non-public, material information about the company. It’s illegal because it undermines market fairness and investor trust.
1. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968)
Facts:
Employees of Texas Gulf Sulphur discovered valuable mineral deposits before the information was made public. They bought stock and options based on this inside information.
Legal Issue:
Does trading on material, non-public information violate securities laws?
Holding:
The SEC and courts ruled that trading on material, non-public information is illegal, regardless of whether the insider personally benefits or not.
Significance:
One of the first major cases establishing the illegality of insider trading.
Defined key terms like “material” and “non-public” information.
Set precedent that corporate insiders owe a fiduciary duty not to trade on confidential info.
2. Dirks v. SEC (1983)
Facts:
Dirks was a securities analyst who received inside information from a former officer about fraudulent activities. Dirks shared the info with clients who traded.
Legal Issue:
Can a person be liable for insider trading if they receive tips and pass them on without personal benefit?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held liability requires breach of fiduciary duty and personal benefit to the tipper.
Significance:
Established the “tipper-tippee” theory.
Clarified that tippees are liable only if the tipper breached a fiduciary duty for personal gain.
Influenced how insider trading prosecutions are structured.
3. United States v. Newman (2014)
Facts:
Newman and co-defendants were convicted for insider trading based on tips from friends and relatives of insiders.
Legal Issue:
Must prosecutors prove that tippees knew the tipper received a personal benefit?
Holding:
The Second Circuit overturned the convictions, ruling prosecutors must prove the tippee knew of the tipper’s breach and personal benefit.
Significance:
Raised the bar for proving insider trading liability.
Made convictions harder without clear evidence of knowledge of personal benefit.
Created challenges for SEC and DOJ prosecutions.
4. Salman v. United States (2016)
Facts:
Salman received a tip from his brother-in-law, who got confidential info from a company insider. Salman traded on this info.
Legal Issue:
Does a close family relationship establish the tipper’s personal benefit under insider trading laws?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that a gift of confidential information to a relative or friend constitutes personal benefit.
Significance:
Clarified that gifts to family members count as personal benefit.
Lowered the threshold for proving tipper personal benefit.
Reinforced the tipper-tippee theory in insider trading.
5. Martha Stewart and ImClone Case (2004)
Facts:
Martha Stewart sold ImClone stock based on insider tip that the company’s CEO was selling shares due to negative FDA news.
Legal Issue:
Was Stewart guilty of insider trading or obstructing justice and lying to investigators?
Holding:
Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice and making false statements; insider trading charges were not conclusively proven.
Significance:
High-profile case illustrating challenges in proving insider trading.
Showed how obstruction or lying can be prosecuted when insider trading is hard to prove.
Raised public awareness about insider trading enforcement.
6. SEC v. Rajat Gupta (2012)
Facts:
Gupta, former Goldman Sachs board member, shared confidential information about the company’s earnings with a hedge fund manager.
Legal Issue:
Did Gupta breach fiduciary duty by leaking confidential info?
Holding:
Gupta was found guilty of insider trading and sentenced to prison.
Significance:
Landmark case against corporate insiders leaking confidential info.
Strengthened enforcement against non-public information leaks.
Demonstrated personal accountability of top executives.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding Summary | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur (1968) | Trading on material non-public info | Trading on inside info is illegal | Foundational insider trading case |
| Dirks v. SEC (1983) | Tipper-tippee liability | Liability requires tipper benefit | Defined tipper-tippee theory |
| United States v. Newman (2014) | Proof of tipper personal benefit | Tippee must know tipper benefited | Raised prosecution burden |
| Salman v. United States (2016) | Gifts to relatives count as benefit | Gift to family = personal benefit | Clarified gift-based insider trading |
| Martha Stewart Case (2004) | Insider trading & obstruction | Convicted on obstruction & lying | High-profile insider enforcement |
| SEC v. Rajat Gupta (2012) | Confidential info leak by insider | Guilty of insider trading | Held executives personally liable |
Overall Takeaway:
Insider trading prosecutions revolve around material, non-public information, and the fiduciary duty of insiders.
Courts have developed the tipper-tippee framework, focusing on whether the tipper received a personal benefit.
Family gifts, confidential leaks, and lying to investigators are common themes.
Enforcement has become more sophisticated but also faces challenges in proving knowledge and benefit.
RELATED Blog
0 comments