Law360 reported that the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Salman v. U.S. about whether an Illinois trader should be liable for insider trading even though his brother-in-law received no financial benefit for passing tips.
Fenwick litigation partner and chair of the firm’s white collar and regulatory defense group Chris Steskal talked to Law360 about whether the justices would depart from the Court’s 1983 decision in Dirks vs. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission holding that a tipper could be held liable for insider trading for providing material non-public information to a family member who traded on the information.
“I think they were having a hard time accepting the defense’s view that a line should be drawn to only include cases where there’s financial benefit," Steskal said.
The full article is available through the Law360 website (subscription required).