For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

FLEX by Fenwick is the only service created by an AmLaw 100 firm that provides flexible and cost-effective solutions for interim in-house legal needs to high-growth companies.  MORE >

Fenwick & West handles significant cross-border legal and business issues for a wide range of technology and life sciences who operate internationally..  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney


We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200

Securities Litigation Alert: In Major Ruling, Appeals Court Sharply Narrows Reach of Insider Trading Law

On December 10, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed insider trading convictions against two former hedge fund managers, and in the process sharply limited two key doctrines underpinning many recent SEC and Department of Justice insider trading cases. U.S. v. Newman and Chiasson (Nos. 13-1837-cr , Dec. 10, 2014). At the trial in 2013, the government alleged that analysts at hedge funds managed by defendants Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson had illegally obtained information from insiders at Dell and NVIDIA, which the analysts passed along to Newman and Chiasson, who then traded based on the information. In Wednesday’s eagerly awaited decision, the three judge panel in New York reversed defendants’ convictions, holding that the government should have been required to prove that Newman and Chiasson knew that the original source of the information, the corporate insiders, had disclosed the information improperly and in exchange for a personal benefit. Further, the court held that the government had failed to show that the personal benefit received by the insiders was “consequential” and pecuniary in nature, as opposed merely to a more amorphous benefit such as “friendship.”

The prosecution grew out of a far-reaching investigation of hedge fund insider trading spearheaded by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. In its 2012 indictment, the U.S. Attorney’s Office alleged that insiders at Dell and NVIDIA tipped a web of analysts, who passed on nonpublic information about upcoming earnings to analysts at the two hedge funds where Newman and Chiasson worked. The analysts passed that information to Newman and Chiasson, without telling them who the source of the information was. Newman and Chiasson then traded in Dell and NVIDIA securities, reaping $4 million and $68 million in profits, respectively.

In reversing the convictions, the appeals court found that there was no evidence that defendants knew they were trading on information obtained from insiders in breach of the insiders’ fiduciary duties. Moreover, the court rejected the government’s theory that, as sophisticated traders, the defendants “must have known” that the information came from corporate insiders who disclosed the inside information in exchange for a personal benefit. Instead, the court found that the government had to prove that the defendants (i) knew that the source breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing the information, and (ii) knew that the source received a personal benefit for providing the information.

Although the court acknowledged that case law concerning tippee liability for insider trading was somewhat muddled, the court also highlighted the “doctrinal novelty” of many of the government’s recent insider trading cases. The court suggested that in its zeal to root out insider trading, the government had failed to properly follow the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), which established many of the contours of modern insider trading law. The court rebuked the government for bringing cases under a theory of what it wished the law was, not based on what a proper reading of Dirks shows the law actually is.

Because the Second Circuit traditionally has had such a major impact on the development of insider trading law that governs both criminal DOJ and civil SEC cases, there is no doubt that the Newman decision will, in cases involving tipper-tippee liability, cause the SEC and DOJ to dial back pursuit of tippees who did not directly interact with the source of the inside information (so-called “remote tippees”). And as the Newman court noted, the government’s insider trading cases in fact have been “increasingly targeted at remote tippees many levels removed from corporate insiders.” Going forward, unless the government has clear evidence that the insider received a measurable benefit (such as a monetary kickback), and that the tippee knew that the insider received such a benefit for providing the information, cases against remote tippees will be much more difficult for the DOJ and SEC to prove.

Moreover, the court’s dramatic narrowing of what can constitute a personal benefit also will make even cases against first-level tippees more difficult. Previously, the SEC and DOJ have argued that a reputational benefit, such as enhancing a social friendship, was enough of a benefit. Under Newman, if the government cannot show that the tipper received “at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” the personal benefit element will not be met and the tippee cannot be found liable. Thus, for instance, in a case where an insider intentionally tips a casual friend knowing the person will trade, but receives nothing valuable in return, the tippee/trader is not liable.

In sum, although the Newman case is a blow to governmental pursuit of insider trading cases, we should expect that the DOJ and SEC will still continue to pursue them, and that the government will be particularly focused on developing evidence showing that alleged tippers received a valuable personal benefit and that the traders knew of the benefit. ​