Supreme Court’s Ruling in Salman v. U.S. Affirms the Importance of a Tipper’s “Personal Benefit” for Insider Trading, but Also Creates Uncertainty

In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s December 2016 order upholding the conviction in Salman v. U.S., it is crucial for asset managers to have a thorough, nuanced and up-to-date understanding of what constitutes insider trading. The Salman case is likely to have a dramatic impact on the interpretation of insider trading law for years to come. Though it is possible to discern a fundamental test for when insider trading exists, some gray areas persist in insider trading law. This article summarizes a recent talk delivered by Ralph A. Siciliano, partner at Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt, that discussed the points above. For additional insight from Siciliano, see our two-part series “How Can Hedge Fund Managers Apply the Law of Insider Trading to Address Hedge Fund Industry-Specific Insider Trading Risks?”: Part One (Aug. 7, 2013); and Part Two (Aug. 15, 2013). For further commentary from Tannenbaum attorneys, see “Why and How Should Hedge Fund Managers Conduct Background Checks on Prospective Employees? (Part One of Three)” (Oct. 3, 2013); and our two-part series on closing hedge funds: “How to Close a Hedge Fund in Eight Steps” (May 8, 2014); and “When and How Can Hedge Fund Managers Close Hedge Funds in a Way That Preserves Opportunity, Reputation and Investor Relationships?” (Jun. 2, 2014).

To read the full article

Continue reading your article with a HFLR subscription.