About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

71 SMU L. Rev. 767 (2018)
Personal Benefit Has No Place in Misappropriation Tipping Cases

handle is hein.journals/smulr71 and id is 801 raw text is: PERSONAL BENEFIT HAS No PLACE IN MISAPPROPRIATION TIPPING CASES* Merritt B. Fox** and George N. Tepe*** ABSTRACT The Supreme Court's decision in Salman v. United States left unan- swered an important issue concerning the reach of Rule lOb-5's prohibi- tions with respect to trades based on a tip of material inside information: in cases based on the misappropriation theory, is it necessary to show that the tipper enjoyed a personal benefit of which the trader was aware? The per- sonal benefit test was originally developed in the context of tipping cases based on the classical theory of insider trading. The Supreme Court in Salman explicitly said that it was not reaching the matter of whether the test should be extended as well to tipping cases based on the misappropriation theory. And there is nothing in the language of Chiarella, Dirks, and O'Hagan-the earlier seminal Supreme Court cases relating to the reach of Rule lOb-5's prohibitions on insider trading-that calls for doing so. The lower courts, however, have split on the issue, and in recent years a number of them, through a set of statements unaccompanied by reasoned analysis, seem to be sleepwalking into inserting the personal benefit requirement into misappropriation-theory-based tipping cases. We show that this recent drift is seriously misguided as a matter of both doctrine and policy. Allowing this errant doctrine to become firmly lodged in the law would needlessly leave many socially undesirable trades unpunished and hence undeterred. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE CONCERNING INSIDER TRADING ..................................... 768 A. THE CLASSICAL THEORY AND ITS RELATION TO THE PERSONAL BENEFIT TEST .............................. 769 B. THE MISAPPROPRIATION THEORY AND THE PERSONAL BENEFIT TEST'S IRRELEVANCE ......................... 770 II. LOWER COURT TREATMENT OF THE PERSONAL BENEFIT TEST IN MISAPPROPRIATION CASES ..... 772 A. THE SECOND AND FIRST CIRCUITS .................... 772 B. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT .............................. 774 * An earlier version of this article appeared as a blog post on the Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog. ** Michael E. Patterson Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. * Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most