Carrington Giammittorio

The U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation measures. The decision resolved a split in authority by excluding from Dodd-Frank's whistleblower protections those persons reporting suspected violations only within their companies.

In reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that "Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC." Noting that the… Show more

The U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation measures. The decision resolved a split in authority by excluding from Dodd-Frank's whistleblower protections those persons reporting suspected violations only within their companies.

In reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that "Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC." Noting that the "core objective" of Dodd-Frank's whistleblower program is to "aid the commission's enforcement efforts by motivating people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC," the Court limited the definition of "whistleblowers" under the Dodd-Frank Act to persons who provide "information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission." Show less

The U.S. Supreme Court took up its first insider trading case in more than 20 years and issued an important opinion addressing the applicability of equitable tolling to the Securities Act of 1933’s statute of response.

Every day, attorneys access confidential client information, a large portion of which qualifies as “material, nonpublic information” (“MNPI”) under the securities laws. Access to this information exposes opens attorneys to insider trading liability if they’re not careful about how they handle it. Trading on or even discussing client MNPI with a friend who then trades on it can ignite a chain reaction of debilitating personal and professional consequences.

On December 6th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Salman v. United States,1 the first insider trading case the high court has taken up in more than twenty years. Affirming the Ninth Circuit, the Court unanimously held that a jury may infer an insider has breached a duty simply by gifting confidential information to a trading relative. The Court further held that to the extent the Second Circuit in United States v. Newman held that a tipper must also receive… Show more

On December 6th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Salman v. United States,1 the first insider trading case the high court has taken up in more than twenty years. Affirming the Ninth Circuit, the Court unanimously held that a jury may infer an insider has breached a duty simply by gifting confidential information to a trading relative. The Court further held that to the extent the Second Circuit in United States v. Newman held that a tipper must also receive something of pecuniary or similar value, that requirement is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s prior holding in Dirks v. SEC. Show less