United States v. Blaszczak, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38662, 2019 WL 7289753 (2d Cir. Dec. 30, 2019)

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Second Circuit Lowers the Bar for Charging Criminal Insider Trading (Jan. 7, 2020)

The court held that the “personal benefit” test for insider trading established by the Supreme Court in Dirks v. SEC does not apply to wire and securities fraud under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Additionally, the court held that confidential government information constitutes “property” for the purposes of federal fraud statutes. The ruling will make it easier for the government to prosecute insider trading even when there is no clear benefit to the source who provided the information. (footnote omitted)

via TheCorporateCounsel.net, GD&C, S&C, Milbank, Akin Gump, WF&G, Andrew Vollmer, Alison Frankel, John C. Coffee Jr.

Insider Trading Prohibition Act

　Insider Trading Prohibition Actなる法律が米国の連邦下院を通過したらしいです。この手の法律は、散発的に提案されるので、気に留めていなかったのですが、下院の投票が410対13という情報を得て、少し調べてみました。govtrack.usによると法律として成立する可能性は、1%程度のようです。一応、調べた範囲内で有用だと思ったリンクを纏めておきます。

　改正法案の内容は、既存の判例法理を基礎にしたものなので、ある程度意図を理解できるのですが、細かい点で既存の判例法理との差異がありそうです。印象としては、判例法理よりも禁止の幅が広いように思えます。どうでしょうか。

The Call for a Statutory Insider Trading Law

Orrick, The Call for a Statutory Insider Trading Law (March 7, 2017)

Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) recently made headlines after urging lawyers to draft and advocate for a more straightforward insider trading statute to replace judicially-created insider trading law. During his keynote speech at the New York City Bar’s annual Securities Litigation & Enforcement Institute, Judge Rakoff explained that the law has become overly-complicated since courts were forced to define insider trading by shoehorning the concept into the fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result, increasingly suspect theories have been developed to address potential insider trading in an expanding variety of scenarios.