Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The recent decision in United States v. Blaszczak may signal a change in how prosecutors in the Second Circuit, and perhaps in other jurisdictions, pursue insider-trading cases.
The recent decision in United States v. Blaszczak may signal a change in how prosecutors in the Second Circuit, and perhaps in other jurisdictions, pursue insider-trading cases. United States v. Blaszczak, — F.3d —-, Nos. 18-2811, 18-2825, 18-2867, 18-2878, 2019 WL 7289753 (2d Cir. Dec. 30, 2019). In Blaszczak, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that insider-trading under Title 18 of the U.S. Code does not involve the same “personal benefit” test the Supreme Court applied to insider-trading under Title 15 in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983). The Blaszczak decision arguably provides the government with an avenue to avoid the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dirks and could embolden prosecutors to charge defendants more aggressively with insider trading under Title 18. But while Blaszczak relieves the government of the “personal benefit” test, prosecutors will likely still have to show a defendant defrauded a victim of “property” under 18 U.S.C. §1348. This “property” requirement, which does not apply to Title 15’s insider-trading provisions, may continue to limit how aggressively the government employs Title 18 to prosecute such cases.
*May exclude premium content
By Steve Sozio, Rebecca Martin, Rajeev Muttreja and Mark Rotatori
There will likely be some fraud in connection with the pandemic-related programs that should be pursued by the DOJ and the Inspectors General, who have said they will keep close eyes on these programs. They will have no shortage of targets, given the many recipients of government funds, and the breadth of the requisite certifications.
By Harry Sandick and Devon Hercher
In recent years, we have seen the DOJ expand its international focus, as it looks to punish foreign nationals, often for conduct that occurred almost entirely outside of the territorial borders of the United States. DOJ’s eagerness, however, has not been matched by judicial enthusiasm concerning the extraterritorial application of U.S. law.
By Marjorie Peerce and Justin Kerner
Storage and Hauling Companies Take Note
Imagine that it’s Spring 2020 and you run a warehousing company and you discover that your warehouse contains containers of goods that could help combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus — masks, medical gowns, gloves or other personal protective equipment (PPE). Or imagine you own a trucking company and learn that your drivers are delivering pallets of hand sanitizer and disinfectants to a residential address. What, if any, liability might you have if it turns out a customer is hoarding PPE?
By James D. Gatta, Andrew Kim and Emily M. Notini
Although the court stressed that, by vacating certain of former NY State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s counts of conviction, it was clarifying and not altering the “as opportunities arise” theory, it nevertheless emphasized that this theory requires particularity with respect to the “question or matter” that is the subject of the bribe payor and recipient’s corrupt agreement.