Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

Dismissal of jury's insider trading guilty verdict upheld: A divided Second Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a guilty verdict against a computer company executive who was convicted of insider trading in connection with a tender offer, finding that the jury's verdict was based upon insufficient evidence. United States v. Cassese, 03-1710 (Oct. 24).

The president and CEO of Computer Horizons, John Cassese, entered merger discussions with another computer company, Compuware Corp., but Horizons' board rejected the proposal. Later, Compuware's CEO called Cassese and informed him that they were no longer interested in buying Computer Horizons, and that his company was about to acquire another company.  Cassese then purchased 15,000 shares of that company, which he sold following the public announcement of the acquisition. The SEC filed an insider trading complaint against Cassese who consented to an order of judgment against him, disgorged his profits and paid penalties and interest. Cassese was also prosecuted for insider trading. Following an initial mistrial, Cassese was convicted by a jury of securities fraud in connection with a tender offer under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14e-3. The district court judge overturned the verdict, however, finding that in criminal cases under '14(e) and Rule 14e-3, where no other securities laws violations are alleged, the government, in order to prove  willfulness, must prove that the defendant believed that the material nonpublic information he traded upon related to, or most likely related to, a tender offer. The district court found that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's finding that Cassese acted with criminal intent.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

When Is a Repair Structural or Nonstructural Under a Commercial Lease? Image

A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."