Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Narrows Reach of Wire Fraud and Insider Trading Prohibitions
On Dec. 27, 2022, the Second Circuit published its long-anticipated decision in United States v. Blaszczak, which had been argued more than 18 months earlier. The Circuit vacated defendants' convictions on multiple counts arising out of a scheme to appropriate information regarding the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' reimbursement rates, which information the Court held was not "property" or a "thing of value" for purposes of the relevant statutes.
This decision will limit the government's ability to bring fraud or insider trading prosecutions where the information used to achieve an advantage is regulatory information held by the government. Also, the Second Circuit is now in greater alignment with the Supreme Court's wire fraud jurisprudence in Kelly and other recent cases. Finally, a concurring opinion raises important questions about the current landscape for insider trading prosecutions and demonstrates why only Congress can resolve these issues by finally passing an insider trading statute.
Background
The conduct at issue in this case involved trading in securities based on information about proposed regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS sets the rate at which Medicare and Medicaid will reimburse health care providers. Blaszczak, a hedge fund consultant and former employee of CMS, maintained ties to current CMS employees (including a co-defendant), and thus enjoyed advance access to information regarding CMS's upcoming regulatory actions. In essence, the scheme involved Blaszczak learning nonpublic information regarding CMS's planned reimbursement changes from his CMS contacts; the trading on that information by members of the conspiracy; and reaping the profit.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.