Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Mathew Martoma v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 14-3599 · judgment June 25, 2018
Before the decision, about 4.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Second Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Question presented
In Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), this Court held that when a corporate insider (the “tipper”) provides inside information to an outsider (the “tippee”) who trades on that information, the tippee is not liable for insider trading unless the insider breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing the information. To determine whether the tipper breached a fiduciary duty, “the test is whether the [tipper] personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure.” Id. at 662. Three years ago, the government tried to convince this Court to abandon this requirement of personal benefit to the insider and instead to impose liability on the tippee whenever the insider discloses information with the intention of benefitting the tippee. See Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420 (2016). This Court declined that invitation, but the Second Circuit has now accepted the government’s suggestion, adopting a standard that, as several Justices recognized at oral argument in Salman, is incompatible with Dirks and its personal benefit requirement. The question presented is: Whether, in an insider trading prosecution, the government must demonstrate that the tipper received a personal benefit in exchange for providing insider information, as required by Dirks, or whether it suffices for the government to show that the tipper intended to confer a benefit on the tippee.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Paul D. Clement
Clement & Murphy, PLLC
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Proceedings
- Jun 03 2019Petition DENIED.
- May 14 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
- May 14 2019Reply of petitioner Mathew Martoma filed. (Distributed)
- Apr 26 2019Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
- Mar 21 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 26, 2019.
- Mar 20 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 29, 2019 to April 26, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 27 2019Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.
- Feb 26 2019Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
- Feb 25 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 29, 2019.
- Feb 22 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 27, 2019 to March 29, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 24 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 27, 2019)
- Dec 10 2018Application (18A469) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until January 24, 2019.
- Dec 07 2018Application (18A469) to extend further the time from December 26, 2018 to January 24, 2019, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
- Nov 01 2018Application (18A469) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 25, 2018 to December 26, 2018, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
- Nov 01 2018Application (18A469) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until December 26, 2018.