원격 정보수령자의 내부자거래에 관한 최근 미국 판례 고찰

To be liable for insider trading in violation of the federal securities laws in U.S., the insider “tipper” who discloses the inside information must personally benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure to a “tippee” who trades on the inside information. The Second Circuit in U.S. held in 2014 that it was not a sufficient “personal benefit” to a tipper to provide only a “gift” of inside information to a “trading relative or friend” without the tipper also receiving “at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.” One year after the Second Circuit in U.S. decided Newman, the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Salman held-relying on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983)-that “the element of breach of fiduciary duty is met where an ‘insider makes a gift of confidential information to a relative or friend,’ without any additional required finding that the tipper also received something else of value. On December, 2016, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with the Ninth Circuit. In its first insider trading opinion in nearly three decades, the Court held that its prior decision in Dirks “easily resolves” the issue. This paper analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to address the contours of insider trading law in United States v. Salman which differs from a previous case the high court declined to review, and this reviews the potential implications for insider trading liability.