The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in the case of Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.
On Tuesday, The United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed an insider trading conviction by finding that inside information exchanged between relatives violates federal security laws.
In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari.
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby.
For the first time since 1997, the United States Supreme Court explored the requirements for proving a federal securities fraud claim based on insider trading, in Salman v. United States (Dec. 6, 2016).
On December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Salman v. United States.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision this week in Salman v. United States, No. 15-268, 580 U.S. __ (Dec. 6, 2016), clarified what constitutes a “personal benefit” for purposes of insider trading liability.
Insider Trading Conviction in First Insider Trading Case in Nearly Two Decades Affirmed by Supreme Court
On December 6, 2016, after nearly twenty years of silence on insider trading, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit in holding that prosecutors need not show that a tipster received a pecuniary or other tangible benefit for providing inside information where the insider and trader are close friends or relatives.
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision on the issue of damages for design patent infringement that continues the Apple v. Samsung smartphone legal odyssey.
Supreme Court Rules That Design Patent Statute Term “article of Manufacture” Can Be an End Product or Component Thereof (Samsung V. Apple)
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the Apple v. Samsung design patent case on the limited of question of what constitutes an “article of manufacture” under the design patent statute, ruling that “The term ‘article of manufacture,’ as used in [35 U.S.C.] §289, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.”