Epstein Secrets

to prove a “pecuniary” or similar quid pro quo. the Second Circuit (a lower appellate court) held that a tipper must

er trading tip- ping liability—even If the tipper did not receive a valuable guid pro quo in exchange for the tip. This significantly narrows U.S. v. Newman, in which Salman will almost certainly embolden the SEC and federal prosecutors to bring more insider trading cases, because it is much easier for

l immediately at the first hint of a government insider trading investigation. | Salman v. U.S., No. 15-628, 580 U.S. 6, 2016). 2773 F.3d 438, 452 (2d Cir. 2014). 3 Salman, Slip Op. at 9-10. "Id. at 10. ., Slip op. (Dec. Samuel J. Lieberman is a Partner in the Securities Litigation Group of Sadis & Gol

de on the information to obtain a cash profit, the result should be the same. Importantly, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was narrowing the Second Circuit’s land- mark Newman decision. It stated, “[t]o the extent the Second Circuit held that the tipper must also receive something of a ‘pecuniary or simila

well settled. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). EFTA00017095 --- PAGE BREAK --- filing, on August 28. See Dkt. 152. On August 29, the Government belatedly filed applications to seal bot

t makes them judicial documents. What's more, the weight of the common law presumption of access to these records is undeniably strong. In Graham, the Second Circuit found that the presumption of access for tapes played at a pretrial detention hearing was, at a minimum, "substantial": "The detention of criminal

ed to conditions of confinement, and openness of those proceedings and records would undoubtedly enhance the functioning of the process. Cf., e.g., Newman v. Graddiek, 696 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1983) (right of access to civil trials pertaining to confinement conditions); Graham, 257 F.3d at 154 ("T

have very strong incentives 257 See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475-76 (1973); United States v. Bahamonde, 445 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006); Newman v. Hopkins, 192 F.3d 1132, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999), vacated 529 U.S. 1084 (2000); United States ex rel. Veal v. DeRobertis, 693 F.2d 642, 646- 47 (7th C

ongressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of trial. +3? The distri