Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit • 2017

United States v. Martoma

894 F.3d 64

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case upheld Martoma’s convictions because the evidence showed a paid, quid-pro-quo tipping relationship, while also recognizing that a jury may not infer personal benefit from mere friendship alone.

Background

Mathew Martoma, a portfolio manager at S.A.C. Capital Advisors, traded and recommended trades in Elan and Wyeth securities while those companies were developing an Alzheimer’s drug, bapineuzumab. To obtain information about the drug trial, Martoma arranged paid consultations through expert-networking firms with Dr. Sidney Gilman, chair of the trial’s safety-monitoring committee, and Dr. Joel Ross, a trial investigator. Both doctors owed duties of confidentiality concerning trial information.

Gilman conducted about 43 consultations with Martoma and received roughly $70,000 in consulting fees. He repeatedly gave Martoma confidential trial information and timed consultations to occur after safety-monitoring meetings. After Gilman learned the final efficacy data in July 2008, he discussed it with Martoma by telephone and then showed Martoma the detailed results in person. Martoma promptly alerted SAC owner Steven Cohen. SAC sold its existing Elan and Wyeth holdings and took short and options positions before the negative data became public. After the public presentation, Elan and Wyeth shares fell sharply, producing about $80.3 million in gains and $194.6 million in avoided losses for SAC. Martoma received a $9 million bonus.

Following a four-week jury trial in the Southern District of New York, Martoma was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two substantive securities-fraud counts. The district court instructed the jury that a tipper’s personal benefit could include maintaining or developing a friendship or useful networking contact, and could be found if the tipper intended to benefit himself or Martoma. On appeal, Martoma challenged the personal-benefit instruction and the sufficiency of the evidence, principally in light of United States v. Newman and the Supreme Court’s later decision in Salman v. United States.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the district court’s instruction on the personal-benefit element was erroneous under Newman.

Holding

Yes. The instruction was erroneous because it allowed the jury to find a personal benefit from a gift intended to develop or maintain a friendship without requiring either a relationship suggesting a quid pro quo or an intent to benefit Martoma.

Reasoning

Under Dirks, a tippee may be liable only when the insider breached a duty by disclosing confidential information for a personal benefit and the tippee knew or should have known of that breach. Personal benefit is a way of determining whether the insider used firm information for an improper personal purpose rather than a legitimate corporate purpose. It may be pecuniary or intangible, direct or indirect.

Newman held that a mere casual friendship cannot support an inference that a tip was a gift producing personal benefit. For the gift theory, the evidence must establish a meaningfully close relationship—one suggesting a quid pro quo or an intention to benefit the recipient. The trial instruction was therefore incomplete because it permitted a finding based simply on a goal of developing or maintaining friendship.

The court rejected the view that Newman requires proof of a close personal relationship whenever the government relies on any personal-benefit theory. A relationship suggesting a quid pro quo and a tipper’s intention to benefit the recipient are independently sufficient forms of personal benefit under Dirks and prior Second Circuit precedent. Thus, the instruction correctly allowed the jury to consider whether Gilman intended to benefit himself or Martoma; its error lay only in treating friendship alone as enough.

Issue #2

Whether the erroneous personal-benefit instruction affected Martoma’s substantial rights and required reversal under plain-error review.

Holding

No. Even assuming the instruction was plainly erroneous, the error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly established a quid-pro-quo relationship between Gilman and Martoma.

Reasoning

Because Martoma did not object to the instruction at trial, the court applied plain-error review. An instructional error warrants reversal only if it affected substantial rights; even omission or misstatement of an element is harmless when the court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned the same verdict under a proper instruction.

Gilman’s approximately 43 paid consultations with Martoma, which generated about $70,000 in fees, supplied compelling evidence of a quid-pro-quo relationship. Gilman regularly conveyed confidential trial information, Martoma scheduled sessions immediately after committee meetings when new information would be available, and Gilman sometimes rescheduled when he had no new information to provide.

The fact that Gilman did not bill separately for the decisive July 2008 disclosures did not undermine this conclusion. Gilman acknowledged that billing for those conversations would effectively reveal that he was selling inside information. In context, the final disclosures could reasonably be viewed as Gilman making good on the continuing pecuniary benefit produced by the consulting arrangement.

Issue #3

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the personal-benefit element of insider trading.

Holding

Yes. A rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Gilman received a personal benefit through a quid-pro-quo consulting relationship and, independently, that he disclosed information intending to benefit Martoma.

Reasoning

Sufficiency review is highly deferential: the court views the evidence in the government’s favor and asks whether any rational juror could find every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. The same paid-consulting evidence that made the instructional error harmless was more than sufficient to establish a relationship suggesting a quid pro quo.

The evidence also supported the separate inference that Gilman intended to benefit Martoma. Gilman knew Martoma was a hedge-fund manager seeking information for securities trades, knew the clinical-trial results were highly valuable, and gave Martoma detailed confidential efficacy data in a specially arranged in-person meeting. A jury could infer from those objective circumstances that Gilman deliberately sought to confer a trading benefit on Martoma.

The court therefore affirmed the conspiracy and securities-fraud convictions. It also concluded that any alleged error in excluding portions of Cohen’s prior testimony was harmless, because the excluded statements were vague while the admitted evidence strongly connected Martoma to SAC’s trading decisions.

Dissents

Judge Pooler

Reasoning

Judge Pooler agreed that the jury instruction was erroneous but disagreed that the error was harmless. In her view, Dirks requires objective evidence that the tipper personally gained from disclosure; the personal-benefit rule cannot be replaced by speculation that the tipper merely intended to help the tippee.

She read Dirks and Newman to require a meaningfully close personal relationship for a gift-based theory unless the government can prove an actual quid pro quo. Such a relationship matters because it provides an objective basis to infer that helping a relative or close friend is functionally like helping oneself. Casual friendship, a hoped-for future friendship, or an asserted subjective intent to benefit another is not enough.

Judge Pooler maintained that the majority improperly treated an intention to benefit the tippee as a freestanding personal benefit. In her view, intent to benefit is relevant only when objective evidence about the relationship supports the inference that the tipper benefited by benefiting the recipient. Otherwise, the rule risks punishing innocent disclosures, misunderstandings about confidentiality, or other conduct without a true personal gain to the insider.

She also believed the paid-consulting evidence did not make the instructional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Gilman was not paid for the critical July 2008 disclosures, the consulting relationship included legitimate services, and a reasonable jury could conclude that Gilman did not risk criminal exposure merely to preserve consulting fees. The government itself had characterized Gilman and Martoma’s relationship as commercial rather than personally close.