On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Insider Trading Law 2017

Released on: Jul. 28, 2017
Running Time: 03:13:51

In recent years, insider trading has been a critical area of criminal and civil enforcement, and it will likely remain so for some time to come.  Following the Second Circuit’s ground-breaking decision on tippee liability in United States v. Newman, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the same issue in United States v. Salman, the law’s contours were in flux.  Enter the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the Salman appeal, and in December 2016, issued its first insider trading opinion in nearly 20 years.  Salman is significant and may assist the government in its ongoing insider trading enforcement efforts.  This program will discuss the state of the law, enforcement priorities in this area, and how clients can avoid the government’s crosshairs.  Don’t miss out on this highly topical program.  Our faculty of experienced litigators -- including current and former DOJ prosecutors and SEC and CFTC enforcement attorneys -- will address the change in law, current and future areas of enforcement, and best compliance practices to prevent insider trading.

You will learn:

  • The law of insider trading
  • Implications of Salman, Newman, and other recent decisions
  • Investigating insider trading allegations
  • Best compliance practices and avoiding enforcement actions
  • Key strategies in defending criminal and civil insider trading actions
  • Current and future criminal and civil enforcement priorities for insider trading cases

Credit Offered: CLE, CPD and CPE

Litigators at all levels of practice and experience should find this program useful. In-house counsel and compliance professionals will also find this program of interest.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:13:51]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:11:29]
    David I. Miller
  • A Pivotal Time for Insider Trading Law [01:00:56]
    Antonia M. Apps, Daniel M. Gitner, Brian A. Jacobs, John J. O'Donnell, Eric S. Olney
  • Advising Clients on Insider Trading Compliance Practices [00:58:29]
    Zachary Feingold, David I. Miller, Ryan Poscablo, Anjan Sahni, Reed M. Brodsky, Matthew L. Schwartz
  • Current and Future Insider Trading Actions and Enforcement Priorities [01:02:57]
    Candice Aloisi, Charles D. Riely, Jason Cowley

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Alexandra A.E. Shapiro and Daniel J. O’Neill, Shapiro Arato LLP, Salman v. United States: The Supreme Court Leaves More Questions About Insider Trading Law Than It Answers, For the Defense (May 2017)
    Alexandra A.E. Shapiro
  • Chapter 12A: Insider Trading, ALM Media Properties LLC, White Collar Crime: Business and Regulatory Offenses (2017)
    Brian A. Jacobs, Robert J. Anello
  • Letter to the Court for Defendant-Appellant, United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599 (2d Cir.) (January 6, 2017)
    David I. Miller
  • Letter to the Court for United States Attorney, United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599 (2d Cir.) (January 6, 2017)
    David I. Miller
  • Letter to the Court for Defendant-Appellant, United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599 (2d Cir.) (January 17, 2017)
    David I. Miller
  • Letter to the Court for United States Attorney, United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599 (2d Cir.) (January 17, 2017)
    David I. Miller
  • Brief for Petitioner, On Writ of Certiorari, Salman v. United States of America, No. 15-628 (U.S. 2016)
    David I. Miller
  • Brief for the United States, On Writ of Certiorari, Salman v. United States of America, No. 15-628 (U.S. 2016)
    David I. Miller
  • Reply Brief for Petitioner, On Writ of Certiorari, Salman v. United States of America, No. 15-628 (U.S. 2016)
    David I. Miller
  • Opinion, Salman v. United States (U.S. 2016)
    David I. Miller
  • David I. Miller, Nathan J. Hochman, Kenneth I. Schacter, E. Andrew Southerling and Grant R. MacQueen, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, The Salman Decision: The Supreme Court Weighs in on Insider Trading (December 6, 2016)
    David I. Miller
  • David I. Miller and Nathan J. Hochman, Putting The Brakes On Newman: 3 Recent Rakoff Decisions, Law 360, July 30, 2015
    David I. Miller
  • David I. Miller and Ryan D. Nassau, Changed Landscape in Insider Trading Law: Second Circuit’s Newman Decision, New York Law Journal, Volume 252, No. 118, December 19, 2014
    David I. Miller
  • John J. O’Donnell, Chris Ninan and Geng Li, Herbert Smith Freehills, Tips and Suggestions on Implementing Effective Insider Trading Compliance Programs (Substantive Outline) (Revised May 2017)
    John J. O'Donnell
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Release, Statement on Leon Cooperman Settling Insider Trading Charges (May 18, 2017)
    David I. Miller
  • U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY, Press Release, William T. “Billy” Walters Convicted in Manhattan Federal Court of Insider Trading
    David I. Miller
  • U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY, Press Release, Managing Director of Investment Bank Found Guilty of Insider Trading Charges (August 17, 2016)
    David I. Miller
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Release, SEC Announces Enforcement Results for FY 2016
    David I. Miller
  • Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 CFR §240.10b5-1 (2017)
    David I. Miller
  • Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 CFR §240.10b5-2 (2017)
    David I. Miller

Presentation Material


  • Insider Trading – Legal Summary
    Brian A. Jacobs
Chairperson(s)
David I. Miller ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Speaker(s)
Candice Aloisi ~ Chief Trial Attorney, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Antonia M. Apps ~ Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Reed M. Brodsky ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Jason Cowley ~ Co-Chief, Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY
Zachary Feingold ~ Chief Legal Officer, Coatue Management, LLC
Daniel M. Gitner ~ Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP
Brian A. Jacobs ~ Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC
John J. O'Donnell ~ Herbert Smith Freehills
Eric S. Olney ~ Shapiro Arato LLP
Ryan Poscablo ~ Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP
Charles D. Riely ~ Assistant Regional Director, US Securities and Exchange Commission
Anjan Sahni ~ Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Matthew L. Schwartz ~ Partner, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Insider Trading Law 2018 (New York, NY) Jul. 27, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Insider Trading Law 2018  
Insider Trading Law 2017 David I Miller, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.