My colleague Solomon Wisenberg, in his cryptic report on the Supreme Court decision in United States v Salman, wrote, "Salman is in. Newman is out." The headline of a New York Law Journal article by respected journalist Tony Mauro read "Rejecting 'Newman,' Justices Take Broad View of Insider Trading Cases." And other commentators have also indicated that Newman is dead. I believe, however, that, in W. C. Fields' words, "rumors of [its] death are exaggerated." However, Salman also, by government concession in its brief, reiterated the basic holding of Newman that a remote tippee must be aware that the original tippor divulged the information for a financial benefit and with knowledge it would be used for trading.
As the Court stated, "The Government observes that, in order to establish a a defendant's criminal liability as a tippee, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tipper expected that the information being disclosed would be used in securities trading," and "that the tippee knew that the tipper breached a duty – in other words, that the tippee knew that the tipper disclosed the information for a personal benefit and that the tipper expected trading to ensue."