I expect this decision to be reversed, because otherwise there can be no confidence in US markets any longer, and no one who is not an insider can no longer believe in their impartiality and honesty. They are worse than any casino, because the dealer can signal some of the players when he has an ace in the hole.
The basis of the reversal will be the judgement that the 2nd Court has misapplied the principles in Dirks v SEC. In this case the Supreme Court sought to exonerate the recipient of information from a whistleblower who wished to exposed a corporate fraud, and in doing so released information to Dirks, who while passing it on to the Wall Street Journal, also passed it on to clients who used it to sell their stock in advance of the fraud and stock sell off.
This led to the establishment of 'The Dirks Test' by the SEC:
A standard used by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to determine whether someone who receives and acts on insider information (a tippee) is guilty of insider trading. The Dirks Test looks for two criteria
1. Whether the individual breached the company's trust
2. Whether the individual did so knowingly
Tippees can be found guilty of insider trading if they know or should know that the tipper has committed a breach of fiduciary duty.
I believe this is one of those cases where courts can and will argue about reasonableness. Is it more reasonable to expect a trader who is licensed under Securities Laws to know the difference between legitimate information and material non-public information, moreso than an unlicensed amateur?
And I think that the 2nd District Court has overreached in declaring that the prosecution ought to demonstrate that the
tipper received personal benefit, rather than violated fiduciary trust of the corporation, and that the
tippees needed to know this fact, rather than understanding the difference, as a professional, between gossip, information, and material non-public information which provides them a trading advantage which has been obtained in some manner which most certainly involves the violation of fiduciary responsibility in the chain of communication.