Whether the government must demonstrate that the tipper received a personal benefit in exchange for providing insider information, as required by Dirks v. SEC, or whether it suffices for the government to show that the tipper intended to confer a benefit on the tippee

QUESTION PRESENTED In Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), this Court held that when a corporate insider (the “tipper”) provides inside information to an outsider (the “tippee”) who trades on that information, the tippee is not liable for insider trading unless the insider breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing the information. To determine whether the tipper breached a fiduciary duty, “the test is whether the [tipper] personally will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure.” Id. at 662. Three years ago, the government tried to convince this Court to abandon this requirement of personal benefit to the insider and instead to impose liability on the tippee whenever the insider discloses information with the intention of benefitting the tippee. See Salman v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 420 (2016). This Court declined that invitation, but the Second Circuit has now accepted the government’s suggestion, adopting a standard that, as several Justices recognized at oral argument in Salman, is incompatible with Dirks and its personal benefit requirement. The question presented is: Whether, in an insider trading prosecution, the government must demonstrate that the tipper received a personal benefit in exchange for providing insider information, as required by Dirks, or whether it suffices for the government to show that the tipper intended to confer a benefit on the tippee.