You would think that the answer would be, “No, of course not. What kind of idiot would believe such a thing?”
This case deals with additional fallout from the recent Goldman Sachs insider trading scandal, in this case involving short swing trading under Section 16 of the 34 Act. Interesting already, right?
The plaintiffs in the case argued that because the defendant, an insider of Goldman Sachs, provided insider trading tips for money to a fund manager about Goldman Sachs while owning a stake in the fund that was trading in Goldman Sachs. Get it?
The court did, and said:
- Getting paid for insider tips is not the same as realizing profits for purpose of Section 16.
- Knowing and intending for the tips to be used for insider trading is not the same as controlling the investment decisions over the shares of the fund.
- A pecuniary benefit from another person’s trading is not the same as a pecuniary interest for Section 16 purposes as business dealings do not establish beneficial ownership.