United States v. Smith
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
155 F.3d 1051 (1998)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Richard Smith (defendant) was the Vice President of North American Sales for PDA Engineering, Inc. (PDA). PDA was a publicly traded company. Smith acquired over 50,000 shares of PDA stock. Through his position with PDA, Smith learned of internal financial projections regarding the company’s future earnings. These projections showed that the company was performing below expectations. Smith then proceeded to sell all his existing shares, and he short-sold additional shares. In a short sale, the trader makes money when the share price drops. Smith’s parents also sold their shares and short-sold additional shares. Smith was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and was eventually charged with 11 counts of insider trading. At trial, the district court instructed the jury about what the government needed to prove to obtain a conviction on the insider trading counts. The district court told the jury that: (1) the government must prove a causal relationship between the material, nonpublic information in Smith’s possession and Smith’s trading of PDA stock, and (2) the nonpublic information only needed to be a significant factor in Smith’s decision to trade the stock rather than being the sole reason. The jury convicted Smith on all 11 counts of insider trading. Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
