A recent federal appeals court decision highlights the tension between the determination of the U.S. Department of Justice to advance new theories of liability for securities fraud and the courts' commitment to traditional theories of proof.

In United States v. Finnerty, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a New York Stock Exchange specialist had not committed fraud, finding that the government had failed to prove that his actions had deceived the public or affected stock prices.

The government charged that the specialist engaged in "interpositioning," which is inserting an extra broker or dealer on a trade or deal to inappropriately generate an additional commission. The Second Circuit said the government evidence showed that the specialist had broken NYSE rules, but ruled that such a violation "does not establish securities fraud in the civil context, let alone in a criminal prosecution." According to the ruling, "there must be some proof of manipulation or a false statement, breach of a duty to disclose or deceptive communicative conduct."

For more information on current trends in securities fraud prosecutions, please contact John C. Grugan at gruganj@ballardspahr.com,  Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., at hockeimerh@ballardspahr.com, or Justin P. Klein at kleinj@ballardspahr.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This newsletter is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to alert the recipients to new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.