>> the commission that i was referring to several times doesn't necessarily translate but nevertheless i saw a number where we were a undercurrent of programs with smart greed, something that i've never heard about in the past. long, long ago we were working on the regional levels and there were exchanges between those that were reinforcing.

i saw a hand way at the back. >> your version of why russia left the treaty and i just thought that it would be good to remind the audience that timing will sometime in the spring or 2008 before russia was in truth a territory of the country in georgia so i think it is looking

at the timeline and what followed after words what one thinks about the motives of why russia did so. >> one treaty that had never been allowed to be amended because the amendment have been thin and force in terms of membership into the other issue they are not necessarily correlated. what happened was a georgian

president who is now on the wanted list by the georgian government hiding in ukraine launching an attack about the citizens with multiple launch rockets. look at the history honestly. i think we will take one from the lady and a blue blazer. >> thank you for your presentation and for hosting us and enabling this opportunity. i am an alum and obviously u.s. russia relations are tense.

ukraine is an independent country with its own culture, language, history, national identity, worldview and the reason there is tension over ukraine is that russia doesn't want to recognize ukraine as a separate culture, people and sovereign state even though moscow didn't even exist so the goal is prohibiting its course before demonstrated. >> is there a question [inaudible] my question is 10,000 people

have been killed in this senseless war including your russian soldiers and acquaintances of mine that have left their cities to defend their homeland. my question is when will russia pull its troops out of ukraine and my second question is in the beginning -- >> i think we need to stop their otherwise -- >> my second question is at the beginning is that we do not interfere in the international affairs of the u.s. and that's important for people to understand. last week obama confirmed that the kremlin was behind this and other institutions of people. some people are suggesting we have the intelligence to lay some confusion around the

election next month so can i have your reaction to mr. obama's claim? >> we consider ukraine to be a sovereign state, great nation. we are so intertwined with so many families in ukraine that are russia and to so many in russia that our ukraine. my mother was born in ukraine and i spent some time in my childhood going to school not far from and i understand pretty well with ukraine is and we do respect ukraine as a country.

we want to see them stop bombing people and see ukraine as a home and not something that is because they speak russian. when it comes to the statement about the intelligence, i told you and i repeated it is not correct. when it comes to the implication that is something i am not planning to discuss. we have seen statements that were not proven by history. i can give you examples.

the security council about the biological weapons in iraq. it was based on the intelligence after the exploration. >> thank you. we hope this is a process that will continue and he will come back. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible

i didn't know what to do its utensils so i excuse myself to call my wife and say what do i do? why are there two better nights, you only need one. tell me what to do with these things. she of course guided me through a lot of similar experiences. there is definitely a sense that people don't quite understand. the people i grew up around don't quite understand the reason the elites don't understand the people i grew up around. >> the people who make the decision -- i'm going to ask you one last question before we go to the audience. in this election cycle with at the way working-class become a huge story and support for

donald trump and we've also have race be an enormous story. you are kind of a unique observer resource. i don't know if the racial makeup was middletown that gives her the way white working class, the working poor, race relations. new-paragraph no law schools, the most elite of the most elite. i imagine the issue of race in the way people talk about it and think about it has to be different and maybe in some ways the same. i'd love same. at the tear you reflect on that. >> anacondas so might take away from my life,, especially my time in yellow school is that everyone probably is pretty prejudice and if you don't want to be prejudice come you have to recognize and fight against it. i think it operates to different

levels back home. how much is racially and said the tongue phenomenon. my answer is i think it tried some of it. i don't think it could mean infinitesimally think it is something going on. people at yale law school are so pretty prejudice. let's say you don't know single trunk folder in your life that you say he's a racist candidate that all these racist rednecks deserve. i think that's a form of prejudice. it's extraordinarily real and people back home field theory, very passionate about good my grandma once told me the police are the only group of people that the media, the elites are the only group of people you're still allowed to make fun of in polite company. it was an excuse you should make

them about the other people. there's something weird about the fact we still say redneck or a hillbilly and there's not even a little bit of pause about that. that's not an argument that we should go around using racial lawyers, but it is a recognition that what exists in some of these elite enclaves is a certain amount of exclusion from people like my grandma any failure to recognize your pretty biased a lot of times even they don't recognize it. one of the things i try to do since the book has come out his recognize a lot of the people here make taxing as a representative of the appellation white working class worker. when they hear me speak i hope they don't have all their worst biases confirmed. >> i'm going to go to the audience now and we have a soon make refunds that can be taken around. i see a hand up.

the gentleman with the beard standing up right now. >> thank you for being here. very interesting presentation. i corrupt in cleveland, ohio and the state is coming early 60s. cleveland was a larger scale of middletown. very heavily industrialized in unionized, strongly democratic with a lot of folks that have moved up after the war from west virginia. the hillbillies as a disparaging they call them at times. even at that time you could see the early signs of deindustrialization that took place. the wool quarrels come and attack us at that time that worked against -- >> went into question. >> my question is to what extent

did you see those same processes that work in middletown. and a follow-up question. when i was a kid come in middletown was a great eskimo powerhouse. what's the role of athletics plus or minus in middletown. from your experience. >> i think it gives people some measure of social capital, something to gather round about and athletics is a big deal. our basketball team isn't quite as good as sports or something import in middletown. the question to what degree assault the industrialization going on. the only answer i can give us a side that i didn't realize that i was seen. i certainly realize maybe there weren't as many open storefront and maybe their businesses going out of business and i definitely recognized that there was a problem, maybe not quite as many

people are able to get jobs but that is something i recognized when i was much older. as a six or seven year old kid the writing was on the wall but i didn't necessarily see it. it really hit me. i will never forget in iraq a.k.a. steel and there is a labor lockout. i believe since my grandpa had any pretty good worker and that's when it hit me that some of these economic pressures were hitting middletown in a very real way. the last thing is middletown by some standard test and really lucky. it is not dying in the way that youngstown or detroit is. in some ways still around which is something most workers.

>> i want to press you on causality. you have been very sharp and recent decline can take a snapshot. charles has a. that's kind of about very clear marriage that had consequences. put it together with the biggest factors of causality are paired people not resisting a change in culture, but i still don't quite hear a theory of causality. >> that is a very fair point because one of the things i don't necessarily do in the bug is have a theory of causality. it may be lurking in the background. i am much more interested in one of the things going on in hope that they can provide some measure of an idea for the solutions are whether economic

or cultural, whatever you want to say. my sense is the most underappreciated part of the causality story is the way religion has changed in these communities. it doesn't just operate at the level of family pressure, but one of the ways charles made me realize in the book "coming apart" the way it has declined in these communities. it is declined but there is still a very weird way. they identify as conservative as as a badge of honor. a lot of these trends in which the mega-church of the church relocating income communities to sensitive things like a prosperity gospel is operating in a way that the whole story may not even know the story, but the more i think the decline of

traditional practice is probably the least appreciated part of this problem. >> in the front row here. >> either way, if you say your name and affiliation. >> my question is why two-year sub named about poverty among white in america. other minorities and listening among whites. the majority of people in this country. is that because the media has been very of the

[inaudible] doesn't hate donald trump. >> i've taken a personal pledge not to say the word donald trump from now until the election. i'm sure i can make good on it. the largest single group -- ethnic group of poor people in this country are white. i do think an awful lot of what we have seen in the last year is the sense that the white working class, but what about us? that there has been so much attention paid to a variety of very serious and very real problems that affect ethnic minorities and women and it's not just white working class. who is saying what am i.?

chopped liver? you talk about the way that you can get at one of the few slurs you can use at a polite georgetown dinner party and get no pushback is redneck. you can say all sorts of things about nails that are really awful. the awful thing about males and you don't get any pushback. there's a strong sense of everybody dumps on mouse and then they go out and if we have to check her privilege. i think that anger is visceral and real and a consequence in large part of what they see every day as the priorities of interest that when they watch tv and read the newspapers. >> the only certain thing i agree with that, the only real thing i would add this fight is the media not talk about it so much and my guess is white poverty isn't politically

meaningful. you are less likely to vote. the property of the republican party for the past 30 years consistently voted with rare exceptions. it takes a political moment or some other way of expression to wake up to these problems. >> am i going to go to the center and then over to the right. >> i would like to ask charles to marry 17 in parallel to what you've been talking about geo beats in this country not understanding what is going on in white working class america. twice this year in march he spoke to college on college campuses, virginia tech and williams college and in the case

of virginia tech for you got there the president wrote an open letter which you properly and quite frankly plainspoken they've refuted about what your work beans. williams college after you've spoken there, the college newspaper characterized your work again in a way which misrepresent it. i wonder in both cases, did you get the sense when he spoke to those college community is that anybody was listening to you? >> virginia tech or half virginia tech were half a dozen of aging, meaning they were close to my age, aging faculty members and inside the hall for 700 mostly students who ask questions. same thing is true of the williams college appearance. i think that one of the

underappreciated games is the degree to which a lot of the idiocy of the college campus is driven by relatively small minorities and faculty especially in social sciences and humanities in relatively small minorities of stephen and the social sciences and humanities had once you get that this feels, a lot of people are intimidated by the atmosphere that has been created. but i think they are being held hostage in a local mall chances to be a college campuses because they have good experiences if i go there if i ignore the. this will have to be unafraid her last question. >> john graham, thank you very much. the insularity of the iv of the class and i think it's changed. my father was a stockbroker and my mother was a lecturer appeared as a teenager i bagged groceries at the supermarket and

my peers all did the same. we knew we were going to university. developing not work ethic was as important to studying. i get the sense the ivy league today haven't had that experience when they were younger. is that true? >> i think that's very true in some ways the way i would describe this is among this class of people, life was then raised and the pool of parents was to get as much of it much of it they got that the race is humanly possible and bagging groceries doesn't do nearly as much if you get ahead in the race as preparing kids for the s.a.t. i definitely think there's a lot of elements of truth to that. >> i think that is hugely important. i have a quiz, the buccal quays coming apart that has since been online this is how it is your bubble that isolates you from mainstream america and the most important question i think is have you ever held a job that

caused a body part to hurt at the end of the day, maybe if it's even just your feet aching from behind the counter. if you've never held such a job, you're fundamentally unable to empathize with a huge chunk of america who hold those jobs every day and more importantly, you have a distorted sense of what work is that separates you i think very fundamentally from the rest of the country. i can say first how much i enjoyed the book. it is a wonderful read that it's not just say nice things on jd's behalf. it is terrific and i urge all of you to go get a copy if you don't have one and read it immediately. jd, u.n. person has been as engaging and insightful as you are in the book. it's been a pleasure. >> thank you.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> tuition and fees are less

than half an 30% of the total cost of attending college. the real hangup revenues to pay their rent, to pay their rent, to pay their utilities, to buy food and they can't do both in the same ways because they need to spend time in the classroom. so it is those kinds of things the least trip them up over time. it wasn't the tuition and fees. >> the supreme court oral argument in solomon the united states appealing his conviction for conspiracy and securities fraud after making $1.2 million trading on information provided by his brother-in-law. the case looks at whether insider trading pilot and not the person filling corporate secrets did not personally benefit.

>> salman versus united states. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court? case after case, mcnally and make out not to name just a few, this court has construed federal criminal statutes narrowly to avoid serious separation of powers and problems for the same constitutional concerns to a far greater degree because no statute defines the element of the crime. the court and it's killing and the insider use of confidential corporate information for personal profit unless and until the crime should be limited to trading at the insider or its functional equivalent really insider tips another person in exchange for a financial benefit.

>> supposed in this case the person with the inside information, the brother with the inside information inhabitants of treated other securities and then gave the proceeds to his older brother. would that have violated? >> yes, your honor. >> so what is the difference? the insider trade and makes the proceeds are just as you do the trade. >> the difference, your honor, the securities transaction is complete when the insider trades and this is a statute that doesn't even mention insider trading much less personal benefit. it wouldn't be covered and he can do whatever he wants with the many. >> justice ginsburg, the

question is nt is standing in her interest rate does the trading. this is standard accomplice stuff. >> no, your honor. this is a case where we have to take a step back and look at the fact that the statute doesn't define the elements or mention insider trading, much less tipping. whereas dirks n. chiarella e4 had made clear not only trading is unlawful and what makes it unlawful is the insider is doing it for personal gain rather trading himself and profiting on the information by doing so or whether it is by circumventing that ruled as discussed in dirks and essentially giving the information said he can get a financial kick back.

>> may be one of is missing the question. are you said just a if two people get together, one of them has inside information and access to the other person, why don't the two of us -- when a trade i'm not a new analysis of the proceeds. >> that is covered, your honor. what i meant was that the insider has occurred in this case undisputed in this case did not act in a money right now. and he was asked about trading by younger brother. it's not right to be giving his patient back. isn't that always the quick profile of a gift, that you

believe if you give someone a gift it is going to cost you one way or another. you would give them something of value for you acquainted substitute money for the gift or you'll do something that saves you money by giving the tip. >> your honor, the problem with that is virtually anything as any disclosure and this court has been crystal clear that not any disclosure of these drug violation. >> and hence the government discussion that the disclosure has to be for personal benefit or purpose. there has to be a reason for doing it. not unknowingly, but you are want to receive some benefit from it. >> in this case it is quite

clear that the insider brother didn't receive and the district court and the fcc made that clear. he did not do this for any south benefit and the evidence in the record construed favorable to the government as it must be demonstrated that at most the insider got the benefit of getting his brother off his back. this is not a willing transfer of information. >> your honor, we have to get back to the fact -- >> my bigger question is why do all the disclosure of films we have to fill out have a lot of relatives. you have to put your children, your wife in giving gifts. you have to disclose your minor children, your wife. where the statutes for filled with instances? where the public wants to know not just how you might benefit, but how your family might

benefit. >> your honor, the statute books are filled with rules like that. >> i realize it doesn't but i'm looking for the reason why. of course i can suggest a reason because they think very often it depends on families. to help it to help a close shave my member is like helping yourself. that is not true of all families. >> i think that the important thing here is the statute doesn't address this. >> it addresses benefits. there is a long history and the person being defrauded and the information you use. when you use their information which you shouldn't tell it to someone, you are hurting them. and then there is a set of cases that we prosecute.

the subset of cases we prosecute or the cases for having used the information. use it to benefit yourself. the question when he used it to benefit close family member is not in effect benefiting yourself. the rule of relativity. never hire a relative. you could have that view. do you also have the view that helping a relative is helping yourself. that seems to be where we are in this case and filled with instances where they do seem to think it's the same there's a lot of cases here that think it's the same. >> there are a lot of cases a lot of cases and the only cases this court has decided our chiarella, dirt and o'hagan. deal the case in which the court held for government and was making his soft profit.

>> you're asking us to ignore some extremely specific language which of course has decided quite some time ago. i'm going to read and dirks bellecourt is talking about when it would be proper under the statute to convict somebody for insider trading because there might be a relationship between the insider in the recipient. or an intention to benefit the particular recipient and then it goes on to say when an insider makes gift of confidential information to a trade and relative or friend in the last paragraph of the opinion where it is summing up everything that it's done, the court says tippers received no monetary or personal benefit, nor was their purpose to make a gift of valuable information. so there is a lot of language which is very specific about it is not only when there is a

quite pro-quote from the tape be to the tipper but when they make a gift and in particular a relative or friend. >> that's right. does mention gifts. >> this is like half their holdings. >> i don't agree. i believe that the holding of the case inspired a friend and it should not be used to be the basis for criminal liability when we have a statute. >> the court is very clearly setting out a test here and this is part of the test. >> it is certainly when the test of whether the insider personally will benefit directly or indirectly from this disclosure. >> i agree with you, justice

kennedy. the court was not to say right after that, some personal gain there has been no breach of duty. >> we're talking about benefit and personal gain. it is true and the law of gifts we don't generally talk about benefit other than a gift tax, but this is different reasons. >> the opposite in most areas of the law, it is supposed to be something that is not in tended to benefit the giver. it is critical in this area and i think the security industry association -- >> justice breyer points out you certainly benefit from giving to your families. >> i want to be very clear about it. >> it helps you financially because you make them more secure. >> i want to be very clear about

the tests we are proposing because it's going to capture a number of family situations. the line has to be clear whether his family or anyone else that the disclosure is being given to and under the pecuniary gain status we propose, certainly many cases where the government can introduce evidence showing us the kind of financial interdependence that will illustrate the insider dennis benefit financially from the disclosure. i'm sure that it's going to be true in most situations involving houses and close relatives. >> i'm going to give you a hypothetical. i suppose i would like to give a gift to a friend of mine but it's just too expensive to give it. and then i pass a coworkers desk and at the 100-dollar bill sitting there. and now i can give a gift that i had wanted to give but i couldn't. have i benefited from steely to

100-dollar bill? >> is you have. >> why should the issue be any different instead of stealing the bill instead steal information and give the gift of that information rather than give a gift of cash. >> there's certainly some situations involving deaths that will be covered. for example, if i have a household employee a bonus in one year i decided to give her a tip who said that would certainly qualify. it's going to depend on the nature of the evidence and whether there is ample -- >> what i'm suggesting by the hypothetical as we all have their own interests and purposes behind giving gifts. some of those might be very practical and pragmatic. some of them might be more ultra mistake. the weekend case for individual interests and purposes.

and here i am stealing corporate information that's essentially an embezzlement or conversion. i'm stealing information to give a gift to somebody i know. mips in this case a family member. it might be a friend. and i benefit from not. i personally benefit it is the exact opposite of the same corporate information for corporate purposes. i'm using it for my own personal purposes. >> your honor, that would be true in any instance one could think of were in insider disclosed confidential corporate information in a business setting for a mix and business setting. analysts talk to company insiders all the time and it's essential to the free flow of information to the market place that occurs. >> that's no longer true. this regulations that stopped.talking to alice.

talk about the culpability question. why is it any less cocoa bull to get your close relative who you've been supporting every month for your entire life so instead of giving him one month or two months, the regular $100 bill, you choose to give him corporate information. why is that person more culpable than the person who comes and says it would nice. i need the money and you give him a tip instead of the cash. >> the issue is there has to be a clear line. we are dealing with the crime never defined by congress. none of these words are in the statute. >> congress doesn't define what is deceptive or manipulative. it has general words. to devise a scheme that does this is.

the law has for ages set at the failure to speak when you're obligated to i.e. and writer who doesn't disclose that he's using your information is an omission. that's been classically a fraud. i don't understand why you keep saying the law doesn't decline this. >> your honor, the loss is not named about insider trading. the statute provides no specific guidance, nor does the legislative history. this is very similar to the fraud crimes or indeed before that statute was good. the mail fraud existed before the mcnally case. the statute talked about fraud, but it provided no specific guidance as to what would violate. this court held that the statute

needed to be construed narrowly to ensure there was a clear line. other countries have insider trading moms and they use words like insider and defined under what is a person violated the law by trading. the court has repeatedly held no general duty to refrain from insider trading. it is essential to market participants understand when the line is crossed and when it is not. >> justice breyer. >> it seems to me the analogy is the antitrust clause, very big statute. been around a long time. exactly what is criminal and civil and so forth has been developed by court for a long time. the statute has been around since the 30s. we have courts developing law and i believe the market place pays lot of attention to that in virtually every court i think that this one.

has held that this does expand to give in insider information to a close relative. it seems to me and him giving you a chance to respond to this that suddenly the minority statute here or to take what i'm thinking of is really more like you to change the law people have come to revise non-than it is to keep to it. >> i think some of the amicus briefs illustrate a tremendous amount of murkiness in the securities industry association in particular has had a lot of trouble determining when they can and can't use market information of this sort. very clear that it does not

change the entire fraud laws that the regulation is the fact that a violation of regulation does not and another thought constitute insider trading. >> that addresses whether there is an initial breach. here we assume an initial breach but the question is how far up does liability extend? what you are saying doesn't address the problem we are discussing. >> i don't agree with that because what is report has repeatedly held going back to the case is that not every breach of fiduciary duty violates section 1080. it has to be a fraudulent breach than the question of whether it's a fraudulent great depends on whether the insider is doing the disclosing in exchange for personal benefit. that's the test. if not then they whether there's any breach of fiduciary duty. in the dirt's case, the insider there was breaching its fiduciary duty.

>> there is the cast and it was phrased as a task if it is the task and the case follows within it. because it's a gift. >> i don't agree with that. the fact that this case showed there may be circumstances where this would be a gift, but the insider -- he was being pestered by his brother and pressure to release the information. he didn't even know he was creating until later in the process. the largest trade where he immediately called his brother back and begged him not to trade in the brother said he would. i don't agree with that yet i think it is essential for there to be a clear line that the courts hold that the insider

must personally benefit in a concrete way. if that's another inclusive tests, congress cannot and change the law. >> why did it benefit if you say that rather was pestering him. so now his brother is happy? he's no longer being pestered. >> the court would be going back to the rule that expressly rejected, reaffirmed and even there isn't a general duty not to refrain from insider trading. >> you crazy terms of a concrete personal development. it doesn't have to be purely financial. the examples that cover gave preference for a child in college romantic say there's. the personal benefit has to be

tangible but it doesn't have to be money. >> it has to be something concrete. >> is that your define him on that? to be tangible? >> it has to be said and that is either immediately pecuniary or can be translated. >> because of the gift language, how else could you suggest limited the liability? what other ways are there to take care of some of the closer cases that exist. what is yours besides the fact that it has to be a tangible benefit? >> i don't think there's any other test the court could provide there would be additional expansion rack to actively of a statute that doesn't address the question in

violation of the separation of powers. the other thing that i would like to come back to which we talk about is the fact that there is a very delicate situation with respect to that reaction which was all created by the court and this court has repeatedly held in that context which is not a criminal context and does not involve the risk to a person's liberty but the court must narrowly construed the statute did not expand it further and as for congress to decide whether but expand it further. >> it's not a question of expanding it further. you are asking us to cut back significantly from something we said several decades ago from the something congress had showed no indication it's unhappy with. obviously the integrity of the markets are a very important thing for this country and you're asking essentially to change the rule that in threat

and that integrity. >> no, your honor. i don't think were asking to change the rule. the court has only addressed the question once. i don't think the language is the holding of the case. the insider house together personal gain. the point of the test in the case, which again ruled against the government is to ensure that what is captured is something that is essentially a circumvention of the test the court discussed with the insider is improperly profiting from the information. with respect to the integrity of the market. >> you really wasn't in insider. he had the information covered that he didn't have any fiduciary duty to the corporation. >> that's correct. i was referring to the discussion in the case about why they duty would arrive. the court in that case held that

there was no duty, but that they duty would have arisen if he had been in insider in the company who shares were at issue. the reason for that is the court held a fraud to ask what the information for his personal trading profits because he has a duty to shareholders and a duty to speak and disclose or abstain from trading. with respect to the integrity of the markets getting back to your question, justice kagan, that is clearly a policy question in a very complex us a question and not one nearly as simple as the government would like the court to believe. there is an extensive literature and art brief and some of the amicus briefs which illustrated robust debate about academics, regulators, market participant about whether insider trading should be regulated at all, but more import late to what extent and how do you do that while

ensuring sufficient recall of information to the markets that the information can work its way into the price. >> i wasn't suggesting there are easy answers to the question of what contributes to the integrity of the market. i was suggesting that the reason for caution in changing a 30 year rule that everybody has understood a month by an congress has shown no information it's unhappy with. >> your honor, may i reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. >> sure, thank you. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. under pecuniary gain limitation to the personal benefit test from a corporate insider possess a very plausible if not public material information could parcel it out to friends, family members and acquaintances who

could all use it in trading without the knowledge of the public or the investors on the other side of the trade. this would be deleterious in the integrity of the securities markets. it would ensure investor confidence that it would contradict a 33-year-old precedents of this court that was designed to announce the circumstances in which material nonpublic information could not be used. >> isn't it something of a stretch to say the circumstance you describe widespread dissemination of all goods? >> some of them may be kids. some of them make to obtain a reputational benefit that might translate in the future to pecuniary gains. some might involve that could grow quote. under petitioner's theory, when they are guest comment in other words than the information is given out a romantic partner for a struggling child who is having

difficulty making it or in this case a brotherhood upon point was offered money by the end cider but turned it down. those things would not be criminal. >> not everything is a gift because it's disclosed. a social acquaintances that people say were all going away for the weekend. something like that mean something to the other people. you wouldn't call that a gift treaty would call it a social interchange in the present day they should have been more careful about saying. it seems to me it certainly doesn't go beyond gifts. >> i don't disagree with that, mr. chief justice. there is a difference between the duty of confidentiality with respect to information and the kind of breach defined by the sec and incorporated into the law of securities fraud in this court's decisions and it has two

elements to it. the first element is the information was made available to the insider for a corporate purpose and not for personal benefit or personal use. the second is that the insider is providing it for the purpose of obtaining a personal advantage either for himself or somebody else. >> the casual social interchange i hypothesized would not be covered under your interpretation. >> would not be a personal benefit. it might give rise to liability if there was an understanding between the parties, the insider and the conversations of that kind. >> is a hazy line to draw between something you characterize as a gift in something carrots darius at social interaction, isn't it? it depends how close the friends

are going and how close the friends are. i want to give them a gifted speaker and great friends for so many years as opposed to want to tell them why you can't come. >> burden is on the government to show the information was given free purpose of trading and that it was in breach of fiduciary duty. most of these cases there's no evidence of any legitimate corporate purpose for the disclosure whatsoever. >> the difficult part is for a personal advantage at least to me. the question is what counts is that tipper gives inside information to a family member or friend. for personal advantage and when is it not for personal advantage? >> i think justice breyer whenever information is given by an insider to another person to

the o2 profit on it that is forbidden to do. >> if you give it to anyone in the world and you believe the person will trade on that, that is very personal at the image. what is the personal advantage? >> have taken valuable corporate information and you're getting a gift of that information to a person to enable them to profit. >> what is the personal advantage he receive? >> you're able to make a gift for someone else's property. to the extent that the court used the word -- >> that is a personal advantage. >> justice breyer, let us step back for a minute. what the court was trying to do was separate out what an insider was breaching its fiduciary duty by providing information and when he was not.

the line that the court reflected tracks the basic duty of loyalty and corporate law. >> your argument is much more consistent. suppose the insider is walking down the street and see someone who has really unhappy luck on his face. i want to do something to make this person's day and so he provides the inside information person and says you can make some money betrayed on this. is that a violation? >> tried to explain why that is. derek adopted the basic line that set forth in the duty of loyalty that is well-established that when you're giving something for corporate purposes come you may not use it for personal reasons. that was exact way with the court adopted. >> why did they use the word advantage? to keep going back to the part everybody can see. this tipper is using information

he shouldn't use. in a way he shouldn't use it. now it's the next step of when i see viable and what the words are is when he uses it for personal advantage. it sounds to me as you are saying and you said this whenever that tipper dallas that the person to whom he gives the information might well use it to trade. >> i did not say that, justice breyer. let me clarify this. but the court said israel destroyed online between people who have information for corporate purposes and used it consistently with those purposes and people who had access to corporate information made available only for corporate purposes and used it for personal benefit. i think the way to understand is to synthesize the various examples the court gave to

understand the principle underlying the decision. the examples include direct point broke while profiting. clearly a personal benefit. it also includes something less tangible. reputational benefit that will possibly translate in the future into financial advantage and clearly included in the category things that were not appropriate corporate purposes giving a gift to somebody in its legs wide. if you give a gift of information for treating, it's equivalent to using the information to trade himself and making a gift of the profits. >> you are arguing for an exact relationship between now for a corporate purpose and personal benefit. is there any area that something falls in the middle. not for a corporate purpose, that doesn't also qualify for benefits. how do you define personal gain

and benefit not given for corporate purpose. >> i think it is, mr. chief justice. >> and disclosure of information is actionable because it was not given to him to disclose. >> that is the difference between a breach of confidentiality which may have to do with the corporate officers duty of care and the duty of loyalty. >> give me the example of something not for corporate purpose but also not for personal gain under your view. >> winners no knowledge the individual to whom you give the information. in your hypothetical of the social conversation, the government but had no anticipation that there would be trading. >> i'm equating the two.

>> this is not equated the two. >> i understand. the role that we are asking the court to adopt is a role that attracts the basic principle is that lie at the base of the opinion. i realize the opinion used language in a variety of formulations for personal advantage, personal gain. but the examples that the court is gave to support that doctrinal analysis. i think lead to the conclusion that what justice powell was trying to do in the opinion was distinguish cases in which somebody was a corporate officer and use the information for an appropriate purpose. maybe someone traded afterwards. >> i am not sure your solution is going to clarify much of the area because now i think the fight is going to be over what was the reason they gave for giving the tip.

i mean, in this very case there were three reasons for breaching the role of confidentiality. the first to become more knowledgeable the health care industry under your reading if you have no knowledge, that was not actionable. >> correct. but that also is not information that was flowing from the insider to his brother. but we charged in this case -- >> there were three examples of screeching confidentiality. the first was for him to become more knowledgeable of the health industry. the second is to help the father with his medical care. the third, the one you charged with the giving of information during his brother was going to trade on it. how do you draw the line among those three?

all three were for personal reasons. >> the only one for the circumstances in which they were basically funding his older brother streaming. >> all he did it for was to get information for his father. had no idea his brother was trading. he would not be liable. >> i agree with the first. not with the second. if i could explain briefly. one is classical insider trading were an insider been given the information for a corporate purpose trades on it for a tip somebody else to trade on it. the second is misappropriation. if the older brother in this instance was giving confidential information under a circumstance that there'd be no use of the information or personal benefit or under the current rule which

defines these close family relationships, and children and has been advised which are one secrets are. the older brother could be charged with misappropriating information from the younger one. here we are concerned with the insider's personal benefit. >> the defendant here is not the insider. we've been talking about the two brothers. how far down the line do you go because salman is a relative by marriage, that he is not -- he gets the money -- he gets the tip from the first tip. how long does it continue? ..