In Salman v. United States, under what condition is insider trading liability absent?

• A. There is no insider trading liability when there is no personal benefit.
• B. There is liability even without a personal benefit if the information was traded on.
• C. A personal benefit is not relevant to liability.
• D. Liability depends on whether the tippee knew the information.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that insider trading liability hinges on a breach of fiduciary duty through a personal benefit. Salman v. United States clarifies that a disclosure (and the resulting trading) only triggers liability if the insider’s sharing of confidential information was done for some personal benefit to the tipper. If there is no personal benefit to the insider, there isn’t a fiduciary breach to support liability, so neither the insider nor the tippee can be liable for insider trading. The point to remember is that the personal-benefit requirement is essential, and mere trading on information or knowledge that it was traded on does not by itself create liability without that benefit to the insider.