By David Chaiken and Paul Monnin (May 19, 2017, 1:52 PM EDT) -- For the past two and a half years, practicing lawyers and commentators alike have spilled oceans of ink analyzing what kind of insider benefit — as opposed to merely a breach of confidentiality — and what level of tippee knowledge of such benefit are sufficient to establish liability for insider trading. This flood of motion practice and academic analysis followed the Second Circuit's December 2014 ruling in United States v. Newman,[1] in which the court ruled that not only is an insider's personal benefit an essential liability element, but such benefit must also be "objective, consequential, and represent[] at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature."[2]...