- 2 -a summary witness without admitting the Adondakis E-mails themselves.
at 4-5. On thecontrary, Mr. Chiasson intends to use the Adondakis E-mails throughout his defense, and shouldnot be restricted in doing so (other than through the ordinary operation of the rules of evidence).For Mr. Chiasson, this case is about a simple issue: what Sam Adondakis told him, andwhat Sam Adondakis did
tell him. Mr. Adondakis is the only person alleged ever to havepassed any inside information to Mr. Chiasson. Mr. Adondakis, of course, was a stock analystwhose
was to root out and pass on to Mr. Chiasson information relevant to stocks in whichLevel Global traded or might want to trade. Mr. Chiasson, in his defense, intends to prove thatMr. Adondakis withheld Adondakis E-mails from Mr. Chiasson and also did
pass on toMr. Chiasson critical information that marks the difference between legitimate, competitivetrading and illegal insider trading—namely, information about stocks identified as coming fromcompany insiders who revealed that information for personal benefit in violation of theirfiduciary duties.
This proof is at the core of Mr. Chiasson’s defense.The government has charged that Mr. Adondakis and Mr. Chiasson were co-conspirators,and intends to put on a wealth of information concerning their relationship spanningapproximately three years at Level Global. To rebut the government’s charge that Mr. Chiassonwas involved in an illegal conspiracy, Mr. Chiasson intends to offer proof spanning the sametime and relationship, showing the many circumstances and instances in which Mr. Adondakisconcealed critical information from Mr. Chiasson. This proof is inconsistent with any
Dirks v. SEC
, 463 U.S. 646, 660 (1983) (a tippee may be liable “only when theinsider has breached his fiduciary duty to the shareholders by disclosing the information to thetippee and the tippee knows or should know that there has been a breach”);
at 662 (“Absentsome personal gain [to the inside tipper], there has been no breach of duty to the stockholders.And absent a breach by the insider, there is no derivative breach.”);
United States v. Chestman
,947 F.2d 551, 571 (2d Cir. 1991) (en banc) (no liability, even where tippee knew informationwas material and nonpublic, where tipper had not breached any fiduciary duty).
Case 1:12-cr-00121-RJS Document 148 Filed 10/12/12 Page 3 of 6