Case Citation
Legal Case Name

CHIARELLA v. UNITED STATES Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1980
445 U.S. 222 100 S.Ct. 1108 63 L.Ed.2d 348

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A financial printer traded on nonpublic information about upcoming corporate takeovers that he deduced from confidential documents. The Supreme Court overturned his securities fraud conviction, finding that he owed no duty to the sellers of the stock because he was not their fiduciary or a corporate insider.

Legal Significance: This case established the “classical theory” of insider trading liability under Rule 10b-5, holding that a duty to disclose or abstain from trading arises not from the mere possession of nonpublic information, but from a fiduciary or similar relationship of trust and confidence.

CHIARELLA v. UNITED STATES Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Vincent Chiarella, an employee of a financial printing company, handled documents announcing corporate takeover bids. Although the names of the companies were concealed, Chiarella was able to deduce the identities of the target corporations before the information was made public. Based on this nonpublic information, he purchased stock in the target companies and subsequently sold the shares for a profit of approximately $30,000 after the takeover attempts were publicly announced. Chiarella had no connection to the target companies whose stock he traded. He was indicted and convicted for violating § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The trial court instructed the jury that Chiarella could be convicted if he traded on material, nonpublic information without disclosing it. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that anyone who regularly receives material nonpublic information has an affirmative duty to disclose it before trading.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a person violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by trading on material nonpublic information without disclosure, when that person is not a corporate insider and has no fiduciary or other relationship of trust and confidence with the sellers of the securities?

No. The conviction was reversed. A duty to disclose under § 10(b) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a person violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by trading on material nonpublic information without disclosure, when that person is not a corporate insider and has no fiduciary or other relationship of trust and confidence with the sellers of the securities?

Conclusion

This landmark decision defined the 'classical theory' of insider trading, limiting Rule Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullam

Legal Rule

Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, liability for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Powell, rejected the lower Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A duty to disclose or abstain from trading under § 10(b)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Law school is a lot like juggling. With chainsaws. While on a unicycle.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+