Yeager v. United States

129 S.Ct. 2360 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Enron acquired a telecommunications business that it expanded and renamed Enron Broadband Services (EBS). D served as Senior Vice President of Strategic Development for EBS from October 1, 1998, until his employment was terminated a few months before Enron filed for bankruptcy on December 2, 2001. In the summer of 1999, Enron announced that EBS would become a “‘core’” Enron business and a major part of its overall strategy. Enron issued press releases touted the advanced capabilities claiming that the project was “‘lit,’” or operational. D and others allegedly made false and misleading statements about the value and performance of the project. On January 21, 2000, the price of Enron stock rose from $54 to $67. The next day it reached $72. At that point, D sold more than 100,000 shares of Enron stock that he had received as part of his compensation. During the next several months D sold an additional 600,000 shares. These sales generated more than $54 million in proceeds and $19 million in personal profit. The “intelligent” network showcased to the public in the press releases and at the analyst conference was riddled with technical problems and never fully developed. D was charged with fraud, insider trading, and money laundering. The jury acquitted D on the fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts. The court entered judgment on the acquittals and declared a mistrial on the hung counts. P obtained a new indictment against D focused on D’s knowledge of the project and his failure to disclose that information to the public before selling his Enron stock. D moved to dismiss all counts because reprosecution for insider trading would require P to prove that critical fact, the issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a second trial of that issue and mandated dismissal of all the insider trading counts. The motion was denied. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.