This case affirms that a hunch or suspicion held by an insider does not rise to the level of “material” information upon which one is precluded from trading. To prove insider trading, there must be evidence of something more than an impression, speculation or abstract possibility. The law does not prevent people, even those working with the issuer who may have more knowledge than the public does, from trading on hunches, flashes, glimmers or feelings, as many people trade on that basis. The law only prevents trading on undisclosed material facts or changes.

A full summary of the decision can be found here and a link to the decision can be found here.