Palo Alto Networks Insider Trading Case: Ninth Circuit Orders Resentencing
The Ninth Circuit has upheld securities fraud convictions against Sivannarayana Barama, a former Palo Alto Networks engineer who profited $7 million through insider trading. However, the court remanded the case for resentencing, ruling that the district court improperly used Barama’s trading gains as a proxy for the company’s loss without determining an actual loss.
Background of the Case
Prosecutors alleged that Barama received confidential revenue information from his coworker, Janardhan Nellore, to execute trades in Palo Alto Networks (PANW) securities. The trades were part of a broader scheme involving approximately 800 "straddle trades" between March 2015 and September 2018.
Nellore, who worked in Palo Alto Networks' IT department, pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, admitting he provided insider information to Barama and others. Barama went to trial on charges of conspiracy, securities fraud, and aiding and abetting.
In December 2022, a California federal jury found Barama guilty of four counts of securities fraud while acquitting him of conspiracy. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg sentenced him to 18 months in prison, citing the substantial profits as evidence of greed-driven motivation.
Ninth Circuit’s Decision
1. Convictions Upheld
The Ninth Circuit panel rejected Barama’s appeal, finding that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence to sustain the securities fraud convictions. The court highlighted text messages between Barama and Nellore, where Barama understated the size of his trades to gain further insider information.
The panel noted that a rational juror could have found that Barama either induced or procured Nellore to commit fraud, which satisfied the requirements for aiding and abetting under the jury instructions.
2. Resentencing Ordered
While upholding the convictions, the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court erred in using Barama’s $7 million trading gains as a substitute for Palo Alto Networks’ loss without first assessing whether the company suffered any loss.
The panel stated that if Palo Alto Networks experienced no actual loss, Barama’s sentencing range could drop significantly to zero to six months. On remand, prosecutors will have the opportunity to argue that Barama’s profits represent a reasonable approximation of the company’s loss.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
Proving Insider Trading
The Ninth Circuit emphasized the importance of tying insider trading convictions to concrete evidence of intent and knowledge. In this case, Barama’s communication with Nellore, his solicitation of insider information, and his misrepresentation of trade size supported the convictions under both direct and aiding-and-abetting theories.
Sentencing Challenges
The court’s decision to remand for resentencing underscores the complexities of determining loss in insider trading cases. While trading profits are often used as a benchmark, courts must assess whether such gains correlate with harm to the company or market integrity.
Implications for Future Cases
This case highlights the increasing scrutiny placed on insider trading schemes, particularly those involving information-sharing through informal channels like text messages and apps. It also serves as a reminder that appeals courts are willing to dissect sentencing decisions to ensure fairness and adherence to guidelines.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Sivannarayana Barama demonstrates the intricate balance courts must strike in insider trading cases—upholding accountability while ensuring sentencing reflects actual harm. Barama now faces a new sentencing phase, which may result in a reduced prison term depending on the government’s ability to establish Palo Alto Networks’ loss.
Anderson P.C. specializes in defending clients in securities enforcement and white-collar cases, offering strategic representation in complex, high-stakes matters. For insights and guidance, visit our website.
Case Reference: U.S. v. Sivannarayana Barama, case number 23-2087, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
* * *
Attorney Advertising—Anderson P.C. is a U.S. law firm and provides this information as a service to clients, prospective clients, and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.
Anderson P.C. is a boutique law firm dedicated to defending clients in government investigations and securities enforcement actions initiated by the SEC, FINRA, DOJ, and other regulatory bodies. We provide focused, strategic counsel and regulatory guidance across the full spectrum of federal laws and regulations affecting broker-dealers, investment advisers, banks, asset managers, private funds, public companies, senior executives, and digital assets. Our deep expertise allows us to navigate complex legal challenges and deliver results-driven solutions tailored to our clients' unique needs.
If you have any questions or need legal assistance related to government investigations, securities enforcement actions, or regulatory compliance, please don't hesitate to contact us. Our team at Anderson P.C. is here to provide the expert guidance and support you need to navigate these complex challenges.
