is bound by opinions of the Fifth Circuit decided on or before September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d mall-wood held “the elements to be proved to establish a violation of [§ ] 14(e)” are “identical” to those establishing a violation of § 10(b), Smallwood has been undermined to the point of abrogation by the adoption of Rule 14e-3 and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in O’Hagan. Because the mandate that a tipper disclose “the inside information for a personal benefit,” arises out of § 10(b)’s requirement that the tipper breach a fiduciary duty, it appears a violation § 14(e) may not require proof that the tipper disclosed the information for a personal benefit. See Salman, 137 S.Ct. at 423; see also SEC v. Downe, 969 F.Supp. 149, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (<HOLDING>). In any event, the Court need not reach this
holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail recognizing rule holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made holding that personal jurisdiction is not conferred if service under rule 4 is not properly effected holding that a personal benefit to the tipper is not required under rule 14e3