560 (1979). 2 . Although the indictment charged McGee under both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), the District Court only instructed the jury as to subsection (b)(2). J.A. 446-450. 3 . In Chiarella, the Court reversed the conviction of a print-shop employee who traded securities of takeover targets he deduced from print materials because he did not share a fiduciary or similar relationship with the targets' shareholders. 445 U.S. at 224-225, 235, 100 S.Ct. 1108. Similarly, in Dirks, an investment analyst was not liable for tipping his clients about a company’s fraud because "[t]here was no expectation by [the analyst’s inside] sources that he would keep their information in confidence.” 463 U.S. at 665, 103 S.Ct. 3255. 4 . Compare United States v. Kim, 184 F.Supp.2d 1006 (N.D.Cal.2002) (<HOLDING>), with SEC v. Kirch, 263 F.Supp.2d 1144
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that there was no duty of confidentiality between members of a social group of ceos although club rules emphasized a need for confidential ity holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding such duties existed between members of a group of software executives because the need for confidentiality was understood holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs