Summary: <p>Prosecuting insider trading cases just got a lot harder after an appeals court this week overturned the convictions of two former hedge fund traders.</p> <p>The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c8fc78f3-67b9-4742-bc84-02af435afc14/1/doc/13-1837_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c8fc78f3-67b9-4742-bc84-02af435afc14/1/hilite/">ruled</a> that the circuit judge provided “erroneous” jury instructions and that prosecutors provided insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict in the trial of Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson. Both were convicted in 2012.</p> <p>It’s a blow for U.S. Attorney Preet Bahrara who had racked up <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/insiderconvictions.pdf">89 insider trading convictions</a>. The ruling could call into doubt previous verdicts as well as future prosecutions of insider trading.</p> <p>“Today’s decision by the Court of Appeals interprets the securities laws in a way that will limit the ability to prosecute people who trade on leaked inside information,” said Bahrara in a <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1377527/newman-chiasson-2nd-circuit-decision-statement.pdf">statement</a>.</p> <p>This week on Money Talking, what the decision means for the future of prosecuting behavior on Wall Street.</p> <p>And then the car hailing service <a href="https://www.uber.com/">Uber</a>: Sued in California; sued in Portland; banned in parts of India; ordered to cease operations in Spain and Thailand. But users (and investors) still love it. Can regulators and elected officials put the brakes on Uber?</p> <p>Looking ahead, the dramatic fall in oil prices and the "hack from hell."</p>
