"Phil's Insider-Trading Escape"

In a special to GolfDigest.com, New Yorker staff writer and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin considers the Billy Walters insider trading case and concludes that Phil Mickelson escaped more serious prosecution thanks to a legal quirk.

It's a long piece but as with all Toobin stories, a good read.

The key conclusion:

But Mickelson's legal odyssey had a final twist. The Newman case, decided by the Second Circuit in December 2014, effectively prevented a criminal prosecution against Mickelson. But while the criminal prosecution of Walters was pending, the United States Supreme Court took up another case from California, which had limited insider-trading law in a nearly identical way that Newman had done in New York. In a unanimous decision in December 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the Newman rule and held that recipients of inside information could be prosecuted even if they didn't know what the original tipper received. In other words, Mickelson might have been prosecuted if his case had arisen before December 2014 or after December 2016. But because the Newman case was the law in New York when his case came up, Mickelson dodged trouble on either side—just as he did between those two trees at Augusta.