The question presented is: "Does the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks v. SEC. . . require proof of [']an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature['], as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman . . . , or is it enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close family relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held in [Salman]?"