The U.S. Supreme Court case Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v Berner et al., 1984 centered around the issue of whether or not individuals who voluntarily provide insider information can sue for damages if they suffer losses as a result of their own illegal actions. The plaintiffs were shareholders who had provided insider information to the defendant brokerage firm and subsequently suffered financial loss when the firm acted on this information without their consent. They sued under federal securities laws seeking compensation for these losses. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that those involved in illegal activities cannot seek protection from the consequences of their actions under federal law unless there are exceptional circumstances present - such as coercion or duress - which did not apply here. This ruling was based on an established legal principle known as "in pari delicto", meaning 'in equal fault'. In essence, it prevents parties who participate in unlawful acts from recovering damages resulting from those acts.

In the dissenting opinion for Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner et al., Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow a private cause of action for damages under Rule 10b-5 would undermine Congress' intent in enacting securities laws and regulations. He contended that allowing such suits could potentially lead to excessive litigation and deter legitimate business activities due to fear of liability. Furthermore, he believed it was inappropriate for courts to create remedies not explicitly provided by statute or regulation without clear evidence of legislative intent supporting such an interpretation.