The SEC experienced a rare trial loss in an insider-trading case, with the court finding that the agency’s statistical evidence was too speculative...
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) experienced a rare trial loss in an insider-trading case, with the court finding that the agency’s statistical evidence was too speculative. At this point, it is unclear whether the decision will impact the SEC’s insider trading enforcement strategy or is simply an outlier.
SEC’s Insider Trading Charges
According to the SEC’s complaint, defendant Christopher Clark was involved in an insider-trading scheme involving the securities of CEB Inc. (CEB) before CEB and Gartner, Inc. (Gartner) announced on January 5, 2017 that Gartner would acquire CEB for $2.6 billion. The SEC alleged that Clark was tipped about the potential merger by his brother-in-law, co-Defendant William Wright, who served as CEB’s corporate controller at the time. Based on the information tipped by Wright, Clark allegedly purchased highly speculative, out-of-the-money call options and directed his son to purchase the same options in the son’s account. The scheme generated $296,000 in illicit profits, according to the SEC.
In support of the allegations, the SEC cited “highly suspicious trading” that had been detected by the agency’s market surveillance tool. It also pointed to conversations between Clark and Wright by phone, text, and in-person, including while Clark coached their daughters’ basketball team and at family holiday events, which often immediately preceded Clark’s trading.
Court Dismisses Insider Trading Case
In October, Wright reached a settlement with the SEC without admitting or denying the complaint’s allegations and agreed to pay a $240,000 fine. Clark, meanwhile, proceeded to trial.
On December 13, 2021, U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the case after the close of the SEC’s evidence, concluding that the agency had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Clark obtained confidential information and acted on it. “There’s just simply no circumstantial evidence here that gives rise to an inference that he received the insider information,” Judge Hilton said, according to court transcripts.
According to Judge Hilton, the frequent communication between Clark and his brother-in-law did not prove that material nonpublic information was exchanged. “Of course he would talk to his brother-in-law, and vice versa,” the judge said. Judge Hilton was also not convinced by the SEC’s argument that Clark financed the transactions by borrowing money, opening credit lines, and mortgaging his car. “I mean, you could quibble how somebody raised a few dollars, but this wasn’t a man who was desperate for money,” Judge Hilton said. “At all times during this entire situation and before, his assets far exceeded his liabilities.”
Judge Hilton also didn’t agree that Clark’s “improbable success rate” proved he had the benefit of insider information. “It’s just a matter of speculation,” Judge Hilton said. “I mean, the government can speculate that he made a little too much money, he was a little too successful or more successful than he ought to be, so therefore he’s getting insider information, but there’s no evidence of it.”
Key Takeaway
The SEC has certainly won cases based on less evidence. So, it remains to be seen whether Judge Hilton’s decision is an anomaly or whether other courts will become more critical of the SEC’s use of statistical evidence. Nonetheless, this is a potential legal trend that certainly warrants careful monitoring.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Does SEC’s Stunning Trial Loss Make It Harder for Agency to Bring insider Trading Cases?
Author: Dan Brecher
The SEC experienced a rare trial loss in an insider-trading case, with the court finding that the agency’s statistical evidence was too speculative...
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) experienced a rare trial loss in an insider-trading case, with the court finding that the agency’s statistical evidence was too speculative. At this point, it is unclear whether the decision will impact the SEC’s insider trading enforcement strategy or is simply an outlier.
SEC’s Insider Trading Charges
According to the SEC’s complaint, defendant Christopher Clark was involved in an insider-trading scheme involving the securities of CEB Inc. (CEB) before CEB and Gartner, Inc. (Gartner) announced on January 5, 2017 that Gartner would acquire CEB for $2.6 billion. The SEC alleged that Clark was tipped about the potential merger by his brother-in-law, co-Defendant William Wright, who served as CEB’s corporate controller at the time. Based on the information tipped by Wright, Clark allegedly purchased highly speculative, out-of-the-money call options and directed his son to purchase the same options in the son’s account. The scheme generated $296,000 in illicit profits, according to the SEC.
In support of the allegations, the SEC cited “highly suspicious trading” that had been detected by the agency’s market surveillance tool. It also pointed to conversations between Clark and Wright by phone, text, and in-person, including while Clark coached their daughters’ basketball team and at family holiday events, which often immediately preceded Clark’s trading.
Court Dismisses Insider Trading Case
In October, Wright reached a settlement with the SEC without admitting or denying the complaint’s allegations and agreed to pay a $240,000 fine. Clark, meanwhile, proceeded to trial.
On December 13, 2021, U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed the case after the close of the SEC’s evidence, concluding that the agency had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Clark obtained confidential information and acted on it. “There’s just simply no circumstantial evidence here that gives rise to an inference that he received the insider information,” Judge Hilton said, according to court transcripts.
According to Judge Hilton, the frequent communication between Clark and his brother-in-law did not prove that material nonpublic information was exchanged. “Of course he would talk to his brother-in-law, and vice versa,” the judge said. Judge Hilton was also not convinced by the SEC’s argument that Clark financed the transactions by borrowing money, opening credit lines, and mortgaging his car. “I mean, you could quibble how somebody raised a few dollars, but this wasn’t a man who was desperate for money,” Judge Hilton said. “At all times during this entire situation and before, his assets far exceeded his liabilities.”
Judge Hilton also didn’t agree that Clark’s “improbable success rate” proved he had the benefit of insider information. “It’s just a matter of speculation,” Judge Hilton said. “I mean, the government can speculate that he made a little too much money, he was a little too successful or more successful than he ought to be, so therefore he’s getting insider information, but there’s no evidence of it.”
Key Takeaway
The SEC has certainly won cases based on less evidence. So, it remains to be seen whether Judge Hilton’s decision is an anomaly or whether other courts will become more critical of the SEC’s use of statistical evidence. Nonetheless, this is a potential legal trend that certainly warrants careful monitoring.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
