Administrative enforcement against insider trading
What is Administrative Enforcement Against Insider Trading?
Insider trading involves buying or selling a publicly traded company's stock by someone who has non-public, material information about that stock. Administrative enforcement refers to regulatory authorities—such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S.—investigating and penalizing violations through administrative proceedings rather than criminal courts.
Administrative enforcement can include:
Fines or penalties
Cease and desist orders
Disgorgement of profits
Suspension or barring individuals from serving as officers or directors of companies
Key Elements in Administrative Enforcement of Insider Trading
Material Nonpublic Information (MNPI): The information must be significant enough to affect an investor’s decision and not yet made public.
Scienter: The violator must have acted knowingly or recklessly.
Trading or Tipping: Either the insider trades on the information or tips someone else who trades.
Case Laws and Their Explanations
1. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968)
Facts:
Employees and insiders of Texas Gulf Sulphur learned about significant mineral discoveries before the information was made public. They purchased shares and options, profiting when the news became public and the stock price rose.
Holding:
The SEC held that insiders cannot trade on material nonpublic information. The company and insiders were liable for insider trading because the information was both material and nonpublic, and the insiders used it to gain unfair advantage.
Significance:
This case established the "disclose or abstain" rule—insiders must either disclose material information before trading or abstain from trading altogether. It laid the foundation for insider trading enforcement in the U.S.
2. SEC v. Dirks (1983)
Facts:
Dirks, a securities analyst, received inside information from a former officer of a company who had uncovered fraud. Dirks shared this with clients, who then traded on the information.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that the tippee (Dirks) is liable only if the insider breached a fiduciary duty by disclosing information for personal benefit. Here, the insider had no personal benefit; he was a whistleblower. Hence, no breach occurred.
Significance:
This case clarified the concept of tipping liability—there must be a breach of fiduciary duty and personal benefit for insider trading liability to attach to tippees.
3. SEC v. Rajaratnam (2011)
Facts:
Raj Rajaratnam, founder of a hedge fund, was accused of using insider information obtained from corporate insiders and brokers to trade stocks profitably.
Holding:
The SEC and Department of Justice found Rajaratnam liable for insider trading, based on wiretap evidence and other investigative materials showing he received and traded on material nonpublic information.
Significance:
This case was notable for the use of wiretap evidence in insider trading investigations and demonstrated the SEC’s vigorous administrative and criminal enforcement capabilities against hedge funds and sophisticated traders.
4. In re Cady, Roberts & Co. (1961)
Facts:
Employees of Cady, Roberts & Co. learned that a proxy fight was impending at a company they served as brokers. Before the information was public, they purchased stock.
Holding:
The SEC ruled that anyone in possession of material nonpublic information relating to securities must either disclose the information or abstain from trading. The insiders were found liable.
Significance:
This was one of the first cases to define insider trading broadly and imposed fiduciary duties on anyone in possession of MNPI, not just corporate officers or directors.
5. SEC v. Wong (2007)
Facts:
Wong, an executive at a tech company, disclosed upcoming earnings information to friends who traded on the stock before the earnings were made public.
Holding:
The SEC held that Wong violated insider trading laws by tipping off friends with material nonpublic information. Wong was ordered to disgorge profits and barred from serving as an officer or director.
Significance:
This case emphasized that tipping liability extends beyond corporate insiders to anyone who improperly discloses confidential information, reinforcing the reach of administrative enforcement.
Summary of Administrative Enforcement
The SEC investigates insider trading violations through document reviews, interviews, and often, wiretaps or phone records.
Enforcement includes administrative proceedings where the SEC can impose penalties without criminal trials.
Cases consistently emphasize the importance of fiduciary duty, materiality of information, and the scienter element (knowledge or intent).
Penalties include disgorgement of profits, fines, and bans on serving as corporate officers or directors.
RELATED Blog
0 comments