Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

The SEC’s Insider Trading Case Falls Further Apart

Posted on January 27, 2016 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Five years ago, the SEC came crashing into the offices of Level Global Investors accusing it of engaging in illegal insider trading. The firm agreed to pay $21.5 million in settlement money to resolve that insider trading investigation. Now it wants its money money back.

SEC Seal 2

When it comes to insider trading, it’s not the firm doing the trading, it’s individuals. The individuals fought the charges of illegal insider trading. Anthony Chiasson, was implicated in the insider trading charges and was convicted at trial.

But the verdict was overturned and the federal appeals dismissed the charges. That ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (U.S. v. Newman and Chiasson, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2015)), made it more difficult to pursue insider trading cases. The Newman decision changed the SEC’s view of what constitutes illegal insider trading. The government now requires the government to prove a higher level of benefit than before.

The SEC appealed to the US Supreme Court, but it decided not to hear the appeal.

With the underlying charges gone, the Level Global feels it’s entitled to get its settlement back. The SEC is not contesting and a federal judge agreed to vacate the settlement.

Although the Supreme Court decided not to hear the Newman appeal, it did agree to hear another insider trading case with a similar issue.

Sources:

  • Regulators to Return $21.5 Million to Hedge Fund Shut After Raid by Matthew Goldstein in DealBook
  • SEC response
  • Declaration for motion
  • Order to Return Fine

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • The SEC 2026 Rulemaking Agenda
  • The Alignment Gap: Rethinking Costs in Private Equity Fund Formation
  • PERE 100 and SEC Registration
  • Neither Admit Nor Deny To Be No Longer
  • What Will Form PF Look Like Next Year?
  • Is It a Chipset or Is It a Security?
  • When the Lawyer Is Breaking Bad
  • Will Investors Have an Appetite for Semi-Annual Reporting?
  • Special Forces Trading on Insider Knowledge
  • Prediction Markets and Compliance Programs

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.