Category: Insider and Manipulative Trading

Update: SCOTUS Will Consider Statute of Limitations on Disgorgement

We previously wrote about how the SEC urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Kokesh v. SEC, and on Friday, January 13, the Court did just that. In an order without comment, the Court granted certiorari after both the petitioner and the SEC requested the Court’s review, albeit for different reasons. While the petitioner believes he should not be subject to disgorgement for ill-gotten gains that were obtained more than five years ago, the SEC wants the Court to bring clarity to the circuit split that has developed since the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Graham, which held that the five-year statute of limitations applies to disgorgement. As we previously noted, the SEC argued that Graham impedes its ability to achieve uniformity in the administration of securities laws.

We will continue to monitor developments in this case, which is sure to shape the timing of future SEC enforcement investigations and actions and the remedies it will seek.

President–Elect Trump Nominates Jay Clayton For SEC Chair

On January 4, 2017, President-Elect Donald Trump announced that he intends to nominate Walter “Jay” Clayton for Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In response, Mr. Clayton stated that, “If confirmed, we are going to work together with key stakeholders in the financial system to make sure we provide investors and our companies with the confidence to invest together in America. We will carefully monitor our financial sector, as we set policy that encourages American companies to do what they do best: create jobs.”

Of the three pillars of the SEC’s mission statement – 1) protect investors; 2) maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and 3) facilitate capital formation – Mr. Clayton’s deep experience as a “dealmaker” most closely aligns with the facilitation of capital formation pillar.  Chair Mary Jo White’s primary prior experience as a federal prosecutor, in contrast, most closely aligned with the protection of investors. That said, while this announcement clearly indicates the incoming administration’s focus on that third pillar, with the latter part of this statement in his announcement, the President-Elect reminded the securities industry that the Chair and SEC will remain responsible for ensuring that the rules and regulations are followed, “Jay Clayton . . . will ensure our financial institutions can thrive and create jobs while playing by the rules at the same time.”

While Mr. Clayton has strong industry knowledge and experience, his lack of enforcement experience is comparable to Chair White’s lack of experience in the SEC’s regulatory and policy areas when she was appointed. Consequently, if his nomination is affirmed, Mr. Clayton’s choice for the next Director of the Division of Enforcement will reveal much about his enforcement objectives. In the meantime, one area that Mr. Clayton appears primed to de-emphasize is the SEC’s enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, based on this New York City Bar Association paper that he assisted in drafting. The President-Elect will also have more to say on the future direction of the SEC with his upcoming nominations to fill the two remaining open seats on the Commission.

10th Circuit Creates Split, Finds SEC’s Use of Administrative Law Judges Unconstitutional

The 10th Circuit recently found that the SEC’s use of Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, creating a split amongst federal appellate courts and making it likely the Supreme Court will weigh in on the controversy that has been building over the last two years. More specifically, the court, in Bandimere v. SEC, held in a 2-1 decision that an SEC Administrative Law Judge is an inferior officer who must be constitutionally appointed.

Bandimere, a respondent in an SEC administrative proceeding, filed a petition for review after the SEC affirmed an initial decision entered by an ALJ that found Bandimere liable for violating a number of securities laws and imposed civil penalties against him. Bandimere raised a constitutional argument before the SEC, contending that the ALJ who presided over his hearing “was an inferior officer who had not been appointed under the Appointments Clause.” Op. at 3. The SEC rejected this argument, conceding that its ALJs are not constitutionally appointed, but ruling that they are not inferior officers subject to the requirements of the Appointments Clause.

Diverging from other federal courts, the 10th Circuit set aside the SEC’s opinion affirming the ALJ’s decision, holding that SEC ALJs are inferior officers who must be constitutionally appointed. In doing so, the court relied almost exclusively on Freytag v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), in which “a unanimous Supreme Court concluded [that Tax Court] STJs [special trial judges] were inferior officers.” Op. at 13–14. The Bandimere court found that “Freytag held that [special trial judges appointed by the Tax Court] were inferior officers based on three characteristics”: (1) their position was “established by law”; (2) “the[ir] duties, salary, and means of appointment . . . are specified by statute”; and (3) they “exercise significant discretion” in “carrying out . . . important functions.” Op. at 18 (quoting Freytag, 501 U.S. at 881–82). The court concluded that like STJs, SEC ALJs possess all three characteristics. Specifically, the court found that the ALJ position was established by the APA and cited various statutes that “set forth SEC ALJs’ duties, salaries, and means of appointment.” Op. at 18. As to the third factor, the court focused on an SEC ALJ’s ability “to shape the administrative record by taking testimony, regulating document production and depositions, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, receiving evidence, ruling on dispositive and procedural motions, issuing subpoenas, and presiding over trial-like hearings.” Op. at 19. The court also highlighted an SEC ALJ’s authority to render initial decisions, determine liability, impose sanctions, enter default judgments, and modify or enforce temporary sanctions imposed by the SEC. Thus, because it determined that all three factors were satisfied, the court ruled that SEC ALJs “are inferior officers who must be appointed in conformity with the Appointments Clause.” Op. at 22. Because they are not constitutionally appointed, as the SEC conceded, the court held that SEC ALJs hold their office in violation of the Constitution.

In reaching this conclusion, the Bandimere court rejected the SEC’s position that its “ALJs are not inferior officers because they cannot render final decisions and the agency retains authority to review ALJs’ decisions de novo” and disagreed with the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Raymond J. Lucia Cos., Inc. v. SEC, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016), which used the same reasoning to conclude that SEC ALJs are employees rather than inferior officers. Op. at 23–24. The Bandimere court found that this argument misreads Freytag and “place[s] undue weight on final decision-making authority.” Op. at 24. The court held that while “[f]inal decision-making power is relevant in determining whether a public servant exercises significant authority . . . that does not mean every inferior officer must possess final decision-making power.” Op. at 28. Rather, the proper focus is the extent of discretion exercised and the importance of the duties carried out by an ALJ, both of which, the court found, weighed in favor of finding that SEC ALJs are inferior officers.

Similarly, the court also refuted the dissent’s attempt to distinguish SEC ALJs from Tax Court STJs by contending that unlike those of SEC ALJs, STJs’ initial decisions were binding even when the STJs did not technically enter a final decision. Contrary to the dissent, the majority found that the Tax Court did not merely rubber stamp STJs’ initial decisions, but rather ultimately “adopted opinions they had a hand in supervising and producing.” Op. at 34. Moreover, the majority found that approximately ninety percent of SEC ALJs’ initial decisions “become final without any review or revision from an SEC Commissioner.” Op. at 35.

The dissent also expressed concern that the majority’s decision “effectively rendered invalid thousands of administrative actions.” Dissent at 11. But the majority disagreed, and stated in response that “[n]othing in this opinion should be read to answer any but the precise question before the court:  whether SEC ALJs are employees or inferior officers. Questions about officer removal, officer status of other agencies’ ALJs, civil service protection, rulemaking, and retroactivity . . .  are not issues on appeal and have not been briefed by the parties.” Op. at 36.

Furthermore, Judge Briscoe’s concurrence suggests the dissent’s concern that the majority’s decision will have a wide-sweeping detrimental effect because it calls into question the constitutionality of past decisions rendered by ALJs is likely overstated. Citing Free Enter. Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010), the concurrence highlighted that “courts normally are required to afford the minimum relief necessary to bring administrative overreach in line with the Constitution.” Concurrence at 4. For example, in Free Enterprise Fund, the Supreme Court found the SEC’s Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) created by Sarbanes-Oxley violated Article II because the Act provided for dual for-cause limitations on the removal of board members. Specifically, PCAOB members could not be removed by the SEC except for good cause shown, and SEC Commissioners themselves cannot be removed except for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The Supreme Court noted that “such multilevel protection from removal is contrary to Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President” and that the President “cannot ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ if he cannot oversee the faithfulness of the officers who execute them.” Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 484. The Supreme Court, however, did not find the PCAOB unconstitutional; it merely severed the for-cause removal provision of the PCAOB appointment clause, leaving the Board itself intact. Moreover, the Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the constitutional infirmity made all of the Board’s prior activity unconstitutional.

In addition, this principle was recently applied in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), in which the D.C. Circuit, rather than abrogating the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), “struck the single offending clause from the CFPB’s implementing legislation [the Dodd-Frank Act]” and simply altered the structure of the CFPB so that it conformed with constitutional requirements. Concurrence at 5. As an initial matter, the D.C. Circuit found that the CFPB’s construction as an independent agency led by a single Director (as opposed to a typical multi-member board or commission) who was removable by the President only for cause violated Article II of the Constitution because the Director exercised significant executive power largely unchecked. That is, the court found that the CFPB was “unconstitutionally structured” because it lacked the “critical substitute check on the excesses of any individual independent agency head” that a traditional multi-member structure would provide. PHH, 839 F.3d at 8. But rather than “shut down the entire CFPB . . . [t]o remedy the constitutional flaw,” the court “simply sever[ed] the statute’s unconstitutional for-cause provision from the remainder of the statute.” Id. The result was that the President was given “the power to remove the Director at will, and to supervise and direct the Director” as the head of an executive agency without otherwise disturbing “the ongoing operations of the CFPB” or its ability to uphold previously entered orders. Id. at 8, 39.

These decisions suggest that even if the Supreme Court agrees with the Bandimere decision, the probable remedy will be to modify the unconstitutional characteristics of the SEC ALJ structure. For example, it may consider altering certain conditions of the ALJs’ employment relationship. See Concurrence at 5–6. Moreover, as the dissent recognized, the Supreme Court could also make “an explicit statement that the opinion does not apply retroactively.” Dissent at 15 n.9.

Since 2010, in the wake of Dodd-Frank, the SEC has consistently increased its use of administrative proceedings. It seems likely now that there is a circuit split, and Supreme Court review seems certain, the SEC may well scale back its reliance on administrative proceedings until this constitutional issue is settled.

Supreme Court Reaffirms Dirks and Tosses Prosecution a Win

In Salman v. United States, 580 U.S. __ (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Bassam Salman’s conviction, giving prosecutors a win on the first insider trading case to be heard by the Court in nearly two decades. The unanimous decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, is short and to the point. The Court reaffirmed the continued validity of Dirks v. S.E.C., 463 U.S. 646 (1983), and determined that a tipper receives a personal benefit by providing insider information to a “trading relative or friend.”

In Dirks, the Court ruled that a tippee’s liability for trading on inside information hinges on whether the tipper breached a fiduciary duty by disclosing the information. The fiduciary duty is breached when the insider will personally benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure. In Salman, the Supreme Court stated that the benefit did not have to be money, property, or something of tangible value, because “giving a gift of trading information is the same thing as trading by the tipper followed by a gift of the proceeds.”

This decision resolved a circuit split between the Ninth Circuit, which had affirmed Salman’s conviction, and the Second Circuit, which ruled in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), that prosecutors had to prove that insiders received monetary or some sort of valuable benefit in exchange for disclosing information in order to convict the tippee who had used said information. The Supreme Court found that “[t]o the extent the Second Circuit held that the tipper must also receive something of a ‘pecuniary or similarly valuable nature’ in exchange for a gift to family or friends, Newman 773 F.3d at 452, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that this requirement is inconsistent with Dirks.” Yet, the Supreme Court seemed careful to imply that some portions of Newman remain good law, such as the requirement that the tippee knows the insider received a personal benefit from providing the inside information.

Despite, or perhaps because of the brevity of the opinion, questions still remain about what exactly is a benefit to the tipper. Clearly, familial connections or close friendships between the tipper and the tippee mean that prosecutors do not have to prove a specific pecuniary benefit occurred for the tipper, but would the same hold true if the tippee was a neighbor? Or, as the Second Circuit opined in Newman, an acquaintance from church or business school? The Supreme Court dodged these questions and more by deciding Salman narrowly on the facts, a model of judicial restraint in the wake of far ranging decisions like McDonell v. United States that essentially rewrote how prosecutors handle corruption cases.

The Supreme Court Appears Poised to Reaffirm Dirks v. SEC and Maintain Current Insider Trading Rules

For the first time in two decades, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could change the landscape for the government’s pursuit of insider trading violations. In Salman v. United States (Dkt. No. 15-628), the Court reviewed the government’s burden of proof when it prosecutes for insider trading. Specifically, the primary issue involves whether Salman’s “tipper” had received the kind of “personal benefit” required by precedent to hold Salman criminally liable for insider trading. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Salman’s conviction. However, just two years ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the convictions of several insider traders because the government failed to establish that the insiders had received “a potential gain of a pecuniary or similar valuable nature.” In other words, the Second Circuit rejected governmental theories where insider tips were given to friends or even family members without any monetary gain to the insider. Thus, the Court’s ruling in Salman will also settle a current split between the Second and Ninth Circuits.

By way of background, for tipper–tippee cases, courts have determined that it is a crime for an insider with a duty of confidentiality (otherwise known as a tipper) to intentionally or recklessly provide confidential information (otherwise known as a tip) to another (otherwise known as the tippee) and to receive a personal benefit, directly or indirectly, from such action. The tippee, to be criminally liable, must also know about the confidential nature of the information (which has been breached) and the benefit the insider received. The Court specified much of these requirements in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), where it also stated “absent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders.” 

How is personal gain defined? This is the main question the Court must decide in Salman, thereby resolving the federal circuit split. In Salman, the Court seemed both unwilling to take steps away from its prior precedent and suspect of the additional sweeping arguments made by the petitioner and the government. During the petitioner’s argument, Salman’s attorney contended that a line needed to be drawn as to what constituted a personal benefit. She suggested that the Court require the benefit to be tangible—not necessarily monetary or personal—but tangible. Justice Breyer, however, countered that helping “a close family member is like helping yourself.” Justice Kennedy clarified that in the law of gifts “we don’t generally talk about benefit to the donor” but that giving to a family member “ennobles you.”

The Justices’ statements appeared to indicate that they seemed more comfortable agreeing with the government, that insider information packaged as gifts to close friends or family crossed the line into creating or manifesting personal gain for the tipper, consistent with precedent. But they appeared unwilling to go further than that, despite the government’s urging that insider trading occurs whenever the insider provides confidential information for the purpose of obtaining a personal advantage for somebody else, regardless of previous or future relationships between the tipper and tippee. The government seemed not to view the personal advantage as a gain or benefit as those words are used colloquially. Instead, the government contended that the access to and communication of the confidential information in breach of the duty of confidentiality is in and of itself “a personal gain,” “a gift with somebody else’s property.” This interpretation was met with skepticism by the Court and the government seemed to back away from its argument, stating instead that it would not seek to hold liable somebody who was “loose in their conversations but had no anticipation that there would be trading.”

Justice Alito commented disapprovingly that neither side’s argument was consistent with the Court’s precedent in Dirks. Indeed, the Court appeared worried that any outcome other than affirmance would require new lines to be drawn. Any change to the law, as a result of this case, would impact the Court’s own judicially created insider trading standard from Dirks. As Justice Kagan put it to the petitioner: “[y]ou’re asking us to cut back significantly from something that we said several decades ago, something that Congress has shown no indication that it’s unhappy with, . . . [when] the integrity of the markets are a very important thing for this country. And you’re asking us essentially to change the rules in a way that threatens that integrity.” By the end of the argument, the government basically summarized what seemed to many observers, the Court’s preference: “If the Court feels more comfortable given the facts of this case of reaffirming Dirks and saying that was the law in 1983, it remains the law today, that is completely fine with the government.”

In light of the arguments and interactions with the Justices, the Court seems most comfortable with reaffirming the standards established with Dirks. Thus, it appears that despite the ruling in Newman, Salman may have provided the Court with nothing more than an opportunity to affirm its long-standing precedent.

First Circuit Quietly Joins the “Personal Benefit” Fray

The First Circuit recently added to the increasingly ambiguous personal benefit requirement, finding that an alleged friendship and promises for free “wine, steak, and visits to a massage parlor” were enough to support a misappropriation theory of liability for insider trading. United States v. Parigian, — F.3d —, No. 15-1994, 2016 WL 3027702, at *2 (1st Cir. May 26, 2016). As highlighted in previous posts, the Second and Ninth Circuits have interpreted the personal benefit requirement differently, and in January, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the issue.

Parigian pleaded guilty to criminal securities fraud on the condition that he could appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment for failing to allege a crime. Id. at *1. The indictment alleged that Parigian’s golfing buddy, Eric McPhail, provided nonpublic information to Parigian that McPhail had received from a corporate insider. Id. at *1–2. McPhail was not alleged to have engaged in any trading himself; instead, he was compensated for the information “with wine, steak, and visits to a massage parlor.” Id. at *2. Parigian argued the indictment failed to properly allege a “misappropriation” theory of liability for insider trading because, among other things, there was no personal benefit to McPhail. Id. at *3.

In Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 662 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the tippee in a traditional insider trading scheme cannot be held liable unless the insider “will benefit, directly or indirectly, from his disclosure.” The First Circuit has, by its own admission, “dodged the question” of whether “such a benefit need be proven in a misappropriation.” Parigian, 2016 WL 3027702, at *7. Instead, the First Circuit has twice considered the issue and determined that it was satisfied, if required, under the facts of those cases. Id. It was satisfied, the court said, because in one case the misappropriator and tippee were “business and social friends with reciprocal interests” and in the other case because “the mere giving of a gift to a relative or friend is . . . sufficient.” Id.

Although the court acknowledged the more recent decisions of the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, the former holding that objective proof of a potential pecuniary gain is necessary and the latter holding that evidence of a close personal relationship is enough, the court refused to stray from its own precedent. Id. at *8. Under that precedent, the indictment adequately alleged a personal benefit because of the “friendship between McPhail and Parigian plus an expectation that the tippees would treat McPhail to a golf outing and assorted luxury entertainment.” Id.

Further clarity will have to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision next term.

U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Issue of “Personal Benefit” in Insider Trading Context

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari this week in a case that is sure to draw significant attention given its likely implications on insider trading liability. Bassam Salman filed the petition after the Ninth Circuit affirmed his insider trading conviction in United States v. Salman, 792 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2015).

Salman was convicted of conspiracy and insider trading arising out of a trading scheme involving members of his extended family. During the time period at issue, Maher Kara, Salman’s future brother-in-law, had access to insider information regarding mergers and acquisitions of and by his firm’s clients that he provided to his brother, Michael Kara. Michael subsequently traded on the information. Michael then shared the information he learned from Maher with Salman. Salman also traded on the information.

Following his conviction, Salman appealed and argued that there was no evidence that he knew that Maher disclosed information to Michael in exchange for a personal benefit. The personal benefit requirement, first derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), requires that the insider personally benefit from the disclosure—including through pecuniary gain, a reputational benefit that will translate into future earnings, or where the insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. Critical to the third manner of conferring a personal benefit, the Second Circuit recently held in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438, 452 (2d Cir. 2014), that to the extent “a personal benefit may be inferred from a personal relationship between the tipper and tippee . . . such an inference is impermissible in the absence of proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”

Salman urged the Ninth Circuit to adopt the Newman court’s interpretation of Dirks to require more than evidence of a friendship or familial relationship between the tipper and the tippee. The Ninth Circuit declined, holding that doing so would require the court to depart from the ruling in Dirks that liability can be established where the insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. The Supreme Court likely will resolve whether the concept of a personal benefit addressed in Dirks requires proof of an objective, consequential, and potential pecuniary gain—as the Newman court held—or whether it is enough that the insider and tippee shared a close family relationship.

The Newman decision has already resulted in the dismissal of insider trading charges against several individuals. The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will therefore provide much needed clarity in this area, given the sharp split between the Second and Ninth Circuits on the issue.

SEC’s Broken Window Enforcement Program Gets a Boost from “Quantitative Analytics” and “Algorithms”

The SEC announced last week that it had charged, in settled administrative proceedings, 28 individuals and investment firms that failed to “promptly report information about their holdings and transactions in company stock” and six public companies that contributed to “filing failures by insiders or fail[ed] to report their insiders’ filing delinquencies.” See SEC Press Release: “SEC Announces Charges Against Corporate Insiders for Violating Laws Requiring Prompt Reporting of Transactions and Holdings.” The SEC obtained a total of $2.6 million in civil monetary penalties as a result of the filed charges. The individual amounts ranged from $25,000 to $150,000. These cases are the latest example of the SEC’s focus on strict liability violations of the federal securities laws.

All of the charges arise under Sections 13(d), 13(g), and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These sections require certain forms to be filed, irrespective of profits or the reasons for engaging in the stock transactions. Although the SEC does not need to establish that an individual or company engaged in insider trading (nor was there any finding that would suggest such) in order to prove any of the charged violations, legislative history indicates that Section 16(a) was motivated by a belief that “the most potent weapon against the abuse of inside information is full and prompt publicity” and by a desire “to give investors an idea of the purchases and sales by insiders[,] which may in turn indicate their private opinion as to prospects of the company.”

Pursuant to Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-3, company officers, directors, and certain beneficial owners of more than 10% of a registered class of a company’s stock (“insiders”) are required to file initial statements of holdings on Form 3 and to keep this information current by reporting transactions on Forms 4 and 5. Specifically, within 10 days after becoming an insider, the insider must file a Form 3 report disclosing his or her beneficial ownership of all securities of the issuer. To keep this information current, insiders must file Form 4 reports disclosing purchases and sales of securities, exercises and conversions of derivative securities, and grants or awards of securities from the issuer within two business days following the execution date of the transaction. In addition, insiders are required to file annual statements on Form 5 within 45 days after the issuer’s fiscal year-end to report any transactions or holdings that should have been, but were not, reported on Form 3 or 4 during the issuer’s most recent fiscal year and any transactions eligible for deferred reporting (unless the corporate insider has previously reported all such transactions).

Beneficial owners of more than 5% of a registered class of a company’s stock must use Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G to report holdings or intentions with respect to the respective company. According to legislative history, Section 13(d) is a key provision that allows shareholders and potential investors to evaluate changes in substantial shareholdings. The duty to file is not dependent on any intention by the stockholder to gain control of the company, but on a mechanical 5% ownership test. A Schedule 13D must be filed within ten days of the transaction, and a Schedule 13G must be filed within 10 to 45 days of the transaction, depending on the category of filer and the percentage of acquired ownership. Importantly, Section 16(a) also requires an investment adviser to file required reports of behalf of funds that it manages when the fund’s ownership or transactions in securities exceed the statutory thresholds.

Under Section 16(a), public companies are required to disclose in their annual meeting proxy statements or in their annual reports, “known” Section 16 reporting delinquencies by its insiders. This disclosure is commonly referred to as the Item 405 disclosure. The Item 405 disclosure of any late filings or known failures to file must (i) identify by name each insider who failed to file Forms 3, 4, or 5 on a timely basis during the most recent fiscal year or prior fiscal years and (ii) set forth the number of late reports, the number of late-reported transactions, and any known failure to file. An issuer does not have an obligation under Item 405 to research or make inquiry regarding delinquent Section 16(a) filings beyond the review specified in the item. Although insiders remain responsible for the timeliness and accuracy of their required Section 16(a) reports, the SEC has encouraged companies to assist their officers and directors to submit their filings, or even to submit the required form on the insiders’ behalf to ensure accurate and timely filing.

These actions make clear, however, that reliance on the company does not excuse violations as the insider retains ultimate responsibility for the filings. The majority of the charged individuals told the SEC that their delinquent filings resulted from the failure of the company to make timely filings on their behalf. In one case, disclosures in the company’s annual proxy statements relating to Section 16(a) compliance revealed that the filing of the insider reports was late because of “lack of staffing,” “late receipt of necessary information,” and “a change in the processing of these forms and delays caused by an email server malfunction.” The SEC still charged the insider because the insider took “ineffective steps to monitor whether timely and accurate filings were made” on his or her behalf by the company.

Without providing any details, the SEC claimed that it used “quantitative analytics” or algorithms to identifyindividuals and companies with especially high rates of filing deficiencies. The SEC’s filing of these actions underscores its willingness to devote resources to pursuing strict liability violations. It also demonstrates the SEC’s efforts to use quantitative analysis and algorithms to identify violations and to streamline the investigative process.

©2024 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Privacy Policy