Tag Archives: fraud

First Circuit Rebuffs SEC in Flannery and Hopkins Case and Vacates SEC Order

The SEC suffered a stunning loss in the First Circuit in a December 8, 2015 decision ruling that the SEC’s findings of securities law violations by two executives in connection with the operation of a State Street Bank bond fund lacked substantial supporting evidence.  The Commission had, by a 3-2 divided vote, overturned a decision by one of its administrative law judges that no violations had occurred, and in doing so wrote a highly controversial opinion in which it staked out aggressive positions on a variety of securities law issues.  See SEC Majority Argues for Negating Janus Decision with Broad Interpretation of Rule 10b-5; New, Thorough Academic Analysis of In re Flannery Shows Many Flaws in the Far-Reaching SEC Majority Opinion; and SEC not entitled to deference in State Street fraud appeal – law prof.

The First Circuit panel found, however, that the underlying evidence simply failed to support the finding of any violation on any  theory, even the aggressive interpretations set forth by the Commission in its opinion.  As a result, the First Circuit never ruled on the validity or invalidity of several important legal issues raised by the Commission in its overreaching opinion.  Therefore, the key issue whether the SEC’s attempt at aggressive revisions of the scope of the law are entitled to deference or acceptance was not reached.  The end result, however, which vacates the SEC Order, leaves no SEC precedent in place to support those aggressive opinions.

The First Circuit’s opinion is available here: 1st Circuit Decision in Flannery v. SEC.  The now-vacated SEC opinion is available here: In re Flannery Majority Opinion.

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the First Circuit opinion is the way in which the court schooled the SEC — the supposed experts on securities —  by explaining why the evidence the SEC found compelling (despite a contrary ruling by its ALJ) was in fact deeply flawed.  Where the Commission majority found evidence of material intentional and negligent misrepresentations, the appellate court found no substance whatever.  What does this say about the competence of the SEC and its staff to consider such issues?  If you read the opinion, you will see that the SEC’s willingness to stretch minimal evidence into supposed violations of law, and to disregard the lack of real evidence of materiality and state of mind proffered during the trial, seems a lot like the strained efforts of plaintiffs’ lawyers to find securities fraud everywhere.  And that is the reality faced by those being investigated and prosecuted by the SEC: the investigation and prosecution proceeds on the basis of a distorted view of what constitutes important information, and intentional or negligent behavior, that puts almost every decision in the SEC’s cross-hairs based largely on backward-looking, “fraud by hindsight” reasoning.

 The First Circuit opinion is based on an analysis of the specific evidence in the record, and therefore is not easily summarized.  The case turned on two sets of events.

The case against Mr. Hopkins turned on a short presentation to investors in which he participated, and, indeed, a single power-point slide in that presentation.  That slide set forth various parameters of the bond fund at issue (State Street’s Limited Duration Bond Fund, hereafter “the Fund”) under the heading “Typical Portfolio Exposures and Characteristics.”  It never purported to lay out the exact characteristics of the Fund at the time of the presentation, although Mr. Hopkins had that information available if any investor asked about them.  The SEC charged Mr. Hopkins with fraud for discussing this power-point slide without providing the exact information about the Fund at that time, which in some respects differed from the “typical” slide, and in others did not.  In particular, the percentage of holdings of different types of asset-backed securities — ABS (asset-backed securities, included residential mortgage-backed securities), CBS (commercial-backed securities), MBS (mortgage-backed securities), and other designations — at the time varied from the “typical” slide by having heavier ABS holdings.

The case against Mr. Flannery focused on two letters sent by State Street to investors regarding the impact of the 2007 financial crisis on the Fund and steps being taken to respond to that.  Mr. Flannery signed one of those letters, but not the other.  Many State Street officials participated in the drafting of these letters, including its General Counsel.  The SEC contended that Mr. Flannery negligently participated in a “course of business” that “operated as a fraud” in his role in connection with these letters.  The alleged misrepresentations in the letters related to whether steps taken to divest the Fund of certain bonds were properly described as lessening its exposure to risk.

As you can see, these are “in the weeds” issues to which the SEC should be able to bring sophistication and expertise.  Instead, they pursued a blunderbuss case that ignored the context of the disclosures, the realities of these types of communications (what they are intended to communicate and what not), and the actual language used.  The SEC essentially waved its hands around and said “this is bad; this is bad” and “look how badly the funds did when the mortgage-backed securities market tanked.”  But it failed to present evidence that what was said was wrong, or that the aspect that it contended was wrong was even important to investors, and ignored substantial evidence to the contrary.

Here is some of what the court said with respect to the case against Mr. Hopkins:

Questions of materiality and scienter are connected. . . .  “If it is questionable whether a fact is material or its materiality is marginal, that tends to undercut the argument that defendants acted with the requisite intent or extreme recklessness in not disclosing the fact.” . . .

Here, assuming the Typical Portfolio Slide was misleading, evidence supporting the Commission’s finding of materiality was marginal.  The Commission’s opinion states that “reasonable investors would have viewed disclosure of the fact that, during the relevant period, [the Fund’s] exposure to ABS was substantially higher than was stated in the slide as having significantly altered the total mix of information available to them.”  Yet the Commission identifies only one witness other than Hopkins relevant to this conclusion. . . .

[T]he slide was clearly labeled “Typical.”  [The witness and his firm] never asked … for a breakdown of the [Fund’s] actual investment….  Further, the Commission has not identified any evidence in the record that the credit risks posed by ABS, CMBS, or MBS were materially different from each other, arguing instead that the percent of investment in ABS and diversification as such are important to investors.  Context makes a difference.  According to a report [the witness] authored the day after the meeting, the meeting’s purpose was to explain why the [Fund] had underperformed in the first quarter of 2007 and to discuss its investment in a specific index that had contributed to the underperformance.  The Typical Portfolio Slide was one slide of a presentation of at least twenty. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the slide was not mentioned in [the witness’s] report.

Hopkins presented expert testimony . . . that “[p]re-prepared documents such as . . . presentations . . . are not intended to present a complete picture of the fund,” but rather serve as “starting points,” after which due diligence is performed.  [The expert] explained that “a typical investor in an unregistered fund would understand that it could specifically request additional information regarding the fund.”  And not only were clients given specific information upon request, information about the [Fund’s] actual percent of sector investment was available through the fact sheets and annual audited financial statements.  The … fact sheet … six weeks prior to the … presentation [said] the [Fund] was 100% invested in ABS.  The [fact sheet one-month after the presentation said] the [Fund] was 81.3% invested in ABS. These facts weigh against any conclusion that the Typical Portfolio Slide had “significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” …

This thin materiality showing cannot support a finding of scienter here….  Hopkins testified that in his experience investors did not focus on sector breakdown when making their investment decisions and that [Fund] investors did not focus on how much of the [Fund] investment was in ABS versus MBS….  He did not update the Typical Portfolio Slide’s sector breakdowns because he did not think the typical sector breakdowns were important to investors.  To the extent that an investor would want to know the actual sector breakdowns, Hopkins would bring notes with “the accurate information” so that he could answer any questions that arose.  We cannot say that these handwritten notes provide substantial evidence of recklessness, much less intentionality to mislead — particularly in light of Hopkins’s belief that this information was not important to investors….

We conclude that the Commission abused its discretion in holding Hopkins liable under Section 17(a)(1), Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5.

Slip op. at 21-24 (footnotes omitted).

The court said in a footnote: “… We do not suggest that the mere availability of accurate information negates an inaccurate statement.  Rather, when a slide is labeled ‘typical,’ and where a reasonable investor would not rely on one slide but instead would conduct due diligence when making an investment decision, the availability of actual and accurate information is relevant.”  Slip op. at 22 n.8.

And here is some of the discussion about the case against Mr. Flannery:

… At the very least, the August 2 letter was not misleading — even when considered with the August 14 letter — and so there was not substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Flannery was “liable for having engaged in a ‘course of business’ that operated as a fraud on [Fund] investors.”

The Commission’s primary reason for finding the August 2 letter misleading was its view that the “[The Fund’s] sale of the AAA-rated securities did not reduce risk in the fund.  Rather, the sale ultimately increased both the fund’s credit risk and its liquidity risk because the securities that remained in the fund had a lower credit rating and were less liquid than those that were sold.” At the outset, we note that neither of the Commission’s assertions — that the sale increased the fund’s credit risk and increased its liquidity risk — are supported by substantial evidence.

First, although credit rating alone does not necessarily measure a portfolio’s risk, the Commission does not dispute the truth of the letter’s statement that the [Fund] maintained an average AA-credit quality. Second, expert testimony presented at the proceeding explained that the July 26 AAA-rated bond sale reduced risk because these bonds “entailed credit and market risk that were substantially greater than those of cash positions. In addition, a portion of the sale proceeds was used to pay down [repurchase agreement] loans and reduce the portfolio leverage.”

Further, testimony throughout the proceeding indicated that the [Fund’s] bond sales in July and August reduced risk by decreasing exposure to the subprime residential market, by reducing leverage, and by increasing liquidity, part of which was used to repay loans.

To be sure, the Commission maintained that the bond sale’s potentially beneficial effects on the fund’s liquidity risk were immediately undermined by the “massive outflows of the sale proceeds . . . to early redeemers.”  But this reasoning falters for two reasons. First, the Commission acknowledged that between $175 and $195 million of the cash proceeds remained in the LDBF as of the time the letter was sent; it offered no reason, however, why this level of cash holdings provided an insufficient liquidity cushion.  Second and more fundamentally, even if the Commission was correct that the liquidity risk in the [Fund] was higher following the sale than it was prior to the sale, it does not follow that the sale failed to reduce risk.  Rather, to treat as misleading the statement in the August 2 letter that State Street had “reduced risk,” the Commission would need to demonstrate that the liquidity risk in the LDBF following the sale was higher than it would have been in the counterfactual world in which the financial crisis had continued to roil — and in which large numbers of investors likely would have sought redemption — and the [Fund] had not sold its AAA holdings. But the Commission has not done this.

Independently, the Commission has misread the letter. The August 2 letter did not claim to have reduced risk in the [Fund].  The letter states that “the downdraft in valuations has had a significant impact on the risk profile of our portfolios, prompting us to take steps to seek to reduce risk across the affected portfolios” (emphasis added).  Indeed, at oral argument, the Commission acknowledged that there was no particular sentence in the letter that was inaccurate. It contends that the statement, “[t]he actions we have taken to date in the [Fund] simultaneously reduced risk in other [State Street] active fixed income and active derivative-based strategies,” misled investors into thinking [State Street] reduced the [Fund’s] risk profile.  This argument ignores the word “other.”  The letter was sent to clients in at least twenty-one other funds, and, if anything, speaks to having reduced risk in funds other than the [Fund].

Even beyond that, there is not substantial evidence that [State Street] did not “seek to reduce risk across the affected portfolios.”  As one expert testified, there are different types of risk associated with a fund like the [Fund], including market risk, liquidity risk, and credit or default risk.  The [Fund] was facing a liquidity problem, and … the Director of Active North American Fixed Income, explained that “[i]t’s hard to predict if the market will hold on or if there will be a large number of withdrawals by clients.  We need to have liquidity should the clients decide to withdraw.” Flannery noted that “if [they didn’t] raise liquidity [they] face[d] a greater unknown.”  … [The Fund’s] lead portfolio manager, noted that selling only AAA-rated bonds would affect the [Fund’s] risk profile.  After discussion of both of these concerns, the Investment Committee ultimately decided to increase liquidity, sell a pro-rata share to warrant withdrawals, and reduce AA exposure. And that is what it did.…  The August 2 letter does not try to hide the sale of the AAA-rated bonds; it candidly acknowledges it. At the proceeding, Flannery testified that selling AAA-rated bonds itself reduces risk, and here, in combination with the pro-rata sale, was intended to maintain a consistent risk profile for the [Fund].  [Another witness] testified that the goal of the pro-rata sale was to treat all shareholders — both those who exited the fund and those who remained — as equally as possible and maintain the risk-characteristics of the portfolio to the extent possible.  These actions are not inconsistent with trying to reduce the risk profile across the portfolios.

Finally, we note that the Commission has failed to identify a single witness that supports a finding of materiality….  We do not think the letter was misleading, and we find no substantial evidence supporting a conclusion otherwise. 

We need not reach the August 14 letter…. Even were we to assume that the August 14 letter was misleading, in light of the SEC’s interpretation of Section 17(a)(3) and our conclusion about the August 2 letter, we find there is not substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Flannery engaged in a fraudulent “practice” or “course of business.”

Slip op. at 25-30 (footnotes omitted).

As noted above, it is obvious that the court’s decision turned on a close examination of the evidence, and an understanding of what the statements made by Hopkins and Flannery really meant, within their context.  The generalized power-point slide used by Mr. Hopkins, in the context of a broader presentation, and the availability of specific information on request, was so close to immaterial that Mr. Hopkins’ understanding that investors would not place significant weight on the “typical” data could not be reckless.  And the State Street letters to investors in which Mr. Flannery participated were not inaccurate because the SEC did not understand that the transaction described was, in fact, a means of reducing risk exposure.  That last point is a killer: the SEC could not even understand how to evaluate the risk exposures of these types of portfolios!  How good does that make you feel about the Commissioners that are responsible for understanding and protecting our capital markets?

This is a huge loss for the Commission because so much effort was made to make this case a showpiece for enforcement against individuals for supposed securities violations in the sale of the mortgage-backed securities that were devastated in the financial crisis.  The SEC was loaded for bear to hold some individuals responsible, regardless of the evidence.  Thank goodness a court was ultimately available to return us to the true rule of law.

Straight Arrow

December 9, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

Why the SEC’s Proposed Changes to Its Rules of Practice Are Woefully Inadequate — Part I

On September 24, 2015, the SEC proposed changes to its Rules of Practice governing administrative proceedings, which Chair Mary Jo White said “seek to modernize our rules of practice for administrative proceedings.”  After resisting immediate comment pending a careful review of the proposals and underlying explanations, a considered evaluation can now be made.  Unfortunately, this proposal represents so feeble an effort at modernizing the Commission’s dated Rules of Practice that only one judgment is justified.  If the provision of fair and “due” process to respondents in these actions is the standard, the Commission’s grade is an “F+.”  If providing a reasoned and rational explanation for the proposals is the standard (i.e., do they pass muster under the Administrative Procedure Act), the Commission’s grade is an “F.”  In fact, the only way this set of proposals gets anything more than a “D+” is if the objective was to create a proposal that could act as a Potemkin Village for arguments that the Commission is acting responsibly, and even in that regard, what the Commissioners came up with was a pretty shoddy Potemkin Village.

The proposals do not even begin to analyze or address in any substantive way the issues raised in depth by commentators over the 15 months since the SEC’s General Counsel acknowledged the existing rules are plainly insufficient to adjudicate complex cases.  See, for example, Chamber of Commerce Report Details Concerns with SEC Enforcement and Proposed Reforms.

The proposed revisions to the Rules of Practice can be reviewed here: Proposed amendments to SEC Rules of Practice.

Far from representing a good faith attempt to provide procedures that would allow fair proceedings on a somewhat more expedited basis than most federal courts, the proposals do nearly nothing to alter the pro-prosecution tilt that currently exists. That tilt is well-understood by the securities bar, and was documented statistically by the Wall Street Journal.  See Fairness Concerns About Proliferation of SEC Administrative Prosecutions Documented by Wall Street Journal.  Virtually nothing in these proposals changes that.  In fact, there are as many changes designed to give even greater advantages to the SEC prosecutorial staff as there are even minor attempts to give respondents a fighting chance.

The next several Securities Diary blogs will address various aspects of the SEC’s proposal and explain why (1) they do not represent a good faith effort at creating a modernized administrative adjudicative process designed to be fair to all parties, including respondents; (2) they are not supported by anything approaching reasoning or analysis that shows the changes proposed are well-designed to achieve identified goals, but instead represent fiats by the Commission that have no support beyond an arbitrary or capricious Commission determination; and (3) they include “goodies” for the benefit of SEC prosecuting staff that achieve no meaningful goal other than to make it easier for the Division of Enforcement to win.

Today we will start with an example so egregious that it is astonishing it got past whatever (apparently feckless) legal quality control was used to winnow out staff requests for new “goodies” that cannot be reasonably justified.

One of the SEC proposals is to amend Rule 220 of the Rules of Practice to mandate that “a respondent must affirmatively state in an answer whether the respondent is asserting any avoidance or affirmative defense, including but not limited to res judicata, statute of limitations, or reliance.” Proposal at 17.  The Commission explains: “This proposed amendment would not change the substantive requirement under the current rule to include affirmative defenses in the answer.  Instead, it is intended to clarify that any theories for avoidance of liability or remedies, even if not technically considered affirmative defenses, must be stated in the answer as well.  Timely assertion of affirmative defenses or theories of avoidance would focus the use of prehearing discovery, foster early identification of key issues and, as a result, make the discovery process more effective and efficient.”  Id.

Current Rule 220 says this about pleading affirmative defenses: “A defense of res judicata, statute of limitations or any other matter constituting an affirmative defense shall be asserted in the answer.”  This provision is roughly consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require that a defendant’s Answer notify the plaintiff of all affirmative defenses he intends to present.  Importantly, “affirmative defenses” include only those on which the defendant bears the burden of proof, like res judicata, assumption of risk, statute of limitations, and the like.  In court, a defendant is not required to identify the ways in which he intends to introduce evidence counteracting elements on which the plaintiff has the burden of proof.

The SEC’s new proposal seeks to change this long-standing pleading standard by requiring that defendants identify not only “affirmative defenses” (on which they have the burden of proof), but also inform the SEC staff of the ways in which they intend to defend against the charges by refuting elements on which the Division of Enforcement has the burden of proof.  The Commission describes these as “theories for avoidance of liability or remedies, even if not technically considered affirmative defenses.”  This is an insidious “goody” to provide the prosecuting staff with (a) the right to learn defense theories of defense in advance, and (b) presumably the right to preclude certain defense theories if they are not disclosed in advance.

It is not clear what “theories for avoidance of liability” this meant to include, with one exception – the specific reference to requiring that a respondent plead in his answer any defense theory of “reliance.” This is the “tell” that shows you that the SEC staff provided a list of substantive “goodies” it wanted out of this supposed reform of obsolete procedures.  Forgive me, but understanding why this is so requires a little background.

Most of the major cases the SEC litigates involve allegations of fraud.  Fraud requires proof of scienter, that is a state of mind showing that the respondent knowingly violated the law.  The SEC, and all federal appellate courts other than the Supreme Court (which has not ruled on the issue), allow proof of “reckless” conduct to establish the required intent.  But in all instances it is the prosecutor’s (or plaintiff’s) burden to prove scienter.  It is not an “affirmative defense” because it is not a defense on which the respondent bears the burden of proof.  The prosecutor or plaintiff, here the SEC Division of Enforcement, must introduce evidence that the respondent acted with intent, and in the end, the court (or jury) can rule against the respondent only if a preponderance of all of the evidence on that issue supports a finding that the respondent acted with scienter.

The SEC staff often lacks direct evidence showing the respondent acted with scienter.  In those cases, the staff relies on their portrayal of the circumstances to show that a respondent acted with scienter, typically arguing that under the circumstances (as they portray them), the respondent “must have” acted with intent because it was obvious that they were engaging in wrongful conduct, or ignoring whether the conduct was right or wrong.  But the Staff often is faced with a problem: evidence, usually developed by the people it prosecutes (the SEC staff rarely tries to develop a complete record on this during its investigation) that (a) they did not know they were violating the law, and (b) they acted on the basis of information or advice received from others which in fact allowed them to believe reasonably that what they were doing was lawful.  Such evidence undercuts the staff’s circumstantial arguments and tips the scale against finding that the respondent knowingly or recklessly violated the law.

One, but certainly not the only, way this occurs is when respondents want to offer proof that they received legal advice that gave them comfort that what they were doing did not violate the law.  This sometimes is referred to by the staff as a “reliance on counsel” defense, but in fact it is nothing more than introducing additional circumstantial evidence that may weigh in favor of concluding that the respondent did not intentionally violate the law.  The same type of evidence could involve advice or communications from accountants or other professionals, communications from government officials (including SEC officials themselves), and even information conveyed by people with whom the respondent worked, and who could reasonably be expected to provide accurate or reliable information or advice.

(As an aside, the Commission proposal says in footnote 28: “some might argue that ‘reliance on counsel’ is not a formal affirmative defense, but a basis for negating liability.”  That is a blatant misstatement of the law.  This is not a “some might argue” issue.  There is no doubt in the law that “reliance on counsel” is not an affirmative defense – formal or informal.  Accordingly, there is no obligation in federal court to include “reliance on counsel” in the affirmative defenses in the Answer to a Complaint.  Indeed, such a purported affirmative defense could be stricken as improper.  Reliance on counsel is a form of evidence providing a strong inference that the defendant did not act with scienter because he received, and acted in conformity with, advice provided by well-informed legal counsel.)

In court, no aspect of this type of defense needs to be included in the Answer to the Complaint.  And the same is (or should be) true under the current formulation in SEC Rule of Practice 220.  But the staff hates that.  They want to know what theories the defense will use to undermine scienter, but most especially what evidence might be used to show that the respondent reasonably relied on input from another person to believe he was acting properly.  So, lo and behold, a requirement to notify the staff of any such intended theory of “reliance,” gets included in the proposed revised Rules of Practice.  Voila! One of the SEC staff’s greatest banes is removed – poof!

And what is the reasoning provided for making this major change that advantages the SEC staff in these cases?  Try this: “Timely assertion of affirmative defenses or theories of avoidance would focus the use of prehearing discovery, foster early identification of key issues and, as a result, make the discovery process more effective and efficient.”  Proposal at 17.  That is pure blather.  More of a rationale – much more of a rationale – is needed to support a basic, significant change in pleading burden for respondents that gives a major tactical advantage to the prosecution (which we know in these proceedings hardly needs additional advantages).

Slipping this change into the proposed Rules of Practice is an insidious effort to put an additional thumb on the scale in favor of the prosecution in SEC administrative cases.  If adopted in the final rules, it should challenged as, at a minimum, a significant departure from long-standing procedures that is designed to assist the SEC prosecutorial staff but lacks any grounding in a valid objective of the Rules of Practice, and hence is arbitrary and capricious.

Next time: why allowing a maximum of three depositions in a complex case (or five in a case with multiple respondents) (a) fails to achieve any semblance of fairness, (b) is proposed without any supporting analysis suggesting it accomplishes any stated goal, and (c) therefor is arbitrary and capricious as proposed.

Straight Arrow

October 8, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

SEC ALJ Jason Patil Stings Enforcement Division with Dismissal in Ruggieri Case

SEC Administrative Law Judge Jason Patil’s September 14, 2105 Initial Decision in In the Matter of Bolan and Ruggieri, File No. 3-16178, represents a milestone is SEC administrative jurisprudence in several respects.  The decision is available here: Initial Decision in In the Matter of Bolan and Ruggieri.

First, coming as it did in the midst of controversy over questionable fairness, and allegations of bias, in the SEC’s administrative enforcement process, ALJ Patil’s opinion, which rules against the SEC Division of Enforcement in a publicized insider trading case, shows that SEC ALJs are capable of giving serious scrutiny to the Division’s often overblown charges and questionable evidentiary support in support them.  ALJ Patil, a recent arrival at the SEC, has already shown a judicial temperament and backbone that is needed to assure a more level playing field in these cases.  We previously noted some high quality work by Mr. Patil.  See Some SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Thoughtful and Even Judicious.

Second, ALJ Patil’s decision itself was solid and thoughtful.  His analysis was mostly independent and well-reasoned.  The main exception was a not-very-thoughtful rejection of several constitutional challenges, which was presented in brief paragraphs that showed little of the painstaking analysis he gave to the evidence and the law in the remainder of his opinion.  He devoted fewer than two pages to dismiss five distinct constitutional arguments.  See Initial Decision at 2-4.  I chalk this up to a recognition that the constitutional issues were pretty much beyond his pay-grade, a point he even used in response to one of them (“I do not have authority to adjudicate this claim” (referring to a delegation doctrine argument)).  Id. at 3.  The treatment of the Appointments Clause issue now before several courts completely deferred to the SEC’s decision in In the Matter of Raymond J. Lucia Cos. (id.), and on the related issue of the double layer of ALJ tenure protection, he speciously argued that the Supreme Court footnote in its decision regarding the PCAOB in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB meant that it “did not support” applying the same analysis to SEC ALJs.  Id.  That, of course, evades the argument, it does not address to it.  And the one sentence on the Seventh Amendment jury trial issue fails to consider the key point – whether a process that allows solely the SEC to require a jury trial (by choosing the forum) but deprives a respondent of any comparable right could be consistent with the Seventh Amendment. Id. at 6.

ALJ Patil was wrong to give these issues scant treatment because they were a side show.  If he didn’t want to take them seriously, he should have declined to address them because they were, as it turned out, unnecessary to consider in light of his decision on the merits.  Knowing his decision on the merits made this discussion superfluous, the correct approach was simply to decline to rule on those constitutional issues.

But in the overall picture, this may be just a quibble.  When it came to doing the hard work of evaluating the evidence and applying the law to the evidence, ALJ Patil did excellent work.  There were some flaws in his description of insider trading law, but he eventually got to the right place.

Third, ALJ Patil took on some key aspects of the implementation of insider trading law pursuant to Dirks v. SEC and United States v. Newman, and showed the fortitude to adopt positions – which I believe to be correct – that conflict with current SEC and Government arguments being made in Newman itself and in other insider trading cases.  That takes some cojones, and ALJ Patil should be commended for taking an independent view.

In particular, ALJ Patil rejected the argument now being made by the Government in the Newman cert. petition that the Newman decision breaks with Supreme Court precedent in Dirks v. SEC: “In its petition for a writ of certiorari, the government contends that Newman conflicts with Dirks and erroneously heightened the burden of proof.  See Pet. Writ Certiorari, United States v. Newman, No. 15-137 (July 30, 2015); 17 C.F.R. § 201.323 (official notice).  I do not, however, read Newman as conflicting with Dirks, but rather as clarifying the standard where proof of a personal benefit is based on a personal relationship or friendship.  See 773 F.3d at 452.”  Initial Decision at 35.  He also rejected the Division’s concerted argument that the “personal benefit” requirement for tipper liability adopted in Dirks, and further developed in Newman, has no place in insider trading violations based on the “misappropriation” theory, rather than a “classical” insider trading violation.  We will discuss his analysis on this point below, but his bottom line was that the personal benefit requirement plays the same important role in misappropriation cases as it does in classical cases.  See id. at 28-32.  Finally, he rejected multiple arguments by the Division that the personal benefit requirement was satisfied by the evidence when it was plain that the evidence did not support any such inference.  See id. at 33-49.

The Facts

Unlike many recent tippee cases, including the Newman/Chiasson case, the facts here are relatively straightforward.  Bolan and Ruggieri both worked for Wells Fargo.  Bolan was a researcher and analyst covering healthcare companies; Ruggieri was a senior trader of healthcare stocks who traded for Wells Fargo clients and also in a Wells Fargo proprietary account.  Unpublished Wells Fargo research and ratings analysis was proprietary and confidential company information.  Wells Fargo mandated that analysts not share ratings changes with traders before they were made public. Ruggieri knew that he was prohibited from trading based on nonpublic information from a forthcoming research report.

The SEC alleged that Bolan tipped Ruggieri to imminent Wells Fargo ratings changes he was about to make for specific stocks, and that Ruggieri took advantage of that knowledge on six occasions to trade in advance of publication and profit when the stock prices moved after the ratings change was announced.

Bolan settled the SEC’s case against him.  Ruggieri did not.  He was charged with violations of section 17(a) of the 1933 Act and section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Findings

Much of the opinion addresses the evidence surrounding Ruggieri’s trades involving six stocks.  There apparently was little dispute that Bolan provided Ruggieri advance information about his views on these six companies.  But the evidentiary issues were complicated because Ruggieri argued that his decisions in all of these cases were based on his own knowledge of these companies and the market for their stocks, not on Bolan’s incipient ratings changes.  After all, much of the data available to Bolan was also available to Ruggieri, and in addition to that, Ruggieri had independent sources of information through the institutional investors he serviced for Wells Fargo, who often were the source of information about investor views about these companies.

After reviewing the extensive record, ALJ Patil concluded that the Division did not satisfy its burden of proving that Ruggieri’s trades in two of the six stocks were founded on tips from Bolan, but that he did rely on Bolan’s tips on four of the trades.

ALJ Patil’s Overview of Insider Trading Law Was Not Quite Right

ALJ Patil’s decision includes extensive discussion of his understanding of unlawful insider trading.  His Overview of the law (Initial Decision at 8-9) is mostly correct, but reflects some errors that, while not determinative in this case, suggest a less than complete understanding of the law.

ALJ Patil starts out with a summary statement about the law that is half right and half almost-right: He says that section 17(a) and section 10(b) “do not require equal information among market participants; the mere act of trading on insider information is not fraud. . . .  Rather, insider trading constitutes fraud within the meaning of these provisions when it involves a market participant’s breach of a fiduciary duty owed to a principal for a personal benefit.”  Id. at 8.  The first part is right – the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the theory that trading on material nonpublic information is itself unlawful.  The second part is half-right because it omits an important element – insider trading is “fraud within the meaning of these provisions when it involves a market participant’s breach of a fiduciary duty owed to a principal for a personal benefit” if, and only if, that breach of duty is undisclosed.  Trading on information that breaches a fiduciary duty to a principal is not “fraud” under these provisions if it is disclosed.  The importance of the fiduciary duty is that it creates a duty to disclose the breach to the principal, and the failure to do so in the context of a fiduciary relationship constitutes fraud.  That is why it is always said that the trader has the choice to “disclose or abstain from trading” to avoid violating the law.

ALJ Patil goes on to describe that this case involves the “misappropriation” theory of insider trading, since the critical information was not confidential information owned by the issuer of the traded stock, but confidential analytic information about various issuers owned by Wells Fargo: “The Division alleges that Bolan tipped Ruggieri with confidential information . . . in breach of a duty to Wells Fargo for a personal benefit and Ruggieri traded based on such tips.”  Id.  In such cases, the duty is owed to the owner of the information – here, Wells Fargo – and a fraud occurs if “[a] fiduciary who pretends loyalty to the principal while secretly converting the principal’s information for personal gain.”  United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 653-54 (1997) (emphasis added).  As discussed above, what makes this conduct fraudulent is the failure to disclose the misuse of information stolen from the principal (“secretly converting”).

ALJ Patil notes that under Dirks, Ruggieri’s liability as a tippee “is derivative of Bolan’s alleged breach.”  Initial Decision at 8.  He states: “To establish Ruggieri’s liability, the Division must therefore show that: 1) Bolan tipped material non-public information to Ruggieri in breach of a fiduciary duty owed to Wells Fargo for a personal benefit to himself; 2) Ruggieri knew or had reason to know of Bolan’s breach, that is, he knew the information was confidential and divulged for a personal benefit; and 3) Ruggieri still used that information by trading or by tipping for his own benefit.”  Id. Actually, as discussed above, there is a fourth requirement, which is that Ruggieri knew that the breach of duty remained undisclosed to the principal at the time he traded.

ALJ Patil’s discussion of “materiality” is also not quite right, although his error seems of no consequence here.  He says there is no dispute that Bolan’s ratings were material because “ratings changes typically moved stock prices,” and Bolan’s ratings changes “had a statistically significant impact on the stock prices of the securities being rated.”  Id. at 9.  That would be correct if the disclosure duty at issue here were a duty to company shareholders, as in a case based on the classical insider trading theory.  But, as discussed above, the fraud in a misappropriation case is on the owner of the information, not any investor.  The correct materiality analysis must look for materiality to the owner – not investors.  If the owner of the information could care less whether the information was used or not – i.e., did not treat the confidentiality of the information as important – then even if it were highly material to certain investors there would be no fraud by the employee’s failure to disclose the use of it for his own benefit.  In this case, the information Bolan gave to Ruggieri was material because Wells Fargo made it plain in its internal policies that it was important to keep this information confidential from investors and from other employees outside of the research department.  That would be true even if it was not clear whether disclosing the information would or wouldn’t impact the stock price of the companies researched.  Because the secret ratings information was material to Wells Fargo, ALJ Patil’s finding of materiality was correct, albeit for the wrong reason.

Fortunately, these analytic shortcomings in ALJ Patil’s overall statement of the law did not prevent him from getting to the right decision based on the theory pursued by the Division and the evidence placed before him.

ALJ Patil’s Analysis of Dirks and Newman Was Spot On

ALJ Patil’s best work in this opinion is his discussion of the Dirks “personal benefit” requirement, as further developed by the Second Circuit in Newman.  In pages 28 to 32, he explains why the personal benefit requirement must apply to a misappropriation case, and in pages 33 to 50, he rejects every Division argument that the evidence presented adequately showed that Bolan obtained a personal benefit as part of his communication of impending ratings changes to Ruggieri.  Because there was no such benefit proved, Bolan’s tip was not fraudulent and Ruggieri could not have tippee liability derived from a fraud by Bolan.

ALJ Patil first addressed whether the Division was required to prove a personal benefit. Dirks “rejected the premise that all disclosures of confidential information are inconsistent with the fiduciary duty that insiders owe to shareholders.”  Initial Decision at 29.  He noted that the key element of a violation is “manipulation or deception”: “As Dirks instructs, mere disclosure of or trading based on confidential information is insufficient to constitute a breach of duty for insider trading liability.  Not every breach of duty, and not every trade based on confidential information, violates the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.  Rather, such conduct must involve manipulation, deception, or fraud against the principal such as shareholders or source of the information.”  He quoted both O’Hagan (521 U.S. at 655) (section 10(b) “is not an all-purpose breach of fiduciary duty ban; rather, it trains on conduct involving manipulation or deception”) and Dirks (463 U.S. at 654) (“Not all breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with a securities transaction, however, come within the ambit of Rule 10b-5.  There must also be manipulation or deception.”).  Id.  This led to the conclusion: “the Court identified the personal benefit element as crucial to the determination whether there has been a fraudulent breach.”  Id. at 30.  This is how Dirks separated communications not designed to deceive shareholders from those with an element of deception.  Otherwise, “If courts were to impose liability merely because confidential information was disclosed to a non-principal, this would potentially expose a person to insider trading liability ‘where not even the slightest intent to trade on securities existed when he disclosed the information.’”  Id. (quoting SEC v. Yun, 327 F.3d 1263, 1278 (11th Cir. 2003).

He then expressly rejected the Division’s contention that the Dirks personal benefit requirement did not carry over to misappropriation cases by pointing out that O’Hagan, which first accepted the misappropriation theory, equally focused on the need for deceptive conduct:

Contrary to the Division’s position, the alleged breach committed by a misappropriator is not any more “inherent” than the alleged breach committed by an insider in a classical case.  In both scenarios, confidential information was leaked and/or used to trade in securities.  The harm to the principal—the source of the information in a misappropriation case or the shareholders in a classical case—is the same, if “not more . . . egregious” in a classical case. Yun, 327 F.3d at 1277.  “[I]t . . . makes ‘scant sense’ to impose liability more readily on a tipping outsider who breaches a duty to a source of information than on a tipping insider who breaches a duty to corporate shareholders.”  Id.

It is true that Dirks was decided in the context where an insider leaked confidential information to expose corporate fraud, which put the Court in the unenviable position of either finding insider trading liability when there was no objective evidence of an ill-conceived purpose, or crafting a standard to ensure that the securities laws were of no greater reach than intended.  The Division contends that Dirks required a benefit in classical cases to differentiate between an insider’s improper and proper use of confidential information.  The Division asserts that “use of confidential information to benefit the corporation (or for some other benevolent purpose consistent with the employee’s duties to his employer) cannot logically breach a fiduciary duty to the corporation’s shareholders.”  Div. Opp. to Motion for Summary Disposition at 21.  But the same rationale applies in an alleged misappropriation case.  An outsider might just as well divulge information for purposes that he believes might be in the best interest of the source to which a fiduciary duty is owed.

Courts cannot simply assume that a breach is for personal benefit.  See Newman, 773 F.3d at 454 (“[T]he Supreme Court affirmatively rejected the premise that a tipper who discloses confidential information necessarily does so to receive a personal benefit.”).  And the breach in a misappropriation case has not been defined by the Supreme Court as inherent, but as connected to personal benefit.  The misappropriation theory “holds that a person commits fraud ‘in connection with’ a securities transaction, and thereby violates § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, when he misappropriates confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information.”  O’Hagan, 521 U.S. at 652.  “Under this theory, a fiduciary’s undisclosed, self-serving use of a principal’s information to purchase or sell securities, in breach of a duty of loyalty and confidentiality, defrauds the principal of the exclusive use of that information.”  Id. (emphasis added).  In contrast to a classical case premised “on a fiduciary relationship between company insider and purchaser or seller of the company’s stock, the misappropriation theory premises liability on a fiduciary-turned-trader’s deception of those who entrusted him with access to confidential information.”  Id.

It is with this view that the Supreme Court “agree[d] with the Government that misappropriation, as just defined, satisfies § 10(b)’s requirement that chargeable conduct involve a ‘deceptive device or contrivance’ used ‘in connection with’ the purchase or sale of securities.”  O’Hagan, 521 U.S. at 653.  The Court “observe[d] . . . that misappropriators, as the Government describes them, deal in deception.  A fiduciary who pretends loyalty to the principal while secretly converting the principal’s information for personal gain . . . dupes or defrauds the principal.” Id. at 653-54 (emphasis added). . . .  The Court analogized misappropriation to the scenario where “an employee’s undertaking not to reveal his employer’s confidential information ‘became a sham’ when the employee provided the information to his co-conspirators in a scheme to obtain trading profits,” which constituted “fraud akin to embezzlement—‘the fraudulent appropriation to one’s own use of the money or goods entrusted to one’s care by another.’” Id. at 654. . . .  Thus, the O’Hagan Court accepted the government’s misappropriation theory on the premise that the breach was committed secretly for self-gain, not on the assumption that this element is inherent.

Initial Decision at 30-31 (footnotes and some cites omitted).

ALJ Patil then rejected the Division’s reliance on other cases in support of its argument, finding that though they may have used loose language, they did not need or intend to address the personal benefit issue in this context.  He concluded:

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has drawn the curtain between classical and misappropriation cases that the Division urges.  Rather, courts have emphasized that the two theories are complementary, not mutually exclusive. . . .  In fact, “nearly all violations under the classical theory of insider trading can be alternatively characterized as misappropriations.”  Yun, 327 F.3d at 1279; see id. at 1276 n.27.  By requiring personal benefit to be proved in a misappropriation case, respondents are judged under similar standards.  Liability should not vary according to the theory under which the case is prosecuted.

At bottom, the Division’s position here, as the one advanced in Dirks, would have “no limiting principle.”. . .  The proposition that an alleged misappropriator violates his duty to a source, in violation of the antifraud provisions, by the mere disclosure of confidential information would improperly revive the notion that the antifraud provisions require equal information in the market, which has been rejected by the Supreme Court. . . .  [Dirks, 463] at 666 n.27 (rejecting similar arguments that “would achieve the same result as the SEC’s theory below, i.e., mere possession of inside information while trading would be viewed as a Rule 10b-5 violation” and reemphasizing that “there is no general duty to forgo market transactions based on material, nonpublic information.” . . .  I therefore adhere to my ruling that the Division must prove personal benefit.

Id. at 31-32.

ALJ Patil then turned to examining the evidence of the alleged personal benefits Bolan received from his tips.  I will not go through the details of the analysis of this evidence, which goes on for 14 pages.  The Division presented multiple claims of “personal benfit,” but the evidence showed that all of them were not in fact benefits related to providing tips but the internal operations of Wells Fargo in the normal course.  Purported “personal benefits” from the tips included “career mentorship” (found to be the norm at Wells Fargo); “positive feedback” (found to be no different for Bolan and others except as his performance justified); “friendship” with Ruggieri (found not be especially strong); a good “working relationship” (again found to be consistent with the Wells Fargo norm); and an intended gift by Bolan (found unproved – the Division did not even call Bolan as a witness).  As a nail in the coffin, ALJ Patil found that the evidence suggested Bolan simply accorded little weight to Wells Fargo’s policies, as reflected in recidivist violations of Wells Fargo confidentiality rules with others as well as Ruggieri (for which he was fired by Wells Fargo).

Why Did the Division of Enforcement Try Ruggieri as a Tippee?

This review of the facts and law of the case leaves a strange question.  What was the point of charging Ruggieri as a tippee rather than for his direct misappropriation of confidential Wells Fargo information?  He received Bolan’s information as a Wells Fargo employee and was obligated to keep that information confidential.  If he knowingly used that information improperly (in violation of his duties to Wells Fargo), in order to gain a benefit for himself (the Division contended the successful trades increased his compensation), and failed to disclose this to Wells Fargo, he violated section 10(b) regardless of whether Bolan did as well.  The Division would not have been stymied by a personal benefit requirement because the lack of a benefit to Bolan wouldn’t matter – the alleged increased compensation to Ruggieri would be sufficient to support a fraud claim.

I’m guessing the Division voluntarily made its case against Ruggieri harder because it wanted to stick it to both Bolan and Ruggieri.  Bolan, who agreed to a settlement (and had already been fired by Wells Fargo), could not be charged with fraud if he were not alleged to be a tipper, and the SEC staff always wants to charge fraud.  So, the ultimate irony of the case may be that in a case centered on greed, it may have been the Division’s own greed for multiple fraud judgments that pushed it to charge a case it lacked sufficient evidence to prove.  It would not be the first time the Division lost a case because, like Johnny Rocco (Edward G. Robinson) in Key Largo, it was motivated simply by wanting “more.”

Johnny Rocco

Johnny Rocco (Key Largo)

(“There’s only one Johnny Rocco.”

“How do you account for it?”

“He knows what he wants.  Don’t you, Rocco?”

“Sure.”

“What’s that?”

“Tell him, Rocco.”

“Well, I want uh …”

“He wants more, don’t you, Rocco?”

“Yeah. That’s it. More. That’s right! I want more!”

“Will you ever get enough?”

“Will you, Rocco?”

“Well, I never have. No, I guess I won’t.”)

Like Johnny Rocco, the SEC staff almost always wants “more.”

Straight Arrow

September 15, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

New, Thorough Academic Analysis of In re Flannery Shows Many Flaws in the Far-Reaching SEC Majority Opinion

One of the most important actions by the SEC over the past year was the far-reaching majority opinion of three commissioners in In the Matter of Flannery and Hopkins, SEC Release No. 3981, 2014 WL 7145625 (Dec. 15, 2014). That opinion can be read here: In re Flannery Majority Opinion.

Soon after Flannery was decided, we discussed the extraordinary nature of this opinion in an administrative enforcement action, in which the majority sought to create new, precedential legal standards for the critical antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (section 17(a)) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (section 10(b)).  In many respects, the standards they espoused departed significantly from judicial precedent, including Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions.  The majority specifically invoked the doctrine of deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), as a means of pressing for the courts to defer to these expressed views instead of continuing to develop the parameters of these statutes through judicial standards of statutory analysis.  See SEC Majority Argues for Negating Janus Decision with Broad Interpretation of Rule 10b-5.

Since that time, some commentators have addressed aspects of the Flannery decision.  See, for example, ‘‘We Intend to Resolve the Ambiguities’’: The SEC Issues Some Surprising Guidance on Fraud Liability in the Wake of JanusThe decision is currently being briefed on appeal in the First Circuit under the caption Flannery v. SEC, No. 15-1080 (1st Cir.).  You can read the appellant’s brief here: Flannery Opening Appeal Brief in Flannery v. SEC, and the SEC’s opposition brief here: SEC Opposition Brief in Flannery v. SEC.  An amicus brief filed on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce can be read here: Chamber of Commerce Amicus Brief in Flannery v. SEC.

For an opinion this far-reaching, and attempting to make such extraordinary changes in the interpretation and application of two key statutes, there has been sparse commentary and analysis overall.  Perhaps this is because the majority opinion was so expansive in what it addressed (often unnecessarily, purely in order to lay down the SEC’s marker) that it was difficult to analyze comprehensively.  Fortunately, this is about to change.  The first sophisticated and in-depth analysis of key aspects of the Flannery opinion is in the final stages, written by Andrew Vollmer, a highly- experienced former SEC Deputy General Counsel, former private securities enforcement lawyer, and current Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School and Director of its Law & Business Program.  Professor Vollmer released a current version of an article (still being revised) on SSRN.  It is worth reading in its entirety, and is available here: SEC Revanchism and the Expansion of Primary Liability Under Section 17(a) and Rule 10(b)(5).

Professor Vollmer had the wisdom to realize that the best in enemy of the good, and limited the scope of his article to analysis of the majority opinion’s effort to expand primary liability under section 17(a) and section 10(b) and its claimed entitlement to Chevron deference.  Other provocative aspects of the opinion are left for hoped-for future analysis (by Professor Vollmer or others).  But the important issues of the majority’s attempt to alter the trajectory of judicial legal developments governing section 17(a) and section 10(b) liability, and the majority’s assertion that its views on these issues are worthy of Chevron deference by the courts, are examined with a depth and sophistication lacking in any other publication to date known to us, and well beyond the level of analysis given to these issues by the Commission majority itself.

For those who want a flavor of Professor Vollmer’s views without delving into the entire 60-page comment, I will quote at some length portions of his useful executive summary:

An exceedingly important question for those facing the possibility of fraud charges in an enforcement case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission is the scope of primary liability under the two main anti-fraud provisions, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act.  That subject has received close attention from the Supreme Court and lower courts, and recently the SEC weighed in with a survey of each of the subparts of Section 17(a) and Rule 10b-5 in a decision in an administrative adjudication of enforcement charges.

In the Flannery decision, a bare majority of Commissioners staked out broad positions on primary liability under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) and Section 17(a)(1), (2), and (3) . . . .  The Commission not only advanced expansive legal conclusions, but it also insisted that the courts accept the agency’s legal interpretations as controlling.

The SEC’s decision in Flannery raises thought-provoking issues about the role of administrative agencies in the development, enforcement, and adjudication of federal law. The purpose of this article is to discuss two of those issues.

The first concerns the consistency of Flannery with the Supreme Court and lower court decisions defining the scope of primary liability under Rule 10b-5 and Section 17(a).  This article explains that much about Flannery is not consistent with, and is antagonistic to, a series of prominent Supreme Court decisions that imposed meaningful boundaries around aspects of primary liability under Rule 10b-5.  Those decisions are Central Bank of Denver, NA v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, NA, Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders.

The Commission in Flannery sought to confine and distinguish those precedents, but Part II.A below questions the SEC’s reading of the cases and explores the reasoning and analysis in Stoneridge and Janus to determine whether the opinions were, as the Commission said, limited solely to the reliance element in private cases or to subpart (b) of Rule 10b-5.  That review reveals that the effort of the Supreme Court in the cases was to draw a crisper line between primary liability and aiding and abetting and to define a primary violator as the separate and independent person with final control and authority over the content and use of a communication to the investing public.  The Court’s rationales ran to both Rule10b-5 and Section 17(a).

Part II.B then compares the reasoning and analysis in the Supreme Court cases plus a selection of court of appeals decisions with the Commission’s approach in Flannery.  One point of comparison is that the Commission used a loose and unprincipled policy of interpreting the laws flexibly to achieve their remedial purpose.  The Supreme Court long ago discredited and refused to apply that policy, but Flannery wielded it repeatedly to reach outcomes that grossly exceed the boundaries the Court appeared to be setting in Stoneridge and Janus.

For example, the Commission would extend primary liability to a person who orchestrated a sham transaction designed to give the false appearance of business operations even if a material misstatement by another person creates the nexus between the scheme and the securities market.  According to the Commission, Section 17(a)(1) goes further and covers a person who entered into a legitimate, non-deceptive transaction with a reporting company but who knew that the public company planned to misstate the revenue. These constructions disregarded the lesson of Stoneridge.  A person entering into a transaction with a public company, even a deceptive transaction, that resulted in the public company’s disclosure of false financial statements did not have primary liability when the public company was independent and had final say about its disclosures.  The Commission would extend primary liability to a person who drafted, approved, or did not change a disclosure made by another, but Janus held that a person working on a public disclosure was not the primary actor when another independent person issued and had final say about the disclosure.

A reading of the Flannery decision leaves the definite impression that a majority of SEC Commissioners aimed to use the case as a vehicle to recover much of the territory lost in the enforcement area from the Supreme Court decisions and the lower federal courts that have been following the Supreme Court’s lead.  It was an effort to supersede the court judgments by re-interpreting and extending the prohibitions in Rule 10b-5 and Section 17(a).  If these concerns have merit, the actions of the SEC, an administrative agency within the Executive Branch, are unsettling.  They take the stare out of stare decisis, rattle the stability of legal rules, upset traditional expectations about the role of the courts in the development of the law, and head toward a society ruled by bureaucratic fiat rather than ordered by laws.

 The second issue discussed in this article is whether the courts must or should treat the SEC’s legal conclusions in an adjudication as controlling under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, IncFlannery included an overt claim to Chevron deference.  Part III evaluates this bid for Chevron deference and concludes that the courts would have doctrinal and precedential grounds for refusing to accept the Flannery positions as controlling.  Part III.C goes through these reasons, starting with the text of the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act governing judicial review of agency actions and looking closely at the actual practice of the Supreme Court and courts of appeals when they review a legal conclusion in an agency adjudication.  Part III.E discusses particular features about Flannery that would justify a reviewing court in not giving controlling weight to the interpretations of Rule 10b-5 and Section 17(a).

The precedents identify good reasons for not granting Chevron deference to Flannery or similar agency adjudications in enforcement cases.  Giving controlling effect to the SEC’s decision in Flannery would allow the agency both to avoid the teachings of leading Supreme Court authorities and to trump the Supreme Court and other federal courts on significant matters of statutory interpretation.  It would empower the SEC to cut short and silence the normal process in the federal courts for testing and establishing the limits of liability provisions, and it would enable the SEC to tip the scales in enforcement cases by converting its litigating positions into non-reviewable legal interpretations.  The cumulative effect of an agency’s decision to roll back Supreme Court precedent and to consolidate for itself ultimate decision-making power over questions of law traditionally left to the courts would seriously alter a balance between agencies and courts long recognized in our system of government.

These two issues are not the only topics of interest in Flannery.  The Commission opinion raises many more.  Chief among them are the proper interpretations and coverage of each of the sub-parts of Section 17(a) and Rule 10b-5.  That was the main subject of Flannery, and it deserves careful study and analysis by courts, practitioners, and scholars.  The purpose of this article is not to propose conclusions on that important set of questions, although the discussion in Part II below will suggest some considerations and limitations that should bear on an appropriate construction of the statute and Rule.

Flannery touches on other points that are beyond the scope of this article. For example, the Commission majority suggested that the SEC does not need to prove either negligence or scienter for a violation of Section 17(a)(2) or (3).  Strict liability might exist, even though courts of appeals require the Commission to prove negligence.  Another example is the Commission’s position that Section 17(a)(3) prohibits pure omissions without a corresponding duty to disclose.  A third issue that deserves more attention is the Commission’s view that it could use a section of the Dodd-Frank Act to impose a monetary penalty in an administrative proceeding for conduct occurring before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act.  All in all, Flannery provides much fodder for rumination by the bench, bar, and academy.

Thanks to Professor Vollmer for picking up the gauntlet thrown down by three SEC commissioners in the Flannery opinion.  This is an important — a critical — battleground on which the scope of future liability for alleged securities fraud is now being fought.  Much of the commissioners’ expansive treatment of primary section 10(b) liability matters little to the SEC itself, because the SEC always has at its disposal allegations of aiding and abetting liability in its enforcement actions.  The crucial impact of the expanded scope of primary section 10(b) liability would be in private securities class actions.  The careful limits on securities class action strike suits against alleged secondary violators in the Supreme Court’s decisions in Central Bank, Stoneridge, and Janus would fall by the wayside under the majority’s expanded view of primary section 10(b) liability.  In no small respect, the three commissioners who penned the Flannery opinion are laying the foundation for the future wealth of the private securities plaintiffs’ bar more than they are creating meaningful enforcement precedent for the SEC itself.  Only the staunch, rigorous analysis of those like Professor Vollmer may stand in the way of that questionable redistribution of wealth.

Straight Arrow

July 9, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

In U.S. v. Salman, Judge Rakoff Distinguishes Newman in 9th Circuit Opinion Affirming Insider Trading Conviction

In an opinion issued July 6, 2015, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the insider trading conviction of Bessam Salman in the case captioned United States v. Salman, No. 14-10204 (9th Cir.).  The opinion is relatively straightforward, but is noteworthy for two reasons.  First, it is written by Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff, who seems to attracting insider trading cases of late, and has written several opinions interpreting and applying the Second Circuit U.S. v. Newman decision.  Second, the defendant-appellant argued that the Newman opinion supported reversal of the conviction, which gave Judge Rakoff another chance to state his views on Newman.  The opinion can be read here: U.S. v. Salman.

The opinion does little to advance the interpretive analysis of the Newman decision because it is governed directly by the Supreme Court holding in Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983).  In fact, Judge Rakoff says so in no uncertain terms: “Dirks governs this case.”  Slip op. at 10.  The only real comment Judge Rakoff makes on Newman is that if Newman held that a personal gift of material inside information from a tipper breaching a fiduciary duty of confidentiality to a tippee with whom he has a close relationship, for the specific purpose of enriching the tippee, was insufficient to support a conviction, then “we decline to follow it.”  Slip op. at 13.  Since Newman never suggested such a result – which would be plainly contrary to the Dirks opinion – there is no distance between the Salman and Newman opinions.

As Judge Rakoff notes, the facts in Salman and Newman are very different.  In particular, in Newman, the evidence showed no intention by the original sources of the inside information to confer a benefit on a close friend or relative by improperly communicating the inside information.  In Salman, however, the evidence in the record was exactly the opposite.  The tipping brother testified “that he gave [his brother] the inside information in order to ‘benefit him’ and to ‘fulfill[] whatever needs he had.’”  Slip op. at 5.

The Dirks opinion plainly included this in its description of unlawful tipping, as quoted by Judge Rakoff: “[t]he elements of fiduciary duty and exploitation of nonpublic information also exist when an insider makes a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend.”  Slip op. at 10, quoting Dirks, 463 U.S. at 664.

Some may contend that Salman rejects the concept of a “personal benefit” to the source in the nature of a “quid pro quo” as a prerequisite for tippee liability, referred to in Newman.  See, for example, Ninth Circuit Disagrees with Second Circuit on Personal-Benefit Requirement for Insider Trading.  That is not how I read either Salman or NewmanNewman never questioned that the required benefit to the tipper could be a non-monetary one — like the benefit of directing wealth to a close friend or relative you want to benefit from being more wealthy — it just found the evidence of such a benefit insufficient in that case because the mere fact of providing information, with no evidence that it was to fulfill the tipper’s desire to transfer wealth, was “too thin” to support finding a benefit to the tipper.  And Salman plainly finds, and emphasizes, the strong evidence in the case of a benefit to the tipper in the form of intentionally directing wealth to a beloved relative.

There can be no doubt that the Newman court never rejected that holding in Dirks.  Instead, it tried to apply the Dirks holding to the evidence presented in Newman, which the court found insufficient to show any personal benefit derived by the sources from their “tips” because “the mere fact of a friendship, particularly of a casual or social nature” was not enough to prove a intent to benefit the tippee.  Slip op. at 12-13, quoting Newman, 773 F.3d at 452.  The Newman court found the “circumstantial evidence” in that case “too thin to warrant the inference that the corporate insiders received any personal; benefit in exchange for their tips.”  Slip op. at 13, quoting Newman, 773 F.3d at 451-52.  That obviously does not describe the evidence of benefit presented in Salman, which was neither circumstantial nor thin because the source himself described the pleasure he took in giving the gift of information to his brother.  See slip op. at 11 (testimony from the source and his tippee, who were brothers, showed that the tipping brother “intended to ‘benefit’ his [tippee] brother and to ‘fulfill[] whatever needs he had’”).

If Salman stands for anything meaningful, it is that it shows that Newman was not a meaningful departure from existing insider trading law, but rather a ruling that there are limits to how far the Government can stretch mere casual friendships or acquaintances to prove a transfer of information was intended as the “gift of confidential information” described in Dirks.  In short, the sky did not start falling when the Newman opinion was adopted.  See DOJ Petition for En Banc Review in Newman Case Comes Up Short.

Judge Rakoff’s Salman opinion concludes: “If Salman’s theory were accepted and this evidence found to be insufficient, then a corporate insider or other person in possession of confidential and proprietary information would be free to disclose that information to her relatives, and they would be free to trade on it, provided only that she asked for no tangible compensation in return.  Proof that the insider disclosed material nonpublic information with the intent to benefit a trading relative or friend is sufficient to establish the breach of fiduciary duty element of insider trading.”  Slip op. at 14.  Newman never suggests any different result.

Straight Arrow

July 6. 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

SEC Gambit To Avoid Judge May in Timbervest Case Seems To Have Failed

We previously wrote about the SEC’s desperate effort to avoid the assignment of Timbervest, LLC v. SEC, Civil Action No. 1:15-CV-2106 (N.D. Ga.), to District Judge Leigh Martin May.  See SEC, Desperate To Avoid Judge May, Challenges Related Case Designation in Timbervest Action and SEC Argues Common “Facts” Are Not Common “Issues of Fact” — I Kid You Not.  You recall that Judge May ruled in Hill v. SEC that the appointment of SEC ALJ James Grimes violated the appointments clause of Article II of the Constitution — see Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Halting Likely Unconstitutional SEC Proceeding.

Well, it appears that the SEC’s motion challenging the “related case” assignment of the Timbervest action to Judge May failed.  There is no order in the docket denying the motion, but a recent scheduling order issued by Judge May suggests she will continue to preside over the case.  See Timbervest v. SEC Scheduling Order.  In the Order, Judge May states that the SEC must respond to plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction by June 29, plaintiffs must file a reply brief by July 16, and “the parties will attend a hearing in this matter a hearing” on July 21, in Courtroom 2107.  Courtroom 2107 is listed in the N.D. Georgia directory as Judge May’s courtroom.

In the meantime, in the SEC administrative case brought against Gray Financial Group, In the Matter of Gray Financial Group, Inc. et al., File No. 3-16554, SEC ALJ Cameron Elliot declined to issue a stay of proceedings in response to an unopposed motion founded on the pending federal action for injunctive relief by Gray Financial in the same Georgia federal court, which was also assigned to Judge May.  He said: “Commission Rule of Practice 161 instructs that I ‘should adhere to a policy of strongly disfavoring’ stay requests unless ‘the requesting party makes a strong showing that the denial of the request or motion would substantially prejudice their case.’  17 C.F.R. § 201.161(b)(1).  Respondents have not made such a showing.  I will abide by an injunction if it is issued; however, as of now I have been instructed to resolve this proceeding within 300 days of service of the OIP.”  See Order Denying Unopposed Motion To Stay Administrative Proceeding Against Gray Financial Group.

So, chaos still reigns, and apparently the SEC is unsure about how best to bring it under control.  See SEC Rejects Easy Answers To Admin Court Challenges.  In that article, Law 360’s Stephanie Russell-Kraft reported on a discussion between Judge Richard Berman and a DOJ lawyer representing the SEC.  Judge Berman asked whether, in light of comments by Judge May that it might be easy to cure the appointments clause violation, the similar claims brought before him by Barbara Duka (in Duka v. SEC) could be resolved simply by having the Commission reappoint its current ALJs.  The DOJ lawyer declined to address whether that could be done, leading to the following colloquy:

“Is the commission opposed to an easy fix?” Judge Berman asked.

“The Department of Justice is very actively considering the best litigation approach to address this issue,” Lin answered.

“I’m asking you if [appointing the judges] would solve this issue,” Judge Berman pressed, pointing out that the case pending before him had nothing to do with the SEC’s litigation strategy.

“It’s not like if we pursue one of these options this case or other cases will go away,” Lin answered, adding that changing the way it appoints its judges is not a “meaningful way” to address Judge May’s decisions or a “practical way” for it to approach its long-standing administrative court scheme.

“The commission has to consider all the cases it has,” she said later, to which Judge Berman replied, “I don’t.”

Meanwhile, the SEC’s administrative proceeding against Laurie Bebo continues to be tried, even while the appeal of Ms. Bebo’s injunctive action moves forward in the Seventh Circuit.

The ship is plainly adrift.

Straight Arrow

June 23, 2015

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below:

Timbervest Files Complaint and TRO Motion To Halt SEC Proceeding

Today (June 12, 2015), Timbervest, LLC filed a complaint in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia seeking a halt to its ongoing SEC administrative proceeding, In the Matter of Timbervest, LLC at al.  We have previously discussed the Timbervest SEC proceeding, including recent developments involving Timbervest’s challenge to the constitutionality of the SEC administrative process and requests for discovery into possible systemic bias within the administrative court.  See Briefing of ALJ Constitutionality Before SEC Leaves Resolution in Doubt, SEC Broadens Constitutional Inquiry into Its Own Administrative Judges in Timbervest Case, SEC “Invites” ALJ Cameron Elliot To Provide Affidavit on Conversations “Similar” to Those Described by Former ALJ, and SEC ALJ Cameron Elliot Declines To Submit Affidavit “Invited” by the Commission.

With its efforts to pursue the constitutional challenge before the SEC meeting obstacles before the Commission, Timbervest opted to seek federal court intervention, commencing an action for injunctive relief, and moving for a temporary restraining order.  Those documents can be found here: Complaint in Timbervest v. SECMemorandum in Support of Motion for TRO in Timbervest v. SEC.

Because Timbervest is located in Atlanta, it filed its complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia.  That is the same court that days ago halted a different SEC administrative proceeding, In the Matter of Charles L. Hill, Jr., in the action Hill v. SEC.  In that case, Judge Leigh Martin May found the appointment of ALJ James Grimes violated the appointments clause of Article II of the Constitution.  See Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Halting Likely Unconstitutional SEC Proceeding. And another case filed in that same court by yet another SEC respondent, Gray Financial Group v. SEC, was just assigned to Judge May as a related case.  See Ga. Judge Who Blocked SEC Admin Suit Gets Similar Case.  The new Timbervest complaint, which is case number 1:15-cv-02106-LMM, was also assigned to Judge May.

Judge May. an Obama appointee who is only in her first year of service as a judge, was active in the Democratic party before her appointment.  An article discussing her background can be read here: The Atlanta Judge Who Stuck A Thorn In The SEC’s Side.

In the Timbervest SEC proceeding, ALJ Cameron Elliot issued an Initial Decision as to which both the respondents and the SEC staff petitioned for Commission review, which was granted.  After briefing of the issues before the Commission, and supplemental briefing addressing constitutional issues, Timbervest sought discovery after the Wall Street Journal revealed possible pressures on SEC administrative judges to favor the SEC staff.  See Fairness Concerns About Proliferation of SEC Administrative Prosecutions Documented by Wall Street Journal.  Only days ago, the Commission held oral argument on the petitions for review.  But after Judge May”s decision in the Hill case, and ALJ Elliot’s refusal to provide information about possible pressures requested by the Commissioners, Timbervest felt it had to seek relief in federal court, saying: “Plaintiffs have appealed the ALJ’s Initial Decision to the Commission, but it has become clear that the Commission should not hear these arguments.  First, the Commission itself did not properly appoint the ALJ.  Second, the Commission has argued in other cases that its administrative forum is constitutional.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Commission is nothing more than an exercise in futility.”  Complaint ¶ 8.

The Timbervest complaint reveals an interesting issue about the handling of its case by the SEC’s ALJs.  The case was originally assigned to Chief Administrative Law Judge Brenda Murray, but then handed over to ALJ Elliot.  (ALJ Murray is the person identified by former ALJ Lillian McEwen as having told Ms. McEwen that she “questioned her loyalty to the SEC” because she did not treat the SEC staff sufficiently favorably.)  ALJs Murray and Elliot allegedly made a critical decision preventing Timbervest from using Brady material (material tending to show the respondents were innocent):

Given the age of the case, the primary evidence presented in support of the Division’s alleged violations was the faded and inconsistent memories of two Division witnesses.  As to one of those witnesses, Plaintiffs argued that the SEC had in its possession Brady material that the Commission’s staff disagreed with and argued was inadvertently produced.  The Brady material consisted of notes of two interviews the Commission’s staff conducted with that witness.  The Plaintiffs argued that the notes were exculpatory and, at the very least, were inconsistent statements that were required to be produced.  Pursuant to the SEC’s own administrative proceeding rules, it is required to produce Brady material.  Even though the SEC conducted an investigation that lasted over three years,speaking to numerous individuals over that time, the Commission’s staff did not produce any documents or information that it identified as Brady to the Plaintiffs.  Ultimately, ALJ Elliot, as well as ALJ Murray, ruled in favor of the Commission’s staff that the notes were not Brady, even though the notes were clearly inconsistent and exculpatory.

Complaint ¶ 28.

The Timbervest complaint also revealed that the SEC staff acknowledged that “ALJ Elliot was not hired through a process involving the approval of the individual members of the Commission.”  The staff could not state how ALJ Murray was appointed because “Chief ALJ Murray began work at the agency in 1988 and information regarding hiring practices at that time is not readily available.”  Complaint ¶ 36.  At a minimum, then, if Judge May retains her view that the SEC’s administrative law judges are “inferior officers” of the Executive Branch, a finding that ALJ Elliot was improperly appointed may come soon.  The only thing that might prevent such a ruling is if Judge May concludes that because the Timbervest SEC proceeding has already gone through trial and is before the SEC on review of the Initial Decision — a different set of circumstances than she faced in the Hill case — a federal court should not take jurisdiction over the case.

The SEC’s pot is now boiling over in, of all places, Atlanta, Georgia.

Straight Arrow

June 12, 2105

Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below: