Ineffective Insider Traders Avoid Double Whammy of a Failed Trade and Civil Penalties
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.14.11
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC") pursuit of insider traders was dealt a blow last week by the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit determined that the SEC may not pursue civil monetary penalties pursuant to § 21(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3), against insider traders who neither profited nor avoided losses as a result of their illegal conduct. SEC v. Rosenthal, et al., No. 10-1204 (2d Cir. June 9, 2011). The decision arose from a civil enforcement action by the SEC against a former law firm associate, Amir Rosenthal, and his brother and accountant, Ayal Rosenthal, for insider trading.
The crux of the case lay in the interpretation of two separate, yet interrelated, sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: § 21(d)(3) and § 21(A). If § 21(A) were applied, the Rosenthal brothers would be subject to no civil penalty because under that statute the penalty is determined based on the amount of profit earned (or loss avoided). The SEC attempted to avoid that outcome by relying on § 21(d)(3) which permits a maximum penalty of $120,000 per violation. The Second Circuit, while finding that the statutory language was ambiguous, rejected the SEC's efforts. "[I]t would be…absurd, to adopt the SEC's interpretation, which would permit a violator who made no profit to face a penalty up to $120,000 per violation" pursuant to § 21(d)(3), while a violator who actually profited could be exposed to penalties of far less than $120,000 pursuant to § 21(A).
As a result of the Second Circuit's decision, the SEC has one less weapon in its arsenal, at least when insider traders fail to benefit from their trades. Please do not hesitate to contact a member of the Crowell & Moring White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement practice group if you would like to discuss the implications of this ruling.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 10.01.25
On September 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a sweeping Interim Final Rule (IFR), (the “Affiliates Rule”) expanding which entities qualify as Entity List or Military End-User entities, thereby subjecting those entities to elevated export control restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). U.S. export restrictions applicable to entities on the Entity List, Military End-User (MEU) List, and Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) now apply to foreign affiliates that are, in the aggregate, owned 50% or more by one or more of the aforementioned entities. An entity that becomes subject to these restrictions because of its ownership structure will be subject to the most restrictive controls that attach to any of its parent entities, regardless of ownership stakes.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.25
CARB Issues Preliminary List of Entities Covered by California Climate Disclosure Laws
Client Alert | 10 min read | 09.30.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.29.25
White House Seeks Industry Input on Laws and Rules that Hinder AI Development
