Ineffective Insider Traders Avoid Double Whammy of a Failed Trade and Civil Penalties
Client Alert | 1 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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
