Investment Management

Posted on Tuesday, August 22 2017 at 2:05 pm by

Adviser Settles with SEC over Insider Trading Controls for Political Intelligence Firms

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

Yesterday, the SEC announced a settlement under which Deerfield Management Company L.P. (“Deerfield”), a hedge fund adviser, agreed to pay more than $4.6 million.[i]  The SEC charged Deerfield with failing to “establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the illegal use of inside information”[ii] as required by Section 204A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”).[iii]

The SEC cited Deerfield for failing to tailor its policies and procedures “to address the specific risks presented by its business.”[iv]  In particular, Deerfield’s reliance on third-party political intelligence firms to provide insight into upcoming legislative and regulatory action created the risk that Deerfield would receive and illegally trade on inside information (e.g., a regulator’s unannounced decision to finalize a rule that would materially affect certain industries and publicly traded companies).[v]

The SEC’s settlement with Deerfield serves as a warning for advisers utilizing investment strategies dependent on obtaining or correctly predicting non-public information (e.g., unannounced mergers and acquisitions or the governmental approval of a pharmaceutical product), particularly those advisers partnering with third party consultants and analysts.  Such advisers should consider whether their current policies and procedures address the specific risks likely to arise under such strategies and partnerships.

Please contact us if you have any questions about the SEC’s recent settlement with Deerfield or an adviser’s obligations under the Advisers Act generally.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s Winston-Salem and New York offices.  John I. Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[i] SEC, Hedge Fund Adviser Charged for Inadequate Controls to Prevent Insider Trading (Aug. 21, 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-146 (hereinafter SEC Release).

[ii] Id.

[iii] 15 USC 80b-4a (2017).

[iv] SEC Release, supra note 1.

[v] Id.

Posted on Monday, May 8 2017 at 10:38 am by

General Solicitations of Certain Regulation D “Private” Securities Offerings:  SEC Affirms Zero-Tolerance Policy.

By Paul Foley and John I. Sanders

On March 29, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a noteworthy opinion in In re KCD Financial Inc.,[i] a review of a FINRA disciplinary action.[ii]  While the opinion affirmed FINRA’s disciplinary action,[iii] it also affirmed the SEC’s zero-tolerance policy regarding general solicitations made in the course of certain Regulation D offerings.  Those relying on or contemplating relying on Regulation D exemptions from registration should review the SEC’s opinion.

Factual Background

KCD Financial, Inc. (“KCD”) is an independent broker-dealer.[iv]  In 2011, KCD signed an agreement with one of its affiliates (“Westmount”) under which it would solicit accredited investors for a particular private fund (the “Fund”) sponsored by Westmount.[v]  Westmount did not plan to register the offering.  Westmount instead planned to rely on a Rule 506(b) exemption from registration.[vi]

Prior to KCD selling any interest in the Fund, Westmount issued a press release describing the Fund.[vii]  Two Dallas newspapers published articles based on the press release and made the articles available on their respective public websites.[viii]  One of those newspaper articles was then posted on a public website belonging to a Westmount affiliate.[ix]  Westmount’s outside counsel informed Westmount that the newspaper articles constituted general solicitations, which are prohibited in Rule 506(b) offerings.[x]

After KCD and Westmount officers were told that the articles were general solicitations prohibited under Rule 506(b), they did not end the offering, register the securities, or seek to rely on an alternative exemption.  Instead, KCD’s CCO and Westmount’s Vice President of Capital Markets instructed the representatives to sell interests in the Fund only to (i) those with an existing relationship to KCD or Westmount and (ii) accredited investors who had not learned of the offering through the general solicitations.[xi]  Under those guidelines, at least one person was refused an opportunity to purchase interests in the Fund.[xii]

During a FINRA examination of KCD, the examiner found that the newspaper article about the offering had not been removed from a Westmount-affiliated website.[xiii]  Subsequently, FINRA filed a complaint against KCD alleging that the firm’s registered representatives sold securities that were unregistered and not qualified for an exemption from registration, thereby violating FINRA Rule 2010.[xiv]  FINRA also alleged that KCD failed to reasonably supervise the offering, thereby violating FINRA Rule 3010.[xv]  FINRA’s Hearing Panel found that KCD violated those rules.[xvi]  FINRA censured KCD and imposed a fine of $73,000.[xvii]  The National Adjudicatory Counsel affirmed FINRA’s decision.[xviii]  KCD then requested an SEC review.[xix]

SEC Review

KCD admitted that the Fund interests it offered were not registered, but argued that offers were made pursuant to Rule 506(b).[xx]  The SEC rejected KCD’s contention,[xxi] finding that where a party relying on the Rule 506(b) exemption makes a general solicitation, the exemption then is unavailable “regardless of the number of accredited investors or the knowledge and experience of the purchasers who were not accredited investors.”[xxii]  In this context, whether purchasers were accredited or had prior relationships with KCD and Westmount was “irrelevant to whether or not the newspaper articles constituted a general solicitation” and precluded reliance on Rule 506(b).[xxiii]

KCD also argued, assuming the newspaper articles constituted general solicitations, it could still rely on a Rule 506(b) exemption because “KCD did not generally solicit any of the actual investors in the [Westmount] Fund.”[xxiv]  This argument confused the notion of what is prohibited under Rule 506(b).  It is making an offer by general solicitation which precludes reliance on a Rule 506(b) exemption.[xxv]  Whether a sale results directly from the general solicitation is irrelevant.[xxvi]

Practical Implications

The SEC’s opinion affirms its view that exemptions from registration in securities offerings are narrowly construed and must be adhered to strictly.[xxvii]  Where, as here, the exemption prohibits a general solicitation, any general solicitation forever forfeits the issuer’s ability to rely on the exemption in making the offering (i.e., the toothpaste cannot go back into the tube).

Those making exempt offerings in reliance on Rule 504,[xxviii] Rule 505,[xxix] and Rule 506(b)[xxx] should review their sales practices in light of the KCD opinion.  In reviewing practices, issuers should look beyond the obvious means of making a general solicitation (e.g., a press release that is published by a widely-circulated newspaper).  Websites and social media accounts of those participating in the offerings are equally capable of precluding use of a valuable registration exemption.

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem, North Carolina offices.  John I. Sanders is an associate based out of the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

[i] In re KCD Financial, Inc., SEC Release No. 34-80340 (March 29, 2017), available at www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2017/34-80340.pdf (hereinafter, SEC Opinion).

[ii] In re KCD Financial, Inc., FINRA Complaint No. 2011025851501 (Aug. 3, 2016), available at http:www.finra.com (hereinafter, FINRA Opinion).

[iii] SEC Opinion, supra note 1, at p. 1.

[iv] Id., at p. 2.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id, at p. 3.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id. at p. 4.

[x] Id.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Id.

[xvi] FINRA Opinion, supra note 2, at p. 4.

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Id.

[xx] SEC Opinion, supra note 1, at 2.

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] Id. at 7.

[xxiii] Id. at 9.

[xxiv] Id at 10.

[xxv] Id.

[xxvi] Id. at 11

[xxvii] Id. at 7.

[xxviii] 17 CFR 230.504 (2017).

[xxix] 17 CFR 230.505 (2017).

[xxx] 17 CFR 230.506(b) (2017).

Posted on Thursday, December 15 2016 at 9:28 am by

Supreme Court Confirms Expansive View of Insider Trading

By Paul Foley, Clay Wheeler, and John Sanders

Perhaps the most serious charge that could be leveled against a reader of this blog is that of being engaged in or associated with “insider trading.”  The allegation alone is enough to derail or end a promising career.  Successful compliance requires an understanding of the law and your obligations under it.  In light of recent developments regarding insider trading, including the first Supreme Court decision to address the crime in 20 years,[1] we encourage you to read this article in its entirety and contact us with any questions you may have.

Insider Trading:  The Tradition

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[2] and Rule 10b-5[3] promulgated thereunder prohibit insider trading.  The basic elements of insider trading are:  (i) engaging in a securities transaction, (ii) while in possession of material, non-public information, (iii) in violation of a duty to refrain from doing so.

The paradigm case discussing the so-called “classical” theory of insider trading is Chiarella v. U.S.[4]  In Chiarella, an employee of a publishing firm was charged with insider trading after using advance notice of a takeover bid to trade.  Chiarella’s conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court after the Court focused on the requirement of a duty running from the trader to the shareholders of the corporate entity “owning” the material, non-public information.  Thus, a successful prosecution under the classical theory usually involves a corporate insider trading in shares of his or her employer while in possession of material, non-public information (e.g., advance notice of a merger).

After Chiarella, an important development in the law has been the extension of liability to persons who receive tips from insiders, i.e., individuals whose duty to refrain from trading is derived or inherited from the corporate insider’s duty.  Thus, not only may insiders be liable for insider trading under rule 10b-5, but those to whom they pass tips, either directly (tippees) or through others (remote tippees) may be liable if they trade on such tips.  Because tippee and remote tippee liability is more difficult to grasp and more likely to affect our readers, this article will primarily, but not exclusively, focus on individuals in those circumstances.

In a pattern that has repeated itself over the years, courts broadened the scope of insider trading by developing a second, “complementary”[5] theory of insider trading – the “misappropriation” theory.  This theory “targets person[s] who are not corporate insiders but to whom material non-public information has been entrusted in confidence and who breach a fiduciary duty to the source of the information to gain personal profit in the securities market.”[6]  The seminal case in the articulation of the misappropriation theory is U.S. v. O’Hagan.  In O’Hagan, a partner at a large law firm (but not ours) obtained and traded on information given to attorneys in the firm who were representing a client in a tender offer.  The Supreme Court held that “A person who trades in securities for personal profit, using confidential information misappropriated in breach of a fiduciary duty to the source of the information, may be held liable for violating § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.”[7]  In practical terms, under the misappropriation theory, individuals who come into possession of material, non-public information while providing services to corporate clients, such as the attorney in O’Hagan [8] may be held liable.

Joining Chiarella and O’Hagan in making up the traditional core of insider trading law is Dirks v. SEC.[9]  In Dirks, the Supreme Court attempted to set a limit on the scope of insider trading.[10]  Dirks was a securities analyst who learned from a former insurance company insider that the company was committing fraud and was on the verge of financial ruin.[11]  Dirks investigated and disclosed this information to several people, including a reporter and clients who traded on the information.[12]  Dirks was held liable for insider trading, but appealed.[13]  The overturning of Dirks’s liability centered on the fact that the corporate insider had disclosed the fraud to Dirks purely by a desire to expose the fraud, rather than to obtain any financial or other personal benefit.  The Court held:

In determining whether a tippee is under an obligation to disclose or abstain, it is necessary to determine whether the insider’s “tip” constituted a breach of the insider’s fiduciary duty.  Whether disclosure is a breach of duty depends in large part on the personal benefit the insider receives as a result of the disclosure.  Absent an improper purpose, there is no breach of duty to stockholders.  And absent a breach by the insider, there is no derivative breach.[14]

Furthermore, Dirks introduced the idea that a tippee has to be actually aware of the tipper’s breach or presented with sufficient facts so that the tippee will be deemed aware.  In this way, Dirks created a “personal benefit” element related to the tipper.  After Dirks, prosecutors were generally confident they could prove this benefit existed as long as there was a quid pro quo or a moderately close relationship between tipper and tippee.

Newman:  A Disruption

Chiarella, O’Hagan, and Dirks guided the law of insider trading largely uninterrupted for nearly 20 years.  Then came a decision from the Second Circuit, the so-called “Mother Court”[15] of securities law, but an underling of the Supreme Court, called U.S. v. Newman.[16]

Newman involved a hedge fund portfolio manager who was part of an information-sharing cohort of analysts and portfolio managers.[17]  By the time Newman received the tip, he was “four levels removed from the insider tippers,” (i.e., a remote tippee).[18]  The tippers were insiders at technology companies who had provided information to what the court termed “casual acquaintances,” who in turn passed those tips on.  Citing Dirks repeatedly for support, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that government must prove the tipper received “a personal benefit” and that the tippee knew of that benefit.[19]

In Newman, the Second Circuit concluded that “the mere fact of friendship” was insufficient to give rise to the required personal benefit to the tipper.  Instead, the court required “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.”  Despite the fact that the 2nd Circuit cited its adherence to Dirks in overturning Newman’s conviction, it was clear to all that by raising the bar for the evidence required to meet the Dirks “personal benefit” requirement, the opinion suggested a serious new limitation on insider trading law.  Moreover, the prosecutors were denied a rehearing en banc and a Supreme Court writ of certiorari.  This meant Newman would remain law in the most significant federal circuit for securities law until further notice.

One attorney called Newman “a well-deserved generational setback for the Government.”[20]  The predicted effect of Newman was that the government would be forced to prove that someone charged with insider trading knew that she was trading on non-public, material information and that “the tipper’s goal in disclosing information is to obtain money, property, or something of tangible value.”[21]  This heightened burden led to the reversal of more than a dozen insider trading convictions,[22] and pending cases were dropped.[23]

Salman:  The Expansive View of Insider Trading Strikes Back

Newman’s holding concerning what qualifies as a personal benefit to the tipper was reversed last week when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Salman v. United States.[24]  Before the Supreme Court issued its opinion, in Salman, only the most ardent securities law gurus followed the case.  So, some background may be helpful.  Salman was convicted after trading on material, non-public information received from a friend, who had received the information from Salman’s brother-in-law.  Thus, Salman was prosecuted as a remote tippee.  He argued that he could not “be held liable as a tippee because the tipper (his brother-in-law, who worked on M&A matters at an investment bank) did not personally receive money or property in exchange for the tips.”[25]

In a strong rebuke, the Supreme Court held, “To the extent that the Second Circuit in Newman held that the tipper must also receive something of a “pecuniary or similarly valuable nature” in exchange for a gift to a trading relative, that rule is inconsistent with Dirks.[26]  Justice Alito succinctly explained “a tippee’s liability for trading on inside information hinges on whether the tipper breached a fiduciary duty” and that duty is breached “when the tipper discloses the inside information for a personal benefit.”[27]  Such a personal benefit can be inferred where the tip is made “to a trading relative or friend.”[28]

Why Salman Matters

By allowing a generous inference of a benefit to the tipper based on a personal relationship alone, the Supreme Court in Salman reestablished the old order of things – an expansive scope for insider trading prosecutions.  We understand that investment advisers are more likely than others to come into contact with corporate insiders, as well as those with whom corporate insiders speak in confidence.  You know these individuals as professionals, former schoolmates, and even friends and family members.  In discussing your work, it is quite possible that non-public, material information may be intentionally or inadvertently tipped to you.  Your livelihood and liberty may depend on how well you understand your legal obligations when that happens.  Fortunately, when you have questions about the rules regarding insider trading, we’re here to assist.

 

Paul Foley is a partner with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton’s New York and Winston-Salem offices. Clay Wheeler is a partner in Kilpatrick’s Raleigh and Winston-Salem officesJohn Sanders is an associate based in the firm’s Winston-Salem office.

 

[1] Greg Stohr and Patricia Hurtado, The Supreme Court Will Hear Its First Insider-Trading Case in 20 Years, Bloomberg (Oct. 4, 2016), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-04/wall-street-watching-as-u-s-high-court-tackles-insider-trading.

[2] 15 U.S.C. 78j (2016).

[3] 17 CFR 270.10b-5 (2016).

[4] Chiarella v. U.S., 445 U.S. 222 (1980).

[5] U.S. v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 643 (1997).

[6] SEC v. Obus, 693 F.3d 276, 284 (2d Cir. 2012).

[7] O’Hagan, at 642.

[8] Id.

[9] Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983).

[10] Id. at 646.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 647.

[15] James D. Zirin, American Bar Association, The Mother Court: A.K.A., the Southern District Court of New York, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/tyl/topics/legal-history/the-mother-court-aka-southern-district-court-new-york.html

[16] U.S. v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014)

[17] Id. at 443.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 450.

[20] Jon Eisenberg, How the United States v. Newman Changes the Law, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (May 3, 2015), https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/05/03/how-united-states-v-newman-changes-the-law/.

[21] Salman v. U.S., available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwihloXYvu_QAhVBjpAKHflsCIIQFggjMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F16pdf%2F15-628_m6ho.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGY28IXIk-a-h-Nuvi5EXSHC6XW6g&sig2=Ydo5oy44CzIMDuCxjMluzA&bvm=bv.141320020,d.eWE (The opinion presents and rejects this argument from Salman before stating that the rule from Newman is inconsistent with precedent)

[22] Greg Stohr and Patricia Hurtado, The Supreme Court Will Hear Its First Insider-Trading Case in 20 Years, Bloomberg (Oct. 4, 2016), https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-04/wall-street-watching-as-u-s-high-court-tackles-insider-trading.

[23] Patricia Hurtado, SAC Capital’s Steinberg Gets Insider Trading Charges Dropped, Bloomberg (Oct. 23, 2015), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-22/u-s-drops-charges-against-sac-capital-s-michael-steinberg.

[24] Salman, supra note 21.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.