The Commission filed two settled insider trading cases against medical practitioners who traded while in possession of material non-public
Insider trading continues to be a key priority in the new get tough enforcement era. Last week closed with the filing of an insider trading action
Just when it appeared that the expert network insider trading investigations had come to an end with convictions and guilty pleas, the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office and the SEC announced the filing of what may be the most lucrative of insider trading cases with profits made and losses avoided totaled $276 million.
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and the Seventh in concluding that at the class certification stage plaintiffs in a securities fraud damage action need not prove materiality to utilize the fraud-on-the market.
Insider trading continues to be a key focus of enforcement authorities who obtained another guilty plea from a hedge fund portfolio manger tied to an expert network.
The SEC filed an action against a biotech company, three shareholder companies, and four senior executives of the company for making false statements regarding the FDA status of its sole product.
The Supreme Court adopted the position of the SEC, affirming its traditional test of materiality.
SEC v. Fan, Case No. C11-0096 (W.D. WA. Filed Jan. 18, 2011) is an action against Defendants Zizhong (James) Fan and Zishen (Brandon) Fan and relief defendant Junhua Fan, all relatives (here).