Tag Archives: insider trading

Karl Cole-Frieman Quoted on Expert Networks

Insider Trading Remains Popular Topic in Hedge Fund Regulation

Insider trading by hedge funds and the use of expert networks has been a hot compliance topic in 2010 and 2011. The topic remains in the spotlight as Massachusetts recently passed new expert network regulations. Under the new regulations, registered investment advisers in Massachusetts will be required to maintain certain records with respect to transactions with expert network firms. [Note: we will be detailing these and other regulations recently adopted by Massachusetts which will become effective as of December 1, 2011.]

Karl Cole-Frieman was quoted by Law360.com in an article on the new Massachusetts expert network regulations (subscription required). In the article Karl is attributed with providing information on the effect the regulations may have on expert networking firms, how expert networking firms may respond to the Massachusetts regulations and how hedge fund managers may modify their compliance programs to adhere to Massachusetts (and potentially other state) regulations.

We expect to see more states come out with similar laws and we will provide updates and more information as appropriate.

****

Karl Cole-Frieman is a managing partner at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP and he provides advice to fund managers with respect to insider trading and the use of expert network firms. He can be reached

at 415-352-2300 or through our contact form.

zp8497586rq

Hedge Funds and Insider Trading after Galleon

1 Reply

By Bart Mallon, Esq. (www.colefrieman.com)

High Profile Case Highlights Issues for Hedge Fund Managers to Consider

Insider trading is now an operational issue for hedge fund managers.  The high profile insider trading case involving RR and the Galleon hedge fund has put the spotlight directly on hedge funds again and has also sparked a debate of sorts on the subject.  Given the potential severity of penalties for insider trading, it is surprising that we still periodically hear about such cases, but nevertheless it is something that is always going to be there – human nature is not going to change.

As such hedge fund managers need to be prepared to deal with this issue internally (through their compliance procedures) and also will need to be able to communicate how they have addressed this issue to both the regulators and institutional investors.  While managers always need to be vigilant in their enforcement of compliance policies and procedures, during this time of heightened insider trading awareness, managers need to be even more vigilant about protecting themselves.  As the Galleon liquidation too vividly shows, a lapse in operational oversight can and will take down an entire organization.

Insider Trading Overview and Penalties

We have discussed insider trading before, but as a general matter insider trading refers to the practice of trading securities based on material, non-public information.  Whether information is material depends on case law.  In general information will be material if “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important” in making an investment decision (see TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976)).  Information is non-public if it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to investors generally. An insider is generally defined as officers, directors and employees of a company but it can also refer to a company’s business associates in certain circumstances (i.e. attorneys, accountants, consultants, and banks, and the employees of such organizations).  Additionally, persons not considered to be insiders may nevertheless be charged with insider trading if they received tips from insiders – such persons generally are referred to as tippees and the insider is generally referred to as the tipper.  [HFLB note: more information on insider trading generally can be found in the discussion of Regulation FD on the SEC website.]

The penalties for insider trading are potentially harsh – censures, cease and desist orders, fines, suspension and/or revocation of securities licenses are all potential penalties.  Depending on the severity of the insider trading there may be criminal sanctions in addition to the listed civil penalties.  Securities professionals (or other business professionals like an attorney or accountant) may jeopardize their ability to work in their industry if they are caught engaging in insider trading which, for most people, would be a large enough deterrent to engage in such activity.

Addressing Compliance Inside the Firm

Insider trading is usually addressed in the firm’s compliance policies and procedures.  Indeed, Section 204A of the Investment Adviser Act of 1940 requires SEC registered investment advisers to maintainpolicies and procedures to detect against insider trading.

Usually such policies and procedures forbid employees from trading on material non-public information (as well as “tipping” others about material non-public information).  Additionally, employees typically are required to disclose any non-public material information they receive to the chief compliance officer (“CCO”) of the firm.  The employee is generally prohibited from discussing the matter with anyone inside or outside of the firm.  The policies and procedures may require the CCO to take some sort of action on the matter.  There are a number of different ways that the CCO can handle the situation including ordering a prohibition on trading in the security (including in options, rights and warrants on the security).  The CCO may also initiate a review of the personal trading accounts of firm employees.  Usually when the CCO is informed of such information the CCO would contact outside counsel to discuss the next course of action.

Dealing with Regulators

While many large hedge fund managers are registered as investment advisors with the SEC, many still remain unregistered in reliance on the exemption provided by Section 203(b)(3).  With the Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act likely to be passed within the next year, managers with a certain amount of AUM (either $100 million or $150 million as it now stands) will be forced to register with the SEC.  Of course, this means that such managers will be subject to examination by the SEC and insider trading will be one of the first issues that a manager will likely deal with in an examination.

As we discussed in an earlier insider trading article, the SEC has unabashedly proclaimed war against insider trading and they will be aggressively pursuing any leads which may implicate managers.

Some compliance professionals believe that the SEC comes in with a view that the manager is guilty until proven innocent.  While I do not necessarily subscribe to this blanket viewpoint, I do believe that managers, as a best practice, should be able to show the SEC the steps they have taken to ensure that compliance with insider trading prohibitions is a top priority of the firm.  The firm and CCO should be prepared to describe their policies and structures that are in place to deal with this issue.

Institutional Standpoint

Potentially more important than how a firm deals with the SEC, is how a firm describes their internal compliance procedures to institutional investors.  The question then becomes, how are institutional investors going to address this risk with regard to the managers they allocate to – what will change?

Right now it appears a bit unclear.  Over the past week I have talked with a number of different groups who are involved hedge fund compliance, hedge fund consulting, and hedge fund due diligence and I seem to get different answers.  Some groups think that institutional investors will be focusing on this issue (as many managers know, one of the important issues for institutional investors is the avoidance of “headline risk”); other groups seem to think that this is an issue that institutional groups are not going to focus on because there are other aspects of a manager’s investment program and operations which deserve more attention.

We tend to agree more with the second opinion, but we still believe that robust insider trading compliance policies and procedures are vital to the long term success of any asset management company.  We also encourage groups to discuss their current procedures with their compliance consultant or hedge fund attorney.

Outsourcing and Technology solutions

Many large managers have implemented compliance programs which have technology solutions designed to track employee trading.  Presumably there will be technology programs developed to address this concern for manager.  Although I do not currently know of any specific outsourced or technology solutions which address this issue, I anticipate discussing this in greater depth in the future – perhaps there is some data warehousing solution.  [HFLB note: please contact us if you would like to discuss such a solution with us.]

Final Thoughts

The Galleon insider trading case could not have happened at a worse time for the hedge fund industry which is trying to put its best face forward as Congress determines its future regulatory fate.  However, increased awareness of this issue will force managers to address it from an operational standpoint which will only help these managers down the road.  While the full effect of this case will not be understood for a while, in the short term it is likely to cost managers in terms of time and cost to review and implement increased operational awareness and procedures.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog and the Series 79 exam website.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Insider Trading Overview

1 Reply

In light of the recent focus on insider trading, we are publishing the SEC’s discussion on Insider Trading which can also be found here.  The information below contains a broad overview of some of the important aspects which hedge fund managers should understand about the insider trading prohibitions.

For a greater background discussion on the legal precedents which helped shaped the state of law today, please see Insider Trading—A U.S. Perspective, a speech by staff of the SEC.

****

Insider Trading

“Insider trading” is a term that most investors have heard and usually associate with illegal conduct. But the term actually includes both legal and illegal conduct. The legal version is when corporate insiders—officers, directors, and employees—buy and sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC. For more information about this type of insider trading and the reports insiders must file, please read “Forms 3, 4, 5” in our Fast Answers databank.

Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include “tipping” such information, securities trading by the person “tipped,” and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

Examples of insider trading cases that have been brought by the SEC are cases against:

  • Corporate officers, directors, and employees who traded the corporation’s securities after learning of significant, confidential corporate developments;
  • Friends, business associates, family members, and other “tippees” of such officers, directors, and employees, who traded the securities after receiving such information;
  • Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
  • Government employees who learned of such information because of their employment by the government; and
  • Other persons who misappropriated, and took advantage of, confidential information from their employers.

Because insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets, the SEC has treated the detection and prosecution of insider trading violations as one of its enforcement priorities.

The SEC adopted new Rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2 to resolve two insider trading issues where the courts have disagreed. Rule 10b5-1 provides that a person trades on the basis of material nonpublic information if a trader is “aware” of the material nonpublic information when making the purchase or sale. The rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses or exceptions to liability. The rule permits persons to trade in certain specified circumstances where it is clear that the information they are aware of is not a factor in the decision to trade, such as pursuant to a pre-existing plan, contract, or instruction that was made in good faith.

Rule 10b5-2 clarifies how the misappropriation theory applies to certain non-business relationships. This rule provides that a person receiving confidential information under circumstances specified in the rule would owe a duty of trust or confidence and thus could be liable under the misappropriation theory.

For more information about insider trading, please read Insider Trading—A U.S. Perspective, a speech by staff of the SEC.

****

Other related hedge fund law articles include:

Bart Mallon, Esq. of Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP runs the Hedge Fund Law Blog and the Series 79 exam website.  He can be reached directly at 415-868-5345.

Section 204A | Investment Advisers Act of 1940

1 Reply

Section 204A — Prevention of Misuse of Nonpublic Information

Every investment adviser subject to section 204 shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of such investment adviser’s business, to prevent the misuse in violation of this Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the rules or regulations thereunder, of material, nonpublic information by such investment adviser or any person associated with such investment adviser. The Commission, as it deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, shall adopt rules or regulations to require specific policies or procedures reasonably designed to prevent misuse in violation of this Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (or the rules or regulations thereunder) of material, nonpublic information.

Hedge Fund Analyst Fined for Insider PIPE Trading

Leave a reply

According to a SEC litigation release, a hedge fund analyst was fined $317,000 for engaging in insider trading with regard to a PIPE investment.  PIPE transactions are subject to close scrutiny from the SEC.  In this instance the fund which the analyst worked for established a short position in a company which was completing a PIPE transaction.  Evidently the reason the fund established the short was because of inside information about the deal from the analyst.  The SEC release can be found here.

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 20784 / October 20, 2008
SEC v. Brian D. Ladin et al., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-01784 (RBW) (D.D.C.)

SEC Charges Former Hedge Fund Analyst with Improper Trading

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Brian D. Ladin, a former analyst for Bonanza Master Fund Ltd. (“Bonanza”), a Dallas-based hedge fund, with improper trading in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Ladin, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, agreed to settle charges that he engaged in unlawful insider trading in connection with a 2004 “PIPE” (an acronym for private investment in public equity) offering conducted by Radyne Comstream Inc. As detailed below, Ladin agreed to entry of a final judgment imposing an injunction and ordering him to pay $330,427, consisting of $13,427 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $317,000 civil penalty.

The Commission’s complaint alleges, among other things, that Ladin accepted a duty to keep the offering information confidential. The Complaint further alleges that Ladin, on the basis of the material, non-public PIPE information, presented an investment in Radyne to Bonanza, resulting in Bonanza establishing a 100,000 share short position in Radyne stock. The Commission’s complaint further alleges that Ladin, in signing the offering’s stock purchase agreement on behalf of Bonanza, represented that Bonanza did not hold a short position in Radyne common stock when he knew, or was reckless or negligent in not knowing, that Bonanza held a short position in Radyne’s common stock.

Ladin consented to the entry of a final judgment (i) permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; (ii) ordering him to pay $10,895 in disgorgement, along with $2,532 in prejudgment interest thereon; and (iii) ordering him to pay a $317,000 civil penalty. Bonanza and its investment adviser, Bonanza Capital, Ltd., consented to the entry of a final judgment ordering them, as relief defendants, to pay a total of $371,429 in ill-gotten gains derived from Ladin’s unlawful conduct (and prejudgment interest thereon).

For more information on this subject, please see:

  • Hedge Funds and PIPE Transactions

If you have any questions, please contact us.