PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

The SEC, Information Leaks, and Policy Tweaks

| 1 Comment


Friday was a big day for the Securities and Exchange Commission. First, the securities regulator finally managed to name Steven Cohen, the owner of the legendary SAC. hedge fund adviser, in an enforcement action related to alleged trading on leaked inside information. Second, the SEC suffered an information leak of its own when details regarding the Commission's deliberation about, and rejection of, a proposed settlement with Philip Falcone's Harbinger Capital made their way into press reports. The two enforcement cases should cause the SEC to rethink some of its policies.

The Cohen case suggests it is time for the SEC to set logically-grounded boundaries around insider trading, rather than stumbling awkwardly from case to case without a clear articulation of the type of behavior it is trying to stop. As a staff speech highlighted on the SEC's insider trading webpage explains, "the development of insider trading law has not progressed with logical precision." The SEC's case against Mr. Cohen seems to suggest that even facts that can't be fit into this illogical progression will nevertheless be pursued. As has been widely reported, the SEC didn't make the case that Mr. Cohen's own trades were unlawful, but alleges only that Mr. Cohen failed adequately to supervise his employees in order to prevent their unlawful insider trading. Failure to supervise charges certainly have their place, but shouldn't be used as a substitute charge when the SEC can't prove its insider trading case.

The Harbinger case suggests it is time for the SEC to reinstate the practice of having the Commission give guidance to its enforcement staff before the staff embarks on settlement negotiations. That practice most recently employed under Chairman Cox enabled commissioners to help shape settlements involving corporate penalties before they were finalized. Had that happened in the Harbinger case, the SEC could have saved itself and Harbinger a lot of time and effort. Harbinger, a public company, had previously disclosed the settlement it had worked out with the staff, albeit with the caveat that "[t]here can be no assurance that the Commissioners or the court will approve the settlement on the terms described." A policy that allows the SEC commissioners to express their concerns before settlement talks begin in earnest would smooth the process of negotiating settlements and reporting them to the public.

1 Comment

Until Congress is subject to the same rules as everyone else, SEC investigations into insider trading will continue to be laughable.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.