by T. GormanPosted on Posted in SECActions

The question of what constitutes insider trading has been litigated for decades. While many thought that a series of Supreme Court cases such as Dirks v. SEC, 462 U.S. 646 (1983) and its progeny had largely resolved the question about the basic elements of the unlawful conduct, an action prosecuted under the federal wire fraud statute and an fraud statute created as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act suggested that perhaps proof of elements like the “personal benefits” test can be by-passed — a short-cut to insider trading lability. Blaszczak v. U.S., 947 F. 3rd 19 (2nd Cir. 2019).

Perhaps; but perhaps not. In a January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court granted a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Blaszczak v. U.S., No. 20-5649. In granting the writ the Court vacated the decision of the Second Circuit upholding convictions for insider trading based on the federal wire fraud and SOX fraud statue, and remanded the case to the Circuit court “for further consideration in light of Kelly v. United States . . .” 590 U.S. — (May 7, 2020).

Second Circuit decision –inside information is property

David Blaszcak, a political intelligence consultant employed by a hedge fund, was convicted by a jury based on a scheme which appeared to be insider trading. The charges trace to inside information transmitted by Christopher Wordell, an employee at Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or to his former co-worker, Defendant Blaszczak. The agency issues proposed and final rules that set the Medicare reimbursement rates. The releases often impact the share price of firms that offer products and services covered by the impacted fee changes. Accordingly, the rate changes are made after the close of the market.

Mr. Worrall had access to material non-public CMS decisions concerning reimbursement amounts under the applicable regulations. As a CMS employee he was subject to Section 21A(h) of the Exchange Act which imposes a duty of trust and confidence on executive branch employees to the U.S. Government and citizens of the United States with respect to material, non-public information. CMS, in addition, has an Employee Nondisclosure Policy that imposes similar duties regarding “market sensitive” information. The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch fortified those duties.

Despite his obligations, in three instances over a period of about one and one-half years, Mr. Worrall furnished inside information on CMS rate changes that lowered reimbursement rates to his long-time friend, Defendant Blaszczak. The information on each occasion was transmitted in personal meetings, on the telephone, in emails and through text messages. In each instance the information was conveyed by Mr. Blaszczak to Deerfield Management Company, LP, a healthcare-focused hedge fund with which he was affiliated. The Management Company traded securities on behalf of certain funds while in possession of the material, non-public information. The trading resulted in over $3.9 million in illicit trading profits. A jury found Mr. Blaszczak guilty under each statute.

On appeal Mr. Blaszczak argued that the CMS information at the center of the trading scheme was not “property” within the meaning of the charging statutes, citing Cleveland v. U.S., 531 U.S. 12 (2000). The Circuit Court rejected this contention.

The Circuit Court began its analysis by noting that the word “property” in each statute has the same meaning. Cleveland, which considered the property question, involved licenses to operate video poker machines. The licenses were found not to be property within the meaning of the statutes. The conclusion was based on the fact that the licenses had no economic value until issued. Similarly, the state’s right to control issuance of a license was not property within the meaning of the statute. To the contrary, it implicated only its role as a sovereign. While the decision was “good law,” according to the Circuit Court, it has been read narrowly by most courts.

In contrast, the CMS rights here are property rights, the Court found. The agency has what the Court called a “right to exclude” that is “comparable to” a property right. CMS has a “property right in keeping confidential and making exclusive use of its nonpublic pre-decisional information” (quotes and citations omitted). This view is consistent with the High Court’s ruling in Cleveland and those of other circuits construing that case. The point is bolstered by evidence submitted by CMS that it has an economic interest in the information. The convictions were affirmed. U.S. v. Blaszczak, 947 F. 3d 19, (2nd Cir. 2019).

Kelly and the petition for certiorari

Kelly, cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling, is the “Bridgegate” case. It arose from the closure of certain traffic lanes to the George Washington Bridge, a gateway to Manhattan from New Jersey, for political purposes. Charges were brought against the officials involved under two federal fraud statutes, Section 1343 and Section 666(a)(1)(A) of Title 18. Those statutes target, respectively, wire fraud and fraud on a federally funded program or entity.

Each fraud statute is grounded on property rights, Justice Kagan wrote for a unanimous Court. There was no doubt that the evidence demonstrated wrong doing such as deception, corruption and abuse of power, the Court noted. The realignment of the traffic lanes at issue in the case focused on an exercise of regulatory power, however, not the taking of a property right. Since the statutes on which the charges were based only involve property rights and “do not proscribe schemes to defraud citizens of their intangible rights . . .” there was no violation. The convictions were thus reversed.

In his Petition For a Writ of Certiorari the issue presented by Mr. B.aszczak is: “Whether information about a proposed government regulation is “property” and a “thing of value” belonging to the regulatory agency such that its disclosure can constitute the federal crimes of fraud or conversion.” The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the convictions, and remanded to the Second Circuit for further consideration.

Discussion

The Court’s order granting the petition and citing Kelly leaves little doubt that neither the wire fraud statute nor the SOX fraud statute were violated by the insider trading scheme at the center of the case. As in Kelly, there is no doubt that the conduct of a CMS employee tipping his friend with material nonpublic information to trade in the securities markets is wrongful. That does not mean it constitutes a violation of the wire fraud and SOX fraud statute under the decisions in Cleveland and Kelly. Property rights, as defined in those decisions, simply are not implicated.

The teachings of Blaszczak seem clear – prosecutors who want to charge insider trading should rely on Exchange Act Section 10(b) as the SEC did in filing parallel charges against Mr. Blaszczak. Stated differently – there are no shortcuts to proving insider trading.

by T. GormanPosted on Posted in SECActions

Offering frauds have become a key focus of SEC enforcement, a point illustrated in earlier posts. All too often, those conducting the offerings craft cleaver catch lines to lure in trusting investors. Those range from simple claims of quick and safe profits to others which attempt to tie their fraud to the latest hot item such as crypto or marijuana.

While it often appears that imagination knowns no bounds in offering fraud actions, the most recent case may test that notion. The new action is based on the “vision” of one Defendant which could not be executed until technology advanced. SEC v. Contxt, Inc., Civil Action No 2:21-cv-00013 (D.Ut. Filed Jan. 7, 2021).

Named as defendants are: ConTXT, Inc., a firm formed in 2016; Thomas Robbins, an undisclosed owner of ConTXT; Daniel Merriman, also an undisclosed owner of ConTXT; Mark Wiseman, chief marketing officer of ConTXT; and Clark Madsen, President and CEO of ConTXT.

The case centers on two interrelated offering frauds created by Messrs. Robbins and Merriman who met while in prison for unrelated securities fraud cases. The two men were behind the each of the offerings in this action.

The first centered on a trading program tied to ARC Holdings, a firm controlled by the two recidivists. Investors solicited to put their funds into the firm were told that Mr. Robbins had a “spiritual revelation” in 2008 about an exclusive algorithm for trading currencies, commodities, indices, stocks, bonds, ETFs and other instruments. The vision would become a reality in 2011 when technology would catch up with it.

Potential investors were also told that the trading program had virtually no risk. In addition, it had phenomenal rates of return. Those were tied to the proprietary algorithmic trading program. The program supposedly had a history of 20% to 50% per month returns.

Messrs. Robbins and Merriman frequently referenced their religious faith to investors when marketing the trading program. That was consistent with the fact that it was based on a revelation. It also tied to the claim that the LDS Church was a trading client.

To participate in the program, investors executed an agreement with either ARC Holdings or Bot FXD, an affiliate. Under the terms of the agreement 50% of the profits were retained by the firm and 50% was distributed to the investors. Many investors were solicited through finders. In many instances the funds were never invested. Rather, they were diverted to other purposes.

The second program centered on the sale of shares in ConTXT. In 2017 Defendants Madsen and Wiseman, along with their firm, entered into an agreement with Messrs. Robbins and Merriman to raise funds for ConTXT. The firm and its executives were aware that Defendants Robbins and Merriman had criminal records which would have to be concealed.

Under the terms of the agreement between ConTXT and its two executives and Defendants Robbins and Merriman, the two recidivists would receive 37.5 million shares of the company in exchange for a payment of at least $1,018,769.41. The funds would come from selling shares of ConTXT and the trading program.

The ConTXT shares were marketed through the use of a PPM and related documents. Those documents falsely attributed the corporate duties of Messrs. Robbins and Merriman to a nominee. The PPM also contained false financial information for the company.

Defendants Robbins and Merriman continued to solicit investors for their trading program while simultaneously acting as brokers for the sale of ConTXT securities. The same false statements about the “vision” as the predicate of the trading program and its profits were repeated. While making those representations, Defendants Robbins and Merriman told investors about ConTXT, representing that the investment funds would be used for operations – a false statement. In fact, the funds raised were often diverted to repay other investors or to other purposes. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Act Section 5(a), 5(c) and each subsection of 17(a) and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 15(a).

To resolve the action each Defendant consented to the entry of a permanent injunction based on the Sections cited in the complaint. In addition, Defendant Robbins and Merriman agreed to the entry of conduct based injunctions. Each Defendant also agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest as follows: Robbins, $828,567 and $142,714; Merriman $744,191 and $121,869 along with a penalty of $192,384; Madsen $29,00 and $3,531 and a penalty of $96,384; Wiseman $68,500 and $8,341 and a penalty of $96,187; and ConTXT $269,187 and $32,779.

In the parallel criminal case based on the trading program Mr. Robbins pleaded guilty to securities fraud and money launderings. He was sentenced to serve five years in prison and ordered to pay $10,170,700.69 in restitution. See Lit. Rel. No. 25005 (January 8, 2021).

Tagged with: ,