Two men share securities regulation news

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Securities Regulation Daily, July 11, 2014

Wylys cleared of insider trading charges

By Anne Sherry, J.D.

The Wyly brothers’ agreement between themselves to sell the company they had cofounded, Sterling Software, was not material information subjecting them to insider trading liability for subsequent swap transactions. While the Wylys would have controlled the sell side of any deal, they had not reached out to a buyer, and the court had to draw a line “between inchoate desire and something more material” (SEC v. Wyly, July 10, 2014, Scheindlin, S.).

Insider trading claim. In May, the SEC secured a jury verdict against the Wylys on nine of ten claims. The remaining claim, alleging insider trading regarding several 1999 equity swaps, was not tried to the jury because the SEC was time-barred from seeking civil penalties. The court yesterday dismissed this claim with prejudice because the alleged inside information was not material.

Specifically, that information was both brothers’ knowledge that Samuel Wyly wanted to sell Sterling Software. Although Samuel Wyly decided to sell the company in the summer of 1999, the Wylys did not take any affirmative steps towards pursuing a sale until November 1999, the month after the equity swaps that the SEC challenged. The brothers’ agreement, as chairman and vice-chairman of the company, to sell Sterling Software was not material as a matter of law, the court concluded.

Materiality. The SEC bore the burden of proving that the Wylys’ desire to sell Sterling Software constituted material nonpublic information on the dates they made their trades, but the record was insufficient to justify that conclusion. The court cited cases establishing that a buyout is an important event for a small company and may become material earlier than would otherwise be the case, and that information about a merger that originates from an insider “takes on an added charge.” Nevertheless, Second Circuit precedent also established that information that is so general that its recipient “is still undertaking a substantial economic risk that his tempting target will prove to be a white elephant is not material.”

While investors would probably want to know if a company’s chairman and vice chairman had agreed to sell the company, a fact is not material merely because an investor would like to know it, the court noted. Furthermore, while the Wylys controlled a majority of the board, there was no evidence that they acted to exert that control to pursue a sale prior to November 1999. Critically, there was no evidence that the Wylys approached an investment firm, potential buyer, or other necessary third party about selling the company. Contact with a third party is not requisite to materiality, the court stressed, but the facts in the case were thin without it.

Finally, the court noted that accepting the SEC’s theory in this case “would mean extending the definition of materiality to cover the thought process and personal desires of any director or shareholder with substantial control over a company. While it is difficult to draw the line between inchoate desire and something more material, that line must be drawn somewhere.”

The case is No. 10-cv-5760.

Attorneys: David J. Gottesman for the SEC. Donald P. Lan , Jr. (Kroney Morse Lan PC) for Samuel E. Wyly.

Companies: Sterling Software; Sterling Commerce

MainStory: TopStory Enforcement FraudManipulation NewYorkNews

Securities Regulation Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Securities Regulation Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.

A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.