SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A former biopharmaceutical executive was found liable for “shadow trading,” an insider trading theory, by a federal jury in San Francisco on Friday. The jury’s decision rejected the defense’s claim that the case was constructed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) without evidence of the motives behind the trades. This verdict could have significant implications for insider trading regulations.
Matthew Panuwat, the defendant, was accused by the SEC of having confidential information about his employer, Medivation Inc., and trading in the securities of Incyte Corp., a closely related company. The trial, which introduced the concept of “shadow trading,” was presided over by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick. Panuwat’s lawyers argued that he had no knowledge of any link between the companies when he purchased Incyte’s short-term stock options in 2016. They chose not to comment on the verdict.
During closing arguments, Panuwat’s attorney played a video deposition where Panuwat stated that he couldn’t recall the reasons behind his purchase of Incyte stock options and that he didn’t expect Incyte’s stock price to rise after Pfizer’s acquisition of Medivation. The SEC attorney highlighted that Panuwat bought the stock options just seven minutes after learning about Medivation’s acquisition, making a profit of $120,000. Panuwat was one of only six Medivation employees entrusted with knowledge of the company’s sale, according to prosecutors.
Panuwat’s attorney contended that the SEC was feeding unfounded thoughts and ideas to Panuwat and using them as evidence. He argued that Panuwat, an experienced trader, couldn’t be expected to remember the reasoning behind every trade. Furthermore, he rejected the notion that Medivation and Incyte were similar companies, comparing them to different sports and stating that they cannot be considered the same just because they have similarities.
The outcome of this trial could redefine the boundaries of insider trading regulations. The jury’s decision supports the SEC’s novel theory of “shadow trading,” suggesting that traders can be held accountable even without concrete evidence of their motives. This case could have implications for future insider trading cases and may compel traders to be more cautious and transparent in their transactions. Legal experts predict that this ruling will be closely examined and may set a precedent for insider trading regulations moving forward.