Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
SEC Strikes Out in the Courtroom…Again
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: January 23, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) new “get tough” approach continues to hit roadblocks. While the agency has vowed to take more cases to trial rather than settle, the threat only works if prosecutors are largely successful in the courtroom.
Following the SEC’s loss in the high-profile case against Mark Cuban, the SEC recently suffered another defeat in an insider-trading case. In SEC v. Schvacho, the SEC alleged that Ladislav “Larry” Schvacho made approximately $511,000 in illicit profits by using inside information to trade around the acquisition of Comsys IT Partners Inc. by another staffing company. Schvacho allegedly learned the information as a close personal friend of Comsys CEO, Larry L. Enterline.
To support the insider trading allegations, the SEC offered evidence of telephone conversations, text messages, and social engagements between Schvacho and Enterline that occurred in in temporal proximity to Schvacho’s purchase of Comsys stock.
As detailed in court documents, the SEC offered two theories for how Schvacho acquired the inside information: “(1) that Enterline confided to Schvacho material, non-public information about Comsys and its business plan . . . or (2) that Schavcho obtained material non-pubic information from Enterline indirectly by, for example, overhearing Enterline’s communications with third parties or by accessing confidential information about the potential acquisition that Enterline may have left in a briefcase . . .”
However, the court ultimately concluded that potential access to material nonpublic information, without additional evidence, was insufficient to prove that the defendant actually possessed the insider information in violation of U.S. securities law.
“While this timing is interesting it is not persuasive and does not meet the SEC’s burden of proof. . . The evidence was that Enterline and Schvacho spoke with each other with enormous frequently about matters that Enterline and Schvacho acknowledge concerned mainly their personal relationship and sometimes about the common business venture in which they were involved,” the court stated.
“SEC did not present any evidence, including phone records, to show that the frequency or pattern of communications and the times when Enterline and Schvacho were together was any different during the period when the SEC contends that insider information was misappropriated by Schvacho than it was before the insider trading allegedly began,” the court further noted.
The Bottom Line for New York and New Jersey Businesses
While the case highlights the inherent risks of litigation for both sides, the recent trial losses will likely not deter the SEC’s continued focus on insider trading. The agency can still point to its 908 enforcement actions and record $600 million settlement with SAC Capital to bolster its credibility as a tough regulator.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss insider-trading liability, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Practices: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency Defense & Investigations
- Locations: New York City
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
SEC Strikes Out in the Courtroom…Again
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) new “get tough” approach continues to hit roadblocks. While the agency has vowed to take more cases to trial rather than settle, the threat only works if prosecutors are largely successful in the courtroom.
Following the SEC’s loss in the high-profile case against Mark Cuban, the SEC recently suffered another defeat in an insider-trading case. In SEC v. Schvacho, the SEC alleged that Ladislav “Larry” Schvacho made approximately $511,000 in illicit profits by using inside information to trade around the acquisition of Comsys IT Partners Inc. by another staffing company. Schvacho allegedly learned the information as a close personal friend of Comsys CEO, Larry L. Enterline.
To support the insider trading allegations, the SEC offered evidence of telephone conversations, text messages, and social engagements between Schvacho and Enterline that occurred in in temporal proximity to Schvacho’s purchase of Comsys stock.
As detailed in court documents, the SEC offered two theories for how Schvacho acquired the inside information: “(1) that Enterline confided to Schvacho material, non-public information about Comsys and its business plan . . . or (2) that Schavcho obtained material non-pubic information from Enterline indirectly by, for example, overhearing Enterline’s communications with third parties or by accessing confidential information about the potential acquisition that Enterline may have left in a briefcase . . .”
However, the court ultimately concluded that potential access to material nonpublic information, without additional evidence, was insufficient to prove that the defendant actually possessed the insider information in violation of U.S. securities law.
“While this timing is interesting it is not persuasive and does not meet the SEC’s burden of proof. . . The evidence was that Enterline and Schvacho spoke with each other with enormous frequently about matters that Enterline and Schvacho acknowledge concerned mainly their personal relationship and sometimes about the common business venture in which they were involved,” the court stated.
“SEC did not present any evidence, including phone records, to show that the frequency or pattern of communications and the times when Enterline and Schvacho were together was any different during the period when the SEC contends that insider information was misappropriated by Schvacho than it was before the insider trading allegedly began,” the court further noted.
The Bottom Line for New York and New Jersey Businesses
While the case highlights the inherent risks of litigation for both sides, the recent trial losses will likely not deter the SEC’s continued focus on insider trading. The agency can still point to its 908 enforcement actions and record $600 million settlement with SAC Capital to bolster its credibility as a tough regulator.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss insider-trading liability, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.