Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
What to Know About the SEC’s “Shadow Trading” Enforcement Action
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: September 30, 2021
Key Contacts
Back
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently brought an enforcement action against a biopharmaceutical executive for a form of insider trading known as “shadow trading.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently brought an enforcement action against a biopharmaceutical executive for a form of insider trading known as “shadow trading.” The term refers to when corporate insiders attempt to circumvent insider trading restrictions by facilitating trading in economically-linked firms, such as competitors and supply chain partners.
The enforcement is notable because the executive traded in the stock of a competitor rather than his own company. According to the complaint, Matthew Panuwat, the then-head of business development at Medivation, a mid-sized, oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company, purchased call options in Incyte Corporation, another mid-cap oncology-focused biopharma company, just days before Pfizer announced it would acquire Medivation.
“Biopharmaceutical industry insiders frequently have access to material nonpublic information about mergers, drug trials, or regulatory approvals that impacts the stock price of not only their company, but also other companies in the industry,” Gurbir Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, said in a press statement. “The SEC is committed to detecting and pursuing illegal trading in all forms.”
SEC Enforcement Action Alleging Shadow Trading
The SEC complaint specifically alleges that Panuwat purchased the Incyte Corp’s stock options within minutes of learning that Pfizer’s head of business development had expressed overwhelming interest in acquiring Medivation and said that Pfizer’s CEO would call Medivation’s CEO later that day to reiterate that message and resolve final details with respect to an impending acquisition of Medivation by Pfizer.
According to the complaint, Panuwat knew that investment bankers had cited Incyte as a comparable company in discussions with Medivation and he anticipated that the acquisition of Medivation would likely lead to an increase in Incyte’s stock price. According to the SEC complaint:
Panuwat learned the foregoing information through his employment at Medivation, and he knew or was reckless in not knowing that the information was material and nonpublic. Panuwat also knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the information concerning Medivation’s imminent acquisition was material not only to Medivation, but also to Incyte, a peer company in the biopharmaceutical industry that was also publicly-traded, mid-cap, and oncology-focused. Medivation’s undisclosed acquisition would have been viewed by a reasonable investor in Medivation or Incyte as having significantly altered the total mix of information made available. The public announcement of Medivation’s acquisition at a significant premium to its then-current share price would likely have a positive impact on Incyte’s stock price. For example, the acquisition of Medivation also made Incyte a more attractive target for acquisition.
The SEC further alleged that Medivation’s insider trading policy expressly prohibited Panuwat from using confidential information he acquired at Medivation to trade in the securities of any other publicly-traded company. Following the announcement of Medivation’s acquisition, Incyte’s stock price increased by approximately 8 percent. The complaint alleges that, by trading ahead of the announcement, Panuwat generated illicit profits of $107,066. The SEC’s complaint charges Panuwat with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalty, and an officer and director bar.
Key Takeaway
The SEC enforcement action confirms that the agency is committed to cracking down on insider trading in all its forms. More importantly, it suggests that “shadow trading” is on the SEC’s radar and may result in additional enforcement actions in the future. As the SEC steps up its scrutiny over whether employees are trading in their companies’ business partners and competitors to circumvent insider trading regulations, businesses may also want to add express prohibitions in their own insider trading policies.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
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.
What to Know About the SEC’s “Shadow Trading” Enforcement Action
Author: Dan Brecher
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently brought an enforcement action against a biopharmaceutical executive for a form of insider trading known as “shadow trading.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently brought an enforcement action against a biopharmaceutical executive for a form of insider trading known as “shadow trading.” The term refers to when corporate insiders attempt to circumvent insider trading restrictions by facilitating trading in economically-linked firms, such as competitors and supply chain partners.
The enforcement is notable because the executive traded in the stock of a competitor rather than his own company. According to the complaint, Matthew Panuwat, the then-head of business development at Medivation, a mid-sized, oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company, purchased call options in Incyte Corporation, another mid-cap oncology-focused biopharma company, just days before Pfizer announced it would acquire Medivation.
“Biopharmaceutical industry insiders frequently have access to material nonpublic information about mergers, drug trials, or regulatory approvals that impacts the stock price of not only their company, but also other companies in the industry,” Gurbir Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, said in a press statement. “The SEC is committed to detecting and pursuing illegal trading in all forms.”
SEC Enforcement Action Alleging Shadow Trading
The SEC complaint specifically alleges that Panuwat purchased the Incyte Corp’s stock options within minutes of learning that Pfizer’s head of business development had expressed overwhelming interest in acquiring Medivation and said that Pfizer’s CEO would call Medivation’s CEO later that day to reiterate that message and resolve final details with respect to an impending acquisition of Medivation by Pfizer.
According to the complaint, Panuwat knew that investment bankers had cited Incyte as a comparable company in discussions with Medivation and he anticipated that the acquisition of Medivation would likely lead to an increase in Incyte’s stock price. According to the SEC complaint:
Panuwat learned the foregoing information through his employment at Medivation, and he knew or was reckless in not knowing that the information was material and nonpublic. Panuwat also knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the information concerning Medivation’s imminent acquisition was material not only to Medivation, but also to Incyte, a peer company in the biopharmaceutical industry that was also publicly-traded, mid-cap, and oncology-focused. Medivation’s undisclosed acquisition would have been viewed by a reasonable investor in Medivation or Incyte as having significantly altered the total mix of information made available. The public announcement of Medivation’s acquisition at a significant premium to its then-current share price would likely have a positive impact on Incyte’s stock price. For example, the acquisition of Medivation also made Incyte a more attractive target for acquisition.
The SEC further alleged that Medivation’s insider trading policy expressly prohibited Panuwat from using confidential information he acquired at Medivation to trade in the securities of any other publicly-traded company. Following the announcement of Medivation’s acquisition, Incyte’s stock price increased by approximately 8 percent. The complaint alleges that, by trading ahead of the announcement, Panuwat generated illicit profits of $107,066. The SEC’s complaint charges Panuwat with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalty, and an officer and director bar.
Key Takeaway
The SEC enforcement action confirms that the agency is committed to cracking down on insider trading in all its forms. More importantly, it suggests that “shadow trading” is on the SEC’s radar and may result in additional enforcement actions in the future. As the SEC steps up its scrutiny over whether employees are trading in their companies’ business partners and competitors to circumvent insider trading regulations, businesses may also want to add express prohibitions in their own insider trading policies.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.