Securities And Exchange Commission v. Unifund Sal

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 13547, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 633, 910 F.2d 1028 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When the SEC seeks a preliminary injunction, the required showing of 'likelihood of success' on the merits varies based on the onerousness of the relief sought, requiring a substantial showing for prohibitory injunctions against future violations, but a lesser showing for ancillary asset freeze orders to preserve funds for potential disgorgement.


Facts:

  • In the summer of 1989, Rorer Group, Inc. (Rorer), a U.S. pharmaceutical company, began confidential merger negotiations with Rhone-Poulenc, S.A. (Rhone), a French corporation, which intensified in December 1989 and early January 1990.
  • In mid-January 1990, prior to any public announcement of the merger discussions, unusually massive trading occurred in Rorer stock and options on the New York and American Stock Exchanges.
  • On January 15, 1990, Rorer announced it was engaged in merger discussions with an unidentified company, causing its stock price to rise significantly, and an agreement in principle to merge with Rhone was announced three days later.
  • Between January 4 and 12, 1990, Unifund SAL, a Lebanese investment company, purchased 40,000 Rorer shares and 810 Rorer call option contracts through Merrill Lynch's Beirut office, liquidating its position after the merger announcement for substantial profits.
  • Between January 10 and 12, 1990, Tamanaco Saudi & Gulf Investment Group, a Panamanian investment company, purchased 600 Rorer call options through Compagnie Financiere Esperito Santo, a Swiss bank, making significant profits within a week of the merger announcement.
  • Candid Peyer, a broker for Esperito Santo at Raymond Jones & Associates (a U.S. stockbroker), told SEC investigators he received a tip in mid-December 1989 from a close friend (an independent money manager in Geneva) to buy Rorer options, with the friend indicating the information was 'inside information' concerning a takeover.
  • Unifund's principal, Ralph Audi, has familial and financial ties to Bank Audi, a Lebanese bank, and its Swiss affiliate, Bank Audi Suisse, which also purchased Rorer call options through Raymond Jones prior to the merger announcement.
  • Ralph Audi’s attorney, Farid El Khoury, shares a surname with Amer Khoury, a Rhone executive responsible for promotion in the Near and Middle East, which the District Court noted as a 'potential connection' supporting an inference of insider access.

Procedural Posture:

  • On January 17, 1990, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Unifund and other purchasers of Rorer stock in the District Court for the Southern District of New York and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO).
  • On January 30, 1990, at a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction, all defendants except Tamanaco agreed to a ten-day extension of the TRO; Tamanaco identified itself as a purchaser and insisted on proceeding.
  • On February 2, 1990, the District Court (Shirley Wohl Kram, Judge) reserved decision as to Tamanaco and issued an order extending the TRO against all defendants until February 14.
  • On February 9, 1990, the SEC renewed its request for a preliminary injunction and sought a hearing for February 13.
  • On February 13, 1990, a hearing was held where the SEC presented evidence concerning Tamanaco; Tamanaco objected to expanding the record beyond the January 30 hearing but declined to offer its own evidence.
  • On February 14, 1990, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction against Tamanaco.
  • On March 1, 1990, following further hearings, the District Court entered a similar injunction against Unifund.
  • On March 2, 1990, Judge Kram issued an opinion detailing the basis for the injunctions, finding a 'strong prima facie case' of violations and a likelihood of future violations.
  • Unifund and Tamanaco appealed the preliminary injunction orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provide sufficient evidence to warrant a preliminary injunction prohibiting future insider trading violations and freezing assets, even when it has not identified the original tipper or clearly established a known breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants?


Opinions:

Majority - Jon O. Newman

No, the SEC did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant a broad prohibitory injunction against future insider trading violations, but Yes, it did provide sufficient evidence to warrant a modified asset freeze order to preserve funds. The court clarified that the SEC, unlike private litigants, is not required to show irreparable injury when seeking a preliminary injunction under Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act. However, the standard for 'likelihood of success' on the merits depends on the onerousness of the relief sought, rejecting the 'strong prima facie case' standard as overly ambiguous and without operational significance. The alternative 'serious questions on the merits' test available to private litigants is not available to the government. For a broad prohibitory injunction against future violations, which has grave consequences and subjects defendants to contempt sanctions, the SEC must make a 'substantial showing of likelihood of success as to both a current violation and the risk of repetition.' This requires proving not only trading on material nonpublic information but also that the defendant knew or should have known they were breaching a fiduciary duty. Here, the SEC failed to identify the tipper or establish the necessary fiduciary duty link to Unifund or Tamanaco, relying on speculation and circumstantial surname commonalities, which was insufficient for such a burdensome injunction. For an ancillary asset freeze order, which merely preserves funds for potential disgorgement or civil penalties and is less onerous, a lesser showing of likelihood of success is required. The evidence of unusual trading by both Unifund and Tamanaco on the eve of the merger announcement, combined with the broker Peyer's 'admission' of receiving inside information and the defendants' recalcitrance to discovery, was sufficient to infer trading on inside information. This allows the SEC to preserve its opportunity to collect funds that may be ordered disgorged or as civil penalties under Section 21A, even if the precise fiduciary breach connection has not yet been fully established. The court found personal jurisdiction over the defendants proper, as their trading in U.S. corporate options exclusively on a U.S. exchange created direct and foreseeable effects within the United States, satisfying due process. Service of process on Unifund through Merrill Lynch in New York for forwarding to Beirut was valid under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i) as service in a foreign country, given Unifund's acknowledged receipt. The court also rejected Tamanaco's procedural objections regarding TRO extensions, deeming them moot or without merit in light of the subsequent preliminary injunction hearing. However, the court modified the scope of the freeze order, concluding that a blanket restriction on all trading without SEC approval was too burdensome given the 'meager showing of a violation.' The order was modified to require maintenance of funds equal to three times the Rorer profits, with trading restrictions only if the account balance dropped below twice the profits. The court also limited the duration of the freeze to 30 days unless the SEC declared readiness for immediate trial.



Analysis:

This case is highly significant for clarifying the standards governing preliminary injunctions sought by the SEC, particularly in insider trading cases. It moves away from the vague 'strong prima facie case' standard, establishing a more flexible 'likelihood of success' test that scales with the invasiveness of the injunctive relief. This means the SEC faces a higher bar for broad prohibitions on future conduct but a lower one for asset freezes aimed at preserving funds for eventual collection. The ruling highlights the evidentiary challenge of proving a known breach of fiduciary duty in insider trading cases, especially when the original tipper remains unidentified, while still recognizing the need for interim relief to secure potential monetary remedies.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Securities And Exchange Commission v. Unifund Sal (1990) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.