I think the absence of unfairness was doubly risky to the SEC in the Steffes case. What the defendants did just doesn’t seem that unfair. It seems like a bunch of dudes piecing together information and making a bet on it. From a purely legal perspective, the Commission was able to survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss. But on the facts, the jury doesn’t seem to have cared. I think the lack of injustice in the facts is why the SEC had trouble with the jury, and will continue to in marginal cases like this one.
‘Enforcement 40’ for 2020
Join Us On LinkedIn
Join the Securities Litigation and Enforcement Group on LinkedIn