The SEC claims that insider trading defendant Thomas Condradt committed perjury at the trial of his co-defendant Daryl Payton in breach of his cooperation agreement and, instead of the agreed-upon penalty of $2,533, the SEC is now seeking a penalty of almost $3 million.  The jury ultimately convicted Payton, even though the SEC was clearly displeased with Conradt.  (We have covered this case in several posts, see here, including Mr. Payton’s own troubles with perjury allegations, see here.  More color is provided by an article in the WSJ (h/t) today).

The SEC argued that Conradt had to be repeatedly impeached with his prior deposition testimony at trial, at should be punished in a way that deters others from doing the same:
Continue Reading SEC Claims Cooperator Lied At Trial; Seeks To Up Penalty from $2,500 to $3 Million

In an opinion today, Judge Rakoff explained why he would decline to refer Darlyl Payton, a defendant who was recently found liable an SEC insider trading case, to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for a perjury prosecution related to Mr. Payton’s testimony in the SEC case.  Mr. Payton had pleaded guilty to criminal insider trading charges but later was allowed to withdraw the appeal in light of the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman, which held that insider trading required the recipient of a stock tip to have “knowledge that the insider disclosed confidential information in exchange for personal benefit.”  Judge Rakoff concluded that Mr. Payton testified at the SEC trial in a manner that was materially different than his earlier plea allocution, but nonetheless found that a criminal referral was not warranted for four reasons:
Continue Reading Judge Rakoff Reluctantly Declines to Refer Defendant in SEC Civil Case for Criminal Perjury Prosecution