Key Takeaways
- • SAC Capital has paid $1.8 billion in total penalties and pleaded guilty to insider-trading charges; the firm itself faces institutional accountability despite Cohen's personal non-indictment status.
- • The SEC filed a civil suit in July 2013 alleging Cohen failed to supervise two senior employees—Michael Steinberg and Mathew Martoma—in connection with illegal trades involving Elan, Wyeth, and Dell; Steinberg was convicted on five counts of securities fraud and conspiracy in December 2013, while Martoma's trial commenced in early January 2014.
- • Cohen, SAC Capital's billionaire founder, has not been criminally charged but faces allegations that he knowingly traded on illicit tips from employees rather than investigating "red flags" of wrongdoing—claims his legal team characterizes as unfounded and contradicted by facts.
- • A federal judge imposed a stay on the SEC's civil case against Cohen pending resolution of the ongoing criminal proceedings against the firm and its employees, delaying resolution of the supervision liability question.
- • The core legal dispute centers on Cohen's knowledge and duty to investigate: the SEC contends he ignored red flags and profited from insider information, while Cohen's defense argues his trades were based on public data and he had no reason to suspect employee misconduct.
Summary
The SEC's civil case against Steven Cohen, founder and billionaire manager of SAC Capital, centers on allegations that he failed to properly supervise employees engaged in insider trading—a question that sits at the heart of a broader regulatory reckoning with one of Wall Street's most prominent hedge funds. While Cohen himself has not been criminally charged, the SEC filed suit in July 2013 alleging he knew about at least two instances of illegal trading yet neither investigated suspicious indicators nor took corrective action. Instead, prosecutors contend, Cohen traded on tips from his employees and generated millions in profits from illicit information.
The criminal track record underlying the civil suit is substantial. SAC Capital itself has paid $1.8 billion in penalties and pleaded guilty to insider-trading charges. Eight employees face charges, with six having pleaded guilty. Most notably, senior trader Michael Steinberg was convicted by jury in December 2013 on five counts of securities fraud and conspiracy. Mathew Martoma, another trader, saw his trial begin in January 2014. Both Steinberg and Martoma are cited as the two senior employees Cohen allegedly failed to supervise in connection with trades involving pharmaceutical companies Elan and Wyeth, as well as technology company Dell.
Cohen's legal team has mounted a vigorous defense, issuing a white paper in July 2013 stating the SEC's allegations are "contrary to the indisputable facts" and "lack any basis." The defense argues that Cohen could not have known of—and had no reasonable basis to suspect—employee wrongdoing, and that the trades in question were based on legitimate public information rather than illicit tips. This positions the case as a fundamental dispute over supervisory knowledge and intent.
The litigation trajectory has slowed following a federal judge's August decision to impose a stay on the civil proceedings until the criminal cases against the firm and its employees are fully resolved. This procedural pause delays any determination of Cohen's civil liability for failing to supervise and potential penalties, keeping the question of his personal accountability unresolved as of early 2014.
The criminal track record underlying the civil suit is substantial. SAC Capital itself has paid $1.8 billion in penalties and pleaded guilty to insider-trading charges. Eight employees face charges, with six having pleaded guilty. Most notably, senior trader Michael Steinberg was convicted by jury in December 2013 on five counts of securities fraud and conspiracy. Mathew Martoma, another trader, saw his trial begin in January 2014. Both Steinberg and Martoma are cited as the two senior employees Cohen allegedly failed to supervise in connection with trades involving pharmaceutical companies Elan and Wyeth, as well as technology company Dell.
Cohen's legal team has mounted a vigorous defense, issuing a white paper in July 2013 stating the SEC's allegations are "contrary to the indisputable facts" and "lack any basis." The defense argues that Cohen could not have known of—and had no reasonable basis to suspect—employee wrongdoing, and that the trades in question were based on legitimate public information rather than illicit tips. This positions the case as a fundamental dispute over supervisory knowledge and intent.
The litigation trajectory has slowed following a federal judge's August decision to impose a stay on the civil proceedings until the criminal cases against the firm and its employees are fully resolved. This procedural pause delays any determination of Cohen's civil liability for failing to supervise and potential penalties, keeping the question of his personal accountability unresolved as of early 2014.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.