New U.S. SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock Signals Continued “Back to Basics” Approach
New SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock used his first public remarks to signal continuity with Chairman Paul Atkins’s “back to basics” agenda, emphasizing “quality over quantity” and a focus on cases involving real investor harm rather than technical violations. Woodcock identified key enforcement priorities and announced reinstitution of the Retail Fraud Working Group to focus specifically on protecting retail investors.
The First Prediction Market Insider Trading Case: SDNY and CFTC Test the Limits of Fraud and Commodities Law
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced parallel criminal and civil actions against a U.S. Army service member accused of using classified military information about a planned operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place profitable trades on Polymarket, a prediction market platform. The case, the first to apply traditional insider trading and fraud theories to prediction markets, signals a shift in how the government will regulate this emerging market. In response to this news, companies should consider reviewing company policies on insider trading and compliance to address prediction markets and the use of confidential information in connection with event-based trading.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction in United States v. Bolandian, holding that the trial court failed to properly investigate a juror who admitted he was “not sure” he could remain impartial. The case involved a Los Angeles trader accused of profiting from confidential merger tips, resulting in a conviction and 24-month sentence. But on appeal, the court found plain error in allowing the uncertain juror—who ultimately served as foreperson—to remain without further inquiry. Emphasizing the court’s independent duty to ensure juror impartiality, the decision underscores that even without a defense objection, unresolved bias concerns can mandate a new trial—offering both a cautionary note and a safeguard for defense counsel.
