1The SEC alleges Anton violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 USC § 77q(a)

22 Pages·2009·0.18 MB·English

INTHEUNITEDSTATES DISTRICTCOURT
FOR THEEASTERNDISTRICTOFPENNSYLVANIA
SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE : CIVILACTION
COMMISSION :
: No.06-2274
v. :
:
FREDERICKW.ANTON,III :
FINDINGSOFFACT ANDCONCLUSIONSOFLAW
Juan R.Sánchez,J. April23,2009
Inthisinsidertradingcase,the SecuritiesandExchangeCommission(SEC) asksthisCourt
to find Frederick W. Anton, III, as Chairman of PMA Capital Corporation’s Board of Directors,
unlawfully tipped material, nonpublic information about PMA to outsider David L. Johnson in
violationofthesecuritieslaws.1 AntonarguestheSECfailedtoproveheviolatedthesecuritieslaws
becauseJohnsonisnotcredible,and,atthetimehespoketoAnton,Antonwasnotinpossessionof
theinformationheisallegedtohaveknownanddisclosed. BecausetheSEChasnotmetitsburden
to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Anton made, and benefitted from, the alleged
disclosure,this Court finds noviolationofthesecurities laws.
FINDINGS OFFACT
In2003,PMACapital Corporation was an insurance holdingcompany, publiclytradedon
theNASDAQ,withsubsidiariesprovidingworkers’compensation,disability,commercialproperty,
and casualty insurance. PMA was engaged in two main businesses, the primary commercial
insurancebusinessknownasPMAInsuranceGroup,andthereinsurancebusinessknownasPMA
1The SEC alleges Anton violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a),
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5,promulgatedunderSection10(b)oftheExchangeAct.
Re. Beginning in 2000 and continuing into 2003, PMA Re experienced a higher than expected
numberofreportedclaimsfromthecompaniesitinsured. Asaresult,intheyearsbetween2000and
2003, including the final quarter of 2002, PMA Re several times increased the amount of its loss
reserves–anestimateoffutureamountsneededtopaythereportedandunreportedinsuranceclaims
ofthecompaniesinsured. OnFebruary25,2003,A.M.Best,theprimaryratingagencyfortherating
ofinsuranceandreinsurancecompanies,reducedPMA’s ratingfrom AtoA-minus.2
Johnson, a retired former PMA executive, was a sophisticated investor who regularly
followed PMA’s stock price, reviewed the company’s quarterly financial reports, and attended
annual meetings. On October 22 or 23, 2003, Johnson read a Credit Suisse First Boston analyst
reportregardingPMA’sfinancialcondition,senttohimbyJohnWebster,aretiredlong-timeformer
PMA colleague. The report stated Credit Suisse had reduced its classification for PMA from
“Neutral”to“Underperform.” Thereport explained:
Thecurrentvaluationofthestockreflectsconcernoverthecompetitivepositionof
thecompany,theadequacyoflossreserves,thecompany’scapitalposition,andthe
A.M. Best rating downgrade. On February 25th, A.M. Best reduced the rating of
PMA’sreinsurancebusinessfromAtoA-. Inaddition,thevaluationalsorepresents
thefactthatfiveofthecompany’slastquartershavebeendisappointing. Weremain
waryoftheneedtofurtheraddtoreserves. The second quarter 2003 was the third
straight quarter that operating earnings were reduced by additions to reserves for
earlierlosses at PMARe. Intotal,theseadditions toreserves were$65million.
Ex.2.
Johnson subsequently called John W. Smithson, the President and CEO of PMA, for
verificationofthereport. JohnsonaskedSmithsonwhetherthereportwas“factual,”N.T.11/10/08,
2An insurance company’s rating is a credit rating, reflecting a company’s ability to pay claims.
Multiple increases of an insurance company’s loss reserves can result in a reduction in the
company’s rating.
2
108:3,8,andSmithsonrepliedthatitwas,butaddedthatthecompanywasnotalwaystreatedkindly
by Credit Suisse. Smithson, whose testimony is credible, testified Johnson also asked how the
company was doing, and Smithson said PMA would be reporting its third quarter earnings in the
normalcourseandtherewouldbemoreinformationavailablethen. Then,between10:00a.m.and
11:00a.m.onFriday,October31,2003,JohnsoncalledAntonat his office.3
Thatsameday,followinghisconversationwithAnton,Johnsonsold20,000sharesofPMA
stock. OnSunday,November2,2003,Johnsonadvisedhissonanddaughtertoselltheirsharesof
3This was the last time Johnson spoke to Anton. Regardinghis relationship with Anton, Johnson
testifiedheconsideredAntonandhimselftobefriends. Thischaracterizationoftheirrelationship,
however, is inconsistent with his own testimonyregardingthe details of their relationship as well
aswithAnton’stestimony. Asof2008,JohnsonhadknownAntonforabout35years,butononly
one occasion in the mid-1970s had Johnson been invited to Anton’s home for dinner. Outside of
stockholdersmeetings,meetingsofretiredemployees,andlunchesonceortwiceayearwithother
shareholders that included Anton, Johnson testified he did not have anyrelationship with Anton.
Johnson testified he did not have any means of contacting Anton other than at Anton’s office.
JohnsoncouldnotrecallanyoccasionswhenhemetAntononapersonalorsocialleveloutsideof
thecompanyshareholderrelationship. JohnsontestifiedAntonhadtreatedhimjustashehadtreated
theotherPMAretireesinasimilarsituation,andneverbefriendedJohnsonmorecloselythananyone
else. When asked whether he knew the name of Anton’s wife, Johnson replied uncertainly, “I
believeitwasBetty.” N.T.11/10/08,61:16. Johnsonfurthertestifiedhehadneverreceivedagift
from Anton, and Anton had never given Johnson any financial advice other than to say on a few
occasionsthatJohnsonhad“toomanyeggsinonebasket.” As forAnton,whenaskedwhetherhe
consideredhimselfafriendofJohnson,heresponded:
Iwouldn’t consider myself a friend of anyof these people. Myrelationships were
professionalrelationshipswithallofthesepeople. Now,someofthepeopleIspent
moretimewithbecausemypassionis golfandiftheyplayedgolf...Iplayedgolf
withthepeoplethatplayedgolf. No,Iwouldnot–andthethingisIplayedgolfand
Ialso at some of this time was a heavydrinker and Iwent drinking with people. I
didn’t spendaninordinateamount oftimewithMr.Johnson.
N.T.11/12/08,51,2-15.AntontestifiedJohnsonwasneitheragolfernoradrinker. Antoncouldnot
recallspendinganysocialtimewithJohnson. Outsidetheofficesoftheinsurancecompany,Anton
stated he might have spent “one one hundredth of the time” with Johnson. Anton also did not
remembereverhavinggivenJohnsonagift.
3
PMA stock. On the following Monday, November 3, 2003, Johnson sold an additional 20,000
shares. The shares were sold at an average price of $13.17. Johnson’s daughter did not sell her
shares,buthissonsoldhisPMAstockonNovember3,2003. OnthemorningofNovember4,2003,
PMA announced it would be increasing its loss reserves by about $150 million and planned to
suspenddividends. PMAstockclosedthatdayat$5.03pershare. Johnsonwasabletoavoidatotal
loss of$325,305.4 Johnson’s sonwas abletoavoidaloss of$56,028.
On September 7, 2005, the SEC filed a complaint against Johnson, alleging Johnson had
committed insider tradingbysellingstock afterobtaininginsider information and prior to PMA’s
announcement regardingits loss reserves and dividends. Johnson settled the action with the SEC
bypayingatotalof$786,449,includingdisgorgementof$381,334,theamountoflossesheandhis
sonavoided, prejudgment interest of$23,781, and a civil penaltyof$381,334. Johnsonwas also
permanently enjoined from further violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.5 On May31, 2006, the SEC filed this action against Anton, alleging tipper liabilityfor his
disclosure to Johnson of the material, nonpublic information that PMA would be eliminating its
dividendandthat PMARewouldbeincreasingits loss reserves.
To determine what was disclosed duringthe conversation between Johnson and Anton on
October 31, 2003, the only direct evidence before this Court are the testimonies of Johnson and
Anton. Neitheraccountoftheconversation,however,is credible. Johnson’s testimonyregarding
hisOctober31,2003conversationwithAntoncannotbecreditedbecauseofinconsistenciesinhis
4OnNovember5,2003,Johnsonsoldanadditional10,000sharesofPMAstock,butdidnotavoid
anylosses.
5Johnson’ssettlementwiththeSECcannotbeusedasevidencetoestablishAntonwasaparticipant
intheinsidertradingallegedagainst Johnson.
4
statedreasonsforcallingAnton. JohnsonhasprovidedthreedifferentreasonsforcallingAntonon
October 31, 2003. Under direct examination in court, Johnson testified his primary reason for
callingAntonwastotellhimthatWebster,aformercolleague,wasintheterminalstagesofcancer.
Duringcrossexamination,JohnsontestifiedthatatthetimehespoketoAnton,Johnsonhadknown
abouttheconditionofWebster’sillnessforseveralweeks,havingspokentoWebstersometimein
Septemberof2003. Johnsontestifiedheand AntonthenspokeaboutHalloweenbecauseit was a
veryimportantholidayforAnton. Johnsonlatertestified,underdirectexamination,ithadnotbeen
Webster’sillnessbutHalloweenthathadpromptedhiscall,explaining: “Mr.Antonreallylikedthat
holiday,sothat’sprobablythereasonIcalledhiminthefirstplace,itjusthappenedtobeoneofhis
favorite holidays, and so we talked about that.” N.T. 11/10/08, 74, 3-6. In explaining why
HalloweenwassoimportanttoAnton,JohnsontestifiedAntonoftenhostedHalloweenofficeparties
whereemployeeswouldbringtheirchildrenincostumes. WhenJohnsonwasdeposedbytheSEC
onMarch10,2005,however,JohnsondidnotmentionHalloween. Duringthatdeposition,Johnson
testified he called Anton because he had seen a negative report from Credit Suisse First Boston.
JohnsonexplainedhowhehadviewedtheCredit Suissereport as follows:
It indicated that they felt because of the last several quarters that they had to
strengthenreserves,theymentionedthat,thattheyhadbeenstrengthening. Theyfelt
it wouldbefurtherstrengtheninginthefuture. Alsotheyindicatedthat the[A.M.]
Best rate . . . had been reduced in the companyandtheyalsomentionedtheprofits
byquarter. Thelastsevenquarters,Ibelieve,hadbeenprofitable,twooftheseven,
and because of these things theyhad reduced the rating from a neutral to an under
perform[] whichis asale.
N.T.11/10/08,118:3-15. Johnsonconfirmedincourthehadnotstatedduringhisdepositionthat
hecalledAntononOctober31,2003,todiscuss Halloween.
Attrial,JohnsondeniedhecalledAntonforinformationregardingPMA’sfinancialhealth.
5
HetestifiedhedidnotaskAntonhowthecompanywasdoingandaskedonlyinageneralmanner
how things were going. Johnson maintained he was simplylooking for good news. Asked under
cross examination what good news he had been seeking, Johnson responded he was looking for
anything positive, and it could have been good news about Anton’s golf game, his family, the
company,orhispoliticalactivities. Johnsoninsisted: “Itwasageneralquestion,itcouldhavebeen
anything.” N.T.11/10/08,123:20-21.
Johnson’sassertionhedidnotcallAntonforthepurposeofseekinginformationregarding
PMA is further undermined bythe fact that, just a few days before calling Anton, Johnson called
Smithson, who, as President and CEO of PMA, was another corporate insider. Johnson called
Smithson to ascertain whether the Credit Suisse report was “factual.” N.T. 11/10/08, 108:3.
Johnson,undercrossexamination,insistedhehad“simplywantedverificationthatthiswasaccurate
information.” N.T. 11/10/08, 110:7-8. Rather than calling a stockbroker, another shareholder of
PMAstock,orhis own son who worked in financial services, or doinganyresearchofhis ownto
determinewhetherthereportwascorrect,Johnsoncalledtheheadofthecompany. Johnsontestified
hecalledSmithsonbecauseSmithsonwasspeakingfromapositionofknowledge. Likewise,when
JohnsoncalledAnton,contrarytoJohnson’stestimony,itwasmorelikelyforthepurposeofseeking
information Johnson knew Anton would have as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Johnson’s
account oftheOctober31,2003,conversation,therefore,cannot becredited.6
6ThisCourtalsofindsdoubtfulJohnson’stestimonyhewasmotivatedtosellhissharesonOctober
31,2003,andthereafter,solelyduetoAnton’sdisclosurePMAwouldbeeliminatingthedividend.
Johnsontestifiedthat followingthediscussionofWebsterand/orHalloweenhe askedAntonhow
things were going, and Anton said he would be retiring, “things had not been goingwell with the
company,” PMA was adding to its reserves and eliminating the dividend, and Johnson had “too
manyeggs in one basket.” N.T. 11/10/08, 75: 1-13. Johnson testified he did not sayanything to
Anton in response. Johnson testified he found the news “devastating,” and that it was Anton’s
6
disclosure that PMA would be eliminating its dividend that motivated him to sell his stock.
11/10/08,77:1;78:20-25. Johnsonsaidhewas“panicstricken”bythisnewsbecausethedividends
he received from his PMA stock amounted to more than $160,000 of his yearly income. N.T.
11/10/08,127:20; 128.
Infact,it was as earlyas the summer of2003whenJohnsonbeganplanningonsellinghis
shares. Following a shareholders meeting he attended in April 2003, and after reviewing PMA’s
annualreport,JohnsonrealizedPMAwouldhavetoincreaseitslossreservessubstantially. Johnson
was “alarmed” bythis. N.T. 11/10/08, 102: 23-25. Therefore, in the summer of 2003, to begin a
processofdiversification,Johnsonplaced87,000ofthe400,000sharesofPMAstockheownedinto
hisVanguardbrokerageaccount,anaccountthathadbeenopenforfiveorsixyears,whichwould
allow him to sell the stock quickly. Johnson did not sell the stock immediatelybecause he hoped
thestockpricewouldrise. Atthattime,thesharepricewaslowcomparedtowhatithadbeeninthe
past. Then,whenJohnsonreadtheCreditSuissereportinOctober2003andlearnedthatPMAwas
adding to its reserves, he was again “alarmed.” N.T. 11/10/08, 106:20. Johnson testified he
interpreted Credit Suisse’s reduction of PMA’s rating from “Neutral” to “Underperform” to be a
recommendationtosellthestock. Johnsontestifiedithadbeenhisintentiontosellall87,000shares
overafive-dayperiodafterOctober31,2003,thinkinghewouldspreaditoutoveraperiodoftime.
Onthethreedayshedidsell,Johnsonsoldonly50,000shares,because,Johnsonexplained,thestock
hadgonedownconsiderablyaftertheannouncementwasmade. Johnsonwastemptedtosellmore,
butthepriceseemedtoleveloutatfivedollarsashare,sohedidnotsellmoreatthattime. Johnson
agreedthathissaleswere,infact,simplyfurtherdevelopmentoftheplanhehadputinplaceinthe
summerof2003. Undercrossexamination,Johnsoninsistedhewasbothpanic-strickenandselling
pursuant toanorderlydiversificationprogram.
ThisCourtfindsitreasonabletobelieveJohnsonknewPMARehadincreaseditsreserves
in the final quarter of 2002, and knew another increase was likely from his review of the Credit
Suissereport. Johnsonalsoknewanincreaseinlossreservescouldreduceaninsurancecompany’s
profitability,abilitytopaydividends,stockprice,andrating. AfterJohnson’scallstoSmithsonand
Anton failed to assuage his alarm, Johnson decided to sell his stock before the company’s third
quarterresultswouldbepublished,asheknewtheywouldbe,inNovember2003. Johnsontestified
heknewthecompany’sperformancewaspublishedonaquarterlybasis,and knewthecompany’s
results for the third quarter, endingSeptember 30, 2003, would be publiclyannounced some time
in the first two weeks of November 2003. Smithson also informed him at the end of their
conversation that PMA would be publishing its quarterly report in the usual course and more
information would be available then. It was Johnson’s overall awareness of PMA’s financial
conditionandhis knowledgeofwhat wouldprobablyresult that impelledhim toarrangeacareful
plan to sell his shares and ultimatelyto sell a limited number of his shares over a five-dayperiod.
In light of Johnson’s orderly diversification preparations in the summer of 2003, namely,
placementof87,000ofhis400,000sharesinanaccountfromwhichtheycouldbesoldquickly,this
Court finds questionable Johnson’s testimony that it was news of the dividend elimination from
Antonthat promptedhimtosellhisshares. Johnson’sassertionsarealsoweakenedbythefact he
soldonly20,000shares onthefirst day,andonlyatotal of50,000oftheshares hehad plannedto
sell. ThisCourtthereforefindsJohnson’stestimonyofwhatwasdiscussedinhisconversationwith
7
Anton’s testimony also cannot be credited. At trial, Anton testified regarding his
conversationwithJohnson as follows:
Ipicked up the phone, Mr. Johnson was on the line and Mr. Johnson said how are
youdoingor,youknow,someintroductorycomment,Ican’trememberwhatitwas,
and I said well I have retired from the insurance company and I’m going to be
presidentofthePennsylvaniaManufacturersAssociation. Mr.Johnsonsaidfineand,
of course, Mr. Johnson knew that I had planned to retire and be president of the
Association. Heknewtherelationships betweentheorganizations.
N.T.11/12/08,75:9-19. AntontestifiedhedidnottellJohnsonthedividendwouldbeeliminated
because he had not known that would happen. Anton also denied telling Johnson PMA was not
doingwell,wasincreasingitsreserves,orthatJohnsonhad“toomanyeggsinonebasket.” Anton
testified he onlytold Johnson he had retired. Duringhis deposition before the SEC in May2005,
however, Anton could not recall having had the conversation, let alone what was discussed. It is
unlikelyhisrecollectioninNovember2008ismorereliable. Thisinconsistencyinrecollectioncasts
doubtonhistrialtestimonyregardingtheOctober31,2003conversation. Forthisreason,Anton’s
account oftheOctober31,2003conversationis discounted.
Because both Johnson’s and Anton’s accounts of their conversation on October 31, 2003,
cannot be credited, circumstantial evidence as to the contents of the conversation must instead be
considered. At the beginningof 2003, the amount of PMA Re’s loss reserves was approximately
$60 billion. In 2003, PMA’s Board of Directors undertook to analyze thoroughlyits loss reserve
issue. In 2003, the Board assigned Vincent T. Donnelly, PMA’s President and Chief Operating
AntononOctober31,2003,unreliable.
8
OfficerofthePMAInsuranceGroup,toactaschiefactuaryandoverseePMARe’sannualinternal
evaluations. Inadditiontoitsinternalevaluations,PMAhadanindependentauditorconductreviews
ofitslossreservesonanannualbasis. In2003,Deloitte&Touche,LLP,wasPMA’sindependent
auditor. Deloitte began its review of PMA Re’s reserves in the third quarter of 2003. In early
September 2003, PMA’s Board of Directors, in an unusual move, also hired an actuarial firm,
Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., to conduct an additional independent analysis of
PMA’s loss reserves.
As PMA’s Audit CommitteeChairman, Neal C.Schneiderhadprimaryoversight overthe
three loss reserves analyses being conducted in late 2003. Donnellyoversaw PMA Re’s internal
evaluation, and reported his findings to Schneider. Donnelly only reported to Schneider for the
purposes of the internal analysis. During the time the three analyses were underway, Donnelly
received updates from Deloitte and Bickerstaff as they progressed with their evaluations. On an
organizationallevel,DonnellyreporteddirectlytoSmithsonwho,inturn,reporteddirectlytoAnton.
When Donnelly received reports from Deloitte and Bickerstaff, it was his practice to report the
results toSmithson,whotypicallykept Antoninformed.
OnSeptember30,2003,ameetingoftheExecutiveCommitteeoftheBoardofDirectorswas
held,atwhichallmembers,includingAnton,wereinattendance. Atthemeeting,Donnellyreported
hispreliminaryrecommendation,a$50-60millionreserveincrease. SmithsontestifiedtheBoard’s
reactionwas that areservechargeof$50millionwouldbearelativelymodest loss for the quarter
andwouldleaveaprofitfor2003. Smithsontestifiedthe$50millionreserveincreasewasominous
inthatitwasunexpected,butthecompanyhadrevenuesofaboutabilliondollarsatthattime,and
thecompanycouldreasonablyexpecttomaintainitsA.M.Bestratingswiththatfigure. Themeeting
9
minutesalsoreflecta$50-60millionincreaseinreserveswouldresultinanafter-taxearningscharge
of$35-40million,resultinginathirdquarteroperatinglossofabout$.50-.60pershare,butforthe
fullyear2003,anexpectedoperatingearningsof$.45-.60pershare. Ex.12. AsofSeptember30,
2003,theDeloitteandBickerstaffreserveanalyseswerestillinprogress,andneitherfirm hadany
preliminary recommendations. Donnelly stated at the Board meeting he believed the internal
estimate likely would be within Deloitte’s range. The meeting minutes reflect Smithson stated
managementwasworkingonaplantocommunicatePMA’sreserveaction,whenknown,toA.M.
Best,andthecommunicationwouldemphasizethereservesreviewhadbeencomprehensive,PMA
would be making some changes to resolve the company’s financial issues, and the company’s
financial standingafterthereserves increasewouldsupport thecurrent A-minus rating.7
Schneider,whosetestimonyiscredible,testifiedthatbeginningonOctober29,2003,Anton
removed himself from the process of governance and was not involved in any management
discussionsordecision-making.8 UntilaboutSeptember30,2003,Antonhadbeenheavilyinvolved
7AttheSeptember30,2003ExecutiveCommitteemeeting,theissueofapossibledividendreduction
was raised, but in a discussion unrelated to the anticipated loss reserves increase. The meeting
minutes reflect a suggestion of a dividend reduction was introduced under a separate topic, with
discussionofthepossibilityofarestructuringofthebusiness,or“run-off”ofeitherPMAReorthe
PMA Insurance Group. The Executive Committee did not discuss the possibility of a dividend
reductionoreliminationinconnectionwithreservestrengtheningat this meeting.
8Anton’sowntestimonyisconsistentwithSchneider’stestimonyandtherecord,andcredibleonthis
point. AntontestifiedthatafterSeptember30,2003,SchneiderhadtakenoverasChairmanofthe
Board of Directors. Anton’s long-term plan had been to retire, thus, after September 30, 2003,
Anton spent increasinglysmaller amounts of time on his work as Chairman. Anton also testified
PMA’s Board members were dissatisfied with PMA’s financial condition, and were questioning
Anton’sjudgment,andwerethereforedisinclinedtoincludeAntonintheirdiscussionsatthispoint.
TheBoardhadalsobrought Schneiderinandwas talkingto Schneider rather thantoAntonabout
the development of the reserve estimates and their resolution. Anton understood “it was time to
moveon.” N.T.62-63.
10