SEC v. David M. Mahan (insider trading, 2020)
Judgment entered
Checked against the primary document on October 3, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
In March 2020 the SEC announced that Rite Aid employee David Mahan consented to a judgment over selling his Rite Aid holdings after learning the Walgreens merger would likely miss its closing date. He agreed to pay disgorgement of $87,277, interest of $12,107 and a penalty of $87,277.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-24782 |
| Date filed | 2020-03-26 |
| Date resolved | 2020-03-26 |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | David M. Mahan |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $87.3k
- Disgorgement
- $87.3k
- Prejudgment interest
- $12.1k
- Total relief
- $187k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the matter on March 26, 2020 as litigation release 24782; the complaint was filed that day in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges Mahan learned through his job on January 18, 2017 that the Rite Aid and Walgreens merger would likely not close by its expected date, sold all his stock and options the next morning, and avoided a loss of over $87,000 when the FTC's concerns were reported.
Without admitting or denying the allegations, Mahan consented to an injunction and to the payments above. The earlier record omitted the civil penalty.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.
- Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2020-03-26 Litigation release published
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Trijya Vakil and Neeraj Visen (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Insider Trading | $109k | settled |
| CFTC v. Gabriel Perez (insider trading, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-28 | Insider Trading | $65k | judgment |
| SEC v. Gavin Wolfe and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEBI v. Arun Kumar Somani and others (insider trading review, Indian Oil Corporation, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-13 | Insider Trading | — | dismissed |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | $18.7k | settled |