SEC v. Lawrence F. Cluff, Jr. and Roger E. Shaoul (insider trading, 2017)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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.

Report an error in this record (sec-lawrence-f-cluff-jr-insider-trading-2017) by email

In April 2017 the SEC obtained an emergency asset freeze against Lawrence F. Cluff, Jr. and Roger E. Shaoul, alleging they traded Mobileye options ahead of Intel's takeover announcement. On December 17, 2019 the court entered consent final judgments against Roger Shaoul and James Shaoul, who was added as a tipper defendant in 2017. The SEC's releases do not state a separate outcome for Cluff.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$925k

Disgorgement

$925k

Prejudgment interest

$3.1k

Total relief

$1.9m

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

On April 6, 2017 the SEC announced that a federal court in New York had frozen the assets of two Virginia-based traders. The complaint alleged that Cluff and Shaoul held material non-public information about Intel's planned $15.3 billion acquisition of Mobileye N.V. when they bought Mobileye securities, with all the suspicious trades placed in two accounts in Cluff's name, for profits of nearly $1 million. In September 2017 the SEC amended its complaint to add Roger Shaoul's brother James Shaoul, alleging he was the source of the tip.

On December 17, 2019 the district court entered final judgments on consent against Roger Shaoul and James Shaoul, according to the SEC's litigation release of December 23, 2019. Both are enjoined from violating the antifraud and tender-offer provisions. Roger Shaoul must pay $925,436 in disgorgement, $3,143.95 in prejudgment interest and a $925,436 civil penalty; James Shaoul must pay a $4,145,982 civil penalty. The figures recorded here are Roger Shaoul's only, because James Shaoul is not among the defendants listed on this record. A later release (April 17, 2020) says the SEC's litigation in the consolidated case concluded with a judgment against another defendant, Amir Waldman.

Neither release names Cluff in describing the judgments, so this record does not show how the case against Cluff ended; it is marked settled on the strength of the Shaoul judgments and that gap is flagged. Checked on 2026-10-04 against the SEC litigation releases.

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

1. 2017-04-06 Litigation release published
2. 2017-09-13 SEC amends complaint to add James Shaoul
3. 2019-12-17 Court enters consent final judgments against Roger Shaoul and James Shaoul
4. 2020-04-17 SEC reports its litigation concluded with the Waldman judgment

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEC litigation release
• SEC litigation release, amended complaint (LR-23935)
• SEC litigation release, final judgments (LR-24698)
• SEC litigation release, litigation concluded (LR-24799)

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.