SEC v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. (2014)
Settled
Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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 2014 the SEC settled with Lions Gate Entertainment over failing to disclose material information about a July 2010 set of transactions that put more than 16 million shares with a director friendly to management during a hostile takeover fight. Lions Gate paid a $7.5 million civil penalty.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-71717 |
| Date filed | 2014-03-13 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | NYSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.13(a) |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $7.5m
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $7.5m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the order on March 13, 2014.
The order finds that, while fighting a hostile tender offer by a large shareholder, Lions Gate entered three linked transactions on July 20, 2010 involving convertible notes, a change to its insider trading policy and a lower conversion price, and that its public filings omitted material information about them.
The only link to insider trading is the company's relaxation of its own policy so the director could convert the notes. No insider trading is alleged, so the tag has been removed.
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.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.