SEC v. Mark Klein, et al. (insider trading, 2022)
Settled
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 July 2022 the SEC charged Ampio scientific advisor Pablo Rubinstein, his brother Eduardo and son-in-law Mark Klein with selling Ampio stock after learning the FDA had found a drug study inadequate, avoiding about $226,000 and $207,000. Pablo agreed to an injunction and a penalty of about $226,000, subject to court approval.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-25458 |
| Date filed | 2022-07-28 |
| Date resolved | 2022-07-28 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Pablo Rubinstein ; Eduardo Rubinstein ; Mark Klein |
| 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
- $226k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $226k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the complaint on July 28, 2022 as litigation release 25458, filed in the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges Pablo learned of the FDA's conclusion on August 3, 2018 and told Eduardo, who sold over 103,000 shares and within minutes told Klein, who sold 100,000 shares before the August 7 announcement.
Only Pablo's settlement is reported; the claims against Eduardo and Klein remain allegations. The earlier record showed the status as judgment and the name as 'Mark Klein, et al.'.
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
- 2022-07-28 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 |