SEC v. Paul T. Rampoldi , et al. (insider trading, 2016)

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-paul-t-rampoldi-et-al-insider-trading-2016) by email

In August 2016 the SEC charged brokers Paul Rampoldi and William Scott Blythe with insider trading in Ardea Biosciences options, with criminal charges filed alongside. Consent final judgments on August 16 and October 1, 2018 order about $61,534 in disgorgement and $8,570 in interest, deemed satisfied by criminal forfeiture, and no civil penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$61.5k

Prejudgment interest

$8.6k

Total relief

$70.1k

Alleged gain

$90k

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

the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on August 12, 2016 as release LR-23619. The respondents named are Paul T. Rampoldi and William Scott Blythe III (2 individuals, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as insider trading, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

Two consent judgments in the Southern District of California resolve the case. Blythe's, filed August 16, 2018, finds him liable for disgorgement of $41,493 and interest of $5,778.68, and Rampoldi's, filed October 1, 2018, for $20,041 and $2,791.09. Both awards are deemed satisfied by the forfeiture order in the parallel criminal case. Blythe's judgment imposes no civil penalty. The defendants consented to the judgments, so these are not findings of fact. The money fields add the two defendants' figures. This page relies on the judgments themselves, not a regulator release about them. Checked on 2026-10-04.

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. 2016-08-12 Litigation release published
2. 2018-08-16 Consent final judgment against William Scott Blythe III
3. 2018-10-01 Consent final judgment against Paul T. Rampoldi

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
• Final judgment as to Blythe (Aug. 16, 2018)
• Final judgment as to Rampoldi (Oct. 1, 2018)

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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.