SEC Secures Final Judgments in Insider Trading Case Against Joseph C. Lewis and Associates

27th Feb 2026
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has obtained final consent judgments against Joseph C. Lewis, Carolyn W. Carter, Patrick J. O’Connor, and Bryan L. Waugh in a civil insider trading enforcement action involving the alleged misuse of material nonpublic information (MNPI). The case underscores the regulator’s continued focus on tipping chains, personal relationships, and trading tied to confidential investment fund information — all areas that remain high on the SEC’s enforcement agenda in 2026. According to the SEC, the defendants have been permanently enjoined from violating federal antifraud provisions and ordered to pay civil penalties, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest where applicable. The Enforcement Action The SEC’s complaint alleges that Joseph C. Lewis obtained material nonpublic information about two public companies through his majority ownership and control of a biotechnology investment fund. The regulator claims Lewis breached a duty of trust and confidence by tipping the information to Carolyn W. Carter, his then-girlfriend. According to the SEC, Carter traded in the securities of both companies and realized profits based on the tipped information. Separately, the SEC alleged Lewis tipped information about one of the companies to his private pilots, Patrick J. O’Connor and Bryan L. Waugh. The agency claims both men traded on that information and generated profits. The SEC filed the civil enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 26, 2023. Timeline of Final Judgments The court entered final consent judgments at different stages: Joseph C. Lewis: November 26, 2024 Carolyn W. Carter: February 13, 2025 Patrick J. O’Connor and Bryan L. Waugh: February 4, 2026 All defendants were permanently enjoined from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Penalties and Monetary Relief Joseph C. Lewis Civil penalty: $1,636,645.11 Disgorgement: Not ordered Prejudgment interest: Not ordered Carolyn W. Carter (without admitting or denying the allegations) Civil penalty: $241,154.81 Disgorgement: $241,154.81 Prejudgment interest: $43,589.44 Patrick J. O’Connor Civil penalty: $24,221.53 Disgorgement: $171,886.12 Prejudgment interest: $29,257.46 Bryan L. Waugh (without admitting or denying the allegations) Civil penalty: $33,126.86 Disgorgement: $132,507.44 Prejudgment interest: $22,554.64 SEC’s Legal Basis The SEC grounded its enforcement action in: Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 10b-5 These provisions prohibit trading on the basis of material nonpublic information obtained in breach of a duty of trust and confidence. According to the SEC, the alleged misconduct involved the misuse of confidential information obtained through control of an investment fund and the subsequent tipping of that information to personal associates who traded. The agency also highlighted coordinated investigative efforts involving multiple domestic and international authorities, reflecting the increasingly global nature of insider trading enforcement. Business Impact and Compliance Takeaways The case carries several important lessons for compliance teams and investment professionals. Tipping chains remain a core enforcement priority.The SEC continues to scrutinize how MNPI flows from insiders to personal contacts, not just professional traders. Information barriers must extend beyond the firm.Compliance frameworks should address risks involving family members, romantic partners, and close personal relationships. Control persons face heightened exposure.Individuals with ownership or influence over investment vehicles must maintain robust safeguards around confidential information. Non-traditional tippees are firmly in scope.The inclusion of private pilots reinforces that insider trading liability can extend well beyond financial market participants. Cross-border cooperation is accelerating.The SEC’s reference to assistance from global regulators signals increasingly coordinated enforcement. Permanent injunctions create ongoing risk.Firms should factor long-term conduct restrictions into reputational and regulatory risk planning. Case Details Regulator: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Release Date: February 24, 2026 Release Number: Litigation Release No. 26489 Case: SEC v. Joseph C. Lewis, et al. Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Area of Law: Securities enforcement — insider trading Status: Final consent judgments entered; permanent injunctions and monetary relief ordered People Also Ask What did the SEC allege in the Joseph C. Lewis case? The SEC alleged that Lewis obtained material nonpublic information through a biotechnology investment fund and tipped it to associates who traded on the information, in violation of federal antifraud provisions. What penalties were imposed? The court ordered civil penalties, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest against the defendants in varying amounts. All were permanently enjoined from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Did the defendants admit wrongdoing? According to the SEC release, Carolyn W. Carter and Bryan L. Waugh resolved the case without admitting or denying the allegations. The release does not specify admissions by the other defendants. Why is MNPI control critical for compliance teams? Effective controls over material nonpublic information are essential to preventing insider trading risk. Regulators continue to focus closely on how confidential information moves between insiders and personal contacts. Which court handled the case? The enforcement action was filed and resolved in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.