SEC v. David W. Baldt (insider trading, 2011)

Judgment entered

✓ 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.

Report an error in this record (sec-david-w-baldt-insider-trading-2011) by email

In April 2011 an SEC administrative law judge found that David Baldt, a municipal bond fund portfolio manager, tipped family members to redeem from a fund he managed while he held adverse non-public information about it in 2008, ordered him to cease and desist, barred him from the investment adviser industry and required disgorgement of $9,403.55.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$9.4k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$9.4k

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission published the initial decision on April 21, 2011 (administrative proceeding 3-13887).

The decision finds Baldt violated Securities Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Advisers Act Sections 206(1) and 206(2) by telling relatives to redeem their shares while he held adverse non-public information about the fund.

The record previously said the matter was dismissed, which is wrong.

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

1. 2011-04-21 Initial decision

Primary documents

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

• Initial decision (ID-418)
• Finality order

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.