Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bankosky, 716 F.3d 45

SEC alleged Bankosky engaged in insider trading relating to Takeda and non-public deal negotiations.
Bankosky held governance-adjacent roles at Takeda and traded on information from those dealings.
Consent judgment entered; bank disgorgement and penalties totaled $63,000 each; injunction issued.
SEC sought an officer/director bar under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2) based on alleged unfitness.
District court applied Patel six-factor framework to determine unfitness and imposed a ten-year ban.
Bankosky appeals, arguing the Patel framework (and its relevance) was misapplied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Patel factors still applicable after the amendment?	SEC: Patel factors remain relevant to unfitness.	Bankosky: Patel factors no longer applicable post-amendment.	Patel factors remain useful and pertinent to unfitness.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in balancing factors?	SEC: court correctly weighed factors with deference to district court.	Bankosky: the weighing was improper or incomplete.	No abuse of discretion; court’s weighing supported by record.
Was a ten-year officer/director bar warranted under the facts?	SEC: factors support unfitness and substantial likelihood of recurrence.	Bankosky: lesser sanction or no bar warranted.	District court reasonably concluded ten-year ban warranted.

SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 1995) (identifies six factors for unfitness under § 21(d)(2))
In re American Express Fin. Advisors Sec. Litig., 672 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirms substantial discretion in weighing factors)
SEC v. Levine, 517 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2007) (discusses unfitness framework post-Sarbanes-Oxley)
SEC v. Miller, 744 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (utilizes Patel framework in officer-director bars)
SEC v. Bankosky, 2012 WL 1849000 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (district court decision applying Patel factors)