U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Yang, 1:12-cv-02473

Yang challenged SEC findings on front-running and false Schedule 13(d) filings after a six-day trial.
Jury found in Yang’s favor on insider trading; SEC prevailed on front-running and Schedule 13(d) claims.
Yang moved for JMOL or a new trial on the front-running and Schedule 13(d) claims.
Court applied standard: JMOL warranted only if no reasonable juror could find for SEC; evidence viewed in SEC’s favor.
Evidence included Yang’s signed account documents, joint ownership with Fan, large trades, Yang’s securities background, IP-address alignment, and travel-correlated trading.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for front-running	Yang argues no evidence shows he made the front-running trades.	SEC contends trial evidence supports Yang’s trades and timing before Zhongpin moves.	No JMOL; evidence sufficient for jury verdict
Whether verdict was against weight of the evidence	Yang hints verdict contradicts weight of evidence.	Evidence supports verdict; credibility for jury.	New trial denied; verdict amply supported
Video conference testimony for witnesses	Fan, He, Lu should testify via video due to travel obstacles; Hu allowed due to pregnancy.	Video from China warranted for Fan, He, Lu; Hu allowed with conditions; depositions suggested.	Grant in part; allow Judy Hu live with conditions; deny others

Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2011) (JMOL standard: reasonable juror could find for prevailing party)
Schandelmeier–Bartels v. Chicago Park Dist., 634 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2011) (strictly construe facts in favor of prevailing party)
Lewis v. City of Chicago Police Dep't, 590 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2009) (weight-of-the-evidence standard; credibility left to jury)
El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, 496 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (video testimony considerations; good cause and safeguards)