Court Opinion

ID: 9366225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:03:37.595289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.838048
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30063     Document: 00516420193         Page: 1   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                                                          FILED
                                                                     August 4, 2022
                                  No. 21-30063                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk

   Securities and Exchange Commission,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                      versus

   World Tree Financial, L.L.C.; Wesley Kyle Perkins;
   Priscilla Gilmore Perkins,

                                                      Defendants—Appellants.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC 6:18-CV-1229

   Before Jones, Higginson and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:
         This appeal arises from an enforcement action brought by the
   Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Appellants-Defendants
   World Tree Financial, L.L.C. (World Tree) and its principals Wesley Perkins
   (Perkins) and Priscilla Gilmore Perkins (Gilmore). After a bench trial, the
   district court found that Perkins and World Tree engaged in a fraudulent
   “cherry-picking” scheme, in which they allocated favorable trades to
   themselves and favored clients and unfavorable trades to disfavored clients.
   It also found that all three Defendants made false and misleading statements
Case: 21-30063       Document: 00516420193           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                      No. 21-30063

   about the firm’s allocation and trading practices. The court entered
   permanent injunctions against Perkins and World Tree, ordered them to
   disgorge ill-gotten gains, and imposed civil penalties on each Defendant. We
   AFFIRM.
                                                I.
                                                A.
          In 2009, Perkins and Gilmore founded World Tree, a Louisiana-based
   investment adviser. Perkins served as chief executive officer and chief
   investment officer, and Gilmore served as chief financial officer, chief
   compliance officer, and chief operating officer. Perkins and Gilmore, who
   married in 2017, owned 60% and 40% of World Tree, respectively.
          As of March 2018, World Tree managed over $54 million in assets and
   had 161 advisory clients, most of whom were individual investors. World
   Tree charged its clients an advisory fee that ranged between 0.5% and 1.5% of
   the client’s assets under management. Because World Tree managed its
   clients’ assets on a “discretionary basis,” it had authorization to trade
   securities on their behalf. From December 2009 to October 2015, World
   Tree traded through Charles Schwab, which doubled as custodian for World
   Tree’s client accounts.
          World Tree traded through a “block trade” account, sometimes
   known as an “omnibus” account. A block trade, as defined by the district
   court, “allows a broker to execute a single large trade in its own name for the
   benefit of its clients and then allocate portions of that trade to particular client
   accounts.” As chief investment officer, Perkins was responsible for trading
   decisions for World Tree accounts and allocating trades made through the
   omnibus account. He transmitted trades to Schwab by entering them in an
   online trading template or calling them in.

                                            2
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193         Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                     No. 21-30063

          Two of World Tree’s documents, its compliance manual and its Form
   ADV, contain important language outlining its block trade practices. In its
   compliance manual, World Tree recognized that block trading raises
   “important issues . . . concerning the equitable distribution of such
   securities.” It announced that its policy was “to allocate [block trade] orders
   and opportunities in a fair and equitable manner.” The manual charged
   Perkins, as chief investment officer, with ensuring adherence to the policy
   and “verify[ing] that no client account was systematically disadvantaged by
   the allocation.”
          World Tree’s compliance manual also set out specific procedures for
   block trades. In advance of placing block trades, World Tree was to:

      • Disclose its aggregation policies in its Form ADV;
          ...
      • Ensure that each client will be treated fairly and will not favor
        any client over another; and
      • Ensure that the decision to aggregate a trade for a client is based
        on individual advice to that client.
   When placing block trades, World Tree was to “[d]esignate on the trade
   order memorandum, the number of shares of the block trade to be allocated
   to each specific account prior to placing the order” or to “[m]ake a pro rata
   allocation of the shares to each account based upon size of the client’s
   account.” It was to maintain, in its “books and records . . . all documents that
   relate to allocation of block trades.”
          In addition, the manual prohibited Perkins and Gilmore from trading
   in securities that World Tree was trading or considering trading on behalf of
   clients. Perkins and Gilmore read and understood the compliance manual.
          World Tree’s Forms ADV also addressed allocation and trading
   procedures. A Form ADV is an annual registration form that must be filed

                                            3
Case: 21-30063     Document: 00516420193           Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-30063

   with the SEC with information about the firm and its services. Perkins and
   Gilmore had ultimate control over the Forms ADV: they reviewed drafts,
   signed them, and authorized their filing and distribution. Defendants
   provided Part 2A of the Forms ADV to clients when they entered a contract
   with World Tree and annually thereafter.
          From 2011 to 2015, the Forms ADV, Part 2A, Item 11 represented that
   Access Persons, including Perkins and Gilmore, would not personally trade
   in the same securities concomitantly with their clients:
                 Unless specifically permitted in World Tree’s Code of
          Ethics, none of World Tree’s Access Persons may effect for
          themselves or for their immediate family (i.e., spouse, minor
          children, and adults living in the same household as the Access
          Person) any transactions in a security which is being actively
          purchased or sold, or is being considered for purchase or sale,
          on behalf of any of World Tree’s clients.
                  When World Tree is purchasing or considering for
          purchase any security on behalf of a client, no Access Person may
          effect a transaction in that security prior to the completion of
          the purchase or until a decision has been made not to purchase
          such security. Similarly, when World Tree is selling or
          considering the sale of any security on behalf of a client, no
          Access Person may effect a transaction in that security prior to
          the completion of the sale or until a decision has been made not
          to sell such security.
   In August 2015, World Tree amended Item 11 to reflect that Perkins and
   Gilmore could trade in the same securities as World Tree’s clients through
   the omnibus account.
          The Forms ADV, part 2A, Items 8 and 12 provided that World Tree
   “allocates investment opportunities among its clients on a fair and equitable
   basis” and may “combine or ‘batch’” orders. Item 12 further provided that
   if World Tree “aggregate[s] client orders for the purchase or sale of

                                         4
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193              Page: 5       Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                          No. 21-30063

   securities, including securities in which World Tree’s Supervised Persons may
   invest, World Tree shall generally do so in accordance with applicable rules
   promulgated under the Advisers Act and no-action guidance provided by the
   staff of the [SEC].”
           In mid-2015, Charles Schwab began investigating World Tree after its
   surveillance team detected allocations indicative of cherry-picking.1
   Schwab’s investigator, Grant Moore, inquired about World Tree’s
   “allocation process,” “why [certain trades] were allocated the way they
   were,” and “whether [World Tree] followed [its] ADV on how [it]
   allocated.” Perkins and Gilmore explained that they surveyed clients’
   accounts “to see who had cash available,” assessed “client objectives,” and
   determined “whether [clients] would be able to participate or not in the day
   trades.”
           Moore requested documentation from World Tree to verify that
   allocations were made as outlined in the Forms ADV. Gilmore sent Moore
   an e-mail with documents containing incomprehensible numbers, which
   “made no sense” to Moore and did not show “anything about how and why
   they did the trade allocations the way they did.” When asked for additional
   records, Perkins and Gilmore said they did not have any because they did not
   retain documentation upon completing allocations. Schwab suspended
   World Tree’s ability to block trade and subsequently terminated its
   relationship with World Tree. The SEC began investigating Defendants in
   November 2016.

           1
             As explained in detail below, cherry-picking involves using the block trade method
   to make an initial trade, and then allocating individual trades to specific accounts after
   observing how the transaction performed. Advisers can take advantage of this practice to
   allocate more profitable trades to favored accounts.

                                                5
Case: 21-30063      Document: 00516420193               Page: 6     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                         No. 21-30063

                                             B.
          The SEC commenced this action in September 2018. It alleged three
   types of fraud claims. First, it alleged that Perkins and World Tree carried
   out a fraudulent cherry-picking scheme, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b);
   Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a), (c); Section
   17(a)(1)   of   the      Securities     Act    of    1933      (“Securities   Act”),
   15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1), (3); and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment
   Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1), (2). Second,
   the SEC alleged that Gilmore aided and abetted the fraudulent cherry-
   picking, in violation of Section 209(f) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-
   9(f). Finally, the SEC claimed that Defendants made material
   misrepresentations about their allocation and trading practices, in violation
   of   Section    10(b),     15 U.S.C. § 78j(b);       Rule   10b-5(b)    thereunder,
   17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b); Section 17(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2); and, with
   respect to Perkins and World Tree only, Sections 206(1) and (2), 15
   U.S.C. § 80b-6. The SEC sought injunctive relief, disgorgement of all ill-
   gotten gains, and civil penalties.
          The district court held a four-day bench trial in November 2020. It
   received over 150 exhibits and heard testimony from Perkins, Gilmore, and
   two expert witnesses—Dr. Cathy Niden for the SEC and Dr. Charles Theriot
   for Defendants—as well as other witnesses.
          In making its case, the SEC relied heavily on statistical data. The
   timing of the allocations was critical to the SEC’s argument that Perkins
   would have known how the trades had performed that day by the time he
   allocated them. The SEC presented evidence that Perkins transmitted most
   trades to Schwab during the trading day, but that 90% of the time he waited
   until the markets closed to allocate the trades.

                                              6
Case: 21-30063      Document: 00516420193          Page: 7     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-30063

          To analyze World Tree’s allocation data, Niden divided the client
   accounts into three categories: (1) accounts controlled by Perkins, Gilmore,
   or both (“Favored-Perkins accounts”); (2) accounts owned by World Tree
   clients other than Matthew LeBlanc and his business Delcambre Cellular
   (“Favored-Client accounts”); and (3) accounts owned by LeBlanc and
   Delcambre (“Disfavored accounts”). She then measured several
   performance measures and subsets of trades: most and least profitable trades,
   day trades, average first-day returns, earnings-day trades, overlapping stocks,
   and trades after LeBlanc complained to Perkins about his accounts’ poor
   performance. According to her analysis, from July 2012 to July 2015, Perkins
   methodically allocated trades with favorable first-day returns to the Favored-
   Perkins and Favored-Client accounts, while allocating trades with
   unfavorable first-day returns to the Disfavored accounts.
          Niden opined that the “evidence overwhelmingly indicates that
   Perkins engaged in cherry-picking.” Though she acknowledged at trial that
   the data reflected only a pattern and that she did not “have the ability to
   identify individual trades that may or may not be improper,” the data in the
   aggregate showed a “one in one million chance that these patterns could have
   occurred if allocations were being made without regard to first-day return.”
   The district court found Niden credible and her testimony to be “thorough
   and compelling.”
          Theriot opined that Niden incorrectly interpreted the “incomplete
   and fragmented data” she utilized. Theriot took issue with her use of “real
   monetized gains for day trades and unrealized ‘First-Day Profits’ for stocks
   not sold on the date purchased as the sole indicator of whether cherry-picking
   occurred.” Theriot claimed Niden’s report reflected (1) “flawed
   assumptions,” including that “all World Tree clients are identical and
   should receive identical returns”; (2) “a measurement methodology that is
   inconsistent with the reality of the investment returns actually realized”; (3)

                                          7
Case: 21-30063      Document: 00516420193          Page: 8    Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-30063

   “errors in interpreting and using the data available”; and (4) “an apparent
   lack of independence and objectivity,” because Niden is employed by the
   SEC. Theriot opined that no cherry-picking occurred.
          Perkins testified to the allocations and tried to explain the data
   patterns. For example, he claimed the Disfavored accounts solely
   experienced certain losses because they had “more money” and “a lot more
   trades as a result.” He insisted trades were made on behalf of specific clients
   at specific times in furtherance of individual clients’ financial and investment
   goals. Perkins also testified that he knew what cherry-picking was, he
   acknowledged that it was wrong, and he denied doing it. The court found him
   not credible, as his explanations “appeared implausible or largely beside the
   point” and his demeanor appeared “evasive or defensively argumentative.”
          The district court found Defendants liable on all claims except the
   aiding and abetting claim against Gilmore. It considered Niden’s analysis
   “compelling proof of intentional cherry-picking, as there is simply no other
   plausible explanation for the patterns in the data.” While Theriot “could
   explain some of the disproportionate results,” his observations did not speak
   to the clear pattern indicative of cherry-picking. The court “did not believe”
   Perkins when he claimed he did not cherry-pick. As to the
   misrepresentations, the court found that Perkins and Gilmore told their
   clients they would not trade in the same securities as them but did so anyway.
          The court permanently enjoined World Tree and Perkins from further
   violating federal securities laws through cherry-picking. It ordered that
   Perkins and World Tree, jointly and severally, disgorge $347,947 plus
   $36,335.98 in prejudgment interest. The court also ordered civil penalties of
   $160,000 on Perkins, $300,000 on World Tree, and $80,000 on Gilmore.
   Defendants timely appealed.

                                          8
Case: 21-30063      Document: 00516420193          Page: 9    Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-30063

                                         II.
          On appeal from a bench trial, we review findings of fact for clear error
   and questions of law de novo. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.,
   990 F.3d 842, 846 (5th Cir. 2021). We will disturb a factual finding “only if
   we are ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
   committed.’” Deloach Marine Servs., L.L.C. v. Marquette Transp. Co., 974
   F.3d 601, 606-07 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). The clear-error standard
   “following a bench trial requires even ‘greater deference to the trial court’s
   findings when they are based on determinations of credibility.’” Luwisch v.
   Am. Marine Corp., 956 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Guzman v.
   Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc., 80 F.3d 1031, 1036 (5th Cir. 2015)).
   We employ “a strong presumption that the court’s findings must be
   sustained even though this court might have weighed the evidence
   differently.” Id. We review disgorgement and civil penalty orders for abuse
   of discretion. SEC v. Kahlon, 873 F.3d 500, 504 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam)
   (collecting cases).
                                         III.
          Defendants challenge the district court’s findings that Perkins and
   World Tree engaged in fraudulent cherry-picking and that Defendants
   misrepresented World Tree’s allocation and trading practices. They also
   challenge the disgorgement assessment.
          Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act makes it unlawful for a person “[t]o
   use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . any
   manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in violation of SEC rules.
   15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful, “in connection with the
   purchase or sale of any security,” to “employ any device, scheme, or artifice
   to defraud”; “make any untrue statement of a material fact”; or “engage in

                                          9
Case: 21-30063         Document: 00516420193                Page: 10        Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                            No. 21-30063

   any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a
   fraud or deceit upon any person.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
           To prevail on a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, the SEC
   must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant
   “(1) made a misstatement or omission (2) of material fact (3) in connection
   with the purchase or sale of securities (4) with scienter.” SEC v. Gann, 565
   F.3d 932, 936 (5th Cir. 2009). A statement is “‘material’ if there is a
   substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider the
   information important in making a decision to invest.” ABC Arbitrage
   Plaintiffs Grp. v. Tchuruk, 291 F.3d 336, 359 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting R&W
   Tech. Servs. Ltd. v. CFTC, 205 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 2000)). To satisfy the
   in-connection-with element, the fraudulent scheme and sale of securities
   need only “coincide.” SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813, 822 (2002).
           Scienter is a “mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate,
   or defraud.” Abrams v. Baker Hughes Inc., 292 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002)
   (quoting Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 193 n.12 (1976)); see also
   Southland Sec. Corp. v. INSpire Ins. Sols., Inc., 365 F.3d 353, 366 (5th Cir.
   2004). Scienter is satisfied by a showing of “severe recklessness,” i.e., “an
   extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care.” Alaska Elec. Pension
   Fund v. Flotek Indus., Inc., 915 F.3d 975, 981 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting
   Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 866 (5th Cir. 2003)).
           Section 17(a) of the Securities Act outlaws “substantially the same”
   conduct as Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, SEC v. Spence & Green Chem. Co.,
   612 F.2d 896, 903 (5th Cir. 1980), but covers acts committed “in the offer or
   sale of any securities,” 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a). 2 Subsection (a)(1) requires

           2
              Compare id. (“It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any
   securities . . . (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or (2) to obtain money
   or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a

                                                  10
Case: 21-30063         Document: 00516420193              Page: 11      Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                           No. 21-30063

   scienter, while subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) require only negligence. Aaron
   v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 697 (1980).
           Section 206 of the Advisers Act makes it “unlawful for any
   investment adviser” 3 “(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to
   defraud any client or prospective client” or “(2) to engage in any transaction,
   practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any
   client or prospective client.” 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6. Subsection (1) requires
   scienter, while subsection (2) requires only negligence. Steadman v. SEC, 603
   F.2d 1126, 1134 (5th Cir. 1979); see also SEC v. Steadman, 967 F.2d 636, 643
   n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
                                                A.
           The district court found Perkins and World Tree engaged in a
   fraudulent cherry-picking scheme in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5,
   Section 17(a)(1), and Sections 206(1) and (2). The district court defined
   cherry-picking as a manipulation associated with block trades wherein
   “because client allocations occur after an initial larger trade, an unscrupulous
   broker could manipulate those allocations based on whether the asset(s)
   involved in the block trade increased or decreased in value in the period of
   time between the initial transaction and the allocations.” 4 Perkins and World

   material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
   under which they were made, not misleading; or (3) to engage in any transaction, practice,
   or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the
   purchaser.”), with id. § 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
           3
               It is undisputed that Perkins and World Tree were investment advisers.
           4
             Similarly, the SEC has described cherry-picking as: “a practice in which securities
   professionals allocate profitable trades to a preferred account (like their own) and less
   profitable or unprofitable trades to a non-preferred account (like a customer’s). To cherry
   pick a trade, a securities professional typically originates the trade in an omnibus firm
   account, without identifying the underlying . . . account for which the trade was placed, and

                                                11
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193              Page: 12       Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                          No. 21-30063

   Tree dispute the finding of cherry-picking on appeal, arguing that: (1) the
   “in-the-offer-or-sale” element of Section 17(a)(1) was not satisfied; (2) the
   SEC did not prove its claims by a preponderance of evidence because it relied
   exclusively on statistics and introduced no direct evidence of cherry-picking,
   and, in addition, Niden’s statistical analysis was flawed; and (3) similarly, the
   SEC could not prove scienter without direct evidence of cherry-picking. We
   affirm the district court’s factual findings and legal conclusions.
                                                1.
           Though we have not yet addressed a cherry-picking fraud theory,
   several courts (and the SEC) have found that cherry-picking can be a
   violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 17(a)(1), and Sections 206(1)
   and (2). 5 The failure to disclose cherry-picking constitutes material
   misrepresentations or omissions because there is “a substantial likelihood
   that a reasonable investor would consider the information important in
   making a decision to invest.” ABC Arbitrage, 291 F.3d at 359 (internal
   quotation marks omitted). Because cherry-picking involves allocating more

   then allocates the trade to an account after observing how that transaction performed.” The
   Dratel Grp., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 77396, 2016 WL 1071560, at *1 (Mar. 17, 2016).
           5
             See SEC v. RRBB Asset Mgmt., LLC, No. 20-12523, 2021 WL 3047081, at *3
   (D.N.J. July 20, 2021) (Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 17(a)(1) and (2), and Sections
   206(1)-(2)); SEC v. Strong Inv. Mgmt., No. 18-cv-00293, 2018 WL 8731559, at *4-6 (C.D.
   Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) (same); SEC v. K.W. Brown & Co., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1302-09 (S.D.
   Fla. 2007) (same); see also SEC v. Aletheia Research & Mgmt. Inc., No. CV 12-10692, 2015
   WL 13404306, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2015) (Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Sections
   206(1)-(2)); see also Joseph C. Buchanan, Exchange Act Release No. 5329, 2019 WL
   4033999, at *1-3 (Aug. 26, 2019) (Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Sections 206(1)-(2)); Fin.
   Sherpa, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 5324, 2019 WL 3933686, at *1, *4 (Aug. 20, 2019)
   (same); J.S. Oliver Cap. Mgmt., L.P., Securities Act Release No. 5236, 2019 WL 2160136,
   at *7 (May 16, 2019) (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5); Welhouse & Assocs., Inc., Exchange Act
   Release No. 4132, 2015 WL 3941618, at *1, *5-6 (June 29, 2015) (Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
   5, and Sections 206(1)-(2)); cf. Moross Ltd. P’ship v. Fleckenstein Cap., Inc., 466 F.3d 508,
   515-17 (6th Cir. 2006) (state securities-fraud statutes).

                                                12
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193               Page: 13       Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                          No. 21-30063

   profitable trades to certain accounts, an adviser is “stealing from one
   customer to enrich himself,” Dratel, 2016 WL 1071560 at *1, and thus the
   practice implicates a conflict of interest. See Laird v. Integrated Res., Inc., 897
   F.2d 826, 835 (5th Cir. 1990) (“[W]e hold that for the purpose of rule 10(b)-
   5, an investment adviser is a fiduciary and therefore has an affirmative duty
   of utmost good faith to avoid misleading clients. This duty includes
   disclosure of all material facts and all possible conflicts of interest.”).
           Furthermore, cherry-picking occurs “in connection with the purchase
   or sale of any security” (Rule 10b-5) and “in the offer or sale of any
   securities” (Section 17(a)). It is not necessary for a specific trade or a specific
   purchaser or seller to be identified to satisfy the in-connection-with element.
   See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 (2006)
   (explaining the broad interpretation of the “in connection with” phrase, and
   holding that “it is enough that the fraud alleged ‘coincide’ with a securities
   transaction—whether by the plaintiff or by someone else”). Moreover,
   placing trades with a broker satisfies the in-the-offer-or-sale element because
   the terms cover “the entire selling process, including the seller/agent
   transaction.” United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 772-73 (1979). 6
                                                2.
           Nor are we persuaded by the argument that the SEC needed to
   introduce direct evidence of cherry-picking to prove its claims, rather than
   relying on statistical evidence. Statistical evidence, like all evidence, “is a

           6
              Though Perkins and World Tree argue before us that the in-the-offer-or-sale
   element of Section 17(a)(1) is not met because “the SEC excluded all sales transactions
   from [its] analysis and relied exclusively on unrealized gains and losses, which is inherently
   before a sale occurs,” they do not point to where they raised this argument before the
   district court. Accordingly, the argument is waived and we do not address it. See In re
   Deepwater Horizon, 857 F.3d 246, 250-51 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                                13
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193               Page: 14        Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                           No. 21-30063

   means to establish or defend against liability” and “[i]ts permissibility turns
   not on the form a proceeding takes—be it a class or individual action—but
   on the degree to which the evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the
   elements of the relevant cause of action.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577
   U.S. 442, 454-55 (2016). District courts have “considerable leeway in
   deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular
   expert testimony is reliable.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152
   (1999). Statistical evidence can be useful in securities cases, and its admission
   is no novelty. 7
           Because cherry-picking is “difficult to detect,” determining whether
   it has occurred “often requires drawing inferences from a pattern of
   behavior, irregularities, and trading data.” Dratel, 2016 WL 1071560, at *2.
   Here, Niden opined that there was “less than a one in one million chance”
   that the patterns could have occurred if the allocations were made without
   regard to first-day return. 8

           7
              See, e.g., United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 294 (2d Cir. 2021) (noting in a
   criminal securities-fraud case, the “government’s pretrial disclosures of exhibits about the
   trades it intended to rely upon and of the vast data set underlying its statistical analysis of
   his trading activity”); In re BP P.L.C. Sec. Litig., No. 10-md-2185, 2013 WL 6388408, at
   *15 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2013) (noting “statistical regression analys[e]s that examine[] the
   effect of an event on a dependent variable, such as a corporation’s stock price,” are
   “commonly used in securities fraud class actions” (citations omitted)); In re Enron Corp.
   Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 732, 798-801 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (assessing
   statistics on “class action settlements involving ‘mega fund’ recoveries” to determine fee
   award); In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 109 F. Supp. 2d 225, 229 (D.N.J. 2000) (holding
   statistical evidence created fact question on negative causation defense); Schindler v.
   Stockley, No. 83 Civ. 2186, 1985 WL 2338, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 1985) (holding, after
   bench trial in churning case, that “the overwhelming objective statistics outweigh[ed]”
   defendant’s explanations for overtrading); 7 Alan R. Bromberg et al., Bromberg
   & Lowenfels on Securities Fraud § 13:114 (2d ed.), Westlaw (database updated
   May 2022).
           8
           See K.W. Brown, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 1304 (finding it “more likely than not” that
   defendants engaged in cherry-picking because “market forces” could not explain their

                                                 14
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193                Page: 15        Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                           No. 21-30063

           Of course, “a statistical analysis is only as reliable as the assumptions
   beneath it.” Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. v. City of San Antonio, 35 F.3d 560,
   1994 WL 499782, at *5 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Perkins and World Tree
   challenge Niden’s analyses on several grounds: she used “unrealized ‘first
   day results,’ which show only unrealized gains and losses”; she did not use a
   “comparator”; she disregarded differences between Favored and Disfavored
   accounts; she employed a result-driven approach; and she did not use all
   available information. These arguments, however, revisit Theriot’s trial
   critique of Niden’s analyses. Defendants do not assert that their expert’s
   testimony was improperly restricted in any way. Instead, the district court
   considered each expert’s account and found that Theriot failed to rebut key
   points of Niden’s analyses. The district court found that Niden’s analyses
   showed Perkins “allocated an overwhelming proportion of positive trades to
   Favored-Perkins and Favored-Client accounts and an overwhelming
   proportion of negative trades to the Disfavored accounts.” While Theriot’s
   testimony “explain[ed] some of the disproportionate results,” it “did not
   alter the Court’s conclusion that the only plausible explanation for the
   disproportional losses in the Disfavored accounts and gains in the Favored
   accounts is cherry-picking.” Importantly also, the court heard Perkins’
   explanations for the allocation patterns firsthand, yet found them
   “implausible or largely beside the point.” It “did not believe him when he
   claimed that he did not engage in cherry-picking.” 9

   receipt of “more than 90% of the winners while investors received nearly 90% of the
   losers”); Fin. Sherpa, Inc., 2019 WL 3933686, at *2 (finding “difference in the returns [to
   be] statistically significant”); Joseph C. Buchanan, 2019 WL 4033999, at *3 (finding trade
   data “statistically significant in that the likelihood of these same-day profitable trades being
   randomly allocated . . . are less than one in one billion”).
           9
             In addition to close credibility assessment of all parties’ experts and Perkins
   himself, we note that the district court made further supportive findings which did not rest
   on expert statistical analysis: (1) the court heard testimony from Moore describing the

                                                 15
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193               Page: 16       Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                          No. 21-30063

           We “may not second-guess the district court’s resolution of
   conflicting testimony or its choice of which expert[] to believe.” Grilletta v.
   Lexington Ins. Co., 558 F.3d 359, 365 (5th Cir. 2009); see Luwisch, 956 F.3d at
   329. Perkins and World Tree have not convinced us that there is error, clear
   or otherwise, in the district court’s reasoning or fact-finding. 10 Where, as
   here, “there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
   choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Guzman, 808 F.3d at
   1036 (quoting In re Luhr Bros., Inc., 157 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 1998)).
                                                3.
           Finally, as other courts have pointed out, cherry-picking can satisfy
   the scienter element because it involves the knowing conduct of picking
   certain accounts over others. RRBB, 2021 WL 3047081, at *3. The “scheme

   cryptic documentation of allocations and the response he received that the information
   about allocations was deleted every day after the allocation process was complete; the court
   found that Moore’s “concerns regarding the Perkins’ allocations practices and their
   response to his investigation were reasonable and well-founded”; and (2) the court
   observed Matthew LeBlanc and credited his testimony that he “did not want to lose money
   with his World Tree investments, either for tax purposes or any other reason, and that he
   never directed, authorized, or expected Wesley Perkins to disproportionately allocate
   losses to his accounts.”
           10
              Perkins and World Tree cite to SEC v. Slocum, Gordon & Co., 334 F. Supp. 2d
   144 (D.R.I. 2004), a case in which the district court held that the SEC failed to show cherry-
   picking through statistical evidence. In that case, however, the court credited the
   defendants’ testimony that trades represented legitimate client strategies. Id. at 172-73
   (observing that the SEC’s statistics showed defendants’ “trading strategy in operation”).
   The court also credited the testimony of a nonparty employee who “was involved with
   processing the paperwork on virtually every trade” and concluded “no cherry picking
   scheme could have taken place . . . without her knowledge.” Id. at 175-76. Here, conversely,
   the district court found Perkins not credible and his allocation explanations “implausible.”
   And where the evidence is in “equipoise, making critical the question of credibility,” and
   the district court adopts one party’s version of the facts based on a credibility
   determination, we defer to its factual finding. Gann, 565 F.3d at 939; see also Guzman, 808
   F.3d at 1036 (noting factual findings based on credibility determinations “can virtually
   never be clear error” (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985))).

                                                16
Case: 21-30063       Document: 00516420193         Page: 17   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-30063

   require[s] specific preparation and the deliberate allocation of a
   disproportionate number of profitable trades.” Id. (quoting James C. Dawson,
   Advisers Act Release No. 3057, 2010 WL 2886183, at *5 (July 23, 2010));
   K.W. Brown, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 1305 (finding scienter in cherry-picking
   where trader “knowingly . . . allocate[d] profitable day trades to an account
   in which [accomplice] had a personal financial interest”); see also Dratel,
   2016 WL 1071560, at *11 (finding scienter where broker “controlled all of the
   trading and allocation decisions [and] therefore knew that he was trading in
   the same securities as his customers and . . . favoring his own account over
   theirs”).
          Perkins and World Tree argue that, without direct evidence of cherry-
   picked allocations, the SEC cannot show scienter. However, it is well settled
   that “scienter may be established by circumstantial evidence.” SEC v. Fox,
   855 F.2d 247, 253 (5th Cir. 1988) (first citing Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646, 663
   (1983); and then citing Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375, 390
   n.30 (1983)); United States v. Ruggiero, 56 F.3d 647, 655 (5th Cir. 1995)
   (noting that “in proving scienter in fraud cases, ‘circumstantial evidence can
   be more than sufficient’” (quoting Huddleston, 459 U.S. at 390 n.30)). Here,
   the district court (1) observed that cherry-picking “necessarily involves
   knowing and intentional conduct,” (2) found that scienter was “confirmed
   by the testimony of Wesley Perkins,” and highlighted other facts, such as the
   daily deletion of allocation documentation, and (3) further found that “the
   facts of this case provide strong evidence of scienter on the part of Wesley
   Perkins.” We hold that this constituted adequate circumstantial evidence to
   find that Perkins engaged in cherry-picking and acted with scienter.
          Accordingly, there being no clear error in the district court’s finding
   that Perkins and World Tree engaged in fraudulent cherry-picking, we affirm
   their liability under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 17(a)(1), and Sections
   206(1) and (2).

                                         17
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193               Page: 18        Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                           No. 21-30063

                                                 B.
           The district court also found that Defendants misrepresented their
   trading practices by trading in the same securities as their clients despite
   stating in their Forms ADV that they did not, in violation of Section 10(b),
   Rule 10b-5(b), Section 17(a)(2), and, with respect to Perkins and World Tree
   only, Sections 206(1) and (2). 11 Defendants dispute this finding on appeal,
   arguing that the Forms ADV allowed them to trade in the same securities as
   their clients—thus, according to Defendants, they made no misleading or
   material statements with scienter.
           Defendants find no support in the record. The Forms ADV, Part 2A,
   Item 11 specifically represented that “Access Persons,” i.e., Perkins and
   Gilmore, would not personally trade in the same securities at the same time
   as their clients. World Tree’s compliance manual, or code of ethics,
   contained a similar restriction. Moreover, it is undisputed that Perkins
   allocated to his and Gilmore’s personal accounts the same securities from the
   block trades in which their clients participated. The only qualifier to this
   language 12 came in August 2015—after Schwab began its investigation. At

           11
              The district court also found that Perkins and World Tree misrepresented their
   allocation practices by telling clients they were allocating block trades fairly and equitably,
   in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(b), Section 17(a)(2), and Sections 206(1) and (2).
   Perkins and World Tree have waived any challenge to this finding by failing to brief it.
   Tenny v. Dretke, 416 F.3d 404, 407 (5th Cir. 2005).
           12
               Though Defendants argue that the Forms ADV expressly permitted them to
   trade in the same securities as their clients, they do not cite to any language giving them
   such permission. They point instead to the firm’s Discretionary Investment Management
   Agreement with clients, but that document only notes, broadly and in passing, that “[t]o
   the extent that we aggregate client orders for the purchase or sale of securities, including
   securities in which our Advisory Affiliates may invest . . . .” Defendants also argue that the
   prohibitory language in Item 11 of the Forms ADV includes a qualifier: “Unless specifically
   permitted in World Tree’s Code of Ethics.” But this qualifier does not help Defendants
   where they cannot, and do not, point to any language in the code of ethics permitting such
   trading. In fact, the code of ethics restricted such trading. Defendants also point to Item 11,

                                                 18
Case: 21-30063       Document: 00516420193              Page: 19      Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                         No. 21-30063

   that point, World Tree changed its Form ADV to allow concomitant trading,
   amending Item 11 to provide: “the Firm’s Supervised Persons are permitted
   to buy or sell securities that it also recommends to clients if done in a fair and
   equitable manner that is consistent with the Firm’s policies and procedures.”
   Until this language was added, Perkins and Gilmore were restricted from
   trading concomitantly with their clients—a restriction that Defendants
   defied.
             Defendants’ misrepresentations were material. Materiality is a “fact-
   specific inquiry,” Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 240 (1988), and
   assessing “the significance of the inferences a reasonable investor would
   draw from a given set of facts is peculiarly within the competence of the trier
   of fact,” Steadman, 603 F.2d at 1130. Here, the district court found that a
   reasonable investor would consider important whether Defendants traded in
   the same securities as their clients. This is logical: an adviser who participates
   in block trades with his clients has a greater incentive to place his interests
   ahead of theirs. See, e.g., Capital Gains, 375 U.S. at 196 (explaining an investor
   is entitled to evaluate “overlapping motivations, through appropriate
   disclosure, in deciding whether an adviser is serving two masters or only one,
   especially if one of the masters happens to be economic self-interest”
   (cleaned up)); Vernazza, 327 F.3d at 858-59 (“We have no trouble
   concluding that the petitioners made materially false statements when they
   claimed not to recommend securities in which they had an ownership or sales
   interest, not to receive economic benefits in connection with giving advice to
   clients, and not to recommend securities in which they had a financial

   which provides that “World Tree and persons associated with World Tree (‘Associated
   Persons’) are permitted to buy or sell securities that it also recommends to clients
   consistent with World Tree’s policies and procedures.” Again, however, World Tree’s
   policies and procedures restricted personal trades in the same securities at the same time
   for access persons.

                                              19
Case: 21-30063     Document: 00516420193            Page: 20   Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                     No. 21-30063

   interest. It is undisputable that potential conflicts of interest are ‘material’
   facts with respect to clients and the Commission.”). Defendants argue that
   LeBlanc did not care if they invested in the same securities as him. However,
   the standard for materiality is objective and the SEC was not required to
   prove that any investor actually relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations.
   SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765, 779 (5th Cir. 2017); SEC v.
   Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1331-32 (5th Cir. 1978). Regardless, LeBlanc testified
   that he would have wanted to know that his investment advisers were block
   trading in the same securities.
          Finally, Defendants argue that the district court erred in finding that
   they misrepresented their trading practices with scienter. However, this
   claim was premised on their argument that they were permitted to trade in
   securities concomitantly with clients, which, as discussed above, is not true.
   In any event, the district court did not err; Perkins and Gilmore reviewed,
   understood, and authorized the Forms ADV and World Tree’s compliance
   manual. They were aware of the prohibition in these documents against
   trading the same securities that Perkins and World Tree were trading for
   clients. Furthermore, they knew Perkins was doing just that. We hold that
   the record supports the district court’s finding of scienter. See SEC v. Sethi,
   910 F.3d 198, 206-08 (5th Cir. 2018) (affirming district court’s finding of
   material misstatements where there was evidence the defendant knew he did
   not have relationships with major oil companies but repeatedly represented
   such relationships to entice investors).
                                         C.
          The district court ordered that Perkins and World Tree, jointly and
   severally, disgorge $347,947 in ill-gotten gains, as well as $36,355.98 in

                                         20
Case: 21-30063       Document: 00516420193             Page: 21       Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                        No. 21-30063

   prejudgment interest. 13 Perkins and World Tree raise several objections to
   the disgorgement award. Disgorgement “is an equitable remedy meant to
   prevent the wrongdoer from enriching himself by his wrongs.” Allstate Ins.
   Co. v. Receivable Fin. Co., 501 F.3d 398, 413 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting SEC v.
   Huffman, 996 F.2d 800, 802 (5th Cir. 1993)). District courts ordinarily have
   “broad discretion” in determining a disgorgement award. Huffman, 996 F.2d
   at 803 (citing CFTC v. Am. Metals Exch. Corp., 991 F.2d 71, 76 (3d Cir. 1993));
   see also SEC v. AMX, Int’l, Inc., 7 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1993).
           Here, the SEC approximated Perkins and World Tree’s profits with
   Niden’s analysis. The district court summarized Niden’s analysis in its
   opinion, writing that Niden “determined the overall first-day profits and
   first-day rates of return for all trades in the omnibus account, and then
   hypothetically apportioned them in a fair manner (pro rata) among the
   different account types.” Niden “then calculated the difference between
   what each group would have received in the hypothetical fair allocation and
   the actual performance of each group.” The district court found reasonable
   Niden’s method and estimation of the excess first-day profits Perkins and
   World Tree derived from the cherry-picking scheme.
           Perkins and World Tree argue to this Court that the disgorgement
   amount is improperly based on the Disfavored accounts’ unrealized first-day
   losses and thus the amount is larger than actual net profits from wrongdoing
   and amounts to unjust equitable relief to the victim; they also claim that the
   disgorgement award improperly includes Schwab’s commission fee. Perkins
   and World Tree base their arguments on Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936, 1940
   (2020), a case in which the Supreme Court held that “a disgorgement award

           13
              Though the district court also imposed civil penalties against each Defendant,
   Defendants do not brief any challenges to the civil penalties and thus waive any related
   issues. See, e.g., United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010).

                                              21
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193             Page: 22      Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                         No. 21-30063

   that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is
   equitable relief permissible under [15 U.S.C.] § 78u(d)(5).” Liu additionally
   held that “courts must deduct legitimate expenses before ordering
   disgorgement under § 78u(d)(5)” to “ensure that any disgorgement award
   falls within the limits of equity practice while preventing defendants from
   profiting from their own wrong.” Id. at 1950. Liu is a seminal case that has,
   and will continue to, shape disgorgement awards. See also SEC v. Blackburn,
   15 F.4th 676, 681-82 (5th Cir. 2021) (assessing challenge to a disgorgement
   remedy post-Liu); SEC v. Hallam, No. 21-10222, 2022 WL 2817119, at *15
   (5th Cir. July 19, 2022) (laying out the question of whether Liu requires the
   SEC to “satisfy the requirements of a traditional equitable remedy” when
   successfully requesting a disgorgement remedy, or whether the only
   limitations on disgorgement remedies are those explicitly set out in the Liu
   opinion itself).
           In this case, however, Perkins and World Tree did not challenge the
   SEC’s proposed disgorgement amount in their pretrial or posttrial
   submissions—instead, they argued only that there was no “basis for
   disgorgement.” 14 Nor did Perkins and World Tree propose specific
   deduction amounts, either before the district court or to this court. See SEC
   v. Fowler, 6 F.4th 255, 267 (2d Cir. 2021) (“Fowler failed to identify any
   additional ‘legitimate’ business expenses that, consistent with Liu, should
   have been deducted from an otherwise reasonable disgorgement amount. Yet
   it was his burden to do so. We therefore decline to remand to the District

           14
              A legitimate business expense deduction argument was available at the time. Liu
   was decided on June 22, 2020, and the district court’s opinion in this case came down
   January 15, 2021. Additionally, the Tenth Circuit has observed that even before Liu was
   decided, “an argument by defendants to secure a deduction of business expenses from a
   disgorgement amount, was available,” and, indeed, was “hardly novel.” SEC v. GenAudio
   Inc., 32 F.4th 902, 949-50 (10th Cir. 2022).

                                              22
Case: 21-30063        Document: 00516420193               Page: 23        Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                           No. 21-30063

   Court on this issue.”). Liu does not require the district court to conduct its
   own search for business deductions that defendants have not identified.
   Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
   ordering disgorgement. 15
                                                IV.
            For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
   court.

            15
              Perkins and World Tree also challenge the imposition of joint and several liability
   under Liu. However, Liu allows for such liability where “partners engaged in concerted
   wrongdoing”—exactly the situation here. See Liu, 140 S. Ct. at 1949 (“The common law
   did, however, permit liability for partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing. The historic
   profits remedy thus allows some flexibility to impose collective liability.” (internal citation
   omitted)). Of note, the district court here carefully determined that “the SEC did not
   establish that [Gilmore] participated in the cherry-picking scheme” and thus concluded
   that, where Gilmore and Wesley Perkins did not marry until years after the period of
   misconduct, and where “no wrongful profits resulted directly from [Gilmore]’s
   violations,” she was not personally nor jointly and severally liable for the disgorgement.

                                                 23