A federal court found that an Austin, TX-based broker with PFS Investments, along with his wife, traded on insider information.  They were ordered to be disgorged of $27,000 in illicit profits and to pay prejudgment interest.  SEC charges against the broker are still pending - though C-I anticipates the Commission will permanently bar the broker and impose a penalty for as much as his disgorged profits. SEC Findings and Allegations. In October 2010, the SEC charged John Jantzen, an Investment Company and Variable Contracts Principal (Series 26) since 1993, with having traded on insider information relating to the September 2009 acquisition of Perot Systems, Corp. by Dell Computer. Jantzen's wife Marleen, a former assistant to an executive at Dell, Inc., learned about the deal during the course of her duties for Dell and was under explicit, written instructions not to trade.  Nevertheless, the SEC alleged that, on the last trading day before the deal was to be announced, Marleen made a highly unusual cash transfer to a brokerage account that she held jointly with her husband.  Within minutes, of the cash transfer, Jantzen started buying call options and common stock of the computer systems company in the joint account - purchasing 500 sharse of common stock and 24 call option contracts. As expected, the transaction was announced on 9/21/09, which resulted in a substantial increase in the price of Perot Systems, the target company.  Immediately thereafter, the Jantzens liquidated their entire position, realizing net trading profits of nearly $27,000. In its ruling, the Court specifically found that "Marleen tipped John and took unprecedented and persistent action to ensure that they were able to maximize their informational advantage."  The Court also found that the evidence showed “a high degree of scienter, particularly with regard to John, who as a licensed securities broker certainly knew what he was doing.” The Court found that both Jantzens insider traded in violation of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3(a) thereunder, and that Marleen Jantzen also violated Exchange Act Rule 14e-3(d). [SEC Litigation Release 22273, 3/1/12]