| 
			 The order by U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe in New York covers 
			both the committee and Brian Sutter, staff director for its 
			healthcare subcommittee, and came at the SEC's request. 
 The SEC said it is examining whether material nonpublic information 
			concerning an April 1, 2013 announcement by the Centers for Medicare 
			and Medicaid Services of 2014 reimbursement rates for a Medicare 
			program was leaked improperly, and whether anyone traded on that 
			information.
 
 The case could prompt a courtroom showdown between the SEC's 
			authority to enforce U.S. securities laws against Congress' power to 
			manage its own affairs.
 
 "This cannot be good for inter-governmental relations between the 
			SEC and Congress," said Bradley Bondi, a partner at Cadwalader, 
			Wickersham & Taft and former counsel to two SEC commissioners.
 
 The House committee has resisted the subpoenas, in part by arguing 
			that the U.S. Constitution shields lawmakers from having to testify 
			or turn over documents.
 
 
			
			 
			"The SEC subpoenas run seriously afoul of the Constitution’s Speech 
			or Debate Clause, and we expect to respond in due course on that 
			ground, among others," Kerry Kircher, general counsel for the House 
			of Representatives, said in an email.
 
 Sutter's lawyer declined comment.
 
 The court filings followed earlier reports of an insider trading 
			investigation into whether congressional staff helped tip traders 
			about the CMS announcement.
 
 "Immunity will be the focal point of the legal controversy," said 
			Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
 
 HEALTH STOCKS
 
 The initial SEC subpoena to the House committee was previously 
			disclosed by the committee's chairman, Rep. David Camp (R-Michigan), 
			according to the May 9 Congressional Record.
 
 That same day, Sutter disclosed receiving subpoenas from the SEC and 
			a grand jury in Manhattan.
 
 In court papers on Friday, the SEC said it was looking into an email 
			a lobbyist at the law firm Greenberg Traurig sent to broker-dealer 
			Height Securities regarding a deal struck in Congress about the 
			Medicare rates.
 
 It said that email was 70 minutes before CMS announced the rates 
			after U.S. markets closed, and about 30 minutes before Height issued 
			a report suggesting that the change could help companies such as 
			Humana Inc and Health Net Inc.
 
 The SEC said the share prices of both companies jumped after the 
			report, with Humana's rising 7 percent in the last 15 minutes of 
			trading.
 
 Sutter, meanwhile, had on the day of the announcement been emailing 
			the Greenberg Traurig lobbyist about the termination of a client 
			from the Medicare program, the SEC said. Both then spoke on the 
			phone for three minutes, which was 10 minutes before the lobbyist 
			emailed Height, the SEC said.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
			Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman Jill Perry said: "We are cooperating 
			with the inquiry and will continue to do so." A Height spokesman did 
			not respond to a request for comment.
 STOCK ACT
 
 The SEC's investigation marks what is likely the first ever to 
			invoke provisions of a 2012 law called the STOCK ACT, which seeks to 
			prevent people from using "political intelligence" to illegally 
			trade on material, non public information.
 
 The SEC in its motion called the House's decision to resist turning 
			over documents "particularly odd" and "unwarranted" in light of the 
			STOCK Act's passage.
 
 Andrew Ceresney, the head of the SEC's enforcement division, was 
			among a group of lawyers who penned a legal memo analyzing the 
			impact when he previously worked at Debevoise & Plimpton in 2012.
 
 In that memo, Ceresney and the other attorneys conceded that despite 
			the passage of the law, there is still some ambiguity over what 
			constitutes "material nonpublic information" in this context.
 
 Harvey Pitt, a former SEC chair, said he believed even before the 
			STOCK Act, the agency could have subpoenaed documents from Congress 
			that might relate to securities law violations.
 
 "After the STOCK ACT, I don't doubt the SEC is well within its right 
			to obtain information of possible insider trading violations," he 
			said, calling the lack of production "startling."
 
			  
			
			 
			The case is SEC v. Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of 
			Representatives et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New 
			York, No. 14-mc-00193.
 
 (Reporting by Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel in New York, and 
			Sarah N. Lynch and Emily Stephenson in Washington, D.C.; Editing by 
			Chris Reese, Bernard Orr)
 
			[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |