value of the stock, from which the partner could stand to benefit. According to the SEC, the practice of front-running may constitute insider trading. By early November, investigations led to the resignation of the chairmen of Strong Mutual Funds and Putnam Investments, both major mutual fund companies. In the case of Strong, the chairman Richard Strong was charged with market-timing trading involving his own company's funds. In December, Invesco (market-timing) and Prudential Securities (widespread late trading) were added to the list of implicated fund companies. Settlements and trials Nearly all of the fund firms charged by Spitzer with allowing market timing or late trading had settled with his office and the SEC between mid-2004 and mid-2005. One exception was J. W. Seligman, which chose in September 2005 to sue Spitzer in Federal court after their talks with Spitzer broke down. Seligman argued in its suit that Spitzer had overstepped his authority by attempting to oversee how Seligman's funds set their advisory fee and that the regulatory oversight of fees is left by Congress to the SEC. Separately, in August 2005 Spitzer lost the only trial arising from his investigations when a jury could not reach a verdict on all counts in a case brought against Theodore Sihpol, III, a broker with Bank of America who introduced Canary Capital to the bank. Though Spitzer threatened to retry Sihpol, he did not do so. In September 2005 Spitzer's office reached a plea bargain in a case brought against three executives charged with fraud for financing Canary and assisting its improper trading in mutual funds. That case against two Security Trust executives and one banker had appeared to be Spitzer's strongest, and the settlement seemed to reflect Spitzer's weakening hand in the wake of his defeat in the Sihpol case. The United States Second Circuit reversed the District Court In United States Security Commission v O`Malley on 19 May 2014 finding there was no consistent rule prohibiting Traders from engaging in market timing and therefore there was no requirement to disgorge profits made thereunder. This appeal related to a Rule 50 motion to dismiss on basis there was no credible evidence to leave to the jury as to breaching any duty of care and the Appeals Court Upheld same. List of implicated fund companies Alliance Capital Bear Stearns Bank One Canary Capital Partners Columbia Management Advisors Deutsche Bank Edward Jones Investments Federated Investors