Scott Ginsburg was CEO of Evergreen Media, which owned radio stations. He met with the CEO of EZ Communication to discuss "strategic alternatives." Two days later, Ginsburg called his brother, Mark. The next day Mark bought 3,800 shares of EZ stock. Ginsburg also talked to his father, Jordan, who immediately bought 20,000 shares of EZ. The next day, Evergreen and EZ began discussing a merger under a confidentiality agreement. Scott called Mark and Jordan. The calls were followed by more purchases of EZ stock. When EZ's stock rose 30 percent, Mark made a profit of $413,000 and Jordan made $664,000.

1. The appeals court affirmed the conviction for insider trading. The Ginsburgs denied that the phone conversations were about a likely merger between Evergreen and EZ, and there is no recording of the conversations, so how could Ginsburg be found liable for insider trading for passing on private information?
2. Why was this a civil case and not a criminal case?