Phil Mickelson
Here’s a full breakdown of the situation surrounding Phil Mickelson’s reaction to recent insider-trading allegations—including what he’s said, what he’s accused of, and what this could mean going forward.
1. The Allegations
A financial-investigative outlet Hunterbrook Media published a report (31 Oct 2025) alleging that Sable Offshore Corp (NYSE: SOC), a Houston-based oil company, shared material non-public information (“MNPI”) with a select group of investors, one of whom was Phil Mickelson.
According to the report, CEO Jim Flores of Sable told this small investor group that the company might need to raise $100-$200 million in equity by end of 2025—a detail not publicly disclosed.
The allegation: Mickelson allegedly shared this non-public information with other investors in a private group chat (“Sable Quantum Offshore Compute”), and then these chats preceded public filings by the company—raising concerns of selective disclosure or insider trading.
I’ve never heard of you and have no idea who you are. But given what I know to be true and what you report, you’re tabloid and I’ll wait for the right opportunity. 👍
— Phil Mickelson (@PhilMickelson) November 9, 2025
The company allegedly filed an 8-K shortly after one chat where Mickelson posted: “I spoke to Jim this morning. An announcement is coming today after market close. It could be an 8-K or press release.”
If proven true, such activity could violate SEC rules about selective disclosure (Reg FD) and insider-trading statutes because information given only to certain investors rather than the public at large may be considered “material non-public information.”
2. Mickelson’s Response
On 1 Nov 2025 via X (formerly Twitter), Mickelson posted:
> “So a company says I can’t say anything to you, but we will announce something at the close. I don’t know if it’s a dilution and the stock goes down or a deal for the stock to go up. I have to wait to see what the info is, I make no trades whatsoever and am ultra ultra careful given past history. I don’t even share that information is coming til after the close.”
He denied trading on the information, insisted he did not act on what was purportedly discussed, and called the allegations “slanderous” and the reporting potentially “stock manipulation.”
On 7 Nov 2025, he announced that he’d retained defamation counsel Clare Locke LLP (representing him) in anticipation of taking legal action.
On 9 Nov 2025 he publicly dismissed journalist Pablo Torre (who was seeking to interview him about the matter) with the comment:
> “I’ve never heard of you and have no idea who you are. But given what I know to be true and what you report, you’re tabloid, and I’ll wait for the right opportunity.”
3. Background Context
This isn’t Mickelson’s first time facing insider-trading allegations. In 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) named him a “relief defendant” in a case involving Billy Walters and Dean Foods Company. He returned approximately $1.04 million (profits + interest) but faced no criminal charges.
Hence, his statement referencing “past history” carries weight—there’s precedent and public scrutiny already.
Sable’s situation: The company acquired the “Santa Ynez Unit” offshore oil assets from Exxon Mobil Corporation and is under regulatory, financing, and execution pressure to bring production online by March 1 2026—or risk reversion to Exxon.
4. Why This Matters
Legal and regulatory risk: If Mickelson indeed gained and shared MNPI, there could be SEC investigations, potential civil enforcement actions, or even criminal exposure depending on how trades were effected (though no trades being public is part of his defense).
Reputational risk: A high-profile athlete like Mickelson, now also in the investment and public company sphere, carries significant brand and legacy stakes. A finding of wrongdoing would damage both his business interests and public image.
Market / corporate governance implications: The case shines a light on practices of selective disclosure, special-investor groups, and how public companies may share information with insiders. The Sable scenario raises questions about the robustness of Reg FD compliance.
5. What Happens Next
We’ll likely see follow-up on a few fronts:
The company Sable may publish or produce records showing how information was disclosed and whether it was made broadly public.
The SEC may open a formal inquiry—though investigations can be lengthy and opaque.
Mickelson’s legal team may file defamation claims if they believe reporting crossed the line.
Public filings and chat logs may surface further detail about timing of information, investor group structure, and any trading or distribution of tips.
For Mickelson: If he did not trade on the info, his defense is stronger—but proving/disproving communications and whether “sharing” of MNPI occurred will be central.
—
6. My Take
The story is evolving, and while nothing has been legally finalized (as of latest reports) against Mickelson, the allegations carry seriousness due to his prior history and the nature of the claims (private investor communications + public company info).
His terse reaction to the journalist (calling the coverage “tabloid”) suggests he’s keen to stay out of further media entanglement and is focusing on legal containment. However, refusing engagement with the media may also be interpreted by some as stone-walling, which could affect public and stakeholder perception.
If I were to summarise the headline you asked about: Mickelson effectively cut off a journalist’s attempt to interview him about these insider-trading claims—by dismissing the journalist, refusing to answer, and signalling he’ll address matters only when he chooses. This is a tactical move to control narrative, but it also means less transparency (for now) which may raise more questions.