Since he is an executive -- an insider if you will -- if his actions can be shown as an attempt to influence the stock price (whether it actually moved or not and whether he then took advantage by buying or selling or not) then he was in violation of the law.
But that alone doesnt make for a good case. They want to be able to show that he reaped financial benefits from his wrongdoing. You know the saying—the law is not concerned with trifles. Mere technical violations with no illicit benefits to the wrongdoer are a good example of trifles.