Court records show that Samberg and Zilkha recently filed separate motions asking the judge in the divorce case to seal—that is, keep from being disclosed publicly—any testimony they will give about the payments.

In one motion, David Zilkha's lawyer asserted that "any release of this confidential information would potentially cause irreparable financial harm to the defendant [Zilkha]."

In a separate motion, Samberg's lawyers asserted that sealing information about payments to Zilkha is "necessary to protect Pequot's private financial information and business affairs."

A hearing on the motions is set for December 22.

The payments are curious because Zilkha isn't known to have filed any court claim against Samberg or Pequot. People familiar with the case said it's possible that Zilkha believes he was unfairly fired from Pequot in 2001 and the payments were in response to a request for compensation. But so far it isn't clear why any such payments would be deferred until six years after he had left the firm.

Jonathan Gasthalter, a spokesman for Samberg, said he wouldn't have any comment on the payments. Norman Pattis, a Connecticut lawyer representing Zilkha in the divorce case, said "I don't know anything about it" and hung up when Portfolio called him for comment. He didn't respond to subsequent email and phone messages.

Telephone numbers listed for Zilkha reached recordings saying the numbers aren't in service, and efforts to locate Zilkha for comment weren't successful. In 2006, Henry Putzell III, a lawyer who had represented Zilkha in the S.E.C. investigation, was quoted as saying that "David Zilkha never obtained and did not communicate any material, nonpublic information, nor did he attempt to do so."

An S.E.C. spokesman said the agency had no comment on whether it was aware of the payments to Zilkha.