SEC v. BTIG, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2021)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (sec-btig-llc-naked-short-selling-debate-2021) by email

In May 2021 the SEC charged broker-dealer BTIG with mismarking more than 90 sale orders and failing to locate shares under Regulation SHO. On 2 May 2022 the Southern District of New York entered a consent judgment with an injunction, US$315,048 in disgorgement, US$64,258 in interest and a US$315,048 penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$315k

Disgorgement

$315k

Prejudgment interest

$64.3k

Total relief

$694k

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on May 20, 2021 as release LR-25092. The respondents named are BTIG, LLC (0 individuals, 1 entity).

This library tags the matter as naked short selling debate, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

Outcome. SEC release LR-25380 says the court entered judgment by consent on 2 May 2022, enjoining BTIG from violating Rules 200(g) and 203(b)(1) of Regulation SHO and ordering disgorgement of US$315,048, prejudgment interest of US$64,258 and a civil penalty of US$315,048, about US$694,000 in total. The release describes the order-marking and locate failures as the SEC's allegations, which BTIG resolved by consent.

The release does not report any admission, and does not say whether the underlying hedge fund customer faced separate action.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• The naked short selling debate — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2021-05-20 Litigation release published
2. 2022-05-02 Consent judgment entered (SEC LR-25380, published 3 May 2022)

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEC litigation release
• SEC litigation release LR-25380 (consent judgment)

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.