SEC v. Canterbury Consulting, Inc. (2017)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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-canterbury-consulting-inc-2017) by email

In 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Canterbury Consulting, Inc., over cherry-picking trade allocations among client accounts. The release records a civil penalty of $100,000, disgorgement of $66,071, prejudgment interest of $6,915.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$100k

Disgorgement

$66.1k

Prejudgment interest

$6.9k

Total relief

$173k

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 October 26, 2017 as release 3-18269. The respondents named are Canterbury Consulting, Inc. (0 individuals, 1 entity).

This order charges cherry-picking of trade allocations. Its two uses of "churning" describe an unrelated manager's prior customer-complaint history at a different firm, not conduct charged against Canterbury. This taxonomy has no cherry-picking or trade-allocation slug, so this library does not tag the matter with any technique.

The conduct is recorded against equities, with NYSE identified in the release.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $100,000, disgorgement of $66,071, prejudgment interest of $6,915. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

Timeline

1. 2017-10-26 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)

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 order

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.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.