SEC v. Curt Kramer and Hope Capital, Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2016)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-curt-kramer-and-hope-capital-inc-unregistered-distributions-2016) by email

In 2016 the SEC settled an administrative order against Curt Kramer and Hope Capital, Inc. for reselling Spongetech shares without registration, with $525,603 disgorgement, $54,144 interest and $100,000 in penalties.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$100k

Disgorgement

$526k

Prejudgment interest

$54.1k

Total relief

$680k

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

On October 27, 2016 the SEC accepted settlements with Curt Kramer and Hope Capital, Inc. The order finds they obtained Spongetech Delivery Systems shares from two Spongetech affiliates at a discount and sold them to the public with no registration statement and no exemption, violating Securities Act Section 5, for profits of $525,603. They are ordered jointly to pay $525,603 in disgorgement and $54,144 in interest, with civil penalties totalling $100,000. The record previously showed the respondents as one name and omitted the penalties.

This library tags the matter as unregistered distributions, based on the conduct the document describes. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

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.

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.

• Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2016-10-27 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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.