SEC v. Eric M. Hill (insider trading, 2020)

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-eric-m-hill-insider-trading-2020) by email

In September 2020 the SEC charged Eric M. Hill with insider trading. He consented to a judgment of 30 September 2021 enjoining him and leaving a penalty for later, and on 8 August 2022 the Western District of North Carolina entered a final judgment after the SEC chose not to seek a civil penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 September 25, 2020 as release LR-24919. The respondents named are Eric M. Hill (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina.

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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.

The conduct is recorded against commodities and options.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

Outcome. The first judgment, filed on 30 September 2021, records Hill's consent to a permanent injunction against violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and provides that the court would set a civil penalty on a later SEC motion. On 8 August 2022 the court granted the SEC's unopposed motion for a final judgment without any civil penalty, carrying over the earlier injunction. The documents opened state no disgorgement or other money.

The injunction was entered by consent, so the complaint's allegations were not tested at trial. The original release mentions a parallel criminal case, whose outcome is not shown in these documents.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2020-09-25 Litigation release published
2. 2021-09-30 Consent judgment: permanent injunction, civil penalty reserved
3. 2022-08-08 Final judgment entered without a civil penalty

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
• Judgment as to Eric M. Hill (30 September 2021)
• Final judgment (8 August 2022)

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.