SEC v. Eric McPhail, et al. (insider trading, 2015)

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-mcphail-et-al-insider-trading-2015) by email

This record, a September 2015 SEC release on the sentencing of Eric McPhail in the American Superconductor golfers' insider trading ring, relates to a civil case that ended for McPhail in a consent judgment filed on 16 February 2018 in the District of Massachusetts. It enjoins future violations without money. Douglas Parigian settled on 7 November 2016 for $295,235 in disgorgement, $50,754 in interest and a $147,618 penalty; McPhail was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$148k

Disgorgement

$295k

Prejudgment interest

$50.8k

Total relief

$494k

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 21, 2015 as release LR-23357. The respondents named are Eric J. McPhail and Douglas Parigian (2 individuals, 0 entities).

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.

A parallel criminal proceeding is referenced, with a custodial sentence of 18 months recorded. Criminal and civil outcomes are tracked separately throughout this site.

The September 2015 release reports that McPhail was sentenced on 18 September 2015 to 18 months in prison and two years of supervised release after a jury convicted him in June 2015. In the civil case, a consent judgment filed on 16 February 2018 enjoins McPhail from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and states no monetary relief, according to the pages I read of the scanned judgment. The SEC reported in November 2016 that Parigian consented to a judgment ordering disgorgement of $295,235, interest of $50,754 and a penalty of $147,618 and that four other defendants had settled earlier. Another defendant, Jamie Meadows, was still listed as a party in September 2015 and was not checked. The stored amounts are Parigian's, the only ones stated in the sources opened.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary documents linked above. This page summarises the structured record and does not reproduce them.

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. 2015-09-21 Litigation release published
2. 2016-11-07 Consent judgment entered against Parigian (D. Mass.)
3. 2018-02-16 Consent final judgment filed as to McPhail (D. Mass.)

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 23686 (judgment against Parigian)
• Final judgment as to Eric J. McPhail (16 Feb 2018)

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 3 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.