SEC v. Herbert K. Sudfeld, Jr., 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-herbert-k-sudfeld-jr-et-al-insider-trading-2015) by email

The SEC's July 2015 insider trading case against lawyer Herbert Sudfeld ended in a consent judgment entered on 18 August 2016 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ordering $91,747 in disgorgement and interest. The claim against his wife as a relief defendant was dismissed on 9 November 2016. He was convicted in a parallel criminal case and sentenced to six months in prison.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

$79k

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 July 16, 2015 as release LR-23305. The respondents named are Herbert K. Sudfeld, Jr. and Mary Jo Sudfeld (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.

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.

Nothing in the regulator's filing has been proven, and the respondents are entitled to the presumption that it has not been. This page will be updated if the matter is resolved, dismissed or withdrawn.

The court entered a judgment by consent against Sudfeld on 18 August 2016, enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and ordering $91,747 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest combined; the release does not split that figure, so no separate fields are filled. The SEC dismissed its claim against Mary Jo Sudfeld, named only as a relief defendant for profits in an account in her name, on 9 November 2016. In the parallel criminal case a jury convicted Sudfeld of insider trading and three counts of making false statements, and on 22 July 2016 the sentence was six months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and community service. The SEC had alleged about $79,000 in profit on trades ahead of the Harleysville Group merger announcement.

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. 2015-07-16 Litigation release published
2. 2016-08-18 Consent judgment entered against Sudfeld (E.D. Pa.)
3. 2016-11-09 SEC dismisses claim against relief defendant Mary Jo Sudfeld

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 23687 (judgment and dismissal)
• SEC litigation release 23602 (criminal sentence)

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.