SEC v. Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (mismarking, 2022)
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.
In 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, alleging conduct this library classifies as mismarking. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-25575 |
| Date filed | 2022-11-10 |
| Date resolved | 2022-11-10 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Status | settled |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund |
| Techniques | Mismarking |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on November 10, 2022 as release LR-25575. The respondents named are Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (0 individuals, 1 entity). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
This library tags the matter as mismarking, 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.
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.
- Mismarking — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2022-11-10 Litigation release published
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCA v. Travis Lloyd Klein (fictitious internal trades, 2024) | FCA | 2024-11-18 | Mismarking | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Infinity Q Capital Management, LLC (mismarking, 2023) | SEC | 2023-06-16 | Mismarking | — | settled |
| SEC v. Scott Lindell (mismarking, 2022) | SEC | 2022-09-30 | Mismarking | — | settled |
| CFTC v. Natixis (mismarking, 2022) | CFTC | 2022-09-06 | Mismarking | $2.8m | settled |
| SEC v. Semper Capital Management, L.P. (mismarking, 2020) | SEC | 2020-04-28 | Mismarking | $375k | settled |
| SEC v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Michael C. Hild, Eric Rohr, and Darren Stumberger (mismarking, 2019) | SEC | 2019-08-29 | Mismarking | — | settled |