SEC v. Joseph C. Lewis, et al. (insider trading, 2023)

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-joseph-c-lewis-et-al-insider-trading-2023) by email

In July 2023 the SEC charged Joseph C. Lewis, Carolyn W. Carter, Patrick J. O'Connor and Bryan L. Waugh with insider trading. Final consent judgments were entered between November 2024 and February 2026, with penalties of about $1.9 million in total.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$1.9m

Disgorgement

$546k

Prejudgment interest

$95.4k

Total relief

$2.6m

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 July 26, 2023 as release LR-25789. The respondents named are Joseph C. Lewis, et al. (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

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 equities.

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.

The SEC announced on February 24, 2026 that final consent judgments had been entered against all four defendants: Lewis on November 26, 2024, Carter on February 13, 2025, and O'Connor and Waugh on February 4, 2026. Carter and Waugh neither admitted nor denied the allegations. Each judgment permanently enjoins the defendant from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Lewis was ordered to pay a $1,636,645.11 penalty; Carter a $241,154.81 penalty, $241,154.81 in disgorgement and $43,589.44 in interest; O'Connor a $24,221.53 penalty, $171,886.12 in disgorgement and $29,257.46 in interest; Waugh a $33,126.86 penalty, $132,507.44 in disgorgement and $22,554.64 in interest.

The stored money fields are the sums across the four defendants. The release does not describe any criminal case, and the date recorded is the last of the four judgment dates.

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. 2023-07-26 Litigation release published
2. 2026-02-04 Final consent judgments entered as to all four defendants (last two on this date)

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 reporting the outcome

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.