SEC v. Harold Bailey "B.J." Gallison II et al. (paid stock promotion, 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.
The SEC's July 2015 case against stock promoter Harold 'B.J.' Gallison II and dozens of co-defendants over paid pump-and-dump campaigns produced a consent final judgment against Gallison on 20 January 2017 in the Southern District of New York. The judgment enjoins future violations; the text read states no dollar amount. This page covers Gallison only; the other defendants were not checked.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23303 |
| Date filed | 2015-07-14 |
| Date resolved | 2017-01-20 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: charged (Nine of the 34 defendants named in a criminal indictment (the release does not say it covers Gallison)) |
| Defendants | Harold Bailey "B.J." Gallison II, et al. |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.15(a) ; Securities Act s.17(a) ; Securities Act s.5 |
| Techniques | Paid stock promotion , Pump and dump |
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 July 14, 2015 as release LR-23303. The respondents named are the named respondents.
This library tags the matter as paid stock promotion and pump and dump, 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.
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.
Gallison consented to the final judgment, which was filed on 20 January 2017. It permanently enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Sections 17(a) and 5 of the Securities Act, Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act and the broker-registration rule in Section 15(a). The judgment text I read contains no disgorgement, interest or penalty figure, so none is recorded. The complaint named about three dozen people and companies; the SEC's file also shows a judgment against Frank Zangara on the same date and one against Michael Randles dated 30 May 2017, but I did not read their terms or the status of the others, so the outcome here is Gallison's alone.
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 2 techniques 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.
- Paid stock promotion — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Pump and dump — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2015-07-14 Litigation release published
- 2017-01-20 Consent final judgment filed as to Gallison (S.D.N.Y.)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Global Wholehealth Partners Corp., Charles Strongo, Brian M. Volmer, Joshua Yafa, Jamie M. Yafa, and Empire Associates, Inc. (paid stock promotion, 2022) | SEC | 2022-02-17 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump | — | filed |
| SEC v. Anthony Thompson, Jr., et al. (paid stock promotion, 2020) | SEC | 2020-12-30 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Brian Robert Sodi, et al. (newsletter scalping, 2019) | SEC | 2019-09-19 | Newsletter Scalping , Paid Stock Promotion +1 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Anthony J. Thompson, Jr., et al. (paid stock promotion, 2019) | SEC | 2019-02-01 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump | — | settled |
| OSC v. David Tuan Seng Lim and Michael Mugford (pump and dump, 2018) | OSC | 2018-03-28 | Pump And Dump , Paid Stock Promotion | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Joe Yiu Cheung, a/k/a Dylon de lu Zhang (paid stock promotion, 2017) | SEC | 2017-08-02 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump +1 | $150k | settled |