SEC v. Markusen and others (marking the close, 2016)

Judgment entered

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Markusen, Steven R. Cope and Jay C., alleging conduct this library classifies as marking the close. The release records prejudgment interest of $80,000. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

$80k

Total relief

$80k

Alleged gain

$147k

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 November 9, 2016 as release 3-17265. The respondents named are Markusen, Steven R. Cope and Jay C. (3 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the SEC administrative law judge.

This library tags the matter as marking the close, 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 bonds.

The relief recorded in our data is prejudgment interest of $80,000. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

Non-monetary relief recorded: registration bar.

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.

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.

• Marking the close — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2016-11-09 Initial decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• Initial decision (ID-1079)
• Order instituting proceedings
• Finality order

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.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.