SEC v. Melville Peter ten Cate (sham tender offers, 2023)

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 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Melville Peter ten Cate, alleging conduct this library classifies as sham tender offers. The release records a civil penalty of $500,000. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$500k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$500k

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 January 3, 2023 as release LR-25604. The respondents named are Melville Peter ten Cate (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 sham tender offers, 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 relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $500,000. 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: conduct-based injunction.

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.

• Sham tender offers — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2023-01-03 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.

• SEC litigation release

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 20, 2026. submit a correction.