SEC v. Monness and others (2014)
Settled
Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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 August 2014 the SEC settled with research broker Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co. for failing to enforce its restricted list and employee trade reporting rules and to set procedures for its idea dinners and corporate access programmes. It paid a $150,000 civil penalty. The order does not find front running or insider trading.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-72886 |
| Date filed | 2014-08-20 |
| Date resolved | 2014-08-20 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | NYSE, Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Monness ; Crespi ; Hardt & Co., Inc. |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $150k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $150k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the order on August 20, 2014.
The order finds that from 2006 to early 2012 the firm did not enforce two written compliance procedures and had no policies covering the risk of non-public information passing through its idea dinner and corporate access services, violating Section 15(g) of the Exchange Act.
'Research front running' appears only in the description of the firm's own policy. The front running and insider trading tags have been removed.
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.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.