SEC v. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. and Sheila Huang (prearranged client cross trades, 2015)
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 December 2015, the SEC settled charges against Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. and former portfolio manager Sheila Huang over prearranged bond sales and buybacks that favoured some advisory clients over others; MSIM paid US$8 million and Huang US$125,000.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-17016 |
| Date filed | 2015-12-22 |
| Date resolved | 2015-12-22 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | bonds |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | registration bar |
| Defendants | Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. ; Sheila Huang |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $8.1m
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $8.1m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on December 22, 2015 as release 3-17016. The respondents named are Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. and Sheila Huang (1 individual, 1 entity).
The order finds that between late 2011 and early 2012 Huang sold bonds for client accounts to a dealer's trader and prearranged to buy them back at small markups for other MSIM accounts, favouring the purchasing clients, often an unregistered fund, over the sellers, and that fixed income quotes were fabricated to document best execution. MSIM did not have controls to catch it.
This library applies no technique tag to the matter. The conduct is an adviser's breach of fiduciary duty and cross-trading rules between client accounts, not trading designed to mislead the market.
MSIM: a civil money penalty of $8 million and a censure. Huang: a $125,000 penalty and a cease-and-desist order. MSIM also undertook to distribute $857,534 to harmed accounts.
The respondents consented to the order without admitting or denying the findings.
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.