SEC v. Murchinson Ltd. and Marc Bistricer and Paul Zogala (naked short selling debate, 2021)
Settled
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 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Murchinson Ltd. and Marc Bistricer and Paul Zogala, alleging conduct this library classifies as naked short selling debate. The release records disgorgement of $7 million, prejudgment interest of $1.1 million.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 34-92684 |
| Date filed | 2021-08-17 |
| Date resolved | 2021-08-17 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Murchinson Ltd. ; Marc Bistricer and Paul Zogala |
| Techniques | The naked short selling debate |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $7m
- Prejudgment interest
- $1.1m
- Total relief
- $8.1m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on August 17, 2021 as release 34-92684. The respondents named are Murchinson Ltd. and Marc Bistricer and Paul Zogala (1 individual, 1 entity).
This library tags the matter as naked short selling debate, 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, with Nasdaq identified in the release.
The relief recorded in our data is disgorgement of $7 million, prejudgment interest of $1.1 million. 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.
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.
- The naked short selling debate — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2025) | SEC | 2025-01-13 | Naked Short Selling Debate , Spoofing | — | settled |
| SEC v. Maxim Group, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) | SEC | 2023-09-29 | Naked Short Selling Debate | — | settled |
| SEC v. Citadel Securities, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) | SEC | 2023-09-22 | Naked Short Selling Debate | — | settled |
| SEC v. Simplex Trading, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) | SEC | 2023-09-11 | Naked Short Selling Debate | — | settled |
| SEC v. Hal D. Mintz and Sabby Management LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) | SEC | 2023-06-14 | Naked Short Selling Debate | — | filed |
| SEC v. IMC Chicago, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2022) | SEC | 2022-08-12 | Naked Short Selling Debate | — | settled |