SEC v. Nauman A. Aly (sham tender offers, 2018)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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.

Report an error in this record (sec-nauman-a-aly-sham-tender-offers-2018) by email

In March 2018 the SEC reported that a federal judge had granted it summary judgment against Pakistan-based trader Nauman A. Aly, who the SEC alleged made $425,000 by filing a false tender offer for Integrated Device Technology on EDGAR. The court found the filing materially false, the conduct a fraudulent scheme and Aly's scienter established; remedies were not stated in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

$425k

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 ruling on March 28, 2018 as litigation release LR-24086, in SEC v. Aly, No. 1:16-cv-03853 in the Southern District of New York, filed May 24, 2016. The defendant is Nauman A. Aly (1 individual, 0 entities).

According to the SEC's complaint, Aly made $425,000 manipulating the price of Integrated Device Technology securities by filing a false tender offer on EDGAR. On March 27, 2018 Judge Gardephe granted the SEC summary judgment on its fraud claims, holding that Aly made the statements by signing the EDGAR filings, that they were materially false, that the conduct was also a fraudulent scheme, and that undisputed facts showed scienter. The court rejected his explanation as unsupported and denied his cross-motion.

The record shows the matter as a judgment on liability; the release does not state the disgorgement, penalty or injunction to follow, so no monetary relief is recorded. An earlier version showed the status as unknown.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 techniques 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2018-03-28 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.