SEC v. PTG Capital Partners, Ltd. (sham tender offers, 2020)
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 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against PTG Capital Partners, Ltd., alleging conduct this library classifies as edgar filing fraud and sham tender offers. The release records a civil penalty of $1.5 million.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-24766 |
| Date filed | 2020-03-11 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | PTG Capital Partners, Ltd. |
| Techniques | EDGAR filing fraud , Sham tender offers |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $1.5m
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $1.5m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on March 11, 2020 as release LR-24766. The respondents named are PTG Capital Partners, Ltd. (0 individuals, 1 entity). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.
This library tags the matter as edgar filing fraud and 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 $1.5 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 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
- 2020-03-11 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Lee Simmons (price manipulation, 2022) | SEC | 2022-08-19 | EDGAR Filing Fraud , Price Manipulation +1 | — | filed |
| SEC v. Mark E. Burns (price manipulation, 2019) | SEC | 2019-08-12 | EDGAR Filing Fraud , Price Manipulation +1 | $60k | judgment |
| SEC v. Mark E. Burns, Robert W. Murray (price manipulation, 2018) | SEC | 2018-07-17 | EDGAR Filing Fraud , Price Manipulation +1 | — | settled |
| SEC v. Nauman A. Aly (sham tender offers, 2018) | SEC | 2018-03-28 | EDGAR Filing Fraud , Sham Tender Offers | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Robert W. Murray (sham tender offers, 2018) | SEC | 2018-03-22 | EDGAR Filing Fraud , Sham Tender Offers | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Robert W. Murray (sham tender offers, 2017) | SEC | 2017-11-09 | EDGAR Filing Fraud , Sham Tender Offers | — | filed |