SEC v. Semper Capital Management, L.P. (mismarking, 2020)
Settled
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.
In 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Semper Capital Management, L.P., alleging conduct this library classifies as mismarking. The release records a civil penalty of $375,000, disgorgement of $103,228, prejudgment interest of $25,000.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-19773 |
| Date filed | 2020-04-28 |
| Date resolved | 2020-04-28 |
| Status | settled |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Semper Capital Management, L.P. |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.206 |
| Techniques | Mismarking |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $375k
- Disgorgement
- $103k
- Prejudgment interest
- $25k
- Total relief
- $503k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on April 28, 2020 as release 3-19773. The respondents named are Semper Capital Management, L.P. (0 individuals, 1 entity).
This library tags the matter as mismarking, 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 $375,000, disgorgement of $103,228, prejudgment interest of $25,000. 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.
- Mismarking — 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCA v. Travis Lloyd Klein (fictitious internal trades, 2024) | FCA | 2024-11-18 | Mismarking | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Infinity Q Capital Management, LLC (mismarking, 2023) | SEC | 2023-06-16 | Mismarking | — | settled |
| SEC v. Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (mismarking, 2022) | SEC | 2022-11-10 | Mismarking | — | settled |
| SEC v. Scott Lindell (mismarking, 2022) | SEC | 2022-09-30 | Mismarking | — | settled |
| CFTC v. Natixis (mismarking, 2022) | CFTC | 2022-09-06 | Mismarking | $2.8m | settled |
| SEC v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Michael C. Hild, Eric Rohr, and Darren Stumberger (mismarking, 2019) | SEC | 2019-08-29 | Mismarking | — | settled |