SEC v. Steven J. Sheinfeld (insider trading, 2020)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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-steven-j-sheinfeld-insider-trading-2020) by email

In September 2020 the SEC charged former Rite Aid employee Steven Sheinfeld with insider trading ahead of news about the Walgreens merger. On 17 June 2022 the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a final consent judgment enjoining him and ordering a US$305,129 civil penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$305k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$305k

Alleged gain

—

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 matter on September 17, 2020 as release LR-24903. The respondents named are Steven J. Sheinfeld (1 individual, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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.

Outcome. SEC release LR-25428 says that on 17 June 2022 the court entered a final consent judgment. It permanently enjoins Sheinfeld from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and orders a civil penalty of US$305,129. The release repeats the complaint's allegations that he sold his own options and stock held in the accounts of his sister-in-law and daughter after learning the merger would miss its deadline; these were resolved by consent without a trial finding.

The release does not mention disgorgement or any criminal proceeding.

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.

• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2020-09-17 Litigation release published
2. 2022-06-17 Final consent judgment entered (SEC LR-25428, published 21 June 2022)

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
• SEC litigation release LR-25428 (final judgment)

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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.