SEC v. Steven V. McClatchey and Gary J. Pusey (insider trading, 2016)

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-v-mcclatchey-insider-trading-2016) by email

In May 2016 the SEC charged investment banker Steven McClatchey and plumber Gary Pusey with insider trading ahead of ten deals. Both pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case, and on July 21, 2017 a New York federal court entered consent final judgments that deemed disgorgement satisfied by criminal forfeiture and ordered no civil penalties.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 June 1, 2016 as release LR-23552. The respondents named are Steven V. McClatchey and Gary J. Pusey (2 individuals, 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.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

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.

SEC litigation release 23898 reports that on July 21, 2017 the Southern District of New York entered final judgments on consent against McClatchey and Pusey, who did not admit or deny the allegations. The judgments enjoin them from further insider-trading violations; disgorgement was deemed satisfied by the $76,000 forfeiture ordered in the criminal case and no civil penalty was ordered, in Pusey's case also in light of his cooperation. In the criminal case McClatchey was sentenced in January 2017 to five months in prison and Pusey in May 2017 to time served. McClatchey also agreed to a separate SEC order imposing associational and penny-stock offering bars. The release states no disgorgement amount and no civil penalty, so the money fields are empty. Checked on 2026-10-04.

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. 2016-06-01 Litigation release published
2. 2017-07-21 Consent final judgments entered against McClatchey and Pusey (SEC LR-23898)

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 23898 (consent judgments)

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.