SEC v. Steven V. McClatchey and Gary J. Pusey (insider trading, 2017)

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-steven-v-mcclatchey-insider-trading-2017) by email

In August 2017 the SEC announced final judgments on consent against investment banker Steven McClatchey and his friend Gary Pusey over trades in ten deal targets. Disgorgement was deemed satisfied by criminal forfeiture of $76,000 and no civil penalty was ordered. McClatchey was sentenced to five months and received penny stock and associational bars.

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 SEC's 2016 complaint alleged that McClatchey tipped confidential information about client deals to Pusey, a plumber, who traded ahead of ten mergers and acquisitions for about $76,000 in profits and rewarded him with cash and a bathroom renovation. Both pleaded guilty in a parallel criminal case. Pusey received time served and a $5,000 fine; McClatchey received five months in prison and a $10,000 fine, with $76,000 forfeited jointly.

The July 21, 2017 consent judgments enjoin both men, deem disgorgement satisfied by the forfeiture, and order no civil penalty. McClatchey also agreed to associational and penny stock bars.

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. 2017-08-08 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.

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.