SEC v. William C. Gennity and Rocco Roveccio (churning, 2018)

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-william-c-gennity-churning-2018) by email

In 2018 the SEC's litigation release described its complaint against two former Alexander Capital brokers, William C. Gennity and Rocco Roveccio, over alleged churning. Both later consented to final judgments without admitting or denying the allegations, Gennity on 1 March 2019 and Roveccio on 3 May 2019, and each also consented to an administrative bar from the securities industry and penny stock trading.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$320k

Disgorgement

$275k

Prejudgment interest

$32.3k

Total relief

$627k

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 April 11, 2018 as release LR-24108. The respondents named are William C. Gennity and Rocco Roveccio (2 individuals, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as churning, 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 conduct is recorded against equities.

The SEC's later litigation releases show how the case ended for both named defendants. On 1 March 2019 the Southern District of New York entered a consent judgment against Gennity (LR-24416): a permanent injunction, $127,686 in disgorgement, $14,797 in prejudgment interest and a $160,000 civil penalty. On 3 May 2019 the court entered a similar consent judgment against Roveccio (LR-24464): $147,115 in disgorgement, $17,499 in interest and a $160,000 penalty. Neither man admitted or denied the allegations. The figures recorded here are the sums for the two men, and the SEC says each also consented to a separate Commission order barring him from the securities industry and from penny stock trading. The releases do not describe any criminal case. The SEC's April 2018 release that opened this record also described a separate settlement with Laurence Torres, whose amounts are not included in these totals.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2018-04-11 Litigation release published
2. 2019-03-01 Final consent judgment entered against Gennity (injunction, $127,686 disgorgement, $14,797 interest, $160,000 penalty)
3. 2019-05-03 Final consent judgment entered against Roveccio (injunction, $147,115 disgorgement, $17,499 interest, $160,000 penalty)

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-24416 (Gennity final judgment)
• SEC litigation release LR-24464 (Roveccio 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 3 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.