SEC v. Delaney and Yancey (naked short selling debate, 2014)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-delaney-naked-short-selling-debate-2014) by email

In May 2014 the SEC instituted proceedings against Thomas R. Delaney II and Charles W. Yancey, alleging that, as executives at the clearing firm Penson, they caused its failures to close out delivery failures under Regulation SHO. An initial decision became final on April 29, 2015: Delaney received a cease-and-desist order and a $20,000 penalty, and the case against Yancey was dismissed.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$20k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$20k

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 May 19, 2014 as release 3-15873. The respondents named are Thomas R. Delaney II and Charles W. Yancey (2 individuals, 0 entities).

The order alleges Penson did not close out failures to deliver in the Continuous Net Settlement system within the required time. These are allegations; the later initial decision found Delaney liable and dismissed the case against Yancey.

This library tags the matter as naked short selling debate, 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.

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.

Outcome. The Commission's notice of April 29, 2015 says no petition for review was filed, so the administrative law judge's initial decision became final as to both respondents. As described in the notice, it orders Delaney to cease and desist from causing violations of Regulation SHO Rule 204(a) and to pay a $20,000 civil money penalty, and dismisses the proceeding against Yancey. A separate 2016 notice records that Delaney's later application for legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act was denied. The structured penalty field covers Delaney only. We read the Commission's notices, not the initial decision, so we do not know the findings in detail.

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.

• The naked short selling debate — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2014-05-19 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)
2. 2015-04-29 Notice that the initial decision has become final: Delaney penalised, Yancey dismissed
3. 2016-04-27 Notice that the decision denying Delaney's fee application has become final

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 order
• SEC notice that initial decision has become final (34-74843)
• SEC notice on EAJA decision (34-77732)

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.