SEC v. Delaney and Yancey (naked short selling debate, 2016)

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-delaney-naked-short-selling-debate-2016) by email

In March 2016 an SEC administrative law judge denied Thomas R. Delaney II an award of legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, in a Regulation SHO close-out matter in which he had been found liable for causing Penson's Rule 204 violations and the case against Charles W. Yancey was dismissed.

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 March 7, 2016 as release 3-15873. The respondents named are Thomas R. Delaney II and Charles W. Yancey (2 individuals, 0 entities).

The earlier March 2015 initial decision, final since April 2015, found Delaney liable for causing, but not aiding and abetting, violations of Rules 204T(a) and 204(a) of Regulation SHO by Penson Financial Services, and dismissed the charges against Yancey. The 2016 decision denies the fee application because the Division's aiding-and-abetting position was substantially justified.

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.

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. 2016-03-07 Initial decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• Initial decision (ID-976)
• Order instituting proceedings
• Finality order

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.