Filing: SEC v Schwab

Filing

SEC v Schwab

19 January 2016

A Charles Schwab Corp subsidiary and a former customer told the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Friday that an agency judge overreached when she found them liable for an alleged naked short-selling scheme and ordered them to pay $8.2 million in sanctions.

PDF (3 pages): SEC v Schwab

Article: Naked Shorts at the Supreme Court

Article - Media

Naked Shorts at the Supreme Court

Noah Feldman

Bloomberg, 1 December 2015

When you’re trading securities, you generally think about being regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal law. Should you be worried about state law, too? That question isn’t merely theoretical, as shown by the naked short selling case that was argued Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court. The answer has practical consequences for traders of all kinds.

Read full article.

Web: SEC Charges optionsXpress and Five Individuals Involved in Abusive Naked Short Selling Scheme

Web

SEC Charges optionsXpress and Five Individuals
Involved in Abusive Naked Short Selling Scheme

SEC, 16 April 2012

The SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that Chicago-based optionsXpress failed to satisfy its close-out obligations under Regulation SHO by repeatedly engaging in a series of sham “reset” transactions designed to give the illusion that the firm had purchased securities of like kind and quantity. The firm and customer Jonathan I. Feldman engaged in these sham reset transactions in a number of securities, resulting in continuous failures to deliver. Regulation SHO requires the delivery of equity securities to a registered clearing agency when delivery is due, generally three days after the trade date (T+3). If no delivery is made by that time, the firm must purchase or borrow the securities to close out the failure-to-deliver position by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the next day (T+4).

Access archived page.