1. On August 29, 2025, the SEC announced a settled administrative proceeding against Vanguard Advisers, Inc., one of the largest investment advisers in the world. This matter arises from Vanguard’s failure to adequately disclose conflicts of interest in connection with its recommendation to prospective clients and existing clients (collectively referred to as “clients”) to enroll in Vanguard’s managed account program known as Personal Advisor Services (“PAS”), a fee-based advisory service that provides clients with ongoing portfolio management of their accounts. Vanguard’s performance review system considered, among other things, certain metrics that incentivized its financial advisors that serviced PAS (“PAS Advisors”) to enroll and retain clients in PAS. Vanguard failed to adequately disclose the conflict of interest that this incentive compensation system presented because certain disclosures contained contradictory statements about PAS Advisors’ receipt of incentive compensation. While Vanguard’s Form ADV Part 2 Brochure for PAS (“PAS Brochure”) disclosed that some PAS Advisors were eligible for a discretionary bonus and that the performance review process created a financial incentive for PAS Advisors to recommend PAS over other advisory programs and brokerage services offered by Vanguard and its affiliates, both the firm’s Form CRS and Supplement to the PAS Brochure contained contradictory disclosures that PAS Advisors received no additional compensation. Additionally, Vanguard made misleading statements in marketing materials regarding PAS Advisors’ conflicts of interest, including that PAS Advisors received no outside compensation or financial incentives. Vanguard also failed to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act relating to the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Vanguard agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of $19,500,000. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/ia-6912.pdf
2. On August 29, 2025, the SEC settled an administrative proceeding against Empower Advisory Group, LLC, a registered investment adviser, and Empower Financial Services, Inc., a registered broker-dealer (together, the “Respondents”). The case involved concerns over inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest and misleading statements made in connection with advising participants in Empower Retirement, LLC’s (“Empower”) Government Markets segment about whether to enroll in Empower Advisory’s Managed Account service. This fee-based advisory service provides retirement plan participants with ongoing discretionary portfolio management of their in-plan retirement accounts. Participants enrolled in the service pay Empower Advisory a quarterly asset-based fee negotiated by their retirement plan sponsor. The Respondents employed Retirement Plan Advisors, all of whom were both registered representatives of Empower Financial Services and investment adviser representatives of Empower Advisory. These Retirement Plan Advisors were responsible for providing retirement and financial education and advice to participants in Empower’s Government Markets segment (“Plan Participants”). Respondents used a compensation system that incentivized certain Government Markets Retirement Plan Advisors with bonuses and merit raises to encourage enrollment in the Managed Account service. Empower Financial Services did not provide full and fair written disclosure of the capacity in which Retirement Plan Advisors were acting when recommending enrollment in the Managed Account service. Rather than specifying whether they were acting as registered representatives or as investment adviser representatives, Retirement Plan Advisors merely disclosed that they were dually licensed, leaving it to Plan Participants to clarify the capacity. Respondents also failed to adequately disclose the conflicts of interest created by the incentive compensation system. This omission rendered misleading certain Retirement Plan Advisor statements to Plan Participants about their role in discussing or recommending the service. For example, some Retirement Plan Advisors told Plan Participants that they were salaried and/or noncommissioned, or that they were acting in a fiduciary capacity and in the Plan Participant’s best interest. These statements, made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, assured Plan Participants that they were receiving disinterested advice—while omitting disclosure of the financial incentives tied to enrollment. In addition, Empower Financial Services did not establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and address conflicts of interest related to recommendations for the Managed Account service. Empower Advisory violated Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act, and Empower Financial Services failed to comply with the disclosure and conflict of interest obligations of Regulation Best Interest (“Reg BI”), thereby violating Reg BI’s General Obligation (Exchange Act Rule 15l-1(a)(1)). As part of the settlement, Empower Advisory agreed to pay disgorgement of $4,063,569.80, prejudgment interest of $426,400.14, and a civil monetary penalty of $750,000. Empower Financial Services also agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of $750,000. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103809.pdf
3. On August 29, 2025, the SEC settled an administrative proceeding against David Ortiz. Ortiz was associated with David Ortiz Advisors, Inc., a now-defunct California company previously registered as an investment adviser with the State of California.. Ortiz sold the securities of 1 Global Capital LLC (“1 Global”), without being registered as a broker-dealer or associated with a registered broker-dealer. Ortiz was barred. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103813.pdf
4. On August 27, 2025, the SEC approved an order modifying a plan of distribution in connection with a settled administrative proceeding against Pinnacle Investments, LLC, a registered investment adviser and broker-dealer, for making false and misleading statements in Commission filings regarding reviews of advisory client accounts; failed to adequately disclose its conflicts of interests in connection with the outside business activities and related compensation arrangements of an Investment Adviser Representative with an affiliated fund; failed to adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act concerning reviews of client accounts and conflicts of interest; and failed to deliver required information concerning advisory personnel to its clients. Pinnacle Investments was ordered to pay disgorgement of $83,462, prejudgment interest of $11,874, and a civil money penalty of $393,381, for a total of $488,717. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103791.pdf and https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors/matter-pinnacle-investments-llc-admin-proc-file-no-3-21405
5. On August 27, 2025, the SEC approved an order modifying a plan of distribution in connection with a settled administrative proceeding against Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“Morgan Stanley”) and Pawan Kumar Passi (“Passi), (collectively, the “Respondents”). This matter stems from two January 12, 2024 settled orders In the orders, the SEC found that Passi and another employee on Morgan Stanley’s Equity Syndicate Desk in the Americas (the “Syndicate Desk”) perpetrated a fraud involving large blocks of stock that the investment banking firm purchased from investors (the “Selling Shareholders”). The SEC found that the two employees, in violation of duties of confidentiality and Morgan Stanley’s policies, disclosed to certain buy-side investors non-public, potentially market-moving information, concerning impending “block trades” that the firm had been invited to bid on or was in the process of negotiating with selling shareholders. The SEC further found that Morgan Stanley failed to enforce information barriers to prevent material non-public information involving certain block trades from being discussed by the Syndicate Desk. According to the Morgan Stanley Order, by this conduct, Morgan Stanley generated more than $138 million in profits across 28 transactions. Morgan Stanley agreed to disgorge $138,297,046, plus prejudgment interest of $28,057,775, for a total of $166,354,821. The SEC further ordered Morgan Stanley to pay a civil penalty of $83,000,000. In the Passi order, the SEC ordered Passi to pay a civil penalty of $250,000. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103790.pdf
6. On August 26, 2025, the SEC obtained a final judgment against James Burleson, who was the managing partner of the formerly SEC-registered investment advisory firm Burleson & Company, LLC, whom the SEC previously charged with engaging in a “cherry-picking” scheme. The SEC filed a complaint that Burleson used his firm’s omnibus trading account to disproportionately allocate profitable option trades to his personal account and disproportionately allocate unprofitable options trades to his clients’ accounts. Burleson was ordered to pay disgorgement of $1,837,700, prejudgment interest in the amount of $216,590, and a civil penalty in the amount of $230,464. Burleson was barred. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26385
7. On August 21, 2025, the SEC charged Kenneth Thom of New Jersey with defrauding investors in connection with an offering fraud through which he allegedly raised over $600,000 from more than fifty investors. Thom portrayed himself as a trading “luminary,” and a “former Wall Street market maker” who had enjoyed an “illustrious career.” Thom’s actual experience in the securities industry was limited, and FINRA suspended his license in 2011, with that suspension remaining in effect. Thom solicited investors via a Facebook group that he ran, inviting them to send him funds that he represented would be pooled in one or more shared accounts (the “Shared Account”) and traded on their behalf. Based on Thom’s representations, investors understood that any profits would be shared, with Thom taking 50% of the profit and the investors sharing the other 50% on a pro rata basis. Thom raised over $600,000 from more than fifty investors, and misappropriated approximately $235,000 of it, including by spending investor funds on luxury goods and a vacation rental. In addition to making material misrepresentations about the use of investor funds while soliciting such funds, Thom lied about his trading performance in the so-called Shared Account. The matter is being litigated. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26381.pdf
8. On August 21, 2025, the SEC announced that Judge Margaret “Meg” Ryan was named Director of the Division of Enforcement, effective Sept. 2, 2025. Acting Director of Enforcement Sam Waldon will return to his previous role as Chief Counsel for the Division. Judge Ryan is a senior judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She was nominated to the court in 2006 by President George W. Bush, was confirmed by the United States Senate, and served the entirety of her term through July 2020. She reached senior status in August 2020. Judge Ryan currently is a lecturer on military law and justice at Harvard University Law School. She was a visiting professor at Notre Dame Law School and lecturer at The George Washington University Law School. Before her tenure as judge, she was a partner at two law firms, Wiley Rein & Fielding and Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott. She previously served as a law clerk to Supreme Court of the United States Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Following law school, Judge Ryan was a judge advocate in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and earlier in her career was an active-duty USMC communications officer including deployments to the Philippines and Desert Shield/Desert Storm. She served as aide-de-camp to Marine Corps Commandant General Charles C. Krulak from 1997 to 1999. Judge Ryan received a B.A. cum laude in political science from Knox College and a J.D. summa cum laude from the University of Notre Dame Law School, where she graduated first in her class and was an editorial board member of the Notre Dame Law Review. She is an elected member of the American Law Institute. Mr. Waldon has served as Acting Director of the Division of Enforcement since January 2025. Before that, he held the roles of Acting Deputy Director and Chief Counsel. He joined the SEC from the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP, where he was a partner. He previously served at the SEC as Enforcement’s Assistant Chief Counsel (2010-2018) and as an investigative attorney (1996-1998).
9. On August 21, 2025, the SEC charged Stock Purse Trading LLC and Liston Associates, Inc. (together, “SPT”) and their founder, sole owner, and CEO Carole Liston, with conducting a fraudulent securities offering that raised at least $5.7 million from 200 investors nationwide. The SEC’s complaint, from August 2020 through July 2024, SPT promised to pay investors exorbitant monthly returns based on Liston’s purported stock trading strategy and expertise. Liston touted her purported investment experience and success in in trading for her own accounts, her expertise in investing in options, and proprietary trading algorithm for short selling stocks. Liston told investors that SPT would pool investor funds to achieve better returns and represented to investors the safety and security of her investment trading strategy. Liston promised SPT investors returns ranging from 5% to 20% monthly, or in some cases, a 100% return within 30 to 60 days. In reality, Liston only used a small portion of investor funds to purchase and trade securities and, when she did, her trading produced significant losses. Liston misappropriated at least $450,000 of investor funds for her personal benefit and used at least $3.9 million in investor funds to make Ponzi-like distributions to SPT investors. The matter is being litigated. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26379.pdf
10. On August 18, 2025, the SEC issued a litigation release obtaining a final judgment against a relief defendant Wendy Swensen in a case involving a fraudulent scheme by her now-deceased husband, Stephen Swensen, who was an investment adviser. The SEC’s complaint, alleged that Mr. Swensen promised investors they would earn at least 5% in annual returns from various investments. According to the complaint, however, Mr. Swensen misappropriated investor funds to make Ponzi-like payments to other investors and to pay for his, and his family’s, personal expenses. The SEC did not allege wrongdoing by Ms. Swensen. Ms. Swensen consented to the entry of a final judgment ordering her to pay a total of $3,839,009, consisting of $3,626,138 in disgorged investor funds, $41,279 in prejudgment interest, and $171,592 in interest Ms. Swensen earned on investor funds during the pendency of the case. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-25560
11. On August 18, 2025, the SEC charged Robert Alan Yedid, formerly registered with several SEC-registered broker-dealers, Andrew Kaufman, a formerly registered investment adviser representative/registered representative, and Mark Jacobs, who was associated with 13 different Commission registrants, with insider trading that resulted in more than $500,000 in combined illegal profits. The SEC’s complaint that Kaufman and Jacobs traded in the securities of as many as six public companies based on material nonpublic information provided by Yedid from at least 2019 through 2024. During that time, Yedid was a managing director at a consulting firm that assists pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with investor communications. Yedid obtained material nonpublic information about the firm’s clients—including drug test results, financial and regulatory information, and pending mergers and acquisitions—that he repeatedly shared with Kaufman and Jacobs, who then engaged in lucrative insider trading. Kaufman shared his illicit proceeds with Yedid by handing him envelopes of cash. These matters are being litigated. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26376.pdf
12. On August 15, 2025, the SEC instituted administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against TZP Management Associates, LLC, a registered investment adviser, regarding management fee calculation practices for its private fund clients in connection with compensation TZP received from portfolio companies. TZP engaged in two fee offset calculation practices related to its receipt of transaction fees that created conflicts of interest that were not adequately disclosed to the Funds or their limited partners and were inconsistent with the relevant limited partnership agreements. TZP was ordered to pay disgorgement of $502,041, prejudgment interest of $6,836, and a civil monetary penalty of $175,000, totaling $683,877. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/ia-6908.pdf
13. On August 13, 2025, the SEC announced a new statistics and data visualization page that includes statistics and graphics on key elements of the capital markets, such as initial public offerings, exempt offerings, corporate bond offerings, reporting issuers, municipal advisors, transfer agents, and household participation in the capital markets. The webpage provides statistics presented in time series charts to show market trends, pie charts to show distribution across different categories, as well as heat maps to show geographic distributions. The visuals are interactive, allowing the public to explore the information in which they are interested.
The new webpage includes:
- Data Visualizations: interactive graphics based on statistics
- Statistics Table: fundamental statistics regularly updated with the most recently available data
- Statistics Guide: description, calculation method, and data source for each metric
- Statistics Download: all available statistics in the table and data visualizations
- Related Materials: research and reports, regulatory background, investor bulletins, or additional resources
The new webpage can be found at https://www.sec.gov/data-research/statistics-data-visualizations
14. On August 13, 2025, the SEC announced settled administrative proceedings against Joseph D’Ambrosio for orchestrating a multi-year investment fraud through Hereford Holdings, L.L.C., an entity that he established to invest funds on behalf of family and friends, but which he used instead to misappropriate investor money for his personal use. The SEC alleged that D’Ambrosio raised millions of dollars for Hereford from approximately 19 investors and was taking money from Hereford to support his personal lifestyle. He allegedly concealed his fraud by providing Hereford investors false statements about the performance and value of their investments. D’Ambrosio had drained Hereford of virtually all its money. Consequently, the SEC alleges, D’Ambrosio could not meet investor redemption requests, and on or about December 23, 2024, he self-reported his violative conduct to the SEC staff and other law enforcement personnel. D’Ambrosio was barred. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/ia-6907.pdf
15. On August 12, 2025, the SEC obtained a final judgment by consent against Garrett Moretz, a registered representative and investment adviser representative. The complaint alleged that Moretz deceived multiple retail investors by making repeated misrepresentations to them regarding high-risk debt securities of the L Bonds. The complaint further alleged that Moretz repeatedly misrepresented L Bonds to investors as “guaranteed” when Moretz knew that the L Bonds he offered and sold to investors were not guaranteed. Moretz consented to entry of the final judgment. The final judgment orders Moretz to pay $4,374.91 in disgorgement, $1,404.68 in prejudgment interest, and a $35,000 civil penalty. The final judgment also enjoins Moretz from acting as, or associating with, a broker, dealer, or investment adviser for one year. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26372
16. On August 11, 2025, the SEC announced a settled administrative proceeding against Emerson Equity, LLC, a registered broker-dealer and investment adviser, in connection with failures to comply with Regulation Best Interest in connection with recommendations of GWG Holdings, Inc. (“GWG”) corporate bonds called “L Bonds” to retail customers. Emerson Equity, LLC’s registered representatives willfully violated Regulation Best Interest’s Care Obligation, Exchange Act Rule 15l-1(a)(2)(ii), when they recommended L Bonds to 10 retail customers without exercising reasonable diligence, care, and skill to have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendations were in the best interest of each particular customer based on that retail customer’s investment profile and the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with the recommendation (the “customer-specific” prong of the Care Obligation). Emerson Equity agreed to pay $4,035 in disgorgement, $1,006 in prejudgment interest, and a civil money penalty of $100,000. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103674.pdf
17. On August 11, 2025, the SEC charged Bruce Cameron Conway, a resident of Texas, for insider trading in advance of the August 24, 2020 announcement that Cancer Genetics, Inc. would merge with a privately held biotechnology company. Conway purchased Cancer Genetics shares in fifteen accounts belonging to him, various family members, and family-owned trusts, including purchasing shares in a personal account the same day he invested in the biotechnology company. On August 24, 2020, the merger was publicly announced, and the price of Cancer Genetics stock rose by 215 percent from the previous day’s closing price, resulting in trading profits to Conway of approximately $160,000. The matter is being litigated.
18. On August 8, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement filed an extension order requesting an extension of time until August 7, 2026, to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution in the settled administrative proceeding against North East Asset Management Group, Inc. and Gregory Zandlo, On June 3, 2025, the SEC instituted administrative proceedings against North East and Zandlo who was engaged in cherry-picking when they disproportionally allocated certain profitable trades to accounts for North East, Zandlo, and individuals related to Zandlo, and allocated unprofitable trades to other North East advisory clients. North East Asset Management was ordered to pay disgorgement of $10,609 and prejudgment interest of $2,260. Zandlo was ordered to pay disgorgement of $ 80,599, prejudgment interest of $ 17,172 and a civil money penalty of 141,000. The Division states that additional time is needed to complete the fund administrator solicitation and appointment process, appoint a tax administrator, develop the distribution methodology, and prepare the proposed plan of distribution. The SEC granted the request for an extension.
19. On August 8, 2025, the SEC dismissed a proceeding against David Anthony, President of Epic Capital Wealth Advisors, LLC. The SEC did not state the reason for dismissal. At the same time, the SEC granted Epic Capital Wealth Advisors, LLC application to register with the SEC. By way of background, on November 8, 2024, the SEC initiated proceedings against Anthony following a Colorado state court injunction that found he had violated state securities laws. The Colorado civil action alleged that Anthony operated without proper licensing, commingled investor funds across various offerings, and failed to provide required disclosures to investors. Based on these findings, a state court imposed a 10-year injunction prohibiting him from serving in various securities industry roles. In parallel, the SEC also opened a separate proceeding to determine whether Epic Capital Wealth Advisors’ pending registration application should be denied. In the federal proceeding, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement moved for summary disposition, contending that Anthony’s misconduct was directly related to advisory activities and that a federal associational bar during the pendency of the state injunction would protect the public interest. Specifically, the Division argued that Anthony was associated with an investment advisory firm at the time of the misconduct and that the seriousness of the state court findings justified a bar from the securities industry consistent with Section 203(f). https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2025/ia-6835.pdf, https://www.sec.gov/files/alj/aljdec/2025/id1417.pdf and https://www.sec.gov/files/alj/aljdec/2025/id1417.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
20. On August 6, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets today issued answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that broker-dealers have posed to the staff regarding rule amendments to the customer protection rule related to the clearing of U.S. Treasury securities. The SEC staff’s FAQs on the Treasury Clearing Rule (Rule 15c3-3a) explain how broker-dealers should apply financial responsibility requirements when clearing U.S. Treasury securities. The guidance clarifies reporting obligations, margin treatment, and when firms can include debits in their customer and PAB reserve computations. A key theme on the FAQs is how to handle customer funds and securities in the reserve formula. The FAQs also address financing and scope. Broker-dealers may extend margin loans to customers and record both Item 10 and Item 15 debits if Rule 15c3-3a and Note H conditions are met. All of these interpretations apply equally to proprietary accounts of broker-dealers (PAB accounts), not just customer accounts. Taken together, the FAQs aim to help firms align reserve computations with the amended rule while maintaining investor protection through accurate reporting, timely margin collection, and clear separation of credit and debit items. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/staff-guidance/trading-markets-frequently-asked-questions/frequently-asked-questions-treasury-clearing-rule-15c3-3a
21. On August 4, 2025, the SEC announced a settled administrative proceeding against Sourcerock Group, LLC, a registered investment adviser, in connection with a violation of Rule 105 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act. Sourcerock purchased equity securities for the accounts of six of its private fund clients in a covered offering after Sourcerock had sold short the same securities on behalf of the Sourcerock Funds during Rule 105’s restricted period. Sourcerock agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $250,000. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103629.pdf
22. On August 1, 2025, the SEC announced a settled administrative proceeding against Paul Anthony LaRocco, founder, manager, and CEO of United RL Capital Services LLC for which LaRocco raised money from investors through offerings. LaRocco acted as an investment adviser for those same investors and potential investors. LaRocco participated in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors through the sales of securities in issuers that purported to conduct legitimate business, but whose operations were limited or non-existent. LaRocco told investors that their funds would be invested in the issuers, but instead, among other things, LaRocco, along with others involved in the scheme, enriched himself by misappropriating investor funds. LaRocco was barred. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/ia-6902.pdf
23. On August 1, 2025, the SEC instituted administrative proceedings against Munakata Associates LLC, an investment adviser, who failed to comply with the independent verification requirement for client funds and securities over which it had custody. Munakata’s President, who is the firm’s sole principal and also serves as the firm’s chief compliance officer, served as a co-trustee of two trusts that were Munakata’s advisory clients. The trust agreements granted each co-trustee “broad investment and other powers under the trust agreement and applicable law to enter into transactions and to trade, buy, sell, sell short or otherwise acquire, receive, deliver, assign, endorse for transfer, hold or dispose of all manner of securities, futures, currencies and commodities . . . .” as well as “broad powers under the trust agreements and applicable law to engage in borrowing and other loan and credit transactions . . . .” The agreements further stated that each co-trustee may act independently. Thereby, Munakata Associates had access to and/or the ability to obtain possession of trust funds and securities without the consent of the respective co-trustees. Additionally, Munakata’s President also had signatory authority on four clients’ accounts he opened whereby he had the same ability to instruct the broker as to delivery of the accounts’ funds and securities as did the beneficial owner of the account. Lastly, Munakata’s President acted as an authorized agent with power of attorney on five clients’ accounts he opened whereby he had “the power to place orders in an account, request disbursements and make inquiries concerning the account such as obtaining account balances” as well as the power “to make gifts or other transfers of . . . money or other property from [the client’s] account during [the client’s] lifetime, without restriction, to any one or more persons, including the agent himself or herself.” (emphasis in original). Thereby, Munakata Associates had access to and/or the ability to obtain possession of client funds and securities. Munakata was ordered to pay a civil money penalty of $50,000. https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/ia-6901.pdf