Market Manipulation. Search

SEC v. Byron B. Barkley and Paul N. Davis (naked short selling debate, 2016)

Settled

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Byron B. Barkley and Paul N. Davis, alleging conduct this library classifies as naked short selling debate. The release records a civil penalty of $50,000, prejudgment interest of $8,978.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency SEC
Release number 34-79578
Date filed 2016-12-16
Date resolved 2016-12-16
Status settled
Asset class equities
Venue OTC
Criminal parallel No
Defendants Byron B. Barkley and Paul N. Davis (individual)
Techniques The naked short selling debate

What was ordered

Civil penalty
$50k
Disgorgement
Prejudgment interest
$9k
Total relief
$59k
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 December 16, 2016 as release 34-79578. The respondents named are Byron B. Barkley and Paul N. Davis (1 individual, 0 entities).

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.

The conduct is recorded against equities, with OTC identified in the release.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $50,000, prejudgment interest of $8,978. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

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.

Timeline

  1. 2016-12-16 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)

Primary documents

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

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.

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2025) SEC 2025-01-13 Naked Short Selling Debate , Spoofing settled
SEC v. Maxim Group, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) SEC 2023-09-29 Naked Short Selling Debate settled
SEC v. Citadel Securities, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) SEC 2023-09-22 Naked Short Selling Debate settled
SEC v. Simplex Trading, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) SEC 2023-09-11 Naked Short Selling Debate settled
SEC v. Hal D. Mintz and Sabby Management LLC (naked short selling debate, 2023) SEC 2023-06-14 Naked Short Selling Debate filed
SEC v. IMC Chicago, LLC (naked short selling debate, 2022) SEC 2022-08-12 Naked Short Selling Debate settled

Record added September 8, 2026. submit a correction.