SEC v. Charles Parkinson Lloyd (reverse merger schemes, 2021)
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 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission settled an action with Charles Parkinson Lloyd, alleging conduct this library classifies as reverse merger schemes and unregistered distributions. The release records disgorgement of $3,150.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 33-10980 |
| Date filed | 2021-09-15 |
| Date resolved | 2021-09-15 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | OTC |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Charles Parkinson Lloyd |
| Techniques | Reverse merger schemes , Unregistered distributions |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $3.2k
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $3.2k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on September 15, 2021 as release 33-10980. The respondents named are Charles Parkinson Lloyd (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as reverse merger schemes and unregistered distributions, 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 disgorgement of $3,150. 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 2 techniques 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.
- Reverse merger schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Darren L. Ofsink (reverse merger schemes, 2023) | SEC | 2023-04-04 | Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions | — | judgment |
| SEC v. S. Paul Kelley, et al. (reverse merger schemes, 2019) | SEC | 2019-12-20 | Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., Inc. and Matthew J. Troster (reverse merger schemes, 2017) | SEC | 2017-02-07 | Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions | $100k | judgment |
| SEC v. Diane D. Dalmy, Esq. (reverse merger schemes, 2015) | SEC | 2015-12-22 | Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions | — | filed |
| SEC v. Abraxas J. Discala, Marc E. Wexler, Matthew A. Bell, Craig L. Josephberg, and Ira Shapiro (reverse merger schemes, 2015) | SEC | 2015-11-04 | Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions | — | judgment |
| SEC v. International Capital Group, LLC (reverse merger schemes, 2015) | SEC | 2015-01-29 | Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions | $1.5m | settled |