SEC v. Michael J. Ling (marking the close, 2015)
Judgment entered
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 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Michael J. Ling, alleging conduct this library classifies as marking the close and matched orders. The release records a civil penalty of $100,000, disgorgement of $454,006.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23439 |
| Date filed | 2015-12-23 |
| Date resolved | 2015-12-23 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Nasdaq |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Michael J. Ling |
| Techniques | Marking the close , Matched orders |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $100k
- Disgorgement
- $454k
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $554k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on December 23, 2015 as release LR-23439. The respondents named are Michael J. Ling (1 individual, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.
This library tags the matter as marking the close and matched orders, 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 Nasdaq identified in the release.
The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $100,000, disgorgement of $454,006. 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.
- Marking the close — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
- Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2015-12-23 Litigation release published
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. Ahmad Haris Tajyar and Eric Leo Marsoubian (marking the close, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-13 | Marking The Close , Matched Orders +1 | $220k | settled |
| SEC v. Canaccord Genuity LLC (marking the close, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-06 | Marking The Close , Marking The Open +2 | — | settled |
| SEC v. RSE Markets, Inc. (matched orders, 2023) | SEC | 2023-07-12 | Matched Orders | — | settled |
| SEC v. Legal & General Investment Management America, Inc. (matched orders, 2022) | SEC | 2022-11-21 | Matched Orders | — | settled |
| SEC v. William Scott Lawler, Esq. (matched orders, 2021) | SEC | 2021-08-18 | Matched Orders , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Ron Phillips (matched orders, 2021) | SEC | 2021-06-30 | Matched Orders | $30k | judgment |