.org
§ Named party · No finding entered
Brent Cranmer and Daniel McCormick
person
Full registry record
CLASS ACTION JX-SEC-LR-26514Opened AUG 21 2026Quick look

Brent Cranmer and Daniel McCormick

Where this class action stands
Stage 5 of 7 · Filed
organizing · next rung: Resolved
§ Right of reply

No reply on file from Brent Cranmer and Daniel McCormick on this matter.

Claims entered

No claim has been entered on this docket.

1 filed · 1 on the record. The chronology below carries every filing, docket event and outcome — open a row there for its source.

Open to posting — anyone may add to this file, subject to the review queue.

The chronology

Gov, Institution and Public name who produced a document; Event marks a thing that happened, not a document.

1 entry of another class is hidden by this filter — show every class.

By when it happened. Rows with no date on their face are shown as undated, not guessed. Hover, focus or tap a row for its full detail.

AUG 21 '26EventBrent Cranmer and Daniel McCormick
Docket event

Opened at stage filed

Entered on the record AUG 21 2026Occurred AUG 21 2026
On the record
Crime

No crime on the record yet.

Statutes

No statutes on the record yet.

Place
New York

"District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final consent judgments as to Brent Cranmer and Daniel McCormick in the SEC’s civil enforcement action that charged them with insider trading in the securities of Kaman Corporation."

Status
Charged

"Brent Cranmer et al. , No. 25-cv-6816 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 18, 2025) SEC Obtains Final Consent Judgments as to Two Southern California Residents Charged with Insider Trading On March 26, 2026, the U.S."

Parties

No parties on the record yet.

Amounts
$50,000 Penalty

"Cranmer was also ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $50,000 and is prohibited from acting as an officer or director of a public company for five years."

$115,598 Forfeiture

"McCormick was ordered liable for disgorgement in the amount of $115,598, which is deemed satisfied by the forfeiture order entered against him in the parallel criminal case United States v."