SEC v. Lexington Resources, Inc. Atkins and others (unregistered distributions, 2009)
Judgment entered
Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
In 2009 an SEC administrative law judge ordered Gordon Brent Pierce to cease and desist from Section 5 and reporting violations and to disgorge $2,043,362 over an unregistered distribution of Lexington Resources stock.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-13109 |
| Date filed | 2009-06-05 |
| Date resolved | 2009-06-05 |
| Court | SEC administrative law judge |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | commodities, equities |
| Venue | OTC |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Lexington Resources, Inc. ; Grant Atkins ; Gordon Brent Pierce |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.13(d) and 13(g) ; Exchange Act s.16(a) ; Securities Act s.5 |
| Techniques | Unregistered distributions |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $2m
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $2m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
On June 5, 2009 an SEC administrative law judge issued an initial decision as to Gordon Brent Pierce, concerning an alleged unregistered distribution of Lexington Resources stock. It finds he violated Securities Act Sections 5(a) and 5(c) and Exchange Act Sections 13(d) and 16(a), and orders a cease-and-desist and $2,043,362.33 in disgorgement. A parallel criminal matter exists. The record previously showed the status as dismissed, which is wrong, and merged the company and Grant Atkins.
This library tags the matter as unregistered distributions, based on the conduct the document describes. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.
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.
- Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2009-06-05 Initial decision
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. Zachary Miller (unregistered distributions, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-05 | Unregistered Distributions | — | settled |
| SEC v. David Hudzik (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-12-23 | Unregistered Distributions | $70k | judgment |
| SEC v. Ongkaruck Sripetch and others (pump and dump, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-20 | Pump And Dump , Unregistered Distributions | $204k | judgment |
| SEC v. Peter Scalise III and The3rdBevco Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-06-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $236k | settled |
| SEC v. Investview, Inc. (unregistered distributions, 2025) | SEC | 2025-01-17 | Unregistered Distributions | $375k | settled |
| SEC v. Tai Mo Shan Limited (unregistered distributions, 2024) | SEC | 2024-12-20 | Unregistered Distributions | $36.7m | settled |