SEC v. Jordan Peixoto (insider trading, 2014)

Dismissed

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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.

Report an error in this record (sec-peixoto-insider-trading-2014) by email

In September 2014 the SEC instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against Jordan Peixoto, alleging he traded on material non-public information passed along through two friends. On January 29, 2015 the Commission dismissed the proceeding on the Enforcement Division's motion, because two key witnesses had returned to Poland and could not be compelled to testify.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

$47.1k

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 September 30, 2014 as release 34-73263. The respondent named is Jordan Peixoto (1 individual, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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 and options, with NYSE identified in the release.

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.

Outcome. The Commission's Order Dismissing Proceeding of January 29, 2015 says the Division of Enforcement moved to dismiss because Filip Szymik and Adamski, who were central to the alleged chain of information, had both returned to Poland, did not plan to return, and would or might invoke the Fifth Amendment, so the Division could not compel their testimony. The order notes that Peixoto concurred with the request, and grants it. No findings were made and no sanction was imposed, so the original allegations were neither proven nor rejected on the merits.

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.

• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2014-09-30 Administrative proceeding instituted (cease-and-desist)
2. 2015-01-29 Commission dismisses the proceeding on the Division's motion

Primary documents

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

• SEC order
• SEC order dismissing proceeding (34-74176)

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.

Related actions

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.