SEC v. StratoComm Corporation, et al. (unregistered distributions, 2016)
On appeal
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 2016 the SEC announced that the Second Circuit upheld judgment against StratoComm Corporation and CEO Roger D. Shearer for fraud and Section 5 violations, with penalties of $100,000 and $50,000.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-23572 |
| Date filed | 2016-06-17 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York |
| Status | appealed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | officer-and-director bar, penny stock bar |
| Defendants | StratoComm Corporation ; Roger D. Shearer |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) ; Securities Act s.5 |
| Techniques | Unregistered distributions |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $150k
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $150k
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
On June 17, 2016 the SEC announced the appeal outcome in a Northern District of New York case against StratoComm Corporation and its CEO Roger D. Shearer. The complaint charged StratoComm with Securities Act Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b) violations, and Shearer with Section 5 violations, aiding fraud and control-person liability; summary judgment on liability followed in 2014 and an amended judgment in March 2015. The judgment ordered the two together to pay $4,968,709.68 in disgorgement and interest combined and civil penalties of $100,000 and $50,000, plus bars for Shearer. Only the penalties, $150,000 in all, are recorded, because the disgorgement figure is combined with interest.
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
- 2016-06-17 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. 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 |