SEC v. Abraxas J. Discala, Marc E. Wexler, Matthew A. Bell, Craig L. Josephberg, and Ira Shapiro (reverse merger schemes, 2015)

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.

Report an error in this record (sec-abraxas-j-discala-marc-e-wexler-matthew-a-bell-craig-l-josephberg-reverse-me) by email

In 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Abraxas J. Discala, Marc E. Wexler, Matthew A. Bell, Craig L. Josephberg, and Ira Shapiro, alleging conduct this library classifies as reverse merger schemes and unregistered distributions. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	SEC
Release number	LR-23400
Date filed	2015-11-04
Date resolved	2015-11-04
Court	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Status	judgment
Asset class	equities
Criminal parallel	Yes: charged (Morris and Ofsink, two further defendants added in the amended complaint (not Discala, Wexler, Bell, Josephberg or Shapiro)), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2015-11-04
Defendants	Abraxas J. Discala (individual) ; Marc E. Wexler (individual) ; Matthew A. Bell (individual) ; Craig L. Josephberg (individual) ; Ira Shapiro (individual) ; Michael Morris (individual) ; Ronald Heineman (individual) ; Darren Ofsink (individual)
Cited as charged or alleged	Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.9(a)(1) ; Exchange Act s.9(a)(2) ; Securities Act s.17(a) ; Securities Act s.5 (statutes and rules cited in the document; not a finding that they were violated)
Techniques	Reverse merger schemes , Unregistered distributions

What was ordered

Civil penalty: —
Disgorgement: —
Prejudgment interest: —
Total relief: —
Alleged gain: —

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 November 4, 2015 as release LR-23400. The respondents named are Abraxas J. Discala, Marc E. Wexler, Matthew A. Bell, Craig L. Josephberg, and Ira Shapiro (2 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.

This library tags the matter as reverse merger schemes and unregistered distributions, 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.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

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.

Reverse merger schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Unregistered distributions — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

2015-11-04 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.

SEC litigation release

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.

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

Action	Agency	Filed	Technique	Penalty	Status
SEC v. Charles Parkinson Lloyd (reverse merger schemes, 2021)	SEC	2021-09-15	Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions	$40k	settled
SEC v. S. Paul Kelley, et al. (reverse merger schemes, 2019)	SEC	2019-12-20	Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions	—	settled
SEC v. James M. Schneider and Andrew H. Wilson (blank check shells, 2017)	SEC	2017-10-11	Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions	—	settled
SEC v. Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., Inc. and Matthew J. Troster (reverse merger schemes, 2017)	SEC	2017-02-07	Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions	$100k	settled
SEC v. International Capital Group, LLC (reverse merger schemes, 2015)	SEC	2015-01-29	Reverse Merger Schemes , Unregistered Distributions	$1.5m	settled
SEC v. Zachary Miller (unregistered distributions, 2026)	SEC	2026-03-05	Unregistered Distributions	—	settled

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.