SEC v. David P. Godwin (financial statement fraud, 2021)
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 November 2021, the SEC announced a final judgment against David P. Godwin, a former executive of ContinuityX Solutions, over fabricated revenue; the release concerns reporting fraud, not trading.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-25254 |
| Date filed | 2021-11-04 |
| Date resolved | 2021-11-04 |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: sentenced (David P. Godwin) |
| Bars imposed | officer-and-director bar |
| Defendants | David P. Godwin |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Exchange Act s.13(a) ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on November 4, 2021 as release LR-25254. The respondents named are David P. Godwin (1 individual, 0 entities).
The release concerns Godwin, whom the SEC charged in 2015 with fabricating almost all the revenue reported by ContinuityX. It describes no wash trades. The "fictitious sales" are invented customer revenue in the company's filings.
This library applies no technique tag to the matter. The conduct is financial statement fraud, not wash trading.
The release records the outcome of the SEC's civil action against Godwin; the underlying fraud findings are not about trading.
Timeline
- 2021-11-04 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.