SEC v. First Xeris Corp. (undisclosed control blocks, 2015)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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-first-xeris-corp-undisclosed-control-blocks-2015) by email

In August 2015 the SEC accepted First Xeris Corp.'s settlement of a stop-order proceeding, suspending its registration statement after finding it falsely said its sole officer controlled it when an undisclosed control person did.

The record

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 issued this order on August 6, 2015 (Securities Act release 9882), accepting an offer of settlement in a proceeding begun on May 11, 2015 under Section 8(d), without admission or denial by the company.

The order finds that the company's registration statement described a landscaping business run by a sole officer and director who would control the company, whereas the company was controlled or promoted by an undisclosed person, the officer did little beyond opening a bank account and signing documents at that person's direction, and the real plan was to combine with another business.

This library tags the matter as undisclosed control blocks because the order finds the company was run by persons its filings never named. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The sanction was suspension of the effectiveness of the registration statement. No money was ordered.

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.

• Undisclosed control blocks — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-08-06 Administrative proceeding instituted (findings)

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

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.