SEC v. Med-X, Inc. (Regulation A suspension, 2017)
Dismissed
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 May 2017 an SEC administrative law judge issued an initial decision vacating the Commission's September 2016 temporary suspension of Med-X, Inc.'s Regulation A offering exemption, finding that the company's late annual report and sales while delinquent were inadvertent. The proceeding concerns offering compliance, not price manipulation.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-17551 |
| Date filed | 2017-05-08 |
| Date resolved | 2017-05-08 |
| Court | SEC administrative law judge |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | registration bar |
| Defendants | Med-X, Inc. |
| 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 May 8, 2017 as release 3-17551. The respondent named is Med-X, Inc. (0 individuals, 1 entity). The action was brought in the SEC administrative law judge.
The decision concerns a Regulation A cannabis-company offering that the Commission suspended after a delinquent annual report, and it lifts that suspension. The pump-and-dump reference in the decision is a legal citation, not a finding about Med-X. This library carries no technique tag on this matter.
The conduct is recorded against equities.
Non-monetary relief recorded: registration bar.
The action was dismissed. We keep dismissed matters in the library precisely so that the outcome is visible alongside the original allegation.
Timeline
- 2017-05-08 Initial decision
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.