SEC v. Jason Peltz (insider trading, 2020)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 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-jason-peltz-insider-trading-2020) by email

In December 2020 the SEC sued Jason Peltz over insider trading. On 3 August 2023 the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment, by consent, that enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

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 announced this matter on December 29, 2020 as release LR-24998. The respondents named are Jason Peltz (1 individual, 0 entities).

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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 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.

Outcome. The final judgment of 3 August 2023 records Peltz's consent. It permanently enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and incorporates the terms of his consent, which was not among the documents opened. The judgment itself states no disgorgement, interest or penalty.

What the source does not show: whether any money was resolved in the consent or in a separate order, and whether the parallel criminal case mentioned in the original release ended in a sentence. None is recorded.

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.

• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2020-12-29 Litigation release published
2. 2023-08-03 Final consent judgment entered

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
• Final judgment as to Jason Peltz (3 August 2023)

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.