SEC v. Jeffrey O. Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC., and Intiva Pharma, LLC (paid stock promotion, 2019)
Judgment entered
Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.
In 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a judgment against Jeffrey O. Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC., and Intiva Pharma, LLC, alleging conduct this library classifies as paid stock promotion. The release records a civil penalty of $2 million.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | LR-24684 |
| Date filed | 2019-12-09 |
| Date resolved | 2019-12-09 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Colorado |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Jeffrey O. Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC., ; Intiva Pharma, LLC |
| Techniques | Paid stock promotion |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- $2m
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- $2m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Securities and Exchange Commission announced this matter on December 9, 2019 as release LR-24684. The respondents named are Jeffrey O. Friedland, Global Corporate Strategies LLC., and Intiva Pharma, LLC (0 individuals, 2 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.
This library tags the matter as paid stock promotion, 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 relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $2 million. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.
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.
- Paid stock promotion — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2019-12-09 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Joshua A. Weiss (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-10 | Paid Stock Promotion | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Stephen J. Czarnik (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-06-29 | Paid Stock Promotion , Unregistered Distributions | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Vestech Partners LLC and others (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-04-08 | Paid Stock Promotion | — | settled |
| SEC v. Justin Sun, Tron Foundation Limited, BitTorrent Foundation Ltd., Rainberry, Inc., and DeAndre Cortez Way (paid stock promotion, 2026) | SEC | 2026-03-05 | Paid Stock Promotion , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. George John Drazenovic (paid stock promotion, 2025) | SEC | 2025-12-19 | Paid Stock Promotion , Pump And Dump | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Andrew Scott Corbman (paid stock promotion, 2025) | SEC | 2025-12-03 | Paid Stock Promotion | — | judgment |