SEC v. Lexington Resources, Inc. Atkins and others (unregistered distributions, 2009)

Dismissed

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 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an action, since dismissed, against Lexington Resources, Inc. Atkins, Grant Pierce and Gordon Brent, alleging conduct this library classifies as unregistered distributions. The release records disgorgement of $2.0 million. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$2m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$2m

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 June 5, 2009 as release 3-13109. The respondents named are Lexington Resources, Inc. Atkins, Grant Pierce and Gordon Brent (2 individuals, 1 entity). The action was brought in the SEC administrative law judge.

This library tags the matter as unregistered distributions, 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 commodities and equities, with OTC identified in the release.

The relief recorded in our data is disgorgement of $2.0 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.

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.

The action was dismissed. We keep dismissed matters in the library precisely so that the outcome is visible alongside the original allegation.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2009-06-05 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.

• Initial decision (ID-379)
• Finality 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.