SEC v. Michael J. Starkweather and Andiamo Corporation, William White (matched orders, 2019)

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-michael-j-starkweather-matched-orders-2019) by email

The Eastern District of New York entered a final consent judgment against former Andiamo CEO Michael Starkweather on January 14, 2021 and a default judgment against Andiamo on November 30, 2021 with a $150,000 penalty. The outcome for William White, charged in a separate complaint, was not checked.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$150k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$150k

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 October 17, 2019 as release LR-24646. The respondents named are Michael J. Starkweather, Andiamo Corporation and William White (2 individuals, 1 entity).

The release covers two complaints. The first, filed in August 2019, alleges White, while CEO of Andiamo, repeatedly arranged for a stock promoter to obtain heavily discounted shares in return for kickbacks on manipulative matched trades. The second, filed in September 2019, alleges Starkweather caused a false press release about a purported Andiamo smartphone and accepted payment for promotional releases. Only the White complaint involves matched trades.

This library tags the matter as matched orders and fake press releases, 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.

Outcome. Litigation release 25039 (March 1, 2021) reports that on January 14, 2021 the court entered a final consent judgment against Starkweather, enjoining him from antifraud violations and imposing officer-and-director and penny stock bars; no money amount is stated. He pleaded guilty on February 24, 2020 to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and on July 20, 2020 received three years of probation and 90 days in a community residential facility, with forfeiture of $15,900. Litigation release 25281 (December 3, 2021) reports a default judgment against Andiamo Corporation on November 30, 2021, enjoining it and imposing a $150,000 penalty. The complaint against William White, which alleged matched trades, is described in a separate filing and its outcome was not checked here.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 techniques 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.

• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Fake press releases — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2019-10-17 Litigation release published
2. 2021-01-14 Final consent judgment entered against Starkweather
3. 2021-11-30 Default judgment entered against Andiamo Corporation

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
• SEC litigation release 25039 (Starkweather judgment)
• SEC litigation release 25281 (Andiamo default judgment)

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.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.