SEC v. Scription Work Solutions, Inc. (undisclosed control blocks, 2016)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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-scription-work-solutions-inc-undisclosed-control-blocks-2016) by email

In February 2016 an SEC administrative law judge suspended, by default, the registration statement of Scription Work Solutions (formerly Transtech Solutions), finding it hid undisclosed control persons and promoters and made false statements about its sole officer and business plan.

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

An SEC administrative law judge issued this initial decision on default on February 9, 2016, after the company did not answer an order instituting proceedings dated December 21, 2015. Its registration statement had never been declared effective.

The decision holds that the Form S-1 for a 20 million share offering falsely presented a sole officer and director managing the business, when undisclosed control persons and promoters, one of whom drafted the filing, dealt with the auditors, supplied false consulting invoices and held the corporate records, were involved. It also found a false statement of the company's progress, since the sole officer withdrew $25,000 for another business, and false claims about his background.

This library tags the matter as undisclosed control blocks. The sanction was a stop order suspending the registration statement. No money was ordered. The record's defendant field had been split across fragments of the company name.

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.

• Undisclosed control blocks — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2016-02-09 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-955)
• Order instituting proceedings
• 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.