SEC v. Spencer Pharmaceutical Inc., Jean-François Amyot and others (pump and dump, 2015)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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-spencer-pharmaceutical-inc-jean-francois-amyot-maximilien-arella-ian-morrice) by email

In October 2015 the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the District of Massachusetts had ordered default final judgments against Jean-François Amyot, Spencer Pharmaceutical Inc. and two Amyot-controlled companies, IAB Media and Hilbroy Advisory, over a 2010 to 2011 pump-and-dump built on false press releases and a fictitious $245 million buyout offer. The judgments total $7,084,764 in disgorgement, interest, penalties and sanctions, which the release does not itemise.

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 October 1, 2015 as release LR-23375. The respondents named are Spencer Pharmaceutical Inc., Jean-François Amyot, Maximilien Arella, Ian Morrice, IAB Media Inc. and Hilbroy Advisory Inc. (3 individuals, 3 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.

This library tags the matter as pump and dump, 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, with OTC identified in the release.

The release gives only a combined figure of $7,084,764 for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and sanctions across the judgments, so no itemised penalty or disgorgement is recorded here. 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2015-10-01 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.

• SEC litigation release

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.