SEC v. Tracy Morgan Spaeth (2015)
Settled
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.
In 2015 the SEC settled an administrative proceeding against Tracy Morgan Spaeth, a former investment adviser representative, imposing remedial sanctions after his 2014 Texas conviction for securities violations.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-16508 |
| Date filed | 2015-04-23 |
| Date resolved | 2015-04-23 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | bonds, equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | registration bar |
| Defendants | Tracy Morgan Spaeth |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
On April 23, 2015 the SEC accepted a settlement with Tracy Morgan Spaeth under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(6) and Advisers Act Section 203(f). The order relies on his December 2014 no-contest plea to a Texas charge of selling securities without registration, his admission that he failed to disclose material facts in selling more than $100,000 of securities, and earlier state and FINRA discipline.
The conviction is under the Texas securities code, and the SEC order itself finds no violation of Section 5, so the record carries no technique tag.
This library does not assign a technique tag to the matter, because no technique page in the current taxonomy describes the conduct the document records.
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.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.