SEC v. Vlad B. Spivak, et al. (insider trading, 2015)

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-vlad-b-spivak-et-al-insider-trading-2015) by email

The SEC's November 2015 insider trading case against Vlad Spivak and Shirmila Doddi ended on 3 April 2017 with a consent final judgment against Spivak in the District of Massachusetts. It orders $222,357 in disgorgement, interest and a $333,535 penalty. Doddi had consented to an injunction in January 2016 and the SEC sought no money from her.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$334k

Disgorgement

$222k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$556k

Alleged gain

$222k

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 November 2, 2015 as release LR-23398. The respondents named are Vlad B. Spivak and Shirmila O. Doddi (2 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.

This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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.

On 20 January 2016 the court entered a consent judgment against Doddi that enjoined her from violating Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and left the amount of disgorgement, interest and penalties to be decided later; the SEC reported this in a release of 27 January 2016. On 3 April 2017 the court entered a final judgment against Spivak by consent, enjoining him and ordering disgorgement of $222,357, his trading profit, plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $333,535, 150 percent of that profit, over $590,000 in all. The SEC says the judgment concludes the litigation; because Spivak's judgment ordered full disgorgement, it did not seek money from Doddi, citing her cooperation. The SEC's allegation that Doddi tipped Spivak ahead of the American Dental Partners buyout was resolved by consent without admission, not by a trial. The prejudgment interest figure is not stated in the release.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary documents linked above. This page summarises the structured record and does not reproduce them.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2015-11-02 Litigation release published
2. 2016-01-20 Consent judgment entered against Doddi, money deferred (D. Mass.)
3. 2017-04-03 Final judgment entered against Spivak, concluding the case (D. Mass.)

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 23797 (final judgment against Spivak)
• SEC litigation release 23455 (consent judgment against Doddi)

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 3 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.