SEC v. Vlad B. Spivak, et al. (insider trading, 2017)

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-vlad-b-spivak-et-al-insider-trading-2017) by email

In April 2017 a federal court entered a consent final judgment against Vlad B. Spivak, who the SEC alleged traded American Dental Partners stock on a tip from his then-partner, a bank analyst. He was ordered to pay disgorgement of $222,357 and a penalty of $333,535, with interest.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$334k

Disgorgement

$222k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$556k

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 SEC's 2015 complaint in Massachusetts alleged that in 2011 Vlad B. Spivak bought American Dental Partners stock on non-public information about the company's pending sale to a private equity firm. The information came from his then-romantic partner, Shirmila O. Doddi, a financial analyst at a commercial bank, who did not trade herself. Both were charged under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

On April 3, 2017 the court entered a final judgment, to which Spivak consented, enjoining him and ordering disgorgement of $222,357 (his profits), prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $333,535, 150 percent of his profits. Doddi had earlier settled with an injunction, and the SEC sought no money from her because of her cooperation.

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. 2017-04-03 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.

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.