SEC v. Zeringue, 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-zeringue-et-al-insider-trading-2015) by email

In March 2015 the SEC added Billy Joe Adcox, Jr. to its Western District of Louisiana case against Scott Zeringue and Jesse Roberts, III over alleged insider trading on a confidential tip. On June 18, 2015 the court entered a consent final judgment against Zeringue: an injunction, a ten-year officer-and-director bar, $32,006 disgorgement and a $64,012 civil penalty. The outcomes for Roberts and Adcox were not checked.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$64k

Disgorgement

$32k

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$96k

Alleged gain

$111k

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 March 6, 2015 as release LR-23215. The respondents named are Scott Zeringue, Jesse Roberts, III and Billy Joe Adcox, Jr. (3 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana.

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.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

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.

Outcome. The Western District of Louisiana docket shows a Final Judgment as to Defendant Scott David Zeringue (Document 17, June 18, 2015), entered on his consent without admitting or denying the allegations. It permanently enjoins him from violating Exchange Act section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, prohibits him for ten years from serving as an officer or director of a public issuer, and orders disgorgement of $32,006 and a civil penalty of $64,012, with the disgorgement offset by any payments in the parallel criminal case United States v. Zeringue (M.D. La.). This outcome covers Zeringue only. Jesse Roberts, III and Billy Joe Adcox, Jr. were not checked. This record and the earlier two-defendant record describe the same civil case.

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. 2015-03-06 Litigation release published
2. 2015-06-18 Consent final judgment against Scott Zeringue (W.D. La.)

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
• Final judgment as to Scott David Zeringue (W.D. La. 3:15-cv-405, Doc. 17)

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 2 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.