Defendant Name: Vince Macciocchi

Defendant Type: Individual

Initial Case Details

Legal Case Name In the Matter of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Vince Macciocchi, and Ray Young
First Document Date 27-Jan-2026
Initial Filing Format Administrative Action
File Number 3-22588
Allegation Type Issuer Reporting and Disclosure
AAER 4582

Affiliations

Violations Alleged

Exchange Act
Sec 10(b) + Rule 10b-5
Securities Act
Sec 17(a) (Not specified)

Related Violations Alleged

Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Sec 10(b) + Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Rule 12b-20 of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Sec 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Rule 13a-1 of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Rule 13a-11 of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Rule 13a-13 of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Sec 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Sec 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.
Vince Macciocchi is alleged to have caused Archer-Daniels-Midland Company's violation of Sec 17(a) (Not specified) of the Securities Act.

Resolutions

Bars:
First Resolution Date 27-Jan-2026
Headline Total Penalty and Disgorgement

See Related Documents

Related Documents:

33-11403 27-Jan-2026 Administrative Proceeding
Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing a Cease and Desist Order

Other Defendants in Action:

Related Actions:

SEC v. Vikram Luthar