Are there lawsuits or SEC actions against Neurocept and when were they filed (year)?

1. Why people conflate names — the pattern of similar company and product titles that misleads readers

The public record shows multiple distinct entities with overlapping name elements—“Neuro-” prefixes followed by short suffixes—creating a high risk of misattribution. The SEC instituted an administrative proceeding against Neuropathix, Inc. in 2023, alleging delinquent periodic filings and potential Exchange Act violations; that action is strictly about Neuropathix’s reporting failures and does not mention Neurocept ^[1]. Separately, an SEC decision in 2014 revoked registrations for Applied NeuroSolutions and others for similar filing failures, again not mentioning Neurocept ^[2]. The similarity in names can produce false linkages between unrelated firms, particularly in reporting or user recollection, and requires careful verification before asserting a connection ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the dataset actually documents: FTC and court actions tied to “Neurocet” and other names

The supplied materials document an FTC enforcement campaign that targeted marketers of a product called Neurocet with allegations of deceptive health claims; the FTC complaint and subsequent orders were litigated in the early 2020s, including refund and judgment remedies and consumer restitution measures ^{[3] [4]}. These are consumer protection actions under the FTC’s civil authority and involve product marketing practices, not SEC securities enforcement. The FTC matter shows how product names resembling corporate names can further muddy public understanding, because Neurocet (a supplement brand) is distinct from corporate registrants such as Neuropathix or Applied NeuroSolutions ^{[3] [4]}.

3. A 2023 SEC action and a 2014 SEC action — what they targeted and their years

The clear SEC-related items in the supplied analyses are dated: the Neuropathix administrative proceeding was initiated in 2023 for failure to file periodic reports and potential Exchange Act violations, and the administrative action revoking registration for Applied NeuroSolutions and others is dated 2014 ^{[1] [2]}. Both actions concern issuer reporting requirements rather than fraud allegations in the public summaries provided. Importantly, neither of those SEC items identifies Neurocept as a party; treating them as evidence of SEC enforcement against Neurocept would be inaccurate based on the materials at hand ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Newer allegations presented in 2025 documents do not name Neurocept either

A 2025 civil complaint discussed in the documents alleges a large Ponzi scheme and includes lawsuits naming Daryl Heller’s business partners and bankruptcy-related SEC involvement; this 2025 action pertains to other defendants and does not cite Neurocept ^[5]. That filing does show the SEC’s continuing investigative activity and creditors’ litigation around complex financial collapses but, based on the supplied analysis, it does not establish that Neurocept itself was sued or charged by the SEC in 2025 ^[5].

5. What this record implies — gaps, verification steps, and possible agendas

The dataset implies two principal risks: factual conflation from similar names and incomplete public-record linkage. To verify whether Neurocept specifically faced litigation or SEC enforcement, one must consult authoritative public records—SEC litigation and administrative dockets, PACER federal court filings, and state court records—searching for the exact legal entity name and its CIK or registration identifiers. Some content in the dataset (consumer-focused FTC actions, SEC administrative orders) may be promoted by parties with an interest in highlighting regulatory actions; readers should note that FTC consumer-protection cases and SEC issuer-reporting proceedings are different remedies with distinct legal standards, and none of the provided items affirmatively lists Neurocept as a defendant ^{[3] [4] [1] [2]}.