Supreme Court Ruling Curbs SEC Disgorgement Power

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the SEC is bound by a five-year limitation period when it seeks disgorgement from those who have been found to violate federal securities laws.

The Court held that “Disgorgement in the securities-enforcement context is a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of §2462 [a five-year statute of limitations,]” and thus, “any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.”

U.S. Supreme Court (Photo Credit – Joe Ravi CC-BY-SA 3.0)

Section 2462 expressly applies to “an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise” and the Court had already held that the five-year statute applies when the SEC seeks statutory monetary penalties.

The Court’s reasoning included that SEC disgorgement is imposed as a consequence for violating public laws; the violation for which the SEC seeks disgorgement is against the United States rather than an aggrieved individual; SEC disgorgement furthers the policy mission of “protecting  investors and safeguarding the integrity of the markets[;]” SEC disgorgement is imposed to deter infractions and, therefore, is “inherently punitive[;]” and SEC disgorgement—“in many cases”—is not compensatory and can be required regardless of whether funds are used as restitution.

While the government argued SEC disgorgement is “remedial” in that it “restor[es] the status quo,” the Court disagreed, citing cases where defendants were ordered to disgorge third-party profits and without consideration of expenses that reduced illegal profits. “In such cases, disgorgement does not simply restore the status quo; it leaves the defendant worse off.”

The Court therefore found that SEC disgorgement operates as a penalty under §2462.

The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.

For a complete reading of this unanimous opinion, please click here.

Related Content

Latest Content

When Policies, Procedures and Testing Protocols Aren’t Enough…

The Compliance Program Rule continues to be a powerful tool for SEC enforcement, recently used by the SEC to address trading away in wrap accounts, misappropriation of retail client assets, and the misuse of an omnibus account. Advisory firms had written policies and procedures and testing protocols, but they were not good enough; are yours? … Continued

The Compliance Professionals Guide to Effective Trade Desk Monitoring

Global regulators continue to enhance their ability to monitor the activities of market participants through a combination of new rules, filing requirements, and upgrades to surveillance technologies. As a result, many market participants, including both buy-and sell-side firms, need to re-assess how they currently monitor the trading desk, and whether new policies and procedures are … Continued

How Do You Supervise for SEC Pay-to-Play Violations?

If you wanted more information about the contours of the SEC’s Pay-to-Play Rule, or how the SEC may enforce it, three recent Settlement Orders against large investment advisers for “over de minimis” political contributions provide some insight regarding one of the prohibitions: Contributions by Covered Associates to certain Government Officials over the specified Exception amount (capitalized words are terms in the … Continued

Do your Fund Documents Clearly Disclose Receipt of Accelerated Monitoring Fees?

Somewhat more reminiscent of the broken-windows enforcement era, two affiliated private equity advisers managing billions settled with the SEC on charges that they failed to make pre-commitment disclosures in fund governing documents related to accelerated fees received from portfolio companies. Interestingly, according to the Settlement Order, the advisers had made some disclosures in fund documents … Continued

With New Risk Alert, SEC Doubles Down on Best Execution

On July 11, 2018, the SEC issued a Risk Alert outlining commonly found compliance issues related to best execution by investment advisers. Advisers have an obligation to seek best execution of client transactions, taking into consideration quantitative factors such as execution quality and commission rate, as well as more qualitative factors such as the value … Continued

Mailing List

Subscribe to the Ascendant Compliance email list for the latest compliance resources, conferences, ComplianceCasts™, and more.

Loading form...

Contact Us

Ascendant works together with clients to identify and assess critical needs through customized plans. If you need assistance with compliance functions, regulatory services, cybersecurity or technology tools, we’d love to speak with you.