Kokesh v. SEC: the end of a disgorgement era?

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Litt ◽  
Jerome P. Tomas ◽  
Elizabeth L. Yingling ◽  
Richard A. Kirby

Purpose To explain the Supreme Court’s ruling in its recent Kokesh v. SEC decision and its impact on the SEC’s ability to recover disgorgement of ill-gotten gains beyond the five-year statute of limitations. Design/methodology/approach This article discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision and the immediate effects it will have on the SEC’s approach to a variety of cases in which a significant portion of the recovery may now be outside the statute of limitations. Findings The article concludes that the recent Supreme Court decision will have an immediate effect of preventing the SEC from reaching back beyond five years for disgorgement; however, the SEC may be able to comply with Kokesh and modify its procedures so that its financial recoveries from those that violate securities laws may be categorized as an equitable remedy (like restitution) rather than as a penalty (like forfeiture) which is subject to a five-year statute of limitations. Originality/value The article provides practical guidance from experienced securities litigation and white collar crime lawyers. It explains and analyzes the Supreme Court decision that severely limits the ability of the SEC to seek disgorgement by limiting the SEC’s use of disgorgement to a five-year statute of limitations.

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Hurd ◽  
Mel Gworek ◽  
Evan Glustrom

Purpose To analyze the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lorenzo v. SEC. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the lead up to the decision, the arguments made by both sides, and the opinion of the Court, and makes predictions about the likely impact of the decision. Findings The holding is unlikely to have a significant impact on private securities litigation as shareholders, unlike the SEC, are required to prove reliance and, under the Lorenzo fact pattern, reliance cannot be shown. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities litigation counsel.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-43
Author(s):  
Joseph Boryshansky ◽  
Michael A. Asaro ◽  
James Benjamin ◽  
Charles F. Connolly

Purpose – To examine a statement issued by Justice Antonin Scalia on November 10, 2014, concurrently with the Supreme Court ' s denial of certiorari in a criminal insider trading case, which raises profound questions about how the courts interpret the federal securities laws and the degree of deference they give to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the context of criminal enforcement. Design/methodology/approach – The article discusses the points raised in the justice ' s statement and their potential implications for future securities enforcement cases. Findings – The statement suggests that the traditional deference courts accord the SEC under the landmark decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (1984) may be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent with the rule of lenity, which requires that ambiguous criminal laws be interpreted in a defendant ' s favor. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document