A Tale of Two Enforcement Venues: Determinants and Consequences of the SEC's Choice of Enforcement Venue After the Dodd-Frank Act

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Federal Court ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Economic Costs ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Private Incentives ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Securities Laws

The Dodd-Frank Act allows the SEC to choose either an administrative proceeding or a federal court as an enforcement venue for resolving violations of federal securities laws. I examine the determinants and consequences of the SEC's choice of enforcement venue after the Dodd-Frank Act. Results show that material cases are 28% - 35% more likely to be assigned to federal courts, and politically connected defendants are about 14% more likely to be routed to administrative proceedings. While monetary penalties by venue are statistically indifferent, politically connected defendants in administrative proceedings are associated with lower penalties. Additionally, I find that administrative proceedings process cases 27 times faster than federal courts. Results suggest that the SEC's private incentives affect enforcement venue selection and possibly enforcement outcomes. SEC is more likely to use administrative proceedings when political and economic costs are greater, and use federal courts when political and economic benefits are greater.

SEC whistleblower retaliation – and the federal securities laws – after Digital Realty

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aegis Frumento ◽  
Stephanie Korenman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc v. Somers and its significance for whistleblower retaliation remedies and securities law interpretation generally. Design methodology approach The authors review the statutory, regulatory and decisional history of the anti-whistleblower retaliation remedies of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the Dodd–Frank Act; how they were seen by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and most courts to be in conflict, and how they were ultimately harmonized by the Supreme Court in Digital Realty. Findings In Digital Realty, the Supreme Court ruled against the SEC and the leading Courts of Appeal and established that only one who reports securities law violations to the SEC can sue in federal court under the Dodd–Frank Act; all others are limited to the lesser remedies provided by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. This simple conclusion raises a number of unresolved questions, which the authors identify and discuss. Also, the Supreme Court unanimously continued the pattern of federal securities laws decisions marked by a close reading of the text and a desire to limit private litigants’ access to the federal courts. Originality value This paper provides valuable information and insights about the legal protections for SEC whistleblowers from experienced securities lawyers and more generally on the principles that appear to guide securities law decisions in the Supreme Court.

Medicaid & Medicare: D.C. Appellate Court Denies Claim for Medicare Reimbursement of GME Cost

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-205
Author(s):  
choeffel Amy
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
University Of Pennsylvania ◽  
District Court ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Summary Judgment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld, in Presbyterian Medical Center of the University of Pennsylvania Health System v. Shalala, 170 F.3d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1999), a federal district court ruling granting summary judgment to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in a case in which Presbyterian Medical Center (PMC) challenged Medicare's requirement of contemporaneous documentation of $828,000 in graduate medical education (GME) expenses prior to increasing reimbursement amounts. DHHS Secretary Donna Shalala denied PMC's request for reimbursement for increased GME costs. The appellants then brought suit in federal court challenging the legality of an interpretative rule that requires requested increases in reimbursement to be supported by contemporaneous documentation. PMC also alleged that an error was made in the administrative proceedings to prejudice its claims because Aetna, the hospital's fiscal intermediary, failed to provide the hospital with a written report explaining why it was denied the GME reimbursement.

scholarly journals Night Landings on an Aircraft Carrier: Hospital Mergers and Antitrust Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 191-220
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Greaney
Keyword(s):  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Aircraft Carrier ◽  
Hospital Mergers ◽  
The Past ◽  
Consent Decrees ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

Justice Stewart’s 1966 dictum about the inevitability of government success in challenging mergers under Section 7 of the Clayton Act held true for another fifteen years or so. In the early 1980s, however, federal enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), began to find the federal courts less hospitable to antitrust merger cases as more sophisticated economic inquiries and changing proof burdens complicated the task of identifying anticompetitive mergers. Indeed, since the early 1980s, the government has lost more litigated merger cases than it has won and has come under criticism from some quarters for becoming gun shy and not adequately policing the wave of consolidations that have occurred over the past decade.Hospital mergers, however, are a different story. Until two years ago, the government rode a streak of important victories in federal courts and FTC administrative proceedings, and had obtained consent decrees from scores of hospitals that had announced plans to merge.

scholarly journals Notes Procedural Fencing in Retiree Benefits Disputes: Applications of the First-Filed Rule in Federal Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Vanneman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
West Virginia ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
District Court ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Maximum Benefit

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Pendent Jurisdiction in Australia—Section 32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. C. Gummow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Future

The Federal Court of Australia has only the jurisdiction conferred on it by statute. However, many disputes falling within that jurisdiction, particularly in trade practices matters, will also involve elements of common law or other State or federal statutory law. Section 32 invests in the Federal Court additional jurisdiction in some such cases in respect of “associated matters”. This may be compared with “pendent jurisdiction” developed by the federal courts in the United States. The object of this article is to analyse the meaning of the term “associated matters” and to consider the bearing it has upon the future relationship between the Federal Court and the various State courts.

28 USC § 1782—looking for consensus

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-345
Author(s):  
David J Stute
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Since the 1948 enactment of 28 USC § 1782 in the United States, no consensus has emerged as to the availability of federal court discovery to parties in private foreign or international arbitral proceedings. This year, within months of one another, six federal courts have issued rulings that are widely inconsistent on the availability of section 1782 discovery. The courts have ruled that a proceeding before a private international arbitral tribunal is eligible for section 1782 discovery; that, categorically, no such discovery is available; that the definition of private arbitral tribunal applies to CIETAC; and that discovery is available by virtue of a party’s parallel pursuit of discovery through foreign civil proceedings. As these cases demonstrate, recent US court decisions have brought no predictability, let alone certainty, to the subject. Congress, on the other hand, could and should amend the statute so as to include private tribunals in the scope of section 1782. This article discusses the case law’s state of disarray; proposes a legislative solution; considers the proposed amendment’s merits; and advocates for Congress to act.

scholarly journals The cost of not breastfeeding: global results from a new tool

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 407-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dylan D Walters ◽  
Linh T H Phan ◽  
Roger Mathisen
Keyword(s):  
Type Ii Diabetes ◽  
National Income ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Treatment Costs ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Economic Costs ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Support Strategies ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Access Data

Abstract Evidence shows that breastfeeding has many health, human capital and future economic benefits for young children, their mothers and countries. The new Cost of Not Breastfeeding tool, based on open access data, was developed to help policy-makers and advocates have information on the estimated human and economic costs of not breastfeeding at the country, regional and global levels. The results of the analysis using the tool show that 595 379 childhood deaths (6 to 59 months) from diarrhoea and pneumonia each year can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to global recommendations from WHO and UNICEF. It also estimates that 974 956 cases of childhood obesity can be attributed to not breastfeeding according to recommendations each year. For women, breastfeeding is estimated to have the potential to prevent 98 243 deaths from breast and ovarian cancers as well as type II diabetes each year. This level of avoidable morbidity and mortality translates into global health system treatment costs of US$1.1 billion annually. The economic losses of premature child and women’s mortality are estimated to equal US$53.7 billion in future lost earnings each year. The largest component of economic losses, however, is the cognitive losses, which are estimated to equal US$285.4 billion annually. Aggregating these costs, the total global economic losses are estimated to be US$341.3 billion, or 0.70% of global gross national income. While the aim of the tool is to capture the majority of the costs, the estimates are likely to be conservative since economic costs of increased household caregiving time (mainly borne by women), and treatment costs related to other diseases attributable to not breastfeeding according to recommendations are not included in the analysis. This study illustrates the substantial costs of not breastfeeding, and potential economic benefits that could be generated by government and development partners’ investments in scaling up effective breastfeeding promotion and support strategies.

SEC publishes final rules amending the rules of practice for administrative proceedings

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
Joan McKown ◽  
Henry Klehm III ◽  
Harold Gordon ◽  
David Woodcock ◽  
Daniel Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Affirmative Defenses ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hearsay Evidence ◽  
Practical Impact ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain and evaluate amendments to the rules of practice governing the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Administrative Proceedings that were adopted by the Commission on July 13, 2016. Design/methodology/approach Describes SEC’s increased pursuit of enforcement actions in APs, criticisms of the AP process, and corrective legislation. Describes the July 2016 amendments covering expansion of the prehearing period, allowance of depositions, timing for completion of document production in discovery phase, required disclosure of affirmative defenses, permitted dispositive motions, and admissibility of hearsay evidence. Assesses the practical impact of the amendments. Makes recommendations concerning advanced preparation for APs, depositions and witness-interview strategies, particular care concerning statements in Wells submission, availability of investigative record to defense counsel, admissibility of hearsay evidence, and defenses based on reliance on counsel. Findings The amended rules are a step in the right direction but do not fully correct the numerous and severe imbalances that exist in the Commission’s administrative enforcement process with respect to the availability of various discovery mechanisms, the timeline for trying a case, and more. Practical implications Every entity or individual that is involved in an SEC enforcement investigation, or that may become a respondent in an SEC Administrative Proceeding, should take certain practical steps such as those recommended in this article to minimize the structural disadvantages it will face and to maximize the benefits conferred by these latest amendments to the rules of practice. Originality/value Practical background and guidance from experienced enforcement, litigation, securities and financial services lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document