Advertisement

July 25, 2014

Court Rejects Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s Interpretation That All Exchange Act Reports Are Public

SEC Misreads The Dodd-Frank Act

Commenting on the SEC’s short-lived resource extraction rule, Professor Stephen Bainbridge recently posted: Can’t anybody at the SEC do basic cost benefit analysis? I hesitate to enter into a wortwechsel with Professor Bainbridge, but I disagree.  The SEC’s error was much worse than simply flubbing a cost-benefit analysis – it fundamentally misread the law.

The case in question is American Petroleum Institute v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n,2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92280 (July 2, 2013).  The procedural posture was the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.  Judge John D. Bates wrote that under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are:

  • “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A),

  • in excess of statutory authority, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), or

  • “without observance of procedure required by law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

Applying Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), Judge Bates gave no deference to the SEC’s interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act because the SEC had concluded that its interpretation of the statute was mandated by Congress.

Here’s where Judge Bates’ analysis became interesting.  Since periodic and other reports filed with the SEC are now instantly available on EDGAR, I hadn’t given much thought to whether all Exchange Act reports filed with the SEC are “public”.  Here is what Judge Bates had to say:

Viewing the Exchange Act as a whole further crystallizes that “report,” as used throughout the Act, contains no unstated (yet clear) public filing requirement. The Exchange Act expressly addresses the content and form of “[r]eports by [an] issuer of security” without saying anything about public access. See 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a), (b). Furthermore, other provisions of the Act use “report” to refer to documents filed with the Commission alone.

SEC Among The Goats As Ovid Among The Goths

Another interesting aspect of Judge Bates’ opinion was his conclusion that the SEC’s failure to grant requested exemptions was “arbitrary and capricious”.  Here, the problem wasn’t a flawed cost-benefit analysis but the SEC’s willingness to sacrifice practicality for the purposes of the statute.

© 2010-2014 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

About the Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Business Attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm
Partner

Keith Paul Bishop is a partner in Allen Matkins' Corporate and Securities practice group, and works out of the Orange County office. He represents clients in a wide range of corporate transactions, including public and private securities offerings of debt and equity, mergers and acquisitions, proxy contests and tender offers, corporate governance matters and federal and state securities laws (including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Act), investment adviser, financial services regulation, and California administrative law. He regularly advises clients on compliance,...

949-851-5428

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.