December 13, 2019

December 12, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 11, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 10, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Deals Blow to SEC By Applying Five-Year Statute of Limitations to Disgorgement Remedies in SEC Enforcement Actions

On June 5, 2017 the Supreme Court dealt a significant setback to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) by limiting its power to extract ill-gotten profits from securities laws violators. Ruling 9-0 in Kokesh v. S.E.C., No. 16– 529, — S. Ct. — (June 5, 2017), the Court held that in SEC enforcement actions, “disgorgement” – a form of restitution in which a defendant must pay back wrongful gains – is subject to a five-year statute of limitations.

In 2009, the SEC initiated an enforcement action against Charles Kokesh, the owner of two investment-advisory firms, seeking an injunction, monetary penalties, and disgorgement of profits. A jury found that from 1996 to 2006, Kokesh misappropriated funds from business development companies. The district court determined that 28 U.S.C. § 2462’s five-year statute of limitations applied to the civil monetary penalties sought, but not to the $34.9 million disgorgement judgment. The court held that disgorgement is not a “penalty” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2462 – which applies to the enforcement of any “civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture.” The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that disgorgement is a penalty within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2462 and therefore is subject to the statute’s five-year statute of limitations. The Court found that SEC disgorgement “bears all the hallmarks of penalty: It is imposed as a consequence of violating a public law and is intended to deter, not to compensate.” The Court focused on the fact that SEC disgorgement is imposed for punitive purposes, i.e., to deprive the defendant of profits as a means of deterring future violations. Indeed, a defendant is often required to pay back more than was received as a result of the wrongdoing. Further, SEC disgorgement money is not always used to compensate the victims. How profits will be paid out is completely within the district court’s discretion, and thus can be dispersed to the victims or to the United States Treasury. For these reasons, the Court determined that SEC disgorgement is a “penalty” and held that the five-year statute of limitation set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies.

This ruling is a blow to the SEC, and represents a recent trend given the High Court’s 2013 decision in Gabelli v. S.E.C., 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013), in which the Court found that 28 U.S.C. § 2462’s five-year statute of limitations applied to civil monetary penalties. Collectively, Gabelli and Kokesh likely will force the SEC to move more swiftly in its investigations. Before these rulings, the SEC often took its time in investigating securities violations, especially those arising from more complicated schemes. Firms can expect to see an increased push by the SEC to secure tolling agreements in cases that may run into statute of limitations issues.

Copyright © 2019, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Jeff Kern, Business Trial and White Collar Attorney, Sheppard Mullin,
Special Counsel

Jeff Kern is a special counsel in the Government Contracts, Investigations, and International Trade Practice Group in the firm's New York and Los Angeles offices.  He is admitted to practice in New York and Massachusetts.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Kern's practice encompasses securities regulation, compliance, and litigation as well as internal investigations and white collar defense.  He represents broker-dealers and associated individuals who are the focus of SEC, FINRA and other regulatory investigations and provides guidance in the FINRA membership application...

212-634-3075
Associate

Julie Bauman is an associate in the Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office.

  • J.D., University of Southern California, 2015, order of the coif

  • B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, 2009, cum laude

415.774.3125