Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Reflections on <b><I>Kokesh v. SEC</I></b>
In the period since the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529, 2017 WL 2407471 (U.S. June 5, 2017), which rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) longstanding position that disgorgement was an equitable remedy not subject to the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462, many have commented about the increased need for the SEC's enforcement attorneys to complete their investigations quickly, and the frustration that hidden ill-gotten gains would never be recovered due to the five-year limit. These are important and valid ramifications, and we include them in this article.
But the Kokesh decision raises other potential consequences that have not been as widely noted. We address these other potential consequences in a two-part article. Part One, herein, addresses the following questions:
- Does the five-year statute of limitations apply to SEC administrative actions?
- Will the five-year statute of limitations hinder SEC enforcement?
- Will the SEC tie cooperation credit to prompt action?
- Can the SEC continue to obtain disgorgement?
- Can the SEC continue to obtain pre-judgment interest on disgorgement amounts?
- Can the SEC continue to obtain disgorgement from relief defendants?
In our second installment, we will address whether defendants and respondents can still seek indemnification or insurance coverage for disgorgement and pre-judgment interest, if disgorgement paid to the government is deductible for U.S. federal tax purposes, and whether those who paid disgorgement to the SEC for conduct outside the five-year statute of limitations period can recoup that portion of their payment.
The SEC's Enforcement Action and the Supreme Court's Opinion in Kokesh
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?