Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Challenge to SEC's Disgorgement Authority Reaches Supreme Court
On Nov. 1, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission to address a question that, until fairly recently, seemed clear beyond cavil: whether the SEC has authority to obtain disgorgement in civil actions to enforce the federal securities laws. Since the 1970's, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains has been a powerful and frequently utilized weapon in the SEC's arsenal. In its June 2017 decision in Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017), the Supreme Court characterized SEC disgorgement as a "penalty" rather than an equitable remedy but expressly declined to decide whether courts possess authority to order disgorgement in SEC enforcement proceedings. In Liu, the Court will address head-on the question left open in Kokesh. The outcome of Liu has the potential to upset long-standing precedent and practices. If the Court further restricts the SEC's ability to obtain disgorgement, the decision will have significant ramifications for the SEC's enforcement program.
Evolution of the SEC's Authority
No statute expressly authorizes courts to award disgorgement to the SEC in civil enforcement actions. Rather, by statute, the SEC in district court proceedings may obtain only injunctions, civil monetary penalties, bars and suspensions from certain types of employment in the securities industry, and equitable relief. See, 15 U.S.C. §§77t; 78u(d). Nevertheless, for decades the SEC routinely has sought — and courts have granted — disgorgement as a component of equitable relief.
The SEC's disgorgement authority began as a judicially-implied remedy to fill a statutory gap. As originally enacted in the 1930s, federal securities laws authorized the SEC to obtain injunctive relief but did not authorize the SEC to obtain any monetary relief. Beginning with the Texas Gulf Sulfur case in 1970, the SEC successfully persuaded courts to order so-called "equitable" monetary relief as an exercise of their "inherent equity power to grant relief ancillary to an injunction" in order to "effectuate the purpose" of the Exchange Act. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 312 F. Supp. 77, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 446 F. 2d 1301 (2d Cir. 1971).
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.