Follow Us on:
View all Communities
Business Insight Solutions - Partner Portal
Legal and Corporate Information Professionals
LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
New Associates - Lexis Hub
Product Sign In
Search All Communities
Search This Community
Select your Topic
Practice Areas and Industries
Antitrust & Unfair Competition
Banking and Finance
Constitution and Civil Rights
Consumer Protection & Privacy
Contracts and Commercial
Criminal Law and Procedure
Estate and Elder Law
Financial Fraud Law
Labor & Employment
Media & Entertainment
Mergers & Acquisitions
Communities Sign In
Already a Member?
Login by Email?
Forgot Username / Password?
New to LexisNexis Communities?
Securities Law Blog
Book Review: Securities Law and Practice Deskbook: Sixth Edition – a Great Resource for Securities Law Practitioners
Stories We're Following: Failed Banks, China and More
What is a Security? Is Real Estate a Security?
SEC v. Tambone — The Question of Primary Liability
D and O insurance
directors and officers
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
mergers & acquisitions
SEC enforcement trends
Securities & Exchange Commission
securities class action litigation
01-19-2010 | 05:18 PM
Thomas O. Gorman
This is the second in a series of articles examining future trends in securities enforcement
The SEC’s authority will almost certainly be augmented by Congress later this year as discussed in the
of this series. What has received little notice is the fact that the Supreme Court may also have a significant impact on the Commission and particularly its enforcement program. The securities cases on the Court’s docket arise in suits which do not deal directly with the SEC’s enforcement program. Rather the issues involves private suits challenging investment adviser fees, the statute of limitations in damage actions, the constitutionality of the PCAOB and honest services fraud, a statute used to prosecute many executives in criminal securities fraud cases. Those cases are
The High Court recently agreed to hear
Morrison v. National Bank of Australia
, another private damage action based on Exchange Act Section 10(b). This is the Second circuit’s so-called “foreign cubed” decision. The resolution of this case may impact the SEC’s Enforcement program.
, the Second Circuit concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the securities fraud claims, essentially because the nexus to U.S. investors and markets was far too attenuated. In its brief opposing certiorari, the Solicitor General, joined by the SEC, argued that while the Second Circuit decision is correct but that the circuit court and most others have incorrectly phrased the question. The issue is not jurisdictional, but whether the conduct falls within the ambit of Section 10(b). If the issue before the Court is resolved by defining the reach of Section 10(b), the decision could have a significant impact on the Enforcement program since that Section is the typically the weapon of choice in most enforcement actions.
Regardless of the Court’s decision in
or whether Congress gives the SEC new authority, the critical question for the Commission going forward is the retooling of Enforcement. Beginning with her confirmation hearings, Chairman Mary L. Schapiro promised to rejuvenate SEC enforcement. To most observers, the need for a retooling of the program was clear. Scandals such as the Madoff debacle, with the senior Commission staff invoking executive privilege before Congress when asked to explain the obvious failure to discover the fraud, and the Pequot inquiry, with its suggestions of favoritism, have taken their toll. Ms. Schapiro promised a new tone at the top which would emphasize speed, efficiency and coordination with other regulators.
Read the full article at SECActions
Terms & Conditions
Privacy & Security
LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Copyright © 2017 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.