CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘SEC’

Latest FINRA Rules to Regulate Expungement Actions

Posted on: February 19th, 2019

By: Margot Parker

FINRA recently announced its approval of enhanced training and guidance for arbitrators hearing expungement requests, an issue under increasing scrutiny as over 90% of such actions are currently granted. The proposal is now under review by the SEC and represents a step toward making it more difficult for brokers to have customer complaints expunged from their public records. The proposed rules also include a ban on compensated non-attorney representatives (NARs) from representing clients in FINRA arbitrations, as part of another step to strengthen the arbitration process.

While a ban on NARs has been widely supported, critics of the expungement process believe more should be done to take the burden away from customers to fight expungement actions. FINRA states that it shares these concerns. To reduce the high volume of expungements in the past, it codified a rule stating: “expungement is an extraordinary remedy that should be recommended only under appropriate circumstances.” With these recent steps, we may continue to see changes in the regulation of FINRA expungement actions in the near future.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Margot Parker at (310) 937-2066 or [email protected].

Women On Board

Posted on: October 16th, 2018

By: Rebecca Smith

Nearly one-quarter of California-headquartered publicly held domestic or foreign corporations have no female directors.  No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, those companies will need to add at least one.  Senate Bill 826 (SB 826) signed by Governor Brown on September 30, 2018 has mandated this change.  And, if the board of directors of a corporation is larger than four board members, the required number of women on the board increases.  If the number of directors is six or more, the corporation must have a minimum of three directors, if the number of directors is five, the corporation shall have a minimum of two directors.  Corporations will be allowed until the close of the 2021 calendar year to add the additional female directors beyond one.

There is a strong likelihood that this new law will be challenged in the courts.  The first argument being made is that the law will displace an existing member of the board of directors solely on the basis of gender.  The new law has attempted to address this by indicating:  “A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.”  The argument being made is that the law focuses too narrowly on gender instead of other aspects of diversity, including race and sexual orientation.  The government may have to prove not only that there is disparity in board representation among men and women, but also that such a divide is a sufficient reason to create a special law for women.

The other issue in the forefront is to which companies the law will apply.  While the statute provides that the companies will be determined by the location of the principal executive offices according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, challenges are being made that the law should not apply to businesses headquartered in California, but incorporated elsewhere.  The new Section 2115.5 of the Corporations Code has attempted to address this issue by indicating that the new requirements shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a publicly held corporation to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which the foreign corporation is incorporated.  That being said, the “internal affairs doctrine” may provide a basis for the challenge.  The internal affairs doctrine, a choice of law rule in corporation law, provides that the internal affairs of a corporation will be governed by the corporate statutes and case law of the state in which the corporation is incorporated.

So what happens if a company does not comply:  A fine of $100,000 for a first violation, and a fine of $300,000 for a second or subsequent violation.  For purposes of imposing the fine, each director seat required by the section to be held by a female, which is not held by a female during at least a portion of the calendar year is considered a violation.  For the time being, California companies with their principal executive offices in California should start to think about how to comply with the law by the end of 2019 and stay tuned for any changes.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Rebecca Smith at [email protected].

Is the SEC Mortal After All?

Posted on: August 27th, 2018

By:Ted Peters

The Securities and Exchange Commission, created through the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is without a doubt one of the most powerful regulatory agencies in the free world.  According to its website, the SEC’s mission is “to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.” Since its inception, the Commission has wielded great power, and in many instances has pushed the envelope to expand that power. But, as reflected in a handful of recent landmark cases, courts around the country and even this nation’s highest court have pushed back making clear that the Commission’s authority is not unlimited.

The SEC initiates enforcement actions in federal court when it determines that a violation of securities law has occurred. Like any other plaintiff, the SEC is subject to statutes of limitation.  The statute governing enforcement actions is five (5) years.  28 U.S.C. § 2462.  Section 2462 provides that, “an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued.”

Historically, the Commission has acted with the belief that Section 2462 applied only to the specific enforcement actions enumerated therein.  The SEC’s own enforcement manual provides that “certain claims are not subject to the five-year statue of limitations under Section 2462, including claims for injunctive relief.” (See § 3.1.2 (Nov. 28, 2017)).

In Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 2462 extends to disgorgement claims.  Prior to Kokesh, the Commission had taken the position that disgorgement claims could reach back indefinitely.  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor stated that “[d]isgorgement in the securities-enforcement context is a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of § 2462.”  The Court explained that disgorgement operates as a sanction because it redressed a wrong to the public, as opposed to an individual.  The Court rejected the SEC’s argument that disgorgement is remedial, finding instead that it was punitive because it “does not simply restore the status quo,” and often “leaves the defendant worse off.”

Prior to the Court’s decision in Kokesh, the SEC initiated an enforcement action in SEC v. Cohen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121164 E.D.N.Y. (Jul. 12, 2018), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  In that action, the Commission asserted that between 2007-2012, the defendants participated in a scheme that involved making improper payments to government officials in a number of African countries.  As typical, the Commission sought recovery of monetary penalties, disgorgement and injunctive (follow-the-law) relief.  While the action was pending, Kokesh was decided.  Following Kokesh, the Cohen court held that Section 2462 also extended to actions for injunctive relief.  Finding that the SEC’s demand for injunctive relief would operate, at least in part, as a penalty, the court concluded that the claims were time-barred.

But not every court addressing injunctive relief has reached the same result.  In SEC v. Collyard, 861 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2017), a case decided after Kokesh, the Eighth Circuit, acknowledging a split of authority over whether an injunction can be a “penalty” for purposes of Section 2462, concluded that the at-issue injunction entered by the district court was not a penalty and, therefore, not subject to Section 2462.  That injunction enjoined the defendant from violating Securities Exchange Act § 15(a) and the district court concluded that the defendant was “reasonably likely to violate Section 15(a) again unless enjoined.”  Upholding that determination, the Eighth Circuit remarked that “[n]ot every injunction that specifically deters an individual is imposed to punish.”

After Kokesh, it is clear that SEC disgorgement actions fall within the limitations of Section 2462.  As for injunctive relief, district courts around the country remain split.  Given the importance of the SEC’s ability to seek injunctive relief, it is likely that the Supreme Court may be called upon to settle the split, perhaps through a possible certiorari of Cohen. Regardless, these recent decisions undeniably provide defendants with more leverage when facing the SEC.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters  at [email protected].

Supreme Court to Revisit Liability Under Rule 10b-5 – Will Prospective Justice Kavanaugh Weigh In?

Posted on: July 25th, 2018

By: Ted Peters

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under it, makes certain conduct in connection with the purchase or sale of any security unlawful.  Specifically, Rule 10b-5(a) prohibits the use of any “device, scheme, or artifice to defraud.”  10b-5(b) prohibits the use of any “untrue statement of a material fact” or the omission of any “material fact necessary in order to make the statements… not misleading.”  And 10b-5(c) prohibits “any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.”

In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S. Ct. 2296 (2011), the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a mutual fund investment adviser could be held liable under Rule 10b-5 for false statements included in its client mutual funds’ prospectuses.  The Court concluded that the adviser could not be held liable under the rule because it did not make the statements in the prospectuses.

In Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 872 F.3d 578 (2017), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal considered whether a registered representative of a broker-dealer, who allegedly emailed false and misleading statements prepared by his boss to investors, could be found liable under Rule 10b-5.  Initially, the case was tried before an Administrative Law Judge who concluded that Lorenzo’s boss had drafted the emails in question; Lorenzo did not read the text of the emails; and Lorenzo had “sent the emails without even thinking about the contents.”  The judge also found that the emails were sent “at the request” of Lorenzo’s boss.  Notwithstanding these findings, the judge nevertheless concluded that Lorenzo had willfully violated securities laws (i.e., that Lorenzo had acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud).  As a sanction, the judge not only fined Lorenzo, but also imposed a lifetime suspension effectively barring him from the securities industry.

Lorenzo appealed the ruling before the Securities Exchange Commission.  The Commission affirmed, concluding that Lorenzo himself was “responsible” for the contents of the emails his boss asked him to send even though it was undisputed that Lorenzo’s boss had prepared the contents of the emails and that Lorenzo had simply “cut and pasted” the contents into the emails at issue.  Notably, the SEC found that Lorenzo’s conduct triggered liability under each of the subparts of Rule 10b-5, including 10b-5(b) which, under Janus, necessarily required an affirmative finding that Lorenzo had actually “made” the statements in question.

Lorenzo next appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court.  On September 29, 2017, a divided court upheld the SEC’s determination.  The court agreed that there was substantial evidence that the statements in Lorenzo’s emails were false or misleading and that Lorenzo possessed the requisite intent to mislead, deceive or defraud. However, the court disagreed with the SEC’s determination that Lorenzo was the “maker” of the statements as required by Rule 10b-5(b).  “We conclude that Lorenzo did not ‘make’ the false statements at issue for purposes of Rule 10b-5(b) because Lorenzo’s boss, and not Lorenzo himself, retained ‘ultimate authority’ over the statements.” [Citing Janus.]  On this basis, the court set aside the sanctions and remanded the case to enable the SEC to reassess appropriate penalties.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the current presidential nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy, penned a strongly worded dissent.  Kavanaugh criticized the conclusion reached by his colleagues that the “scheme liability” provisions of Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) may be used to find liability even where the defendant is not the “maker” of the statements (and thus not liable under 10b-5(b)).

On June 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari.  The question before the Supreme Court is simple: Can a defendant be held liable under the so-called scheme liability provisions of Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) in connection with using false or misleading statements, even if that defendant is not the “maker” of the statements?  That the Court accepted certiorari certainly suggests that the Court desires to further define the scope and limitations of Rule 10b-5.

Should Kavanaugh be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice, it remains to be seen whether he will recuse himself on the grounds that he heard the case below.  If he does, then the Court could well end up with a 4-4 split, which would effectively affirm the lower court’s ruling.  The Court’s four more liberal justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan) each dissented from Janus.  On the other hand, if Kavanaugh is confirmed and does not recuse himself, the majority of the Court will likely endorse a more restrictive interpretation of scheme liability under Rule 10b-5.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].

Loss of SEC Commissioners Piwowar and Stein May Wreak Havoc on SEC’s Proposed Fiduciary Regulations

Posted on: June 1st, 2018

By: Ted Peters

On May 7, 2018, Republican SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar announced that he will resign effective July 7, 2018.  Piwowar’s five-year term expires on June 5, but SEC commissioners are permitted to remain in office for up to 18 months following the end of their term.  Democratic Commissioner Kara Stein’s term expired in 2017 and she too is expected to leave the Commission this year.

Piwowar was admittedly a harsh critic of the U.S. Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule (calling it a “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad” rule), which has since been struck down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.  He also expressed significant misgivings with the Commission’s April 18, 2018 proposals which attempt to establish standards of conduct for financial advisors.  Despite such concerns, Piwowar wholeheartedly voted in favor of putting the proposals out for public comment lest anyone criticize the SEC for failing to take action.  Stein, however, voted against the proposals, finding them too weak and suggesting they be called “Regulation Status Quo.”

Regardless of their personal views, the loss of Commissioners Piwowar and Stein will undoubtedly put further pressure on the SEC as the agency takes comments on the proposals. On the other hand, the SEC might have an easier go in reaching a compromise with the decision being left to just three commissioners.  In theory, the White House and Senate could quickly take action to replace Piwowar and Stein, as it is customary for the Senate to consider commissioners in pairs (Republican and Democrat).  In the meantime, between the departures of Piwowar and Stein, the SEC will operate with four commissioners including two Democrats, which could lead to deadlocked votes, something for which the SEC is well known.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].