Justia Securities Law Opinion Summaries

The Investment Advisers Act makes it illegal to defraud clients, 15 U.S.C. 10b–6(1),(2), and authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring enforcement actions against investment advisers and against individuals who aid and abet violations. If the SEC seeks civil penalties, it must file suit “within five years from the date when the claim first accrued,” 28 U. S. C. 2462. In 2008 the SEC sought civil penalties, alleging that individuals aided and abetted investment adviser fraud from 1999 until 2002. The district court dismissed the claim as time barred. The Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that the underlying violations sounded in fraud, so the “discovery rule” applied, and the limitations period did not begin to run until the SEC discovered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud. The Supreme Court reversed. The limitation period begins to run when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. In common parlance a right accrues when it comes into existence. The discovery rule is an exception to the standard rule and has never been applied where the plaintiff is not a defrauded victim seeking recompense, but is the government bringing an enforcement action for civil penalties. The government is a different kind of plaintiff. The SEC’s very purpose is to root out fraud. The discovery rule helps to ensure that the injured receive recompense, but civil penalties go beyond compensation and are intended to punish. Deciding when the government knew or reasonably should have known of a fraud would also present particular challenges for the courts. View "Gabelli v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investigations (OIG) found that the SEC had received numerous substantive complaints since 1992 that raised significant concerns about Madoff’s hedge fund operations that should have led to a thorough investigation of the possibility that Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme. The SEC conducted five examinations and investigations, but never took the steps necessary to determine whether Madoff was misrepresenting his trading. The OIG found that had these efforts been made, the SEC could have uncovered the Ponzi scheme. Madoff’s clients filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671, to recover damages resulting from the SEC’s failure to uncover and terminate the scheme in a timely manner. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The Third Circuit affirmed, reasoning that SEC regulations afford examiners discretion regarding the timing, manner, and scope of investigations and that there is a strong presumption that the SEC’s conduct is susceptible to policy analysis. View "Baer v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this action against the Commission seeking a declaratory judgment that recently adopted regulations of the Commission regarding derivatives trading were unlawfully adopted and invalid, and seeking to vacate and set aside those regulations and to enjoin their enforcement. Plaintiffs contended that the Commission violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., in its rulemaking by: (1) failing to address rationales for broadening Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) exemptions; (2) failing to comply with the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 2(a), and offering an inadequate evaluation of the rule's costs and benefits; (3) including swaps in the trading threshold, restricting its definition of bona fide hedging, and failing to justify the five percent threshold; and (4) failing to provide an adequate opportunity for notice and comment. The court concluded, however, that the Commission did not act unlawfully in promulgating the regulations at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commission. View "Investment Company Inst., et al. v. CFTC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Defendant, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging that, in retaliation for Plaintiff's anti-regulatory stance, Defendant used his oversight powers to retaliate unlawfully against Plaintiff. The federal district court dismissed the complaint on immunity grounds. At issue before the First Circuit Court of Appeals was the scope and extent of the immunities offered to state officials, such as Defendant, whose duties encompass both prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions. The First Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that, notwithstanding Defendant's dual roles, Defendant was, with one exception, entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff's suit. View "Goldstein v. Galvin" on Justia Law

Three securities exchanges filed with the SEC proposed changes to their fee-setting rules for the acquisition of certain proprietary market data. Petitioners, two trade associations, requested the Commission to suspend the rules pursuant to its authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C), contending that they were unlawful under NetCoalition I. When the SEC failed to do so, petitioners sought review in this court. The court held that the plain text of section 19(b)(3)(C), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, was clear and convincing evidence to the court of Congress's intent to preclude review of a rule change at the filing stage. Further, petitioners failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances for mandamus relief. The court declined to reach any other justiciability or jurisdictional question presented by the petitions. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions. View "NetCoalition v. SEC" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, the SEC promulgated a rule requiring certain companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. Petitioners challenged the statute and the regulation, raising constitutional and statutory claims. The court dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because petitioners have simultaneously filed a complaint in the district court, the court need not consider transferring the petition to that court. Additionally, the court's dismissal of the petition was without prejudice to petitioners' suit in the district court. View "American Petroleum Institute, et al v. SEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of the United States' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints against the SEC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiffs also appealed from the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Plaintiffs sought to hold the United States liable for SEC employees' failure to detect Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and for the financial losses that plaintiffs claimed they suffered as a result. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, finding that the SEC's actions, along with its regrettable inaction, were shielded by the Discretionary Function Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680(a). View "Molchatsky, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

FHFA, as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sued UBS for fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the marketing and sale of mortgage-backed securities. The district court denied UBS's motion to dismiss and certified its decision for interlocutory appeal. The court held that the "extender statute" in section 4617(b)(12) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, applied to this action, and thus concluded that the district court correctly denied UBS's motion to dismiss for untimeliness. The court further held that FHFA had standing to bring this action and the district court correctly denied UBS's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. View "Federal Housing Fin. Agency v. UBS Americas Inc." on Justia Law

The Investment Advisers Act makes it illegal to defraud clients, 15 U.S.C. 10b–6(1),(2), and authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring enforcement actions against investment advisers and against individuals who aid and abet violations. If the SEC seeks civil penalties, it must file suit “within five years from the date when the claim first accrued,” 28 U. S. C. 2462. In 2008 the SEC sought civil penalties, alleging that individuals aided and abetted investment adviser fraud from 1999 until 2002. The district court dismissed the claim as time barred. The Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that the underlying violations sounded in fraud, so the “discovery rule” applied, and the limitations period did not begin to run until the SEC discovered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud. The Supreme Court reversed. The limitation period begins to run when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered. In common parlance a right accrues when it comes into existence. The discovery rule is an exception to the standard rule and has never been applied where the plaintiff is not a defrauded victim seeking recompense, but is the government bringing an enforcement action for civil penalties. The government is a different kind of plaintiff. The SEC’s very purpose is to root out fraud. The discovery rule helps to ensure that the injured receive recompense, but civil penalties go beyond compensation and are intended to punish. Deciding when the government knew or reasonably should have known of a fraud would also present particular challenges for the courts. View "Gabelli v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n" on Justia Law

In 2011, BEST fired Aslin, a securities broker, to remain compliant with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority “Taping Rule,” which requires securities firms to adopt monitoring measures when too many of their brokers have recently worked for “Disciplined Firms.” Instead of adopting such measures, the employer may terminate brokers. FINRA, a private corporation, is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a “national securities association.” The Maloney Act provides for establishment of private self-regulatory organizations to oversee securities markets, 15 U.S.C. 78o. The SEC must approve FINRA’s rules and may abrogate, add to, and delete FINRA rules. Aslin filed suit alleging that FINRA violated his due process rights by including him on the list of brokers from Disciplined Firms without providing him the opportunity to challenge the designation. The district court dismissed, concluding that Aslin failed to state a claim because he was not deprived of a protected property or liberty interest. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Since Aslin sought only injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent application of the rule to him, the controversy ended in 2012, after which Aslin was no longer included on the list of brokers from Disciplined Firms and the case was moot. View "Aslin v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Inc." on Justia Law