SEC Suffers Three Recent Losses Despite Increased Focus on Trial Readiness

by Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact

Since becoming Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) in April 2013, Mary Jo White has articulated a number of new enforcement priorities for the SEC. White has suggested, for instance, that the Commission adopt a “broken windows” policy towards securities enforcement1 and that the Commission pursue admissions of wrongdoing as part of its settlement agreements.2 To the Commission’s growing list of enforcement goals, White recently added another: an increased focus on the Commission’s trial record. In a November 14, 2013 speech, White observed that the Commission’s new policy concerning admissions of wrongdoing “could well lead to more trials by parties refusing to admit their wrongdoing”—a consequence that “[the Commission] welcomes.”3 White then identified two perceived benefits that she expects will result from an increase in litigation: (1) “[M]ore thoughtful and nuanced interpretations of the law,” which White believes come from developing a full trial record; and (2) “[P]erhaps even more importantly. . . public accountability for both defendants and the government through the public airing of charges and evidence.”4

Three recent SEC enforcement losses demonstrate that White’s observations on the importance of trials—particularly that trials hold the government accountable—are well taken.5

SEC v. Kovzan

On December 2, 2013, a Kansas jury exonerated Stephen Kovzan, chief financial officer of NIC, Inc., in connection with allegations that he had concealed $1.18 million paid to NIC’s former chief executive officer, Jeffrey Fraser. The SEC filed a complaint against NIC and Fraser in January 2011, alleging that NIC and Fraser concealed payments to Fraser for living expenses and the costs of vacations and private planes.6 At the same time, the SEC filed a complaint against Kovzan, accusing him of knowingly or recklessly concealing the payments to Fraser because of his role in the preparation of the company’s public filings.7 NIC and Fraser settled the claims against them contemporaneously with the Commission’s filing of the complaint.8 Kovzan, however, chose to take his case to trial and was acquitted of all 12 charges against him.9 Indeed, the federal court jury found in favor of Kovzan on every question on the jury verdict form.10

SEC v. Cuban

In the Commission’s highly publicized case against Dallas entrepreneur Mark Cuban, a Texas jury acquitted Cuban of insider trading related to his sale of a Canadian Internet company. The SEC originally filed its complaint in January 2008, alleging that Cuban traded on material, non-public information about an impending stock offering to avoid a loss of $750,000.11 More than five years later, on October 16, 2013, a jury acquitted him on all charges.12

SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc.

In a December 3, 2013, ruling in the Western District of Texas, a federal judge denied the SEC’s motion for summary judgment on the Commission’s fraud claims against Life Partners Holdings, Inc. The SEC alleges that Life Partners violated the federal securities laws by materially misstating its revenue related to the company’s sale of life settlements. In its summary judgment motion, the SEC argued that the revenue recognition policy on which Life Partners' public revenue disclosures were based did not comply with generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP) and caused the company to recognize revenue from life settlements prematurely in its public filings. However, in a December 3, 2013 order, U.S. District Judge James Nowlin disagreed, stating that the issue of GAAP compliance was in dispute and that “there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not Defendants materially misstated their quarterly filings.”13 As a result, the court held the claims should be evaluated by a jury.14

The Life Partners case had previously proven problematic for the SEC. In August 2012, the SEC was sanctioned for taking a deposition in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 56. The SEC argued that its deposition, which was taken without leave from the court, prior to the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, and without notice to the defendants, was taken pursuant to its investigative authority and therefore not subject to FRCP 56. The court, however, held that “large portions” of the deposition related to the civil action rather than the Commission’s investigation and that the SEC “cannot administer an extra-judicial deposition regarding an investigation, elicit testimony during that deposition regarding allegations made in the Complaint for use against Defendants, and then claim immunity from the FRCP by labeling the deposition as ‘investigative.’”15 Accordingly, the court ordered the SEC to pay $5,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs, and ruled that the testimony transcript could not be used against any defendants in the Life Partners litigation.16

Conclusion

In her November 14, 2013 speech, White touted the Commission’s 80% success rate at trial over the past three years.17 The SEC’s record over the past three months, however, suggests that the Commission’s new focus on obtaining admissions of wrongdoing—and the resulting willingness of some defendants to go to trial—may lower the Commission’s success rate. It is possible, of course, that the SEC’s recent trial record is a necessary consequence of the Commission’s more aggressive focus on litigation; White admitted as much when she conceded that “if the government won every case, it could mean that our system is flawed or that the government is shying away from the hard cases.”18 Thus, if the SEC really is beginning to take the “hard cases” to trial, the Commission’s recent record suggests that some defendants in SEC enforcement actions may ultimately benefit from refusing to admit wrongdoing and forcing the Commission to play its hand.


1 See Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Remarks at the Securities Enforcement Forum (Oct. 9, 2013) (transcript available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370539872100). White’s “broken windows” securities enforcement policy has its origins in the New York Police Department’s 1980s and 1990s policy of “pursu[ing] infractions of law at every level.” Id. According to White, “[t]he same theory can be applied to our securities markets—minor violations that are overlooked or ignored can feed bigger ones, and, perhaps, more importantly, can foster a culture where laws are increasingly treated as toothless guidelines.” Id.

2 See id.

3 See Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, The Importance of Trials to the Law and Public Accountability, 5th Annual Judge Thomas A. Flannery Lecture (Nov. 14, 2013) (transcript available at http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370540374908) [hereinafter “White, The Importance of Trials”].

4 Id.

5 The three losses described in this Legal Alert coincide with White’s recent statements concerning the SEC’s enforcement priorities. The Commission, however, has lost at least two other cases at trial in the last year. In the first case, SEC v. St. Anselm Exploration Co., No. 11-CV-00668 (D. Col.), which ended only days before White was sworn in as Chair of the SEC, the court conducted a bench trial and found for the defendants on all claims. See SEC v. St. Anselm Exploration Co., Opinion and Order, No. 11-CV-00668 (D. Col. Mar. 29, 2013). In the second case, SEC v. Brown, No. 09-CV-01423-GK (D.D.C.), which ended less than one month after White was sworn in, the SEC lost—again, after a bench trial—on five claims, prevailing only on its claim that the defendant practiced accounting before the SEC in violation of a previously-issued accounting bar. See SEC v. Brown, Memorandum Opinion, No. 09-CV-01423-GK (D.D.C. May 2, 2013).

6 SEC v. NIC, Inc., Complaint, No. 11-cv-02016 (D. Kans. Jan. 12, 2011).

7 SEC v. Kovzan, Complaint, No. 11-cv-02017 (D. Kan. Jan. 12, 2011).

8 SEC v. NIC, Inc., Final Judgment, No. 11-cv-02016 (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2011).

9 SEC v. Kovzan, Judgment, No. 11-cv-02017 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2013).

10 SEC v. Kovzan, Verdict Form, No. 11-cv-02017 (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2013).

11 SEC v. Cuban, Complaint, No. 08-CV-2050-D (SF) (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2008).

12 See Jury Finds Mark Cuban Case Not Liable for Insider Trading, Lit. Release No. 22855 (Oct. 23, 2013), available at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2013/lr22855.htm.

13 SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Order, No. 1:12-cv-00033, at 3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2013).

14 See id. at 5.

15 SEC v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Order, No. 1:12-cv-00033, at 4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2012).

16 Id. at 6. The court further ruled, however, that the Commission could still use the deposition testimony “in other cases against [the Life Partner defendants] or any other parties.” Id. at n.1. The court also ruled that the SEC could still depose the individual whose testimony the Commission improperly took, provided that the deposition complied with the FRCP. Id. at n.2.

17 See White, The Importance of Trials, supra note 3.

18 Id.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
Contact
more
less

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.