Supreme Court Adopts Strict Interpretation of the Statute of Limitations for SEC Civil Penalty Enforcement Actions


On February 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court unanimously adopted a strict interpretation of the five-year period in which the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may seek to impose a civil penalty on a registered investment adviser. In Gabelli v. SEC, No. 11-1274, the Supreme Court made clear that when the government acts in an enforcement capacity seeking civil penalties, it cannot benefit from the more lenient “discovery rule” standard available to private plaintiffs. The Gabelli decision has broad implications for enforcement actions brought by the SEC and other federal agencies because the particular five-year statute of limitations at issue applies to a wide variety of civil fines and penalties.

The defendants in Gabelli were the portfolio manager of a mutual fund and the Chief Operating Officer of the fund’s investment adviser. Between 1999 and 2002, the defendants allegedly allowed a fund investor to engage in “market timing” in the fund and then misrepresented that fact to the fund’s board of directors and other investors. The SEC brought a civil suit seeking penalties against the defendants for aiding and abetting fraud in violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Although the SEC began its investigation in the fall of 2003, it did not file suit until April 2008.

The statutory provision at issue, 28 U.S.C. § 2462, provides that “except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress,” any action “for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” must be “commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued.” Based on that provision, the defendants moved to dismiss the SEC’s claims for civil penalties on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the so called “discovery rule” – under which a cause of action sounding in fraud does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers the fraud – applied. Thus, the five-year clock did not begin ticking until the SEC had discovered its cause of action.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

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.

© Ropes & Gray LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.