Congress Expands SEC Enforcement Authority In Annual Defense Spending Bill

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Vinson & Elkins LLP

NDAA Provisions

On January 1, 2021, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 became law. Section 6501 of the NDAA includes amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), expanding the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC”) ability to obtain disgorgement and other equitable relief in cases involving securities fraud.

The NDAA amendments extend the statute of limitations to seek disgorgement for scienter-based violations from five years to ten years. In particular, this change applies to violations under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, and Section 2016(1) of the Investment Advisors Act. The NDAA amendments also establish a statute of limitations for equitable remedies, including injunctions, bars, suspensions, and cease-and-desist orders, to ten years.

For decades, the SEC has relied on its ability to obtain disgorgement, which requires offenders to forfeit illegally obtained profits, as one of its primary enforcement weapons. However, prior to the NDAA, the Exchange Act did not expressly authorize the SEC to obtain disgorgement as a remedy for violations of securities laws. Instead, federal courts previously allowed disgorgement as a form of equitable relief under Section 21(d) of the Exchange Act.1

Supreme Court Precedent

Prior to the passage of the NDAA, the Supreme Court limited the SEC’s ability to seek disgorgement in Kokesh2 and Liu.3 In Kokesh, a unanimous Court ruled that disgorgement amounted to a “penalty” and thus would be subject to a five-year limitations period, which is used for other civil penalties. In Kokesh, the Court did not address whether the SEC had the statutory authority to seek disgorgement, but a later decision addressed this issue.

In Liu, the Court confirmed that the SEC could seek disgorgement as a form of equitable relief but limited the SEC’s powers by stating that disgorgement must be within “the bounds of traditional equity practice.”4 The Court specified that disgorgement must be restricted so that it did not act like a punitive sanction. The Court outlined three ways that disgorgement awards historically have tested the bounds of equitable relief: (1) disgorgement was given to the Treasury instead of given to victims, (2) the SEC imposed joint-and-several disgorgement liability, and (3) the SEC declined to deduct legitimate expenses from profits. The Liu Court thus restricted disgorgement to a wrongdoer’s net profits and required that disgorgement be returned to known victims.5

Both Supreme Court decisions significantly altered the SEC’s longstanding practices and authority to seek financial fines. The Kokesh decision reportedly has cost the SEC more than a billion dollars in forgone enforcement proceedings since the decision.6 The Liu decision also restricted the SEC by minimizing its ability to seek higher fines and deposit seized funds into the U.S. Treasury.


The NDAA does not resolve some open questions from Liu that had previously restricted the SEC’s authority. The amendments do not address whether illegally gained profits need to be returned to harmed investors. The NDAA also does not address whether and when defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for disgorgement awards. The SEC might argue that the Liu analysis should not apply since the NDAA expressly allows disgorgement. However, the NDAA does not elaborate upon the extent of the SEC’s disgorgement abilities, and a court may find that disgorgement should still be limited by the bounds of equitable relief.

Lastly, the NDAA amendments affect investigations that are currently ongoing as well as all investigations going forward. Therefore, the SEC staff may aim to expand their focus in ongoing investigations to older conduct.

1 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).

2 Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017).

3 Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020).

4 Id. at 1947.

5 Id.

6 See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Div. of Enforcement, 2019 Annual Report at 16, available at

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.

© Vinson & Elkins LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Vinson & Elkins LLP on:

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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.