In Two Unanimous Rulings, U.S. Supreme Court Limits Penalties in SEC Enforcement and Criminal Actions

by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Contact

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

In a pair of decisions issued on June 5, the Supreme Court sharply curtailed the scope of financial sanctions available in civil securities enforcement and criminal drug trafficking cases. In addition to the results, which represent significant setbacks for the government, these cases are notable in that the decisions, each of which reversed rulings below, were rendered by a unanimous court based on relatively straightforward interpretations of the applicable statutory language.

Supreme Court Rules That Five-year Statute of Limitations Applies to SEC Disgorgement Actions

In Kokesh v. SEC1 the Supreme Court unanimously held that SEC claims for disgorgement are subject to the five-year statute of limitations for government actions to enforce “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise” set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The Court’s conclusion that disgorgement operates as a “penalty” within the meaning of Section 2462 resolves a circuit split over the issue. Previously, the Eleventh Circuit had concluded that disgorgement is in effect a forfeiture and therefore subject to the five-year statute of limitations, while the Tenth Circuit had joined the First Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit in concluding that disgorgement was neither a penalty nor a forfeiture subject to the limitations period.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Sotomayor found that SEC disgorgement “bears all the hallmarks of a penalty: It is imposed as a consequence of violating a public law and it is intended to deter, not to compensate.”2

The Supreme Court’s decision reverses a ruling by the Tenth Circuit, which had affirmed a district court decision ordering Charles R. Kokesh — a New Mexico investment adviser found liable for misappropriating funds from businesses he controlled — to pay $34.9 million in disgorgement, in addition to $18 million in prejudgment interest and a $2.4 million penalty, for conduct that occurred as long as 14 years before the SEC filed suit. Nearly $30 million of the district court’s disgorgement order reflected conduct occurring outside the five-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kokesh dramatically reduced the scope of the SEC’s disgorgement order, holding that “any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.”3

Despite receiving a favorable decision in the Tenth Circuit, the SEC had agreed with petitioner Kokesh that the Supreme Court should take up the case. The Supreme Court, however, rejected the SEC’s contention that disgorgement is a remedial sanction that merely returns a defendant to the status quo prior to any securities law violation. Instead, the Court found, inter alia, that because disgorgement often exceeds the amount of ill-gotten gains and leaves defendants worse off, disgorgement orders constitute a penalty that falls within Section 2462’s five-year limitations period.

In a footnote in the decision, the Court appears to invite even broader challenges to the SEC’s disgorgement authority: “Nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as an opinion on whether courts possess authority to order disgorgement in SEC enforcement proceedings or on whether courts have properly applied disgorgement principles in this context(.) The sole question presented in this case is whether disgorgement, as applied in SEC enforcement actions, is subject to § 2462’s limitations period.”4 Future litigants may well raise issues as to the SEC’s statutory authority to obtain disgorgement when the Supreme Court has held disgorgement is a penalty and Congress has set forth a separate statutory scheme that encompasses civil monetary penalties.


* * * * *


Supreme Court Finds the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act Does Not Permit Joint and Several Liability

In a second decision, Honeycutt v. United States,5 Justice Sotomayor, again writing for a unanimous court (with Justice Gorsuch not participating), held that under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, 21 U.S.C. § 853, co-conspirators may not be held jointly and severally liable for forfeiture judgements in certain drug cases. Rather, forfeiture must be limited to “property the defendant himself actually acquired as a result of the crime.”6

The court’s decision reverses a ruling by the Sixth Circuit holding that co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable for the forfeiture of proceeds of a conspiracy.

Justice Sotomayor concluded that joint and several liability — by which multiple defendants are liable for the full amount of harm caused — is contrary to the language of the statute. The Court noted that, by its terms, the statute limits the property subject to forfeiture to only the tainted property each defendant obtained or used to facilitate a crime. Joint and several liability, however, makes co-conspirators liable for the entire proceeds of a criminal conspiracy, an amount that could far surpass the ill-gotten gains of an individual defendant. Since joint and several liability would require a defendant to forfeit monies equaling the full proceeds of the conspiracy, the forfeiture would potentially exceed their individual tainted earnings to include untainted funds that the defendant did not acquire as the result of the crime, an outcome that exceeds what the statute’s text permits.    

Although Honeycutt concerns 21 U.S.C. § 853, a forfeiture statute for drug conspiracies, the Court’s rationale is likely to apply to other criminal forfeiture statutes that are similarly constructed, including the criminal forfeiture provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 982, which apply to a wide range of crimes, including mail and wire fraud.
 

 

 

 

 

1 No. 16-529, 2017 WL 2407471 (U.S. June 5, 2017). As noted previously, on March 3, 2017, Kramer Levin filed an amicus brief in Kokesh v. SEC in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) supporting the position of the petitioner, Charles R. Kokesh.

2 Id. at *8.

3 Id. at *9.

4 Id. at *5, n.3.

5 No. 16-142, 2017 WL 2407468 (U.S. June 5, 2017).

6 Id. at *9.
 

[View source.]

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.

© Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
Contact
more
less

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 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.