Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jessie Zeigler anticipate the intersection of privacy and smart technology will impact the future of litigation? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist

The complex and ever-changing healthcare regulatory and enforcement environment, including increased focus on the role of private equity firms in their portfolio companies, make compliance a top priority for private equity firms investing in healthcare companies. The best way to limit your exposure as a private equity firm is to avoid a compliance misstep in the first place. Additionally, an effective and robust compliance program for your portfolio healthcare company makes it much more attractive to potential buyers and helps you avoid an unexpected and costly investigation or valuation hit down the road. Download the Healthcare Private Equity Compliance Checklist to assess whether your portfolio company's compliance program is up-to-date.

Click here to download the checklist.

The Expanded Role of SEC Administrative Proceedings Under Dodd-Frank

Publications

June 16, 2011

In October 2009, a shock wave rumbled through worldwide financial institutions when the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") brought insider trading charges against Raj Rajaratnam, the billionaire co-founder of the Galleon Group hedge funds.1 Rajaratnam's seven-week jury trial in a New York federal court earlier this year riveted the financial industry, and ultimately ended in a conviction on all 14 counts.2 During the 19 months between the criminal complaint and the jury verdict in Rajaratnam's case, however, Congress quietly changed the procedural rules for pursuing similar enforcement proceedings in the future.

Under Section 929P of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), the SEC now has broad powers to impose civil monetary penalties in administrative cease-and-desist proceedings, even against non-regulated entities and individuals.3 The effect is that the SEC can now pursue enforcement proceedings in a faster and more streamlined process with limited discovery. Arguably, the SEC also has a higher likelihood of success or favorable settlement with the home-court advantage of proceedings before administrative law judges employed by the SEC.

However, the scope and enforceability of Section 929P are still to be tested in the courts. While the financial industry was captivated by the Rajaratnam trial, the SEC was also pursuing claims against numerous other individuals that were allegedly involved with the Galleon Group. The SEC tried out the new administrative procedure under Section 929P in its case against alleged tipper Rajat K. Gupta. Gupta challenged the administrative forum in a New York federal court, arguing that his due process rights had been violated and that the procedure established by Section 929P could not be applied to conduct prior to the Dodd-Frank Act's enactment.4

The SEC subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the federal court suit in favor of the SEC administrative proceeding. The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, who has a reputation for being critical of the SEC, is the judge assigned to Gupta's case. Judge Rakoff currently has the SEC's motion to dismiss under advisement. Perhaps tellingly, just over a week before he heard the SEC's motion to dismiss, Judge Rakoff remarked during a lecture at Fordham University, "[o]ne concern I have about Dodd-Frank is that it puts more adjudication into the hands of the SEC and its administrative judges."5

Of course, the best way for financial institutions (and their directors and officers) to avoid both court and administrative proceedings is to understand and scrupulously comply with applicable laws and regulations. Our attorneys stand ready to advise you in navigating this legal and regulatory framework, and assist you in enforcement proceedings, should they be forthcoming.


1  United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 1:09-cr-01184 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 15, 2009).
2  Order, United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 1:09-cr-01184 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 11, 2011) (Docket No. 272).
3  Dodd-Frank Act, 111th Cong. § 929P (2010).
4  Complaint, Gupta v. SEC, No. 1:11-cv-01900 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 18, 2009).
5  Carlyn Kolker, Gupta Judge Expresses ‘Concern’ Over Administrative Courts, Thomson Reuters News & Insight, Apr. 12, 2011.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.