Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

SCOTUS Limits SEC Disgorgement Remedies

Firm Publication

Publications

June 6, 2017

On June 5, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that SEC disgorgement remedies used as punitive sanctions for violating federal securities laws constitute civil penalties and are subject to the five-year statute of limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 2462. Kokesh v. S.E.C., No. 16-529, 2017 WL 2407471 (U.S. June 5, 2017).

Section 2462's five-year limitations period applies to any "action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise." 28 U.S.C. § 2462. In 2013, the Supreme Court in Gabelli v. S.E.C., 568 U.S. 442, held that the five-year statute of limitations applies when the Commission seeks statutory monetary penalties. To avoid the implications of the five-year statute of limitations, the SEC sought a disgorgement claim of $34.9 million ($29.9 million of which resulted from violations outside the limitations period). The district court, in a decision upheld by the Tenth Circuit, held the disgorgement claim was not a penalty within the meaning of Section 2462. As a result, the SEC was awarded its full disgorgement request after a five-day trial wherein the jury found the defendant had violated the federal securities laws.

In now reversing the decision of the Tenth Circuit and resolving a circuit split on this issue, the Supreme Court held that "SEC disgorgement constitutes a penalty within the meaning of § 2462." Kokesh, 2017 WL 2407471, at *7. The Supreme Court relied on the Court's 2013 Gabelli decision and prior precedent dating back as far as 1899 to hold that SEC disgorgement goes "'beyond compensation'" and is "'intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers.'" Id. at *6 (quoting Gabelli, 568 U.S. at 451-52).

Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion and included an important footnote inviting further litigation on the applicability of SEC disgorgement remedies with a caution that the opinion should not 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." Id. at *5 n.3. It, therefore, remains to be seen how the SEC will approach disgorgement requests in future SEC proceedings after this decision but it is now clear that any such requests must be brought within five years of when the alleged fraud occurs.


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.