Articles Posted in Securities Law

by
After the Board charged petitioner and found that he violated the Board's rules and auditing standards, he petitioned to vacate the orders and sanctions against him. The D.C. Circuit held that the Board infringed plaintiff's right to counsel by unreasonably barring an accounting expert from assisting his counsel at the Board interview. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the order of the SEC, and remanded with directions that the Commission vacate the Board's underlying orders and sanctions. View "Laccetti v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
After the Board charged petitioner and found that he violated the Board's rules and auditing standards, he petitioned to vacate the orders and sanctions against him. The D.C. Circuit held that the Board infringed plaintiff's right to counsel by unreasonably barring an accounting expert from assisting his counsel at the Board interview. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the order of the SEC, and remanded with directions that the Commission vacate the Board's underlying orders and sanctions. View "Laccetti v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
LSTA represents firms that serve as investment managers of open-market collateralized loan obligations (CLO). LSTA challenged the defendant agencies' decision, embodied in the Credit Risk Retention Rule, to apply the credit risk retention requirements to managers of CLOs in section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The DC Circuit agreed with LSTA that, given the nature of the transactions performed by CLO managers, the language of the statute invoked by the agencies does not encompass their activities. Because CLO managers were not "securitizers" under section 941, the managers need not retain any credit risk. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to LSTA. View "The Loan Syndications and Trading Assoc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
Petitioner challenged the Commission's decision to sustain FINRA's decision to permanently bar him from membership and from working with any of its affiliated members. The DC Circuit held that the Commission reasonably grounded its decision in the record, which extensively evidenced petitioner's acts of misappropriation, his prolonged efforts to cover his tracks through falsehoods, and his repeated and deliberate obstruction of investigators. The court remanded with respect to the permanent bar on petitioner's registration with FINRA and affiliation with its members for the Commission to determine in the first instance whether Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017), has any bearing on his case. View "Saad v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
After the SEC determined that petitioner's conduct violated various securities-fraud provisions, the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's findings that the statements in petitioner's emails were false or misleading and that he possessed the requisite intent. However, the court held that petitioner did not "make" false statements for purposes of Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j, because petitioner's boss, and not petitioner himself, retained "ultimate authority" over the statements. The court reasoned that, while petitioner's boss was the "maker" of the false statements, petitioner played an active role in perpetrating the fraud by folding the statements into emails he sent directly to investors in his capacity as director of investment banking, and by doing so with an intent to deceive. Therefore, petitioner's conduct infringed the other securities-fraud provisions he was charged with violating. The court set aside sanctions and remanded for the Commission to reassess the appropriate remedies. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review in part, vacated the sanctions, and remanded. View "Lorenzo v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
OCC, a clearing agency that facilitates trades in options and other financial instruments, developed a Capital Plan in an attempt to boost its capital reserves and to alter how fees and refunds were calculated. The DC Circuit remanded to the SEC, which approved OCC's proposed change to its rules, for further proceedings. In this case, the change was subject to approval by the SEC, which granted approval without itself making the findings and determinations prescribed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court held that, because the SEC effectively abdicated its responsibility to OCC, this did not represent the kind of reasoned decisionmaking required by either the Exchange Act or the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Susquehanna International Group v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
After petitioner was convicted of conspiracy, selling unregistered securities, and mail fraud, the SEC barred petitioner from associating with six classes of securities market participants. The court agreed with petitioner's argument that the Commissioner's imposition of Dodd-Frank’s collateral ban constitutes an impermissibly retroactive penalty because it is premised on pre-Dodd-Frank misconduct. See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), Pub. L. No. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Therefore, the Commission abused its discretion in barring petitioner from associating with the investment adviser, municipal securities dealer and transfer agent classes because those bars are impermissibly retroactive, and the court granted that portion of the petition. The court rejected petitioner's "unclean hands" argument and denied the remainder of the petition. View "Bartko v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
Petitioners seek review of the Commission's decision imposing sanctions for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-21, and the rule against misleading advertising. Here, the Commission instituted an administrative enforcement action against petitioners for alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act based on how they presented their “Buckets of Money” retirement wealth-management strategy to prospective clients. The court rejected petitioners' contention that the Commission’s decision and order under review should be vacated because the ALJ rendering the initial decision was a constitutional Officer who was not appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause. The court also concluded that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that petitioners’ “Buckets-of-Money” presentation promised to provide an historical-data-only backtest where the analysis would account for “rebucketizing.” Paying deference to the Commission's choice of sanctions, the court upheld the district court's imposition of the lifetime industry bar on Raymond J. Lucia. The court rejected petitioners' remaining contentions and denied the petition for review. View "Raymond J. Lucia Co. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law

by
The SEC created a new class of securities offerings freed from federal-registration requirements so long as the issuers of these securities comply with certain investor safeguards (Regulation A-Plus). Petitioners, the chief securities regulators for Massachusetts and Montana, seek review of Regulation A-Plus. The court concluded that, because Regulation A-Plus does not conflict with Congress’s unambiguous intent, it does not falter at Chevron Step 1. Furthermore, because the Commission’s qualified-purchaser definition is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute,” it does not fail Chevron Step 2. By providing a reasoned analysis of how its qualified-purchaser definition strikes the “appropriate balance between mitigating cost and time demands on issuers and providing investor protections,” the court concluded that the Commission has complied with its statutory obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702. Accordingly, the court denied the consolidated petitions for review. View "Lindeen v. SEC" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner challenges a joint regulation implementing a section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. 78o-11. Congress added that particular section to the Exchange Act in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Pub. L. No. 111-203, 941, 124 Stat. 1376. The court concluded that the Exchange Act provides a limited grant of jurisdiction, and only rules implementing specific, enumerated sections of the Act are entitled to direct review. Because Congress knew how to add sections to that list, but chose not to do so here, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court transferred the petitions “in the interest of justice” to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. View "The Loan Syndications Assoc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Posted in: Securities Law