This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

U.S. Supreme Court,
Securities

Nov. 22, 2019

Will SCOTUS claw back SEC disgorgement?

Recent precedent and overuse may prompt limiting of common SEC remedy

Berry john web

John W. Berry

Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP

350 S Grand Ave
Los Angeles , CA 90071

Email: John.Berry@mto.com

University of Virginia School of Law

John is a former SEC Enforcement Division senior officer who focuses on SEC and other white collar matters, cybersecurity issues, as well as securities-related and other high-stakes commercial litigation.

Missing

Elaine J Goldenberg

Partner, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP

Email: Elaine.Goldenberg@mto.com

Harvard Law School

Missing

Thomas W. Hiltachk

Bell, McAdnrews & Hiltachk LLP

Political law/Election Law


audio

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP partners John W. Berry and Elaine Goldenberg, securities experts with experience in the SEC and U.S. Solicitor General's Office, discuss the appeal 'Liu v. SEC,' where defendants who ran a fraudulent investment-for-visa racket claim their $27 million disgorgement order was beyond the agency's authority.
John, as associate regional director of the SEC's Los Angeles office, oversaw the enforcement action against the 'Liu' defendants, and Elaine argued a 2017 Supreme Court case the petitioners now rely upon in their request for cert, 'Kokesh v. SEC.' In 'Kokesh,' the high court found that disgorgement, at least as it pertained to a particular statute of limitations at issue there, was a "penalty" rather than a form of equitable relief. The 'Liu' petitioners argue that holding means their $27 million disgorgement order, framed in the case as an equitable remedy separate from other civil monetary penalties ordered, was impermissible.
John and Elaine note that the high court has in recent years, including with 'Kokesh,' done some limiting of the agency's authority, which might continue in this appeal.
Plus, Tom Hiltachk (Bell McAndrews & Hiltachk LLP) discusses the Cal. Supreme Court's ruling blocking a recent state law that sought to keep presidential candidates with undisclosed tax returns from the primary ballot.

#355285

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com