Popular Topics
All Topics
- "Gun Jumping"
- "Test-the-Waters" communications
- 2016 SEC Agenda
- ABL
- Accelerated Filer
- Accelerated filers
- Access to Capital and Market Liquidity Report
- Accounting
- Accredited investor
- Advance Notice Bylaws
- Airbnb
- Alternative Trading Systems
- Annual meeting
- Annual reports
- ASC Topic 740
- Asset Management
- asset-based loan
- ATS
- Auction IPOs
- Audit committee
- Auditor attestation
- Authentication document
- BlackRock
- Blank-check companies
- Blockchain
- blue sky
- Board committees
- Board Diversity
- Board independence
- Board of Directors
- Boilerplate
- Boilerplate in securities documents
- borrower
- Broker-dealer
- Broker-dealer registration
- Broker-dealers
- Calculation of Registration Fee
- California
- California Assembly Bill 979
- Capital formation
- capital markets
- Capital raising
- CEO letters
- Certified B corporation
- Chair Mary Jo White
- Chairman’s letters
- Chairperson’s letters
- Climate Change
- coal companies
- coal company IPOs
- coal miners
- coal mining
- collateral
- Columbia Law School
- Commencement of an offering
- Compensation sharing
- Compensatory offerings
- Compensatory sales
- Compensatory securities
- Compensatory securities offerings and sales
- Compliance and Disclosure Interpretation 110.02
- conditions precedent
- conference
- Confidential filings
- Confidential information
- Confidential treatment
- Confidentiality agreements
- coronavirus
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Corporate social responsibility: CSR
- Corporate Stock-Givaway Program
- covenants
- COVID-19
- credit agreement
- Crowdfunding
- CSR
- Cyber breach
- cyber incident
- Cyber risk
- Cyber-attack
- cybersecurity
- DAO
- December 31 Fiscal year end
- Decimalization
- Definition of a Security
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Law
- Delaying amendment
- Description of Business
- Designer stock
- Digital Advertising
- Digital securities
- Direct listings
- Direct marketing programs
- Direct response marketing
- Director Nominees
- Director Questionnaire
- Directors
- Disclosure
- Disclosure and Reporting
- Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative
- Disclosure Obligations
- Disclosure Regime
- Disclosure regulation
- Disclosure Requirements
- Disclosure Rules
- Disclosure simplification
- Disclosure updates and simplification release
- Diversity
- Dodd Frank
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Domino's Piece of the Pie Rewards
- Domino's Pizza
- Donald Trump
- Dual Class Shares
- Dual-class Capitalization
- Dual-Class Common Stock
- Dual-class shareholder voting
- Due diligence
- earnings guidance
- Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
- EDGAR Filing Manual
- EGC
- Electronic signatures
- Emerging growth companies
- Emerging Growth Company
- engagement letter
- environment, social and governance
- Equity Market Structure
- ESG
- event of default
- events of default
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
- Exchange listing
- Exchanges
- executive compensation
- Exempt offerings
- Exempt securities offerings
- Exhibits to Registration Statement
- FAST Act
- FDA
- Female
- Fictitious regulators
- Filing review comments
- financial forecasts
- Financial intermediaries
- Financial sophistication
- Financial statements
- Financing Alternatives
- Finders
- Finders exception
- Finders exemption
- FINRA
- First-day pop
- Five-factor test
- Form 10-K
- Form 10-Q
- Form D
- Form S-1
- Form S-3
- Form S-4
- Founder’s letters
- Fraudulent activities
- Free Stock
- Free Stock Offerings
- FTC
- General Motors Co.
- General solicitation
- Glass Lewis
- Golden Leashes
- Greenlight Capital, Inc.
- Hart-Scott-Rodino
- HSR Act
- Impersonators of genuine firms
- Incorporation by reference
- Indications of Interest
- Influencer Marketing
- Information asymmetry
- Initial coin offering
- Initial listing requirements
- Initial public offerings
- Insider Trading
- Integration
- interest
- Interest rate system
- Interest rates
- Intrastate offerings
- Investment banking
- Investment Company Act
- Investor Advisory Committee
- Investor Alert
- IPO
- IPO disclosure
- IPO drawbacks
- IPO pricing
- IPOs
- ISS
- Item 101
- Item 103
- Item 103 of Regulation S-K
- Item 105
- Item 401 of Regulation S-K
- Item 501(b)(7)
- Item 601(b)(24) of Regulation S-K
- James Mackintosh
- JOBS Act
- Ken Langone
- Large Accelerated Filer
- Larry Fink’s 2019 letter to CEOs
- Legal proceedings
- lender
- LGBTQ+
- LIBOR
- line of credit
- loan agreement
- Loan Agreements
- Loan transactions
- Loans
- Loyalty Programs
- Lyft, Inc.
- MAE
- Management
- management disclosure and analysis
- Management; Executive officers and directors
- Mark Cuban
- Material contract exhibits
- Material nonpublic information
- MD&A
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Modernization
- Multi-Class Shares
- NASDAQ
- Nasdaq Independence Rules
- Nasdaq Listing Rules
- Nomination Letter
- Non-accelerated Filer
- Non-GAAP Financial Measures
- NSMIA
- NYSE
- Offering fees
- Offering statement on Form 1-A
- Offering statement on Form C
- Ordinary Course Covenant
- OTC
- OTC Market Group
- OTC Pink
- OTC quoted companies
- OTCQB
- Paid-for Research
- pandemic
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Pay Ratio Rule
- perfection certificate
- Periodic reports
- Perpetual dual-class stock
- Power of Attorney
- Prescriptive-based disclosure
- Primary issuances
- Principal Executive Offices
- Principles-based disclosure
- Private Equity
- Private fund knowledgeable employees
- Private placements
- Prof. John C. Coffee, Jr.
- Proposed Rule 5605(f)
- Prospectuses
- proxy advisory firms
- Proxy Contests
- Proxy fights
- Proxy materials
- Proxy statement
- Proxy voting
- Public benefit corporation
- Public Companies
- Public company acquisitions
- Public Float
- Public M&A
- Public offerings
- Purpose & Profit
- Purpose of the corporation
- Qualified institutional buyer
- Reference interest rates
- Reg S-K
- Registered offerings
- Registration Filing Fee
- Registration statement
- Registration statements
- Regulation A activity
- Regulation A+
- Regulation Crowdfunding
- Regulation D
- Regulation FD
- Regulation of finders
- Regulation S
- Regulation S-K
- Regulation S-K Item 10(f)(1)
- Regulation S-T
- Regulations S-K
- Regulatory Entrepreneurship
- Release No. 34-90112
- Reporting Category
- representations
- resource extraction antigraft rule
- restricted stock
- Reverse mergers
- revolver
- Rights offerings
- Risk Factors
- Rule 10b-5
- Rule 10b5-1 plan
- Rule 144A
- Rule 14a-4
- Rule 163B under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 21F-17
- Rule 24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Rule 253(f)
- Rule 302(b)
- Rule 4(a)(2) offering
- Rule 406 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 473 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 483 under the Securities Act of 1933
- Rule 506(b)
- Rule 506(c)
- Rule 701
- S&P Dow Jones
- Safe Harbor
- SAFEs
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act §404(b)
- Say-on-Pay Frequency Vote
- SEC
- SEC approval of offerings
- SEC Comments
- SEC Commissioner Robert J. Jackson Jr.
- SEC disclosure
- SEC disgorgement
- SEC Division of Economics and Risk Analysis
- SEC Filing Deadlines
- SEC Filing Reviews
- SEC Form 10
- SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- SEC Release No. 33-10591
- SEC Report of Investigation
- SEC Rule 152
- SEC shutdown
- Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- Section 21F
- Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
- securities
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities Act Rule 257
- Securities Act Rule 405
- Securities Act Section 17(b)
- Securities Exchange Act
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934
- Securities litigation
- Securities offerings
- securities transactions
- Severance Agreements
- Sexual harassment
- Sexual misconduct
- Shareholder Activism
- shareholder activists
- Shareholder nominations
- Shareholder rights
- Shareholder voting
- Shareholder Voting Rights
- Signatures in Registration Statement
- Simple Agreement for Future Equity
- Small business
- Small-cap
- Small-cap Companies
- Small-cap Issuers
- Smaller reporting companies
- Smaller reporting company
- Snap IPO
- Social Capital Hedosophia
- Social Media
- Social Media Marketing
- SOFR
- SPAC
- SPAC's
- Special Purpose Acquisition Company
- Special situations
- Spin-offs
- Sponsorship
- Spotify
- SRC
- Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 118
- Staleness date
- Startups
- State securities laws
- stock options
- Stock Ownership Guidelines
- Stock Promotion Schemes
- Strategic spin-offs
- Sunset provisions
- Supreme Court
- Sustainability
- Switch, Inc.
- T+2
- Targeted stocks
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tech IPOs
- Tech M&A
- Tech unicorns
- term loan
- term sheet
- Termination or Completion of an offering
- The CLS Blue Sky Blog
- The Wall Street Journal
- Third Party Payments
- Tick Pilot
- Tick Size
- Tick Size Pilot Program
- Tick Sizes
- Token sales
- Tracking stocks
- Trade Settlement
- Trading
- trading platforms
- Transaction-based compensation
- U.S. dollar LIBOR
- U.S. federal income tax reform
- Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Underrepresented Minority
- Underwriting allocations
- Underwriting fees
- Undisclosed Fees
- Unequal Voting Rights
- Universal proxy ballots
- Unregistered finders
- Unregistered offerings
- Unregistered Soliciting Entities
- Uplisting
- US Supreme Court
- Use of boilerplate
- venture capital
- venture capital investors
- venture capital terms
- Venture exchanges
- Verification of accredited status
- Virtual currency
- voting control
- voting power
- warranties
- Whistleblower Program
- Whistleblowers
- “Tandy” Representations
- “Testing the Waters”
Recent Posts
- Leadership Change at the SEC: What Activists Could Expect from Gary Gensler and the Biden Administration
- Delaware Chancery Court Provides Important Guidance on COVID-19’s Impact on a Buyer’s Obligation to Close:
- New York State Updates State Securities Regulations
- Nasdaq Proposes New Listing Rules Related to Board Diversity
- SEC Adopts Amendments to Permit the Use of Electronic Signatures for SEC Filings
- The SEC Rebuilds the Integration Principles Guiding Concurrent Private and Public Offerings of Securities
- The SEC Proposes a Safe Harbor for Permissible Capital-Raising Activities by Unregistered Finders
- SEC Issues 100th Whistleblower Award Just Days after Adopting Amendments to Whistleblower Program
- SEC Reduces Registration Filing Fee Beginning in October 2020
- The SEC Amends Regulation S-K Disclosure Rules to Empower Companies to Determine What and How Much Disclosure is Appropriate for Shareholders and Investors
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
Contact Us
(212) 451-2300
www.olshanlaw.com
Supreme Court Limits the SEC’s Ability to Obtain Disgorgement of Revenues
Highest court affirms the right of the SEC to recover fraudulently obtained profits
On Monday, June 22, 2020, in Liu v. SEC, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to recover disgorgement as part of its civil enforcement powers against fraudulent investment schemes. However, the ruling limited the SEC by defining disgorgement to include only the wrongdoer’s net profits, rather than the wrongdoer’s gross revenues, which was the previous standard recognized by most federal courts. The much-followed case was decided by an 8-1 vote, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting.
The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”), which governs the SEC’s enforcement powers, permits the SEC to recover fraudulently obtained investments even though the statute does not explicitly authorize such a remedy. The statutory language permitted federal courts to grant “equitable relief” without further definition. Over the years, federal courts interpreted the “equitable relief” phrase to include all sums of money fraudulently obtained, regardless of whether the money was actually retained by the wrongdoer. Defendants in SEC cases argued that having to repay money they no longer possessed amounted to a penalty, and the Securities Act does not authorize penalties. Such arguments usually met with limited success but, in recent years, defendants have been making headway with such arguments, setting the stage for Liu v. SEC to be decided by the Supreme Court.
In a ruling that benefits both sides, the Supreme Court took a middle ground, refusing to uphold the SEC’s ability to recover all of the money fraudulently obtained from investors, but also rejecting the defendants’ argument that any form of disgorgement constitutes an improper penalty.
Disgorgement, decided the Supreme Court, is a permissible type of equitable relief so long as it does not exceed the wrongdoer’s net profits. In her opinion for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “Courts may not enter disgorgement awards that exceed the gains made upon any business or investment, when both the receipts and payments are taken into the account. Accordingly, courts must deduct legitimate expenses before ordering disgorgement under §78u(d)(5) [of the Securities Act.] […] A rule to the contrary that makes no allowance for the cost and expense of conducting a business would be inconsistent with the ordinary principles and practice of courts of chancery” (internal citations omitted).
The underlying facts of Liu v. SEC, broadly speaking, were that defendants Liu and Wang raised more than $27 million from investors, falsely claiming they would use the funds to build and operate a cancer treatment center. A district court in the Central District of California determined that the couple kept about $8.2 million for themselves and never obtained permits to build the cancer center. The rest of the $27 million was spent on salary, marketing and other business expenses. Liability is no longer in dispute, but the district court ordered disgorgement of the entire amount raised from investors. The district court imposed civil penalties equal to the $8.2 million the couple had personally received from the project.
The specific question before the Supreme Court was whether Liu and Wang should be forced to disgorge the entire $27 million, or just the amount they retained as their profits. Because the Ninth Circuit had affirmed an award of the full $27 million, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling and sent the case back to the district court for a recalculation of the disgorgement under the new rule.
Finally, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the SEC, whenever it recovers disgorgement, should be required to return the funds to the investors, as opposed to depositing the funds with the Treasury Department.
Although Liu v. SEC is ostensibly limited to the SEC context, this ruling will have repercussions that affect the Federal Trade Commission and Food & Drug Administration. Like the statute governing the SEC, Section 13(b) of the FTC Act is silent about disgorgement, but courts have allowed it as a form of equitable relief. In a case entitled FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, the Supreme Court has been asked to address the identical issue in the FTC context. The FDC Act, which governs the FDA, is even more vague, permitting the FDA to “restrain violations.”
TAKEAWAY: The Supreme Court’s ruling, though in the SEC context, has far-reaching implications. While defendants are no longer responsible for returning funds they no longer possess, the SEC’s right to significant disgorgement powers is now unassailable. Both the FTC and FDA have similar enforcement powers and, as a result of this ruling, eventually those governmental agencies will almost certainly face the same (or greater) limitations to which the SEC is now subject.