Search results

To analyze the impact of recent legislation that amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to expressly empower the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement in federal district court proceedings and to codify applicable statutes of limitations.

This article provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and summarizes how the scope of the remedy has evolved since Kokesh v. SEC (2017). Then, the article analyzes the changes to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 contained in Section 6501 the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which statutorily empowered the SEC to seek and obtain disgorgement in federal court actions. Finally, the authors discuss the impact of the legislation on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh and Liu v. SEC (2020).

The availability and appropriateness of SEC disgorgement have been the subject of vigorous debate. Just as courts began to iron out the contours of SEC disgorgement in the wake of Kokesh and Liu, Congress intervened by granting to the SEC explicit statutory authority to seek a remedy traditionally obtained at equity. In passing this legislation, Congress answered some questions that remained after Liu but also raised many new ones. These new questions will likely take years to resolve through subsequent litigation and potentially additional legislation.

Original, practical analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

To analyze the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Liu v. SEC, where the Court confronted the issue of whether the SEC can obtain disgorgement in federal district court proceedings.

This paper provides an overview of the authors’ prior work analyzing courts’ treatment of SEC disgorgement and a summary of the background and opinion in Liu v. SEC. This article then focuses on the practical implications of Liu on SEC disgorgement by considering questions left open by the decision.

The Court in Liu held that the SEC is authorized to seek disgorgement as “equitable relief” as long as it “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” But the Court left many unanswered questions, such as whether disgorged funds must always be returned to investors for disgorgement to be a permissible equitable remedy, whether the SEC can obtain joint-and-several disgorgement liability from unrelated co-defendants, what “legitimate expenses” should be deducted in disgorgement calculations, and to what extent the SEC can seek disgorgement in cases when victims are difficult to identify.

Original, practical guidance from experienced lawyers in financial services regulatory and enforcement practices, many of whom have previously worked in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.

On 6th September, 2000 the SEC issued a press release accusing 33 companies and individuals of fraudulently using the Internet to make more than $10m in illegal profits by driving up the prices of more than 70 small stocks. The companies and individuals, including a bus mechanic, a car service driver and a self‐chilling can company, boosted the total market value of these stocks by $1.7bn, claimed the SEC, in announcing 11 civil fraud lawsuits filed in federal courts. ‘What used to require a network of professional promoters and brokers, banks of telephones and months to accomplish can now be done in minutes by a single person using the Internet and a home computer,’ SEC enforcement director Richard H. Walker said. Two weeks later, the SEC announced that it had settled an enforcement proceeding brought against a 15‐year‐old stock trader who, operating from a computer in a bedroom in his parents' home, had earned more than $270,000 in profits over a six‐month period by engaging in classic ‘pump and dump’ market manipulation of small over‐the‐counter stocks.

Recent SEC actions, including its first settlement of an enforcement case, provide specific guidance and some surprising points of emphasis concerning the implementation of Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure). Although there is nothing inherently unlawful about one‐on‐one meetings with securities analysts or institutional investors, the SEC’s actions demonstrate the risks associated with one‐on‐one meetings, particularly with sell‐side analysts for public companies and potentially for the analysts themselves. Executives and analysts alike could benefit from consulting with counsel about the best ways to perform the valuable function of discussing a company’s business without violating Regulation FD. Several measures should be considered, including, among others, a review of prior filings, education about what types of information is normally considered material, and a predetermined view about areas that will be “out of bounds” to questions.

With all of the noise surrounding the promulgation of Regulation FD, It will be the subject of many articles and much analysis. This piece gives a background view of the origins of the rule. It also goes into the specifics of the rule. Who is covered, as well as exploring its insider trading implications.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Channels of distribution are basic to the marketing strategies of firms, and have been shown to be a key element in the marketing mix. The author here undertakes a comprehensive review of channels literature, primarily to identify and assess the adequacy of the various mainstream conceptual schemes which have emerged. Economic‐based arguments have largely been at the core of channels literature, although these have been partially offset by the concepts of the organisational and behavioural schools. The author concludes that whereas every conceptual approach reviewed has added something to our cumulative knowledge, no single approach has yet reached a point of adequate conceptualisation based on his own basic criteria. As yet channels literature is mainly descriptive, and has virtually no predictive power.