Recent Legislation Expands SEC’s Ability to Pursue Disgorgement

The amendments in the NDAA are likely Congress’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Kokesh (2017) and Liu (2020). In Kokesh, the Court held that disgorgement was a “penalty” and thus was subject to a five-year statute of limitations. At the time, however, the Court did not address whether, if disgorgement was a “penalty,” the SEC could still seek disgorgement pursuant to its power to obtain an “equitable remedy” under Section 21(d)(5) of the Securities and Exchange Act. The Court in Liu answered this question, holding that disgorgement could be considered an equitable remedy, but only if subject to certain limitations, such as ensuring the disgorged funds come from the wrongdoer and ensuring the recovered funds benefit the wronged investors. With this legislation, Congress’s actions have greatly expanded the timeframe during which the SEC can seek disgorgement. By doing so, it has also increased the total amount of disgorgement the SEC could collect. While the new law does not explicitly address the equitable restrictions the Court acknowledged in Liu, the SEC may point to this legislation as additional authority that allows it to seek disgorgement not tied directly to equitable claims for the benefit of wronged investors. Additionally, although the bill includes language providing that it applies to any action pending or filed after the date of the NDAA, litigants may have grounds to challenge any retroactive application of the statute. These issues will likely have to be resolved by the courts going forward.

Charles Riely is a partner in Jenner & Block’s New York City, New York, office. Gabriel Gillett is a partner in Jenner & Block's Chicago, Illinois, office. Howard Suskin is a partner in Jenner & Block’s Chicago, Illinois, office and serves as cochair of the ABA Litigation Section Securities Committee’s Class Actions and Derivative Actions subcommittee. Grace Signorelli-Cassady and Philip Sailer are associates in Jenner & Block’s Chicago office.

_{Copyright © 2021, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the American Bar Association, the Section of Litigation, this committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).}