SEC Ends Losing Streak at SCOTUS, Over Thomas and Gorsuch Dissent
The justices' divided ruling Wednesday in Lorenzo v. SEC comes after two losses last term at the high court.
March 27, 2019 at 12:14 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday boosted the power of federal law enforcement to pursue securities law violations.
In a 6-2 decision, the high court held in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission that sending an email containing false or misleading statements with the intent to defraud violates federal securities laws even if the sender did not “make” the statements. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who earlier took part in the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was recused. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent that favored the challenger.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented Wednesday. They accused the majority of “eviscerating” the “clear line between primary and secondary liability in fraudulent-misstatement cases” drawn by the high court in its 2011 decision in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders.
“Because the majority misconstrues the securities laws and flouts our precedent in a way that is likely to have far-reaching consequences, I respectfully dissent,” wrote Thomas, who was the author of the 5-4 decision in Janus.
In Janus, the justices concluded that the “maker” of a statement under Rule 10b-5(b) is the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it. The dissenters in Janus included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor—who all were in Wednesday's Lorenzo majority along with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
“While the result is not surprising, and the affirmance is on its face a victory for the SEC, the underlying issue, which the Court of Appeal recognized in its opinion, remains unaddressed,” said Nick Morgan, a Paul Hastings partner in Los Angeles and a former senior trial counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Morgan added: “There is no institutional mechanism at the SEC to check the agency's mission creep beyond what is authorized by statute. We will see additional efforts to push the envelope by the SEC, and additional challenges to keep the SEC within statutory bounds by defendants.”
Wednesday's win for the SEC ends a losing streak at the high court. The justices last term ruled against the SEC in a dispute over the constitutionality of administrative law judges, and the court also curbed the agency's broad view of Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections. In 2017, the agency lost a statute of limitations case involving disgorgement claims in enforcement actions.
Francis Lorenzo, director of investment banking at a New York brokerage firm, was charged by the SEC with engaging in a fraudulent scheme in violation of Rule 10b-5, Section 10 (b) of the Exchange Act and Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act. The SEC accused Lorenzo of sending false and misleading statements to investors with intent to defraud. Lorenzo said he sent the emails at the direction of his boss, who supplied the content and approved the messages.
Writing for the majority, Breyer said the words in those provisions, as ordinarily used, are “sufficiently broad” to include the dissemination of false or misleading information with the intent to defraud.
“By sending emails he understood to contain material untruths, Lorenzo 'employ[ed]' a 'device,' 'scheme,' and 'artifice to defraud' within the meaning of subsection (a) of the Rule, §10(b), and §17(a)(1),” Breyer wrote. “By the same conduct, he 'engage[d] in a[n] act, practice, or course of business' that 'operate[d] … as a fraud or deceit' under subsection (c) of the rule.”
But Thomas, in his dissent, said the majority made a “dead letter” of the Janus decision.
“Under the court's rule, a person who has not 'made' a fraudulent misstatement within the meaning of Rule 10b– 5(b) nevertheless could be held primarily liable for facilitating that same statement; the SEC or plaintiff need only relabel the person's involvement as an 'act,' 'device,' 'scheme,' or 'artifice' that violates Rule 10b–5(a) or (c),” Thomas wrote. “And a person could be held liable for a fraudulent misstatement under §17(a)(1) even if the person did not obtain money or property by means of the statement. In short, Rule 10b–5(b) and §17(a)(2) are rendered entirely superfluous in fraud cases under the majority's reading.”
Breyer acknowledged that the law's provisions capture a wide range of conduct and applying them in borderline cases could be difficult. But he said “purpose, precedent, and circumstance could lead to narrowing their reach in other contexts.”
Breyer added: “And while one can readily imagine other actors tangentially involved in dissemination—say, a mailroom clerk—for whom liability would typically be inappropriate, the petitioner in this case sent false statements directly to investors, invited them to follow up with questions, and did so in his capacity as vice president of an investment banking company.”
Thomas agreed that it would be inappropriate to apply the provisions, for example, to a secretary put in a similar situation to Lorenzo. But, he wrote, “I can discern no legal principle in the majority opinion that would preclude the secretary from being pursued for primary violations of the securities laws.”
Robert Heim of New York's Meyers & Heim argued for Lorenzo. Assistant to the Solicitor General Christopher Michel represented the SEC.
Read the opinion in Lorenzo v. SEC:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Stake Out My Space': Attorneys, Law Professors Flock from X to Bluesky
Orrick Hires Real Estate Partner to Focus on Data Centers
Pop-Up Window Does Not Prove 'Clearly Communicated' Arbitration Clause, 8th Circuit Says
New Mexico Levies Record $48M Emissions Fine Against Natural Gas Giant
Trending Stories
- 1Mayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
- 2What We Learned From In-House Litigators in 2024
- 3‘Modern Family’: The Resurgence of Family Office Enterprises
- 4Baker & Hostetler to Open Austin Office With 10-Lawyer Locke Lord Affordable Housing Team
- 5Law Firms' 'Failed Hires' Expected to Climb as Lateral Hiring Ramps Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250