Skip to content

Enforcement Highlights

  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Cookie Policy
Enforcement
Highlights

Covering SEC, CFTC, FINRA, PCAOB, States, Exchanges, & FCA Enforcement Activities

SEC Disgorgement Claim Challenged After Supreme Court’s Decision in Liu

The SEC’s disgorgement request in a litigated proceeding in federal district court is being challenged in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Liu v. SEC, which limited how much the agency can seek in disgorgement.

In April 2015, the SEC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against two California oil-and-gas companies, Team Resources, Inc., and Fossil Energy Corporation, their common principal, and four sales associates (collectively, “Team Resources”) for allegedly operating a fraudulent oil and gas production scheme. The SEC charged that Team Resources lured investors to the oil companies by touting unreasonable oil and gas production figures and distributing misleading information regarding the companies’ operations.

To settle the charges, the Team Resources defendants  consented to judgement permanently enjoining them from future violations of the securities laws and ordering them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains in amounts to be determined by the court. In 2019, after years of litigation over the SEC’s disgorgement request, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s disgorgement award of approximately $15.5 million. Team Resources then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United Statement Supreme Court contesting the award.

In June 2020, while Team Resources’s cert petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Lui v. SEC, holding that the SEC may seek disgorgement for violations of federal securities laws that “does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims.” Liu further held that lower courts must “deduct legitimate expenses before ordering disgorgement [under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).” Following its decision in Liu, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Team Resources, and the case was sent back to the district court with instructions to apply the principles of Liu to the facts of Team Resources.

Following remand, Team Resources urged the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of legitimate expenses for purposes of disgorgement. The defendants argued in a recent filing that the SEC’s determination of its net profits “cannot possibly be anything other than the SEC’s uninformed guess” because the agency never inquired about their business expenses during the investigation. The SEC denies that an evidentiary hearing is necessary and asked the court to approve a disgorgement award of $2.4 million, which purportedly approximates Team Resources’s ill-gotten gains, less deductible expenses. The district court has yet to decide whether to grant Team Resources’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

While the litigation between Team Resources and the SEC may see more twists and turns, this is a case worth watching. Liu was a clear signal that SEC’s disgorgement claims—and the calculation of them—will face additional scrutiny by defendants and the courts. But the case also left unanswered many important questions, including what qualifies as a “legitimate” business expense for purposes of calculating disgorgement awards, what evidence a defendant may introduce to support such expenses, and whether defendants are entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the SEC’s accounting. The Northern District of Texas may be the first federal court to address some of those important questions.

 

Subscribe and Receive Alerts to New Articles

SUBSCRIBE
February 8, 2022
Written by: Michael J. Kaupa
Category: Hedge Funds and Private Equity, Insider and Manipulative Trading, Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers, Public Companies, Accounting, and Auditing

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Ubiquitous Use of WhatsApp and Other Unrecorded Internal Communications Result in Substantial Penalties in Recent SEC, CFTC Actions
Next Next post: SEC Proposes New Cybersecurity Risk Management Rules for Registered Investment Advisers and Funds

Subscribe to Email Alerts

Categories

  • Compliance and Supervision
  • Futures and Derivatives
  • Hedge Funds and Private Equity
  • Insider and Manipulative Trading
  • Investment Advisers and Broker Dealers
  • Municipal Bond Offerings
  • Public Companies, Accounting, and Auditing

©2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Lawyer Advertising.

  • About Us
  • Contact
  • Cookie Policy
We use cookies to improve your experience with our website. By browsing our site, you are agreeing to the use of cookies. For more information about how we use cookies, please review our privacy policy and cookie policy. OK
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT