Today, September 24, 2015, the SEC issued proposed amendments to the Rules of Practice governing SEC administrative proceedings. You can read them here.
This comes 15 months after the SEC’s General Counsel Anne Small noted that the existing rules were archaic, and insufficient to handle the complex cases being sent to the SEC’s administrative courts. See SEC Administrative Case Rules Likely Out Of Date, GC Says. (Ms. Small said it was fair for attorneys to question whether the SEC’s rules for administrative proceedings were still appropriate, with the rules last revised “quite some time ago” when the SEC’s administrative proceedings dealt with different kinds of cases than the more complex administrative matters it now takes on or expects to take on — given the commission’s expanded authority under the Dodd-Frank Act — such as insider-trading actions. It was “entirely reasonable to wonder” if those rules should be updated to reflect the changed situation, for instance by allowing more flexibility on current limits to trial preparation time or allowing for depositions to be taken. “We want to make sure the process is fair and reasonable, so [changing] procedures to reflect the changes makes a lot of sense.”)
Since then, the challenges to SEC administrative proceedings have been fast and furious. Some arguments that alleged that the appointment of the ALJs themselves was constitutionally invalid under the Constitution’s Article II Appointments Clause have been received favorably by some courts. See SEC Hit with Double Whammy Rulings Barring It from Commencing Challenged Administrative Proceedings. Others that made more fundamental challenges to the entire fairness of the administrative proceeding process have not yet gained judicial footholds. But the disparate treatment of alleged violators in federal court and the SEC courts was so obvious, and became the focus of so much criticism, that some action was required. See Former SEC Enforcement Leaders Urge SEC To Reform Administrative Enforcement Process. The repeated statements by SEC Enforcement officials that the existing process was fair and provided no disadvantages to alleged violators were transparently wrong (see Ceresney Presents Unconvincing Defense of Increased SEC Administrative Prosecutions). The Commission was forced to act when the Wall Street Journal reported on the plain advantage that the SEC had when it sent cases to its administrative court. See Fairness Concerns About Proliferation of SEC Administrative Prosecutions Documented by Wall Street Journal (credit to WSJ reporter Jean Eaglesham for playing a major role in moving the SEC toward reform). Then, judges like N.D. Ga. Judge Leigh Martin May and SDNY Judge Richard Berman began to note in their opinions on the Appointments Clause issue that there were overall fairness issues raised that went beyond the alleged Article II violations. Thank goodness the Commission saw that a stonewalling strategy that lasted almost two years had to be revised.
We now need to examine these proposals, and see if they adequately handle the procedural problems in the administrative court that give the SEC staff an unacceptable advantage in prosecutions that place respondents’ assets, and ability to do business and earn a living, at issue. Not having reviewed the proposal yet, I can’t comment on the extent to which they address those problems. But my bet is that there are at least some key advantages held by the SEC staff that are not yet addressed (since the staffers drafting the changes have been arguing for months that respondents are not really at a disadvantage). That will be the subject of future blog posts, and, of course, what are likely to be voluminous responses during the comment period.
September 24, 2015
Contact Straight Arrow privately here, or leave a public comment below: