By Brian E. Casey | When the SEC interprets the breadth of a federal securities statute the same way as the Defense Research Institute (DRI) and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) – two prominent associations who traditionally interpret such laws narrowly – something is up. So it was in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, a case interpreting the preemptive scope of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). As one senior SEC official admitted at the recent SEC Speaks conference, this case made for some “strange bedfellows.” But in a decision last Wednesday, the Supreme Court disagreed with all of them. Troice arises out of the massive Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Allen Stanford. Stanford induced investors to buy certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank which allegedly paid superior rates of return because they were backed by investments in marketable securities of corporations, foreign governments and the like. Instead, investor funds were used to repay earlier investors, speculate in Caribbean real estate and fund Stanford’s cricket team and the rest of his lavish lifestyle. Once the scheme collapsed, defrauded investors brought state court class actions against Stanford’s insurers, accountants and lawyers (including Chadbourne & Parke) under state-law fraud theories to recoup some of their losses. Defendants used SLUSA to remove these cases to federal court where they were dismissed because SLUSA precludes most state-law class actions involving "a misrepresentation" made "in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security" (which means a security traded on a national exchange). The district court reasoned that because Stanford represented that investments in CDs would be used to purchase covered securities, Stanford’s misstatements were sufficiently “in connection with” the purchase of covered securities to be preempted. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that plaintiffs’ claims were not precluded by SLUSA because the alleged misrepresentations were too “tangentially related” to the purchase or sale of a covered security to satisfy the "in connection with" requirement. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit read SLUSA’s “in connection with” language narrowly, reasoning that the misrepresentation must be relatively central to investors’ decisions to buy a covered security. The law firms, insurers and other defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court. At first glance, a private class action alleging state law fraud theories where the issue is the scope of SLUSA preemption does not seem like fodder for SEC involvement, let alone a case where the agency would side with the alleged secondary wrongdoers. The catch, however, is that the Supreme Court has interpreted SLUSA’s “in connection with” language to be consistent with the “in connection with” in Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Commission has consistently said that Section 10(b) must be interpreted very broadly both in private actions and SEC enforcement actions because it is one of the SEC’s principal anti-fraud weapons. This placed the SEC in the optically awkward position of arguing that SLUSA’s “in connection with” language should be read broadly to preclude defrauded investors from seeking to recover their losses by asserting state-law fraud claims. This was probably particularly sensitive because those investors could not assert Section 10(b) claims themselves against these defendants because Section 10(b) has been interpreted not to provide for secondary liability in private actions since Central Bank of Denver in 1994. Nonetheless, the SEC argued – alongside industry groups, the defense bar and defendants themselves – that plaintiffs could not proceed with their state-law claims because SLUSA’s “in connection with” language covers situations beyond simply misrepresentations that induce the purchase or sale of a covered security. Much of the SEC’s brief really advocated for a broad and flexible interpretation of same language in Section 10(b) and worried that, without such an interpretation, the outer limits of the Commission’s regulatory authority would be curtailed and investors would be less protected from fraud. In a 6-1-2 decision (Justice Thomas concurred), the Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that SLUSA preemption does not extend beyond misrepresentations that are material to the purchase or sale of a covered security by someone other than the fraudster. The Court concluded from its prior precedent that, in every case where it found a fraud to be “in connection with” a purchase or sale of a security, victims took, or tried to take, or divested themselves of, or tried to, or held “and ownership interest” in financial instruments that fell within the statutory definition. The Court therefore limited the outer bound of “in connection with” to its existing case law. The Court acknowledged, but dispatched, the SEC’s (and the dissent’s) concern that its decision would significantly curtail the SEC’s enforcement powers as simply “hand wringing.” The Court’s analysis reconfigured the parties’ arguments somewhat and relied on the fact that “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a security sweeps more broadly than simply covered securities. So, the certificates of deposit in the Stanford Ponzi scheme fell within the definition of “security” but outside the definition of a “covered security” because they did not trade on national exchanges. This analysis could reinvigorate the Howey test for what constitutes a security or investment contract, particularly since the Supreme Court has stated in prior opinions (like Marine Bank v. Weaver) that at least some certificates of deposit are not securities. According to the dissent, Troice “introduces confusion in the enforcement of securities laws” by simultaneously limiting the SEC’s federal enforcement power and subjecting secondary actors in securities transactions to costly private state-court litigation on claims that would not be permitted in federal court, potentially undermining Central Bank. It also injects a limitation that the purchase or sale must be by someone other than the fraudster, which the dissent notes is nowhere in the statutory text. This new gloss may also substantially impact criminal securities fraud prosecutions which also rely on Section 10(b)’s “in connection with” language. Criminal defendants especially may ask whether “in connection with” now requires some kind of reliance on a misrepresentation, a requirement previously lacking in criminal prosecutions. Finally, Troice may signal a willingness by the Court to upset settled interpretations of Section 10(b) which has interesting implications for next week’s oral argument in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. when the Court will re-consider the “fraud on the market” presumption.
The SEC and Its “Strange Bedfellows” Argue Against Investors Seeking Damages for Fraud – Are Rebuffed by the Supreme Court
Brian E. Casey
PartnerRELATED ARTICLES
Half a Loaf: Congress Extends the Statute of Limitations on Some SEC Remedies
January 14, 2021 | The GEE Blog, SEC
SEC Again Highlights Risks of Investing in Chinese Securities
December 3, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC, Financial Regulation
SEC Steps Up Enforcement for Unsuitable Sales of Complex ETPs
November 18, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Financial Regulation, SEC
President’s Working Group Attempts to Increase Transparency in Chinese Investments
September 2, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC
SEC Highlights COVID-Related Risks Facing Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers
August 31, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC, Financial Regulation
Half a Loaf: Congress Extends the Statute of Limitations on Some SEC Remedies
January 14, 2021 | The GEE Blog, SEC
SEC Again Highlights Risks of Investing in Chinese Securities
December 3, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC, Financial Regulation
SEC Steps Up Enforcement for Unsuitable Sales of Complex ETPs
November 18, 2020 | The GEE Blog, Financial Regulation, SEC
President’s Working Group Attempts to Increase Transparency in Chinese Investments
September 2, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC
SEC Highlights COVID-Related Risks Facing Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers
August 31, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC, Financial Regulation
SEC Adopts Rule Amendments Regarding Proxy Voting Advice
July 29, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC
SEC Hosts Roundtable to Discuss Risks Associated With U.S.-Listed Chinese Companies
July 14, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC, Financial Regulation
Supreme Court Misses Its Chance To Define Limits of SEC’s Enforcement Authority
June 30, 2020 | The GEE Blog, SEC
Well, That Didn’t Take Long – and With No Fanfare, Decades of Administrative Law Are Upended
July 13, 2018 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Decides Lucia – But the Saga Continues
July 9, 2018 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
First-Time Supreme Court Advocate Appointed to Argue the SEC’s Case in Lucia
January 23, 2018 | SEC, The GEE Blog
SEC’s Appointments Clause Dilemma Gets Worse
January 16, 2018 | SEC, The GEE Blog
SEC Scrutiny Brings Sanity to Hot ICO Market
November 9, 2017 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Who’s Watching the Watchdog? SEC Deals With Its Own Data Breach
September 25, 2017 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Don't Let DOJ Defections Fool You: Corporate Conduct Still in the Crosshairs
September 6, 2017 | Department of Justice, The GEE Blog
Corporate Law Alert - SEC Issues Guidance on Initial Coin Offerings and Cryptocurrencies
August 2, 2017 | The GEE Blog, SEC
SEC Chairman Announces 8 Core Principles
July 31, 2017 | SEC, The GEE Blog
U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Blow Limiting SEC Disgorgement Power
June 12, 2017 | SEC, The GEE Blog
The SEC’s Appointments Clause Dilemma
January 24, 2017 | Case to Watch, SEC, The GEE Blog
SEC Changes Some of Its Procedural Rules After Constitutional Challenges
September 7, 2016 | SEC, The GEE Blog
D.C. Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of SEC’s In-House Tribunals
September 2, 2016 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Accounting Fraud Getting Increased Attention from the SEC and Class Action Counsel
April 29, 2016 | SEC, The GEE Blog
SEC Completes Municipal Underwriter “Enforcement Sweep”
February 8, 2016 | SEC, The GEE Blog
SEC Reduces Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Award for "Unreasonable Delay," Announces Policy of "More Heavily" Punishing Delay After Award Program's Implementation
November 16, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Regulation S-P Violation: Are You Prepared For A Cyber-Security Breach?
October 8, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
INSIDER TRADING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS – MORE ON TWO HOT TOPICS THAT HAVE NOW CONVERGED
September 28, 2015 | Insider Trading, SEC, The GEE Blog
WHY NEWMAN MIGHT NOT BE HEADED TO THE SUPREME COURT
August 11, 2015 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
NINTH CIRCUIT SLAPS BACK REMOTE TIPPEE’S NEWMAN DEFENSE
July 15, 2015 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
THE BENEFITS OF COOPERATION – HYPERDYNAMICS AVOIDS INDICTMENT
May 29, 2015 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
THE SEC EXPLAINS ITS RATIONALE IN FORUM SELECTION IN CONTESTED CASES
May 26, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
THE SEC EXPLAINS ITS RATIONALE IN FORUM SELECTION IN CONTESTED CASES
May 22, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Self-Reporting: A Wise Strategy or Chasing Unicorns?
April 28, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Recent Enforcement Trends in the Commodity Markets (Part 1)
April 13, 2015 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
Uniform Fiduciary Standards on the Horizon for Brokers and RIAs
April 10, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
“HELLO, NEWMAN” -- GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO LITIGATE REVERSED INSIDER TRADING CONVICTIONS
March 9, 2015 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
STANFORD RECEIVER WINS FIRST FRAUDULENT TRANSFER JURY TRIAL
March 4, 2015 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
SCOTUS Limits Definition of “Tangible Object” under Sarbanes-Oxley Act
March 3, 2015 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
M&A DUE DILIGENCE FAILURES: FCPA & GOODYEAR
February 27, 2015 | FCPA, SEC, The GEE Blog
PART I - CORRUPTION ENFORCEMENT IN BRAZIL: WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?
February 23, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
THIRD CIRCUIT UPHOLDS SECURITIES FRAUD CONVICTION OF CANADIAN STOCK BROKER WHERE “IRREVOCABLE LIABILITY” FOR TRANSACTIONS OCCURRED IN THE UNITED STATES
January 23, 2015 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
Chasing the Gatekeepers
January 22, 2015 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Passes on Esquenazi, Makes Instrumentality Test Settled Law
October 6, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
DODD-FRANK WHISTLEBLOWER ACTIVITY GETTING EVEN HOTTER
September 23, 2014 | SEC, The GEE Blog
DODD-FRANK WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION HEATING UP
September 10, 2014 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - Keeping the Wolf at Bay
September 5, 2014 | FCPA, The GEE Blog
Regulators And Prosecutors Discuss Securities and Commodities Enforcement Priorities
August 15, 2014 | SEC, The GEE Blog
JUDGE RAKOFF CONTINUES TO QUESTION ADEQUACY OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF SEC
August 7, 2014 | SEC, The GEE Blog
Reader Responds to Recent Law Judge Blog Post
July 21, 2014 | The GEE Blog, SEC
Corporations and Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Does the Supreme Court’s Decision in Riley v. California Signal the Rebirth of the 4th Amendment in White Collar Cases?
July 18, 2014 | Case to Watch, The GEE Blog
The Gabelli Effect: How the Supreme Court’s Decision is Impacting Enforcement Actions
July 16, 2014 | SEC, The GEE Blog
REDUCING THE COST OF FCPA MONITORING
June 11, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
BELATED VINDICATION FOR THE SEC’S (PRIOR) SETTLEMENT POLICY
June 6, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
“Gatekeepers” Beware: A New Tool of the SEC
June 4, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
District Court Bolsters the Five-Year Statute of Limitations Defense to SEC Civil Enforcement Actions
May 20, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
Disgorgement in the Second Circuit: Equitable Relief or Punishment?
April 15, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
Alert: SEC creates team to examine private equity and hedge funds
April 9, 2014 | The GEE Blog
Case to Watch – Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice – Has the Supreme Court undermined the misappropriation theory of insider trading?
March 29, 2014 | Case to Watch, Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
Heightened SEC/DOJ FCPA Standards Offer Risks and Opportunities to Companies and Their Lawyers
March 18, 2014 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
Is the FTC The Latest Weapon of Aggressive Short Sellers?
March 17, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2014 (Part 2 of 2)
March 13, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Top 10 Takeaways from ABA White Collar Crime Conference 2014 (Part 1 of 2)
March 12, 2014 | Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
SEC’s New Priorities Continue to Come into Focus: Admissions of Liability
March 11, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, The GEE Blog
Barnes & Thornburg Legal Alert - Supreme Court Opens a Pandora’s Box of Whistleblower Litigation
March 7, 2014 | The GEE Blog
The Government Has Frozen My Bank Accounts, What Do I Do Now? Analyzing Asset Forfeiture After Kaley v. U.S.
March 3, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
A Little-Known Exception to the 4th Amendment: Is Your Company’s Confidential, Proprietary Data Safe from Government Inspection When Entering the U.S.?
February 27, 2014 | Privacy, The GEE Blog
The CFTC: Armed and Dangerous
February 13, 2014 | Financial Regulation, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
SEC Continues to Struggle in Insider Trading Jury Trials
February 7, 2014 | Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
Securities Regulators’ Increasing Use of Real-Time Monitoring Systems - Is Skynet Next?
January 31, 2014 | Financial Regulation, Government Investigations, Insider Trading, The GEE Blog
Going South: What U.S. Companies Need to Know About the FCPA and Doing Business in Latin America
January 30, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
Warrant Required to Search Cell Phone?
January 27, 2014 | Criminal Procedure, The GEE Blog
Welcome to The GEE Blog
January 18, 2014 | The GEE Blog
Let the Light of Day Shine
January 18, 2014 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
Barnes & Thornburg Legal Alert - Government Regulators Continue to Make Insider Trading a Trial Priority
January 16, 2014 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
Supreme Court Case Likely to Resolve Dispute on What Government Must Prove in Bank Fraud Prosecutions
January 5, 2014 | Bank Securities Fraud, Financial Regulation, Government Investigations, The GEE Blog
SEC Highlights 2013 Accomplishments and Outlines 2014 Enforcement Priorities
January 2, 2014 | Financial Regulation, The GEE Blog
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center