Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

SEC to Continue to Punish Wrongdoers and Deter Misconduct

By Jonathan H. Hecht and Emily S. Unger
March 01, 2023

In Fiscal Year 2022, the SEC pursued what it described as a "robust" enforcement agenda and, according to enforcement director, Gurbir Grewal, was "working with a sense of urgency to protect investors, hold wrongdoers accountable and deter future misconduct in our financial markets." We see nothing to suggest this approach to enforcement will change in 2023. The Division of Enforcement will likely continue to use "every tool in its toolkit" and expect that public companies and other market participants will think rigorously about their business and appropriately tailor compliance practices and internal controls and policies to match. When there are, however, violations of the federal securities laws, we can expect the commission to seek and impose remedies that it believes meaningfully punish the wrongdoer and also deter future misconduct.

This focus on robust enforcement was borne out in the SEC's fiscal year 2022 results. What jumps out immediately from the results are the significant financial remedies that the commission sought or imposed. In fact, the commission set a new record for monetary relief in a single year, with the total, including disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, and civil penalties, reaching nearly $6.5 billion. Civil penalties accounted for $4.2 billion of the total, which is the largest single-year amount in that category in the SEC's history — and more than was ordered the past three years combined. This jump in civil penalties, however, does not paint the complete picture. Importantly, the commission pursued — and we expect will continue to pursue — more aggressive remedies beyond disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and civil money penalties. Those regulated by the SEC should take particular note of what is likely to be a continued aggressive stance with regard to other impactful remedies including admissions, corporate governance and other compliance undertakings, officer and director bars, and executive compensation claw backs pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Section 304 and think proactively about steps that will help mitigate the risk of becoming subject to such sanctions.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.