Friday, February 26, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Governance

SEC Amends Rules Governing Administrative Enforcement Proceedings

by Marc Rosen
August 11, 2016
in Governance
New amendments to SEC rules of practice

On July 13, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments updating the rules of practice governing its in-house administrative proceedings. Among the most significant new rules adopted by the SEC are:

Timing of Hearing and Initial Decision

The new rules make the deadline for a final decision run from the date that the hearing concludes, rather than the date that the proceeding is initiated. Orders instituting proceedings must designate the deadline for an initial decision as 30, 75 or 120 days from the completion of post-hearing or dispositive motion briefing or a finding of a default. The amended rules also extend the length of the pre-hearing period from a previous maximum of four months to a new maximum of 10 months for cases designated as 120-day proceedings, a maximum of six months for 75-day cases and a maximum of four months for 30-day cases. The new rules also provide a mechanism to extend the deadlines in some instances. As a result of these changes, respondents now have significantly increased time to prepare their cases.

Depositions

The rules previously allowed depositions only where a witness was unlikely to be available to testify at a hearing. The new rules allow parties in 120-day proceedings the right to notice three depositions per side in single-respondent cases and five depositions per side in multi-respondent cases and permit each side to request an additional two depositions under an expedited procedure.

Evidence

The rules already excluded evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious. The amended rules also exclude evidence that is unreliable and provide that hearsay evidence may be admitted provided that it is relevant, material and reliable.

Other Changes

The Commission also approved new rules clarifying the procedure for motion practice, including motions to quash and pre-hearing dispositive motions, the requirements for what defenses must be included in a respondent’s answer and the procedural requirements for appealing a hearing officer’s decision.

* * *

The SEC’s administrative proceedings have become highly controversial in recent years, as many defendants in the proceedings have complained that the process is inherently unfair. Among the concerns raised by defendants in the administrative proceedings were that discovery is limited, that depositions were generally not permitted to be taken by defense attorneys and that there are no juries. Perhaps the most significant criticism is that both the judge and the prosecutor are employees of the SEC, appeals must be taken directly to the SEC commissioners and only then to a federal court of appeals. According to the Wall Street Journal, the SEC prevailed against 90 percent of respondents in contested administrative proceedings from October 2010 to March 2015, a significant difference from the SEC’s 69 percent win rate in federal court over the same period.

The new rules – in particular the amendments to the rules governing timing of the hearing and deposition testimony – are a significant step toward improving the fairness of the administrative proceedings. Nevertheless, they do not address the basic structural bias arising from the facts that the hearing officer is an employee of the SEC and that appeals must be taken to the SEC commissioners before a defendant can appeal to a federal court. Nor do they address the contention of some recent defendants that the entire process of administrative proceedings is unconstitutional. It remains to be seen whether the new rules will be sufficient to remedy what many experts have characterized as an inherently unfair and deficient forum for adjudicating alleged violations of the securities laws.


Previous Post

Case Rules Arbitration and Class-Waiver Agreements Unenforceable

Next Post

What You Need to Know About the WOTC Retro Guidance and Extension

Marc Rosen

Marc RosenMarc R. Rosen is a partner and chair of the Litigation Department at Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C. in New York, where he practices corporate and commercial litigation in the state and federal courts and before arbitration tribunals and regulatory agencies. He can be reached at mrosen@kkwc.com.

Related Posts

green plant growing on glass jar with coins

The Rise of ESG In Response to Investor Demand

February 19, 2021
illustration of executive standing center stage with team in silhouette behind him

COVID-19: Navigating the “CEO Moment”

January 13, 2021
clipboard with silver bow and new year's resolutions list on blue background

New Year’s Resolutions for the Board in 2021

January 11, 2021
PwC: Board Effectiveness – A Survey of the C-Suite

PwC: Board Effectiveness – A Survey of the C-Suite

December 28, 2020
Next Post
Maintaining compliance with WOTC regulations to capture tax incentives

What You Need to Know About the WOTC Retro Guidance and Extension

Access realtime data
Addressing systemic racism in the workplace SAI Global
Dynamic Risk Assessments with Workiva
Top 10 Risk and Compliance Trends

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring ransomware regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk supply chain technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Vendor News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights