Supremes Set To Smack SEC on Statutes of Limitations

Things aren't going well for you when you find yourself at the receiving end of sharp words from both Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Well, that's where the SEC finds itself in its effort to read a five-year statute of limitations creatively.
Author:
Updated:
Original:

Things aren't going well for you when you find yourself at the receiving end of sharp words from both Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Well, that's where the SEC finds itself in its effort to read a five-year statute of limitations creatively.

Justices across the ideological spectrum suggested that the government was asking for too much in its reading of a statute that sets time limits on when regulatory agencies can file civil complaints.

The law says the actions must be filed within five years of the violation, but the government contends that in fraud cases, that means five years from the time an agency discovered, or should have discovered, a violation.

The case in question involves Gabelli Funds, which the SEC says improperly allowed a hedge fund to market-time its mutual funds. The only problem is, the SEC said it more than five years after the last questionable trade.

Sayeth Scalia: "What's extraordinary is that the government has never asserted this, except in the 19th century, when it was rebuffed and repudiated its position."

And from the other side of the High Court's right-left divide, Ginsburg, who called five years a "generous" statute of limitations. Ginsburg's ideological buddy, Justice Elena Kagan, added that having Eliot Spitzer embarrass you into doing something about market-timing probably isn't a good enough reason to ignore an SoL.

Supreme Court seems reluctant to extend time limits for SEC actions [WaPo]
Justices Skeptical of SEC [WSJ]

Related

Quit hiding behind the bench. By Phil Roeder (Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Supreme Court: Disgorgement Still A Thing, But Not As Much Of A Thing As SEC Would Like

The real winner here is John Roberts, who made everyone happy. Except Clarence Thomas.

Quit hiding behind the bench. By Phil Roeder (Flickr: Supreme Court of the United States) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Lazy Supreme Court Wants Insider Trading Verdict Overturned, Just By Someone Else

And would you all please cool it about the SEC’s home-team judges, for heaven’s sake?

By Elisa.rolle (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court Shortlist To Decide If MetLife Is Too Big To Fail

MetLife might want to consider writing a few more checks to a Hillary SuperPAC or twelve.

SCOTUS

Supreme Court Puts Price On A Brother's Love

Siblings who freely share insider information receive a “personal benefit” tantamount to cash, apparently.