Lorenzo v. SEC

Last updated
Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 3, 2018
Decided March 27, 2019
Full case nameFrancis V. Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Docket no. 17-1077
Citations587 U.S. ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1094; 203 L. Ed. 2d 484
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior872 F.3d 578 (D.C. Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2650 (2018)
Holding
A defendant can be held civilly liable by the SEC for participating in a securities fraud scheme by distributing false statements, even if those statements were written by another person.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentThomas, joined by Gorsuch
Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term.

Contents

The Supreme Court held that someone who disseminates false statements to potential investors with the intent to defraud those investors can be held liable under subsection b of Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even if they personally were not the ones who drafted the false statements. [1]

This decision clarifies the applicability of the 2011 holding in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders to individuals who disseminate false statements made by others. That decision had held that subsection (b) of Rule 10b-5 (which prohibits "mak[ing] any untrue statement of a material fact") applies only to the individual who personally drafted the false statements; this decision clarifies that other individuals who participate in the fraud scheme can be held liable under other subsections of Rule 10b-5.

It also marked one of the rare recent occasions in which the Securities and Exchange Commission prevailed in front of the Supreme Court, after defeats in prior cases including Gabelli v. SEC (2013), Kokesh v. SEC (2016), and Lucia v. SEC (2018). [2]

Background

Francis Vincent Lorenzo (Frank Lorenzo) was the former director of investment banking at Charles Vista LLC, a pennystock broker-dealer in Staten Island, New York. [2] Lorenzo's only client at the time was a pennystock [3] company called Waste2Energy Holdings Inc., a firm which claimed to be developing technology to transform solid waste into clean energy. [2] [4] In early 2009, Lorenzo was tasked with attempting to sell $15 million worth of convertible debentures (debt securities) issued by Waste2Energy. By October 2009, however, Waste2Energy had disclosed to the public and to Lorenzo that its intellectual property was worthless and that it had written off all of its intangible assets. Its remaining assets were worth approximately $370,000, far less than the value of its proposed debenture offering. [4]

Despite this, Lorenzo continued attempting to sell the debentures on the market, sending emails to prospective investors which stated that the company had $10 million in 'confirmed assets', which would protect investors against losses. [4] [2] According to Lorenzo, his boss at Charles Vista LLC had supplied the content of the emails and approved their dissemination to investors. Throughout 2009 and 2010, investors purchased the debentures. [5]

When Waste2Energy Holdings eventually collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an administrative case against Charles Vista, Lorenzo, and his former boss for violating section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5. Charles Vista was also charged with violating the Exchange Act's Section 15(c) and rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [5] All three entities were charged with being 'primary violators' of Rule 10b-5. [2] Lorenzo's boss and Charles Vista agreed to settle the case, but Lorenzo himself went to trial before an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the SEC. In the hearing, Lorenzo insisted that he simply cut-and-pasted language given to him by his boss and that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, he should not be held liable for merely passing on someone else's false statements. [6] [7]

The SEC administrative law judge who heard the case accepted Lorenzo's claim that he had sent the fraudulent emails without really reading them or thinking about the contents. However, the administrative law judge still found that Lorenzo had willfully violated securities laws by making fraudulent misstatements and by participating in a scheme to defraud potential investors. [8] Lorenzo was barred from the securities industry for life and fined $15,000. [9] [4] The full SEC affirmed the ALJ's decision but formally rejected his claim that he had sent the emails without reading them. [9] [6]

Lorenzo appealed the SEC's decision to federal court. As allowed by the Securities Exchange Act, Lorenzo was permitted to appeal the Commission's ruling before either the DC Circuit Court of Appeals or the Circuit Court of Appeals in which he principally did business. [10]

In lower courts

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit

Lorenzo's appeal was first heard by a three-judge panel United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which comprised circuit judges Sri Srinivasan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas Griffith. Lorenzo's argument before the DC Circuit was that he could not be held liable for passing on false statements made by another person. [6] By applying the decision from Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders , the DC Circuit ruled that Lorenzo did not violate subsection b of Rule 10b-5, holding the primary liability under that subsection can only be applied to the person who held 'ultimate authority' over the statement, including its content and whether and how it should be communicated. [11] They affirmed Lorenzo's contention that his boss was the true 'maker' of the false statements since he was the one who asked Lorenzo to send the emails and was the one who supplied the content. [4] [6]

However, by a 2-to-1 vote (with Judge Kavanaugh dissenting), the DC Circuit held that Lorenzo was liable under subsections a and c of Rule 10b-5, which cover liability for participating in a fraud scheme (also known as "scheme" liability). [11] [4] Because the court ruled against the SEC on the Rule 10b-5 subsection b ruling, it vacated the penalties levied against Lorenzo by the SEC and sent the case back to the Commission to reconsider Lorenzo's punishment in light of the ruling. [11]

In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh claimed that the majority opinion endorsed the SEC's efforts to "end-run the Supreme Court" by expanding primary liability for securities fraud. He stated the conduct described in Lorenzo's case may have been considered 'aiding and abetting' but that Lorenzo should not be considered a primary violator for passing along misstatements from his boss. He emphasized the distinction between primary liability and aiding and abetting, noting that prior Supreme Court cases (2008's Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. and 1994's Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. ) had limited the ability of private plaintiffs to file suit against secondary actors (accused aiders and abettors) in a fraud case. Kavanaugh argued that the Court of Appeals's opinion here would have the effect of converting these secondary actors into primary violators through "scheme" liability, exposing them to additional liability (contradicting the Supreme Court's past rulings). [6]

The DC Circuit's decision exacerbated a circuit split regarding this issue. Since 2005, the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal had each held that fraudulent misstatements could not by themselves create "scheme" liability while the Eleventh Circuit had been more open to the idea. [4] [8]

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Lorenzo appealed the decision to the Supreme Court in January 2018. In June 2018, the Supreme Court granted his writ of certiorari agreeing to hear the case. [12] The case was argued on December 3, 2018. Robert Heim, an attorney with the firm of Meyers & Heim LLP, argued the case on behalf of Lorenzo. Assistant Solicitor General Christopher Michel argued the case on behalf of the United States government. [13] Because he was on the DC Circuit panel which heard the original case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself from participating in this case.

Supreme Court opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the DC Circuit's decision to impose "scheme" liability on Lorenzo. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer found that the language in subsections a and c of Rule 10b-5 were sufficiently broad to encompass Lorenzo's dissemination of false information with the intent to defraud. The majority opinion held that merely disseminating false statements was not enough to create "scheme" liability; it argued that the fraudulent course of conduct (planning the debenture sales, development of the fraud scheme, etc.) was part of the pattern of conduct needed to impose primary liability. [4] [14]

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch) argued that the majority opinion would render the Supreme Court's precedent in Janus a "dead letter". [14]

This decision is noteworthy because it expanded the scope of primary liability for securities fraud, which is controversial in the securities industry. One potential repercussion of the ruling is that private plaintiffs may use the Lorenzo precedent to argue for expanded liability for deep-pocketed peripheral players in fraud schemes, such as accountants and attorneys, who otherwise would have been protected under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. [15]

Related Research Articles

False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA), also called the "Lincoln Law", is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

Insider trading is the trading of a public company's stock or other securities based on material, nonpublic information about the company. In various countries, some kinds of trading based on insider information is illegal. This is because it is seen as unfair to other investors who do not have access to the information, as the investor with insider information could potentially make larger profits than a typical investor could make. The rules governing insider trading are complex and vary significantly from country to country. The extent of enforcement also varies from one country to another. The definition of insider in one jurisdiction can be broad, and may cover not only insiders themselves but also any persons related to them, such as brokers, associates, and even family members. A person who becomes aware of non-public information and trades on that basis may be guilty of a crime.

Securities Act of 1933 US federal law regulating securities

The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the 1933 Act, the Securities Act, the Truth in Securities Act, the Federal Securities Act, and the '33 Act, was enacted by the United States Congress on May 27, 1933, during the Great Depression and after the stock market crash of 1929. It is an integral part of United States securities regulation. It is legislated pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine that a party is responsible for acts of their agents. For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104–67 (text)(PDF), 109 Stat. 737 ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States, affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and awards fees and expenses.

SEC Rule 10b-5, codified at 17 CFR 240.10b-5, is one of the most important rules targeting securities fraud promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority granted under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The rule prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. The issue of insider trading is given further definition in SEC Rule 10b5-1.

United States securities regulation

Securities regulation in the United States is the field of U.S. law that covers transactions and other dealings with securities. The term is usually understood to include both federal and state-level regulation by governmental regulatory agencies, but sometimes may also encompass listing requirements of exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange and rules of self-regulatory organizations like the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Life Partners, Inc. is a life settlement provider headquartered in Waco, Texas. LPI's parent company, Life Partners Holdings, Inc., delisted from the NASDAQ, currently trades on the OTCPK under the ticker LPHI.Q. This follows the company seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, resulting from a total of $46.9 million in penalties levied against the company and two of its officers.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the offer of a land sales and service contract was an "investment contract" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and that the use of the mails and interstate commerce in the offer and sale of these securities was a violation of §5 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e. It was an important case in determining the general applicability of the federal securities laws.

Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164 (1994), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held private plaintiffs may not maintain aiding and abetting suit under Securities Exchange Act § 10(b).

Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the "fraud-on-the-market theory" as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. Morrison extinguished two species of securities class-action claims that had proliferated in preceding years: "foreign-cubed" claims, in which foreign plaintiffs sued foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges, and "foreign-squared" claims, brought by domestic plaintiffs against foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a plaintiff can state a claim for securities fraud under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2010), based on a pharmaceutical company's failure to disclose reports of adverse events associated with a product if the reports do not find statistically significant evidence that the adverse effects may be caused by the use of the product. In a 9–0 opinion delivered by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the respondents, plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., and three Matrixx executives, had stated a claim under §10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

John Doe VII v. Exxon Mobil Corp (09–7125) is a lawsuit filed in the United States by 15 Indonesian villagers against Exxon Mobil Corporation from the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. The case has widespread implications for multinational corporations doing business in other countries. The case may eventually reach the Supreme Court because lower federal courts have disagreed on the liability of United States companies operating outside of the United States. Fifteen Indonesian villagers claim government security forces working for Exxon Mobil committed brutal oppression while guarding a natural gas facility in 2000 to 2001. On July 8, 2011 a divided 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, reversed part of a ruling by the federal district court reinstating the lawsuit. In their decision, the court stated that the 1789 Alien Tort Statute allowed corporations in foreign countries to be "held liable for the torts committed by their agents."

A securities class action(SCA), or securities fraud class action, is a lawsuit filed by investors who bought or sold a company’s publicly traded securities within a specific period of time and suffered economic injury as a result of violations of the securities laws.

<i>SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.</i> American legal case

SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which articulated standards for a number of aspects of insider trading law under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In particular, it set out standards for materiality of inside information, effective disclosure of such information, and what constitutes a "misleading" statement. Texas Gulf Sulphur represented the first time a federal court held that insider trading violated federal securities law and remained the leading case on insider trading for a decade. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced some of its holdings while rejecting others. The case continues to receive significant scholarly attention.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a US Supreme Court case related to disgorgement awards sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for fraudulent activities. The Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that such disgorgement awards can be awarded by the courts as equitable relief under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), but they are limited to the wrongdoer's net profits.

<i>Jarkesy v. SEC</i> 2022 court decision

In Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission (2022), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that

  1. Enforcement of Dodd Frank's civil penalties for securities fraud in the Securities and Exchanges Commission's administrative proceedings violated the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial because (a) the case involved traditional common law claims (fraud), (b) civil penalties are a legal remedy to which the seventh amendment attaches, thus (c) the claims are not a matter of public rights that can be adjudicated in administrative proceedings on the mere basis the government is the plaintiff;
  2. Dodd Frank's broad grant of unfettered discretion to the SEC to choose between enforcing identical claims in either federal district court or its own administrative tribunal violated the Nondelegation Doctrine because (a) the assignment of claims to a non-Article III tribunal is an Article I power, and (b) Congress provided—as the SEC conceded—no intelligible principle to the SEC; and
  3. The dual for-cause removal protections of administrative law judges (ALJs) violated Article II's Take Care Clause.

References

  1. ↑ Lorenzo v. SEC,No. 17-1077 , 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Henning, Peter (2019-04-16). "The Supreme Court Hands the S.E.C. a Rare Win". The New York Times. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  3. ↑ "SEC Nails Brokerage Firm Charles Vista & Founder Gregg Lorenzo". 22 November 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kopel, Jared (2019-04-01). "The SEC Finally Prevails at US Supreme Court". Yahoo Finance. Retrieved 2019-12-01.
  5. 1 2 "SEC charges brokerage firm with defrauding investors". Advisor's Edge. 2013-02-21. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Frankel, Alison (2018-08-30). "In SCOTUS securities fraud case, ex-banker, amici push justices to side with Kavanaugh". Reuters. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  7. ↑ "SEC Nails Brokerage Firm Charles Vista & Founder Gregg Lorenzo". 22 November 2013.
  8. 1 2 Koosed, Brian (2018-12-10). "Can a Plaintiff Re-Label and Re-File a Securities Fraud Claim?". K&L Gates LLP. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  9. 1 2 Sterling, Sherman (2017-10-10). "D.C. Circuit Applies Janus To Set Aside SEC Sanctions Against Investment Banker". Shearman & Sterling LLP. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  10. ↑ United States Securities Market Laws and Regulations Handbook Volume 1: Strategic Information and Basic Laws. International Business Publications, USA. 2019. p. 168-169. ISBN   978-1886100022.
  11. 1 2 3 Lorenzo v. SEC, 872F.3d578 ( D.C. Cir. 2017).
  12. ↑ Howe, Amy (2018-06-18). "Five new grants, one CVSG, but no Arlene's Flowers". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  13. ↑ Mann, Ronald (2018-12-03). "Argument analysis: Justices appear divided in debate over anti-fraud securities rules". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  14. 1 2 Mann, Ronald (2019-03-27). "Opinion analysis: Justices uphold securities liability for distributing false statements". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-12-03.
  15. ↑ Haims, Joel; Beha, James; Birnbaum, Michael; Rappoport, Steven (2019-05-31). "Does 'Lorenzo' Expand the Scope of Private Securities Litigation?". Law.com. New York Law Journal. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.