The William (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA, or the Act), which was enacted into law on New Year's Day when the US Congress overrode President Trump's veto of the legislation, establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to seek disgorgement for certain violations of US securities laws. The NDAA amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act) to provide the SEC with the explicit authority to seek disgorgement in federal court of any unjust enrichment by violators of US securities laws. The Act provides for a five- or 10-year statute of limitations, depending on the violation. In either case, the statute of limitations begins to run "after the latest date of the violation that gives rise to the action or proceeding in which the [SEC] seeks the claim occurs." Claims subject to the 10-year statute of limitations must involve conduct that violates:

  • Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act;
  • Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933;
  • Section 206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or
  • Any other provision of the securities laws for which scienter must be established.

The Act provides that the 10-year statute of limitations applies to any claims for equitable remedies, "including for an injunction or for a bar, suspension, or cease and desist order" that the SEC may seek. These provisions will address some of the challenges the SEC has faced since the US Supreme Court decided Kokesh v. SEC in June 2017. The Supreme Court in Kokesh held that the disgorgement remedy sought frequently by the SEC operates as a penalty, and, as a result, disgorgement claims are subject to a five-year statute of limitations. The Court's decision has had a demonstrable, negative impact on the SEC's enforcement efforts, especially with respect to actions involving complex, long-running frauds, such as Ponzi schemes. The SEC Enforcement Division's 2019 Annual Report estimated that the adverse ruling in Kokesh "caused the [SEC] to forgo approximately $1.1 billion dollars in disgorgement in filed cases," noting that the dollar amount would have been much higher had the Enforcement Division not shifted priorities in response to Kokesh. The Court revisited the question of the SEC's disgorgement authority in June 2020. The Court's decision in Liu v. SEC provided some clarity by explaining that disgorgement could be an equitable remedy, and not a penalty, depending on the circumstances. However, the SEC's Enforcement Division later expressed the view in its 2020 Annual Report that the Court's decision in Liu "also imposed some limitations and left open some questions." The Act's amendments to the Exchange Act should provide a statutory fix to some of the difficulties faced by the SEC since the Kokesh decision, which will allow the SEC to move forward with more certainty in its enforcement actions in federal court.

Learn more in a set of Legal Updates, where we discuss how the NDAA:

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.