SEC Announces New Sanction Guidelines
In an effort to bring clarity to SEC enforcement, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has announced a new set of guidelines the Commission will follow for fining companies for fraudulent conduct. Announced Jan. 4., the new SEC guidelines outline a number of factors the commission will take into consideration when determining...
January 06, 2006 at 09:15 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In an effort to bring clarity to SEC enforcement, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has announced a new set of guidelines the Commission will follow for fining companies for fraudulent conduct. Announced Jan. 4., the new SEC guidelines outline a number of factors the commission will take into consideration when determining whether and how much to penalize corporations that commit securities law violations.
Under the new guidelines, the SEC will take into account, “the presence or absence of a direct benefit to the corporation as a result of the violation.” The more likely shareholders improperly benefited from an act of fraud, the more likely the commission is to fine the company. According to another provision, if sanctions would only harm innocent shareholders, the commission is unlikely to levy a fine.
The SEC also will take into consideration whether bad conduct was widespread throughout the corporation, the level of intent of the perpetrators, the degree of difficulty in detecting the offense and the amount of cooperation the company provides during an investigation.
In an effort to bring clarity to SEC enforcement, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has announced a new set of guidelines the Commission will follow for fining companies for fraudulent conduct. Announced Jan. 4., the new SEC guidelines outline a number of factors the commission will take into consideration when determining whether and how much to penalize corporations that commit securities law violations.
Under the new guidelines, the SEC will take into account, “the presence or absence of a direct benefit to the corporation as a result of the violation.” The more likely shareholders improperly benefited from an act of fraud, the more likely the commission is to fine the company. According to another provision, if sanctions would only harm innocent shareholders, the commission is unlikely to levy a fine.
The SEC also will take into consideration whether bad conduct was widespread throughout the corporation, the level of intent of the perpetrators, the degree of difficulty in detecting the offense and the amount of cooperation the company provides during an investigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250