Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2428810
 


 



Taking Section 10(b) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement of SEC Rules


Steven Thel


Fordham University School of Law

April 24, 2014

Columbia Business Law Review, Vol. 2014, No. 1, 2014
Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2428810

Abstract:     
The Supreme Court has determined the scope of federal securities laws in a series of cases in which it has read section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act as either prohibiting certain misconduct or authorizing the SEC to regulate that conduct and only that conduct. Judging by the language, structure and history of the Exchange Act, the Court’s reading is wrong. Section 10(b) does not prohibit anything, and it neither grants the SEC rulemaking power nor limits the rulemaking power granted to the SEC elsewhere in the Exchange Act. Instead, section 10(b) simply triggers criminal sanctions for certain rule violations. This is an important function, but one very different from the one the Supreme Court has ascribed to section 10(b).

Contrary to conventional wisdom, not all SEC rules are subject to criminal enforcement. Instead, criminal sanctions apply to rules whose violation the statute makes “unlawful.” Section 10(b) triggers criminal sanctions by making it “unlawful” to use or employ manipulative or deceptive devices or contrivances in connection with a security trade in contravention of SEC rules. While this mechanism has long been ignored, it was well understood when the Exchange Act was enacted. By ignoring the language of section 10(b) and the history and structure of the Exchange Act, the Supreme Court has frustrated the will of Congress and needlessly complicated securities law. In the context of SEC enforcement actions, Congress has repeatedly rejected the Court’s approach to section 10(b), which cannot withstand extension to other well-established parts of the statutory regulatory scheme.

The Supreme Court should take responsibility for the private right of action for violations of rule 10b-5, and should consider substantially restricting the fraud on the market class action that it has itself created . On the other hand, inasmuch as section 10(b) has little to do with the SEC, the Court’s restrictive holdings in rule 10b-5 cases should not apply to enforcement actions brought by the Commission, but only to private and, sometimes, criminal actions. For the same reason, the Court’s consistent and insistent rejection of the SEC’s interpretation of section 10(b) turns out to be oddly principled.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 46

Keywords: 10(b), rule 10b-5, white-collar crime, fraud, fraud on the market

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: April 26, 2014  

Suggested Citation

Thel, Steven, Taking Section 10(b) Seriously: Criminal Enforcement of SEC Rules (April 24, 2014). Columbia Business Law Review, Vol. 2014, No. 1, 2014; Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2428810. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2428810

Contact Information

Steven Thel (Contact Author)
Fordham University School of Law ( email )
140 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 433
Downloads: 83
Download Rank: 180,139

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.375 seconds