SEC Dismisses In-House Proceedings Against Accountants Following Jarkesy
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Jarkesy decision, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) dismissed two contested Rule 102(e) proceedings against accountants, suggesting that the agency believes these proceedings to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recently held in SEC v. Jarkesy that the SEC’s in-house administrative proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment’s right to jury trial […]
David Peavler and Evan Singer are Partners at Jones Day. This post is based on a Jones Day memorandum by Mr. Peavler, Mr. Singer, and Alexis Désiré.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Jarkesy decision, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) dismissed two contested Rule 102(e) proceedings against accountants, suggesting that the agency believes these proceedings to be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court recently held in SEC v. Jarkesy that the SEC’s in-house administrative proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment’s right to jury trial to the extent they adjudicate claims that are “legal in nature,” such as fraud charges and civil penalties. Jarkesy did not directly address, however, other kinds of enforcement actions the SEC historically adjudicates in-house, including proceedings under Rule 102(e) of the SEC Rules of Practice, which is the SEC’s primary tool for regulating the professionals appearing before it. Among other things, Rule 102(e) empowers the SEC to censure or bar professionals found to have engaged in “improper professional conduct,” which, for accountants, can include repeated violations of applicable professional standards. But Rule 102(e) proceedings can only be brought administratively.
