menu
  • Our Story

    • Overview
    • Careers
    • Locations
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Community Involvement
    • Firm Leadership
    • History
    • Alumni
    • Affiliations
    • Media Inquiries
    • Make a Payment
  • Our People

  • Our Insights

    • Events/CLE
    • Publications
    • News
    • Blogs
  • Our Practices & Industries

    • Business
      • Business Transitions
      • Construction
      • Corporate, Securities, and M&A
      • ERISA, Life, Health & Disability
      • Finance & Banking
      • Immigration
      • Intellectual Property Transactions
      • Labor, Employment & Benefits
      • Private Client Services
      • Private Investment Funds
      • Real Estate
      • Startups & Emerging Companies
      • Tax
      • Wage & Hour
    • Litigation
      • Antitrust, Competition & Trade
      • Appellate
      • Class Actions
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction
      • Creditors' Rights & Bankruptcy
      • Electronic Discovery, Technology & Strategy
      • ERISA, Life, Health & Disability
      • Fiduciary Litigation
      • Financial Institutions Litigation & Investigations
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Litigation
      • International Arbitration
      • Labor, Employment & Benefits
      • Securities & Corporate Governance Litigation
      • Wage & Hour
    • Industries
      • Blockchain & Cryptocurrency
      • Food, Beverage & Hospitality
      • Government Law
      • Investigations, Compliance & White Collar
      • Japan Practice
      • Nonprofit & Social Enterprise
      • Privacy & Data Security
      • Senior Living & Long Term Care
      • Transportation
    • Services
      • COVID-19 Landlord/Tenant Response Team
      • COVID-19 Resource Center
      • Business Dispute Resolution
  • Our Locations

    • Anchorage
    • Portland
    • Seattle
  • Our Careers

    • Attorneys
    • Summer Associates
    • Professional Staff
  • Our Diversity

    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Our Story
Lane Powell Web Site
  • OUR PEOPLE
  • STORY
  • INSIGHTS
  • PRACTICES & INDUSTRIES
Search
  • 日本語
  • 中文
  • 한국어
Email this pagePrint this pagePrint to PDF

Related People

  • Christopher B. Wells

Related Practices & Industries

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Litigation
  • Securities & Corporate Governance Litigation

Pierce v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Case No. 14–1079
We represented Brent Pierce in administrative proceedings seeking potential disgorgement of more than $10M. In 2008, the SEC commenced an administrative proceeding against Pierce seeking disgorgement of $2.1M from Pierce plus interest from 2004. After the evidentiary hearing in February 2009, the Enforcement Division obtained Liechtenstein bank records of Pierce affiliates and submitted the records to the ALJ prior to post-hearing briefing, asking the ALJ to disgorge an additional $7.5 million from Pierce. The ALJ admitted the new evidence over Pierce’s objection, used it to establish registration violations, and disgorged $2.1 million plus interest (about $2.8 million). But the ALJ ruled that the Commission, not she, had the authority to add the $7.5 million disgorgement claim. Neither Pierce nor the Division appealed, so the $2.1 million disgorgement order became final in July 2009. In 2010, the SEC filed a collection proceeding in federal court in San Francisco and commenced a new administrative proceeding. It sought the additional $7.5 million (plus interest from 2004, bringing the total to roughly $11 million) even as it was collecting the “final” disgorgement amount of $2.8 million in early 2011. In the second proceeding, Pierce argued that res judicata and other defenses barred recovery. The second ALJ ruled that res judicata would have applied but that Pierce had fraudulently concealed evidence, and ruled against Pierce. Pierce appealed. The Commission ruled that res judicata did not apply and that fraudulent concealment would defeat res judicata in any event. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It conceded that res judicata fit but ruled that fraudulent concealment exempted Pierce from that defense, in the context of an administrative proceeding. This case is important because it exemplifies the concerns raised by the defense bar about due process for respondents in the SEC’s administrative forum. Here, the SEC escaped reversal of its administrative ruling only because the DC Circuit did not force the SEC to “play by its own rules.” Under those rules, the $7.5M claim was abandoned with the failure to appeal in the first case and extinguished by the final order. While the DC Circuit has historically deferred to the SEC in many respects, mounting problems with fairness in the SEC’s administrative forum are coming to a head. The SEC is now reportedly planning to revamp its rules.

Before proceeding, please note:  If you are not a current client of Lane Powell PC, please do not include any information in this email that you or someone else considers to be confidential or secret in nature.  Prior to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship, unsolicited emails from non-clients containing confidential or secret information cannot be protected from disclosure.

back to top
  • Our Story

    • Overview
    • Careers
    • Locations
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Community Involvement
    • Firm Leadership
    • History
    • Alumni
    • Affiliations
    • Media Inquiries
    • Make a Payment
  • Our People

    • Our Insights

      • Events/CLE
      • Publications
      • News
      • Blogs
    • Our Practices & Industries

      • Business
      • Litigation
      • Industries
      • Services
      • View All

    Blogs

    Boom: The ERISA Law Blog
    Earth & Table Law Reporter

    • Site Map
    • Disclaimer
    • Data Privacy & Security
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    © 2022 Lane Powell PC Lane Powell & LP
    Logo, Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.
    Sitemap
    Connect With Us
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • Linkedin
    • Vimeo
    • Make a Payment