Supreme Court Limits The SEC's Use Of In-House Administrative Courts

HK
Holland & Knight

Contributor

Holland & Knight is a global law firm with nearly 2,000 lawyers in offices throughout the world. Our attorneys provide representation in litigation, business, real estate, healthcare and governmental law. Interdisciplinary practice groups and industry-based teams provide clients with access to attorneys throughout the firm, regardless of location.
Litigation attorneys Allison Kernisky and Patrick Selwood co-authored an article for Westlaw analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy...
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Litigation attorneys Allison Kernisky and Patrick Selwood co-authored an article for Westlaw analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and its implications for administrative proceedings. The court found that defendants charged with securities fraud and facing civil penalties have a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, rendering the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of in-house courts for these proceedings unconstitutional. In their article, the authors outline how the case made its way to the high court and break down its reasoning. They also note the decision's immediate effects on SEC enforcement efforts, such as what could happen with pending administrative actions, as well as highlight ways other federal agencies could be affected by the ruling.

READ: Supreme Court Limits the SEC's Use of In-House Administrative Courts

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More