Most of the federal appellate decisions I read every week attempt to justify why federal judges were correct when they summarily dismissed a worker’s claims against an employer before the case even got to a jury.
So few of these cases make it through the federal judiciary that it has raised questions about objectivity and balance.
Perhaps that is why it is so irksome that the U.S. Department of Justice failed to criminally prosecute even a single Wall Street executive in connection with the 2008 collapse of Wall Street, which caused widespread unemployment and a massive loss of wealth for senior citizens who are facing an uncertain retirement. ( Note: The PBS show Frontline did a superb job examining the DOJ’s failure to prosecute in the documentary, The Untouchables.)
Now it appears the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – which at least did something even if it was too little, too late – is effectively foreclosed from bringing future prosecutions for civil fraud arising from the Wall Street meltdown.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled last month in Gabelli v. SEC that while some private plaintiffs can extend the statute of limitations through the so-called “discovery rule,” the SEC cannot. The Court held that the five-year statute of limitations for the SEC to bring a civil suit seeking penalties for securities fraud against investment advisers begins to tick when the fraud occurs, not when it is discovered.
Is it over? Will the titans of Wall Street who brought down the economy to fill their own pockets continue to summer in Nantucket and winter in the Carribean? It seems so.
The SEC alleged that Marc Gabelli, a portfolio manager, and Bruce Alpert, chief operating officer at the investment firm Gabelli Funds, LLC, allowed a client to engage in a trading technique known as “time zone arbitrage” from1999 and 2002 while assuring other investors in the same mutual fund that the technique would not be tolerated. Time zone arbitrage unfairly takes advantage of the differing time zones between markets. The SEC launched its investigation in 2003, but did not file a complaint until 2008.
Gabelli and Alpert argued the SEC waited too long to bring charges against them. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York disagreed, ruling that the time runs out five years after the agency discovers — or could have reasonably been expected to discover — the fraud.
In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Gabelli v. SEC reversed the appellate court and said the SEC cannot extend the statute of limitations through the so-called “discovery rule.” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Unlike the private party who has no reason to suspect fraud, the SEC’s very purpose is to root it out, and it has many legal tools at hand to aid in that pursuit. It can demand that securities brokers and dealers submit detailed trading information.”
In some respects, the Supreme Court’s decision represents good public policy because it requires federal investigators to move quickly and protects innocent citizens from costly and protracted investigations. But in another sense, the Court’s decision represents very bad public policy because iIt contributes to what courts like to call the appearance of prejudice. Many citizens feel – with good reason – that the system is tilted in favor of the rich and powerful and the Gabelli decision does nothing to disabuse them of that notion.
Meanwhile, Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation’s attorney general, remained unapologetic this week:
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,”
So much for the Dodd Frank financial regulation law, which was the .Obama administration’s remedy for problem of banks that are too-big-to-fail.