Second, the Cohen case also shows that the SEC`s enforcement actions could face new obstacles as a result of the Kokesh decision. Although Kokesh characterized the SEC`s disgorgement (not the termination action) as a sentence within the meaning of p. 2462, Cohen and others raised questions about the nature of injunctions to obey the law. As Cohen points out, many courts decided before Kokesh that injunctions could never be punished, while others felt they could be punishable if punishable. There is no doubt that Cohen has increased the likelihood that other courts will find that SEC claims in the event of cancellation, penalties and injunctions are prescribed, even if toll agreements have been signed. Although no legal proceedings appear to have decided whether Section 2462 can be repealed by an SEC agreement, two have been close and deserve special mention. At one point, I realized that even forward-looking toll agreements claim to repeal the status. This may be normal with regular statutes of limitations, but 28 .C. The Sec Enforcement Department was then slow to complete the protocol to prove a number of toll agreements signed by Cohen that, if implemented, would make their claims in time for all purposes. Cohen objected to the department`s request for several reasons, including the fact that Section 2462 was a judicial delay to which its toll agreements did not allow it to waive, but the administrative judge rejected the department`s request for other reasons, without referring to the jurisdictional issue. On July 13, a federal judge dismissed a complaint by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accusing two former executives of the Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC (OZCM) of paying foreign bribes.
In sec v. Cohen, the court found that the SEC`s claims after 28 U.S. C prescribed. Cohen points to new restrictions that the SEC could be subject to in pursuing enforcement actions following the Supreme Court`s decision in Kokesh v. S.E.C., 137 pp. Ct. 1635 (2017), including the referred to prescription applications. 2462.
Given that the parties may continue to exercise a defence of restriction after a toll agreement has been reached, a precise compliance with the terms of the toll agreements and the applicability of the limitation period to any type of relief could lead to the limitation of the SEC`s duties. Cohen has a significant impact on parties entering into toll agreements with the SEC. First, the case emphasizes the importance of carefully offering ice to the language in toll agreements, in order to ensure a clear understanding of what is covered. To the extent that an agreement is ambiguous or overly broad, a court could interpret the agreement, apply it to all claims and limit a party`s limitation periods, thereby exposing the defendants to unexpected claims based on past conduct or arising from other investigations.