United States: Settling SEC Enforcement Actions

Last Updated: July 17 2019
Article by Daniel M. Hawke


This article discusses the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC or Commission) settlement process, focusing on key guiding principles that counsel should have in mind when negotiating with the SEC.

Why settle? Why not fight? These are questions that any party caught up in litigation will eventually face. In the context of an impending SEC enforcement action, however, these questions can be challenging to assess.

If a party is unable to convince the SEC staff (the Staff) that no enforcement action is warranted, the decision whether to litigate or settle with the SEC is akin to a Hobson's choice – in this case, the need to choose one of two equally unpleasant alternatives. For some, the decision to settle is a pragmatic business or personal decision having less to do with the relative merits of the case than with the expense of litigation and desire to put the matter to rest. For others, the decision hinges on mitigating the potential reputational damage a contested action brings and having a voice in the outcome. Still others do not wish to be "at war with their regulator." Whatever the reason, once the decision to pursue settlement negotiations is made, the parties, after months or perhaps years of investigation, must look for ways to compromise and come to a meeting of the minds on terms that are acceptable to both sides.

Settling with the SEC can have significant benefits, including the opportunity to neither admit nor deny the Commission's allegations or findings. Likewise, litigating and going to trial with the SEC, while expensive and stressful, can result in vindication. It can also result in defeat and highly adverse reputational, financial and commercial consequences. Because every case is different, the decision to settle should be driven by a balancing of the facts, law and circumstances of a particular case coupled with a risk assessment and cost benefit analysis of what litigation with the SEC would entail. Ultimately, a party must weigh likely outcomes and decide whether the risk and expense of a contested case is outweighed by the certainty, benefits and cost savings of a negotiated resolution. Faced with the cost and uncertainty of litigation, many parties in SEC enforcement matters opt to settle.

The SEC's settlement process, however, is nuanced and complex – the distinctions between civil and administrative proceedings, the interplay between charges and remedies, and the collateral regulatory consequences of certain enforcement actions are a labyrinth of moving parts that can be perplexing for the uninitiated. But there are a few guiding principles that parties contemplating negotiations with the SEC should have in mind as they consider whether settlement in their particular case is desirable.

Understanding the Staff's Objectives

Perhaps the most important insight a party can have when considering settlement with the SEC is what the Staff's objectives are in bringing the case. As a civil law enforcement agency charged with regulating and policing the markets, the Commission uses its enforcement function to achieve a variety of objectives. While the Staff will not likely discuss its reasons for pursuing a particular case, discerning the Staff's objectives is essential to knowing where it may have flexibility in recommending reduced charges or remedies. Understanding the Commission's priorities, paying close attention to what Commissioners and Division of Enforcement leaders say in speeches and observing recent enforcement activity may provide important clues concerning why the Staff is focused on specific conduct in a case. Even subtle hints, such as the attendance of a senior officer at a routine meeting, can signal that a case is of particular interest to the Division of Enforcement.

Assessing Risk

Parties settle cases for many reasons, including, primarily, based on whether they think they will win or lose. The SEC is no different. The Commission brings roughly 500 stand-alone enforcement actions per year. With so many investigations and cases to manage, an inherent challenge the Commission faces is accurately assessing its litigation risk in any particular case.

A party considering settlement with the SEC should consider two risks that may bear upon the terms on which the SEC may be willing to settle a case. The first and primary risk is litigation risk – what is the likelihood that the SEC will prevail? The Staff goes to great lengths to determine the facts in a case, often painstakingly analyzing the tiniest details to assess whether the Commission can meet its burden of proof. Those details can reveal gaps in the evidence that may enable a party to question the Commission's ability to prove its case. Even in matters where a party has been unsuccessful in convincing the Staff not to recommend an enforcement action, the ability to accurately assess the Commission's litigation risk and instill doubt about whether the Commission can meet its burden of proof is probably the single most important factor towards negotiating a favorable settlement.

The second type of risk that a party should evaluate is programmatic risk – if the Commission loses, what adverse consequences could the case have on the Commission's regulatory and enforcement program? The possibility that a defeat can have programmatic repercussions is an increasingly important factor in many SEC cases today. Recent cases, such as the decisions in Lucia (138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018)) and Kokesh (137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017)), represent examples of cases that had significant programmatic impact on the Commission's enforcement program. While most cases are fact specific and do not create programmatic risk, the ability to identify cases that do present such risk can provide incentive for the Staff to consider the possibility of more favorable settlement terms.

Determining Deal Breakers

In SEC cases, the Staff will often communicate early in a negotiation the general terms it will require as conditions of settlement – injunctive relief vs. cease and desist order, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest, a rough estimate of penalty amount, the need for collateral bars if applicable, the need for an independent consultant and undertakings etc. Within each of these remedies, however, parties may not learn what the Staff's deal breakers are until late into a negotiation. So, for example, in cases involving regulated individuals, the possibility of a permanent industry bar is often a deal breaker. Because parties facing industry bars are frequently inclined to litigate if it means they potentially lose the ability to earn a living, the Staff, in appropriate cases, may be willing to offer a time-limited bar. Determining deal breakers as early in a negotiation as possible is critical to staying ahead of the game. Being able to see ahead and anticipate where the other side is likely to compromise is important to knowing where and when to stand firm on a settlement offer.

The Staff Will Not Usually Consider Settlement Until It Is Comfortable that It Knows the Facts

The Commission does not have the resources to litigate every case it seeks to bring. For this reason, the Staff is almost always willing to discuss settlement. In most cases, settlement discussions begin somewhere between the conclusion of witness testimony and the beginning of the Wells process. Often, the Staff will offer a party the opportunity to discuss settlement in lieu of receiving a Wells notice. In other cases, a party might broach an interest in discussing settlement before the Staff has completed taking testimony. Sometimes, in cases where liability is clear, it may be in a party's interest to explore settlement at the earliest possible time -- a quick settlement of a non-fraud or technical compliance violation can greatly reduce the disruption and expense of a protracted investigation and Wells process. Generally, however, the Staff will not entertain settlement discussions until it is comfortable it knows all the material facts in a matter (which means that a certain amount of document production and testimony is necessary in any case before the Staff is likely to consider resolution).

The SEC Will Not Seek Through Settlement a Result It Could Not Obtain in a Fully Litigated Action

The SEC Staff will generally not recommend to the Commission that it accept in settlement charges or remedies that the Commission could not obtain in a fully adjudicated proceeding. This means that the SEC must have a factual and legal basis for any charges or remedies that it seeks in settlement and cannot simply agree to any claim or remedy that is not factually or legally supported by the investigative record. This is an important limiting principle because it ensures that the Staff cannot leverage the Commission's considerable power to extract settlements on terms that are not supported by the record or that the Commission would not be able to achieve if it were to litigate the matter through to conclusion.

Remedies Should be Horizontally Equitable and Proportionate to the Charges in The Case

A topic of debate among some SEC practitioners is the concept of "horizontal equities" – the idea that similar cases should settle on similar terms. Horizontal equities are rooted in principles of consistency and fairness – all else being equal, a party in one case should expect to settle to charges and remedies that are no worse (or no better) than charges and remedies in another case with similar facts. A corollary to horizontal equities is "vertical equities" – that is, remedies in any case should be proportionate to the charges in that case. This means, for example, that if the Staff is willing to recommend non-scienter based charges to settle a case, it should not then seek a penalty that is so large it implies the party acted with scienter. Consistency across cases and proportionality between charges and remedies can be difficult to achieve and can be influenced by a mix of objective and subjective factors, including relevant Commission precedent and the degree to which a party cooperated with the Staff or undertook remedial actions.

Negotiating a Compromise That the Commission Will Accept

Settlement offers are not accepted until approved by the Commission. When terms of a settlement in principle are reached, both sides have an interest in the Commission approving it. The enforcement staff becomes an advocate for the settlement to the Commission and must navigate the potentially divergent views of individual commissioners in order to get the settlement approved. In such circumstances, the Staff may find itself alternately advocating on behalf of the settling party why the terms of a settlement are sufficient while simultaneously defending the settlement against assertions that the outcome is not tough enough. This dynamic can result in the interests of the Staff and the settling party briefly aligning, if only to ensure that the Staff is armed with the arguments and support it needs to satisfy a majority of the commissioners that they should approve the Staff's settlement recommendation.


Whether to settle or fight with the SEC is a complex decision that can have major benefits, costs or consequences. Understanding the Staff's approaches and constraints when negotiating a settlement is essential to gaining and maintaining negotiating leverage and to anticipating where the Staff may have room to compromise. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your case, accurately assessing the Commission's litigation and programmatic risk and holding firm on deal breakers can make the difference in achieving a settlement that both sides will find acceptable.

Originally published by Lexis Practice Advisor.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions