Guest Post: Ninth Circuit Clarifies What Might Trigger SOX 304 Disgorgement

bruce ericson

Bruce Ericson

Among the many issues arising under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are questions surrounding disgorgement under Section 304, particularly questions concerning what actions and whose actions might trigger disgorgement. In the following guest post, Bruce Ericson of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm takes a look at the Ninth Circuit’s August 31, 2016 decision in U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen in which the appellate court held that the SEC can seek disgorgement from a company’s CEO or CFO even if the triggering restatement did not result from those corporate officers’ misconduct. I would like to thank Bruce for his willingness to publish his article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is Bruce’s guest post.



Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. § 7243) requires CEOs and CFOs to repay bonuses, incentive- and equity-based compensation, and profits realized on the sale of securities received in the 12 months after the release of financials that later must be restated. But SOX 304 applies only to restatements resulting from “misconduct”—raising the issue of whose “misconduct” is required. For 14 years no appellate court reached the issue. Then, on August 31, 2016, the Ninth Circuit held that SOX 304 requires only “misconduct” on the part of the issuer, and not “misconduct” on the part of the CEO or CFO.

SOX 304, entitled “Forfeiture of certain bonuses and profits,” requires CEOs and CFOs to repay “any bonus or other incentive-based or equity-based compensation received… from the issuer” and “any profits realized from the sale of securities of the issuer” during the 12-month period following the first public issuance or filing with the SEC of financial documents of the issuer, if that financial document was later restated “due to the material noncompliance of the issuer, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws….” But whose “misconduct”? For years, district courts split, and no court of appeals decided the issue.

In U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jensen, — F.3d —, No. 14-55221, 2016 WL 4537377 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016), the issuer, Basin Water, Inc., had restated its earnings, but the district court held that Basin’s former CEO, Jensen, and its former CFO, Tekulve, did not violate SOX 304 because “‘Basin’s misstatement was not issued due to any misconduct on the part of Defendants.’” 2016 WL 4537377, at *10 (quoting the district judge). The SEC appealed this ruling (among others); the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. In a matter of first impression at the court of appeals level, the court held (3-0) that both the plain language of SOX and the legislative history allow “the SEC to seek disgorgement from CEOs and CFOs even if the triggering restatement did not result from misconduct on the part of those officers.” Id. at *11. Noting that SOX 304 is equitable and not legal, the court explained that “disgorgement is merited to prevent corporate officers from profiting from the proceeds of misconduct, whether it is their own misconduct or the misconduct of the companies they are paid to run.” Id. But having so ruled, the court declined “to reach the issue of the meaning of ‘misconduct’ under SOX 304.” Id., n.7.

Judge Bea, concurring in the result and generally in the court’s analysis, would have reached the issue of the meaning of “misconduct.” Id. at *13, *16-*17. Noting that neither the court nor the SEC had previously provided such guidance, Judge Bea would have employed the dictionary definition of “misconduct,” limiting it to “an intentional violation of a law or standard (such as GAAP) on the part of the issuer, which can be shown by evidence that any employee of the issuer (not only the CEO or CFO), acting within the course and scope of that employee’s agency, intentionally violated a law or corporate standard.” Id. at *17.[1]

All three judges also held that CEOs and CFOs may be liable for false certification of financial statements under Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 (17 C.F.R. § 240.13a-14) if they certify “false” financial statements and not merely if they fail to sign or file a certification. Id. at *8-*9 (court), *13-*16 (concurrence). But here again, the majority declined “to reach the question of the mental state required for a violation of Rule 13a-14,” whereas Judge Bea would have held “that liability for false certification under Rule 13a-14 may lie only where a CEO or CFO acts with knowledge or at least recklessness as to the falsity of a certification.” Id. at *9, n.6, *13.

So the Ninth Circuit has upped the ante for CEOs and CFOs—but by exactly how much remains to be decided in future cases.


[1]               Although neither opinion mentions it, misconduct as an issue may largely go away if and when the SEC promulgates a rule implementing section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (adding section 10D to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j-4). Section 954 creates an incentive compensation clawback of three years (not 12 months) that does not require a showing of “misconduct” but merely a showing that “erroneous data” caused the payment of compensation “in excess of what would have been paid to the executive officer under the accounting restatement.” The SEC proposed an implementing rule in July 2015, but has not yet promulgated a final rule. See Exchange Act Release No. 34-75342 (July 1, 2015), published at 80 Fed. Reg. 41144 (July 14, 2015), proposing Exchange Act Rule 10D-1.



This publication is issued periodically to keep Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP clients and other interested parties informed of current legal developments that may affect or otherwise be of interest to them. The comments contained herein do not constitute legal opinion and should not be regarded as a substitute for legal advice.

© 2016 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Cybersecurity Disclosure Practices: What’s Up With That?

SEC logoCybersecurity has been and remains one of the hot topics in corporate governance. Several federal regulatory agencies, including the SEC, have made it clear that cybersecurity is a high priority item and at the top of their agenda. The SEC’s particular cybersecurity focus has been on consumer privacy and on corporate disclosure. But though the SEC has made cybersecurity issues, including disclosure, a top priority, it appears to be the case that very few public companies are actually disclosing cybersecurity and data breach incidents in their SEC filings. The current disclosure practices could be a concern for investors – and for D&O underwriters. Continue Reading

The Global Rise in Collective Investor Actions

globeAs I noted in my recent round up of current trends in the world of D&O, one of the most important recent developments in the D&O claims arena has been the rise of collective investor actions outside of the U.S.  I amplified on this theme in a Q&A that I also recently published on this site.  In a recent blog post, Columbia Law Professor John Coffee underscored the recent significant rise in collective investor actions in Europe and Asia. In a September 19, 2016 post on the CLS Blue Sky Blog entitled “The Globalization of Securities Litigation” (here), Professor Coffee details how entrepreneurial U.S.-based plaintiffs’ law firms have managed to circumvent apparent local obstacles and succeed in pursuing collective investor actions even in otherwise inhospitable legal environments. As I have previously noted and as I discuss further below, the rise of collective investor actions outside the U.S. is one of the most significant recent developments in the global D&O claims arena. Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit: Data Breach Victims’ Heightened Risk of Future Harm Establishes Article III Standing

sixth circuit sealOne of defendants’ most significant arguments in opposing data breach victims’ negligence and breach of privacy claims has been that the claimants that have not suffered actual fraud or identity theft can show no cognizable injury and therefore lack Article III standing to assert their claims. Appellate decisions in the Seventh and Ninth Circuit have previously taken a bite out of this defense, in rulings holding that the victims’ fear of future harm is sufficient to establish standing. Now the Sixth Circuit in a case involving alleged victims of a data breach at Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company has joined these other circuits, holding that the  claimants’ heightened risk for fraud and mitigation costs were sufficient to establish Article III standing. The Sixth Circuit’s September 12, 2016 opinion, which can be found here, represents the latest in a series of developments evincing courts’ increasing willingness to recognize fear of potential future harm as sufficient to establish standing, which in turn may make it easier for the plaintiffs’ claims in these kinds of data breach cases to go forward. Continue Reading

A Mumbai Experience

2016-09-13 01.52.58aThe D&O Diary’s Asia Pacific tour ended last week with a final stop in Mumbai for meetings and for an educational event PLUS was co-sponsoring with the local management liability insurance education group, Bima Gyaan. I enjoyed the chance to be back in Mumbai. It is a vibrant, dynamic, fascinating place, a place that is experienced more vividly and more viscerally than more ordinary destinations. Continue Reading

Guest Post: Upcoming Appellate Decisions: Rebutting the Basic Presumption of Reliance

david topol

David Topol

jennifer williams

Jennifer Williams

In its 2014 decision in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market theory. The Court also held that at defendant may rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misrepresentation at issue did not affect the defendant company’s share price. In the following guest post, David Topol and Jennifer Williams of the Wiley Rein law firm take a look at the way that the lower courts have applied the Court’s holding in the 2014 decision, and review some pending cases that could have important implications for this way that the decision is applied in the lower courts. I would like to thank David and Jen for their willingness to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is David and Jen’s guest post. Continue Reading

A Visit to Singapore

2016-09-07 23.48.06aThe D&O Diary’s swing through the Asia Pacific region continued last week with a short stop in Singapore. The same hot and steaming conditions that prevailed in Hong Kong were also in effect in Singapore, although because Singapore is only about 90 miles from the equator, the conditions were the same but more so. Singapore is a small, wealthy city state. Its geographic size is comparable to that of New York City, although Singapore’s population (about 5.8 million) is less than that of New York (about 8.9 million); Singapore’s population is larger than every U.S. city other than New York. Continue Reading

Guest Post: Professional Services: What Does this Term Mean in an Exclusion Clause?

rehana box

Rehana Box

marie vlassis

Marie Vlassis

As I have noted in several posts on this site (most recently here), one of the recurring D&O insurance coverage questions is the extent of the preclusive effect of the professional services exclusion. In the following guest post, Rehana Box and Marie Vlassis of the Ashurst law firm take a look at judicial developments in Australia regarding this issue. This article previously appeared in the LexisNexis Australian Insurance Law Bulletin. I would like to thank Rehanna and Marie for their willingness to publish their article on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to publish a guest post on this site. Here is Rehana and Marie’s guest post. Continue Reading

D&O Liability: More Litigation Globally against a Broader Range of Defendants

globalIn conjunction with my July 2016 visit to Munich for meetings at Munich Re, I sat down for an interview with Christian Furhmann, Chief Executive Manager at Munich Reinsurance Company. The interview, which Munich Re previously published here, is reprinted below. I would like to thank my friends at Munich Re for their permission to republish the interview on this site. Continue Reading

A Visit to Hong Kong

2016-09-04 21.07.29aThe D&O Diary’s Asia Pacific travels continued this past week in Hong Kong for meetings and to participate in the PLUS Hong Kong Professional Liability Symposium. Early September is late in Hong Kong’s monsoon season, which meant that conditions were generally hot and steamy throughout my visit. It also meant periodic drenching downpours that discouraged any idea of outdoor activities. Despite the less than ideal weather conditions, I did manage to get a little bit of a look around while I was in Hong Kong. Continue Reading