The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of an investment adviser who is challenging the liability findings against him in a securities fraud case presided over by a US Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judge (ALJ). Raymond Lucia, also a former radio host, was accused of misleading prospective investors about his “Buckets of Money” investment strategy by claiming the methodology he used was back-tested when that was not the case. This created a false sense of security especially among retirees who were told that their money would grow.
An SEC ALJ found him liable for fraud, including that he violated the Investment Advisers Act. Lucia was not only barred from the securities industry but also ordered to pay a $300K fine. He appealed the ruling.
Lucia also questioned whether it was constitutional for the SEC to hire administrative law judges and if they should instead by appointed rather than brought in through human resources. In 2016, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit turned down Lucia’s appeal, finding that contrary to his contention, SEC judges are not officers with the power to make decisions but are, in fact, employees. Also, the Commission has to approve their rulings.
The appeals court agreed with the SEC’s argument that because its judges are not officers, they not fall under the US Constitution’s appointment’s clause. Under the clause, a federal agency head or the US president must appoint such officers.
Critics of the SEC’s ALJs have expressed concern that the the regulator has an unfair advantage when its own judges preside over its cases.
However, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Denver, ruled in a similar case that the Commission was in violation of the US Constitution because of how it appointed its administrative jaw judges. Now, Lucia is once again contending the same argument and the nation’s highest court has agreed to look at the SEC’s in-house judge system to determine whether or not the way the justices are chosen is a violation of the US Constitution.
Last November, the US Justice Department announced that it no longer supported the Commission’s ALJ system. Instead, the DOJ said that it views SEC’s judges as officers not employees. One day after that news, the SEC said it would revise the way it appoints its judges. Lucia’s SEC case, however, was not impacted by this change because the ruling in his case took place beforehand.
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court could happen in the Spring.
At The SSEK Partners Group, our securities fraud lawyers represent investors wishing to recoup their investment losses. We represent institutional clients and high net worth clients. Whether in court or in meditation, it is important that you have an investor fraud attorney representing you directly.
Over the years, we have helped thousands of investors in recouping their securities fraud losses. Contact us today. Your initial case consultation is a free, no obligation session.
U.S. Supreme Court takes up challenge to SEC in-house judges, Reuters, January 12, 2018
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, SCOTUS Blog
More Blog Posts:
Malachi Financial Products is Accused of Defrauding The City of Rolling Fork, Mississippi, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, January 8, 2018
Ameriprise Ordered to Pay $8M Over F-Squared Alpha Sector Strategy Sales, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 8, 2017
UBS to Pay $3.5M Penalty To Settle Allegations that It Disadvantaged Retirement and Charity Accounts During Mutual Fund Transactions, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, November 6, 2017
The information contained in this Website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. The content of this Website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The Firm expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this Website. Read More.