The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued proposals that would amend its rules governing its use of administrative law judges in enforcement proceedings. The proposed amendments come in the wake of criticism and lawsuits contending that having in-house judges preside over SEC cases gives the regulator an unfair advantage over defendants and violates the constitution because of the way the judges are appointed. <\/p>\n
According to The Wall Street Journal<\/em>, from October 2010 through March 2015, the SEC won 90% of its cases that were presided over by an in-house judge. It won just 69% of cases in federal court during that same time period. Every fiscal year since October 2004, the SEC has emerged victorious against at least four out of five defendants in cases that went before its judges.<\/p>\n Billionaire Mark Cuban, who was previously found not liable in the SEC’s insider trading case against him, recently said in a court brief that if his case had been heard by an SEC judge instead of in federal district court, he would have not benefited from certain protections and the outcome would have been very different for him. Cuban filed the brief in support of real estate developer Charles Hill, who also has been accused of insider trading. Hill is seeking to have his case transferred from the SEC\u2019s in-house court to federal court. <\/p>\n Already a federal judge has ruled that the use of an in-house judge in the Commission\u2019s case against Hill was \u201clikely unconstitutional\u201d and a federal judge stayed the case in June pending further review. The SEC is appealing. <\/p>\n Three primary changes to the Commission\u2019s Rules of Practice that have been proposed, including, the<\/p>\n \u00b7 Modification of the timing of administrative proceedings. such as giving more time before a hearing takes place in certain cases. Currently, defendants have four months to get ready for trial. The modified rules would give them eight months.<\/p>\n