Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A group of individuals with large social media followings was charged with securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. The government alleged that these individuals engaged in a “pump and dump” scheme: they would purchase securities, then use their social media platforms to post false or misleading information about those securities to induce their followers to buy, thereby artificially inflating the price. After the price increased, the defendants would sell their holdings for a profit. The indictment claimed that the defendants collectively profited $114 million from this scheme.After indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, one defendant pleaded guilty while the others moved to dismiss the indictment. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the indictment failed to allege a scheme to deprive victims of a traditional property interest, instead only alleging deprivation of valuable economic information. The district court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ciminelli v. United States, which held that deprivation of economic information alone does not constitute fraud under federal law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the indictment de novo. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the indictment adequately alleged both a scheme to defraud and an intent to defraud, as required by the securities fraud statute. The court distinguished the case from Ciminelli, finding that the indictment alleged a fraudulent-inducement theory—whereby the defendants used misrepresentations to induce followers to part with money by purchasing securities—not merely a deprivation of information. The court also held that the fraud statutes do not require proof that the defendants intended to cause economic harm, only that they intended to obtain money or property by deceit. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA v. Constantinescu" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted two rules intended to increase transparency in the securities lending and short sale markets. Securities lending involves temporarily transferring securities from a lender to a borrower for a fee, and is closely tied to short selling, where investors sell securities they do not own, hoping to profit from a price decline. The SEC found both markets to be opaque, making regulatory oversight difficult. To address this, the SEC, under authority from the Dodd-Frank Act, promulgated the Securities Lending Rule (requiring prompt reporting of securities loans) and the Short Sale Rule (mandating monthly aggregate reporting of short sale positions by institutional investment managers).The petitioners, associations representing institutional investment managers, challenged both rules before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They argued that the rules were arbitrary and capricious, exceeded the SEC’s statutory authority, conflicted with each other, and that the SEC failed to consider their cumulative economic impact. They also raised procedural objections, including inadequate opportunity for public comment and concerns about the extraterritorial application of the Short Sale Rule. The SEC defended its process and statutory authority, maintaining that the rules addressed distinct regulatory gaps and that its economic analysis was sufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC acted within its statutory authority in adopting both rules and provided adequate opportunity for public comment. The court also found that the SEC reasonably explained its choices regarding reporting systems and that the Short Sale Rule did not have impermissible extraterritorial reach. However, the court concluded that the SEC failed to consider and quantify the cumulative economic impact of the two interrelated rules, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Exchange Act. The court granted the petition for review in part and remanded both rules to the SEC for further proceedings on this issue, while denying the remainder of the petition. View "Natl Assoc Priv Fund Mgr v. SEC" on Justia Law

Raymond Vuoncino, a corporate-finance professional, worked for U.S. Pipe Fabrication, LLC (Fabrication). After Fabrication implemented new accounting practices for inter-company sales, Vuoncino objected to these practices as potentially fraudulent. Subsequently, he was fired by an executive of Fabrication’s parent company, Forterra, Inc. Vuoncino sued Fabrication, Forterra, and two Forterra executives, alleging violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s anti-retaliation provision.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Vuoncino’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, denied his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and denied reconsideration of those orders. Vuoncino appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Vuoncino’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, finding the proposed amendments were time-barred and did not relate back to the original complaint. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of reconsideration, noting that Vuoncino’s motion rehashed previously rejected arguments and did not present newly discovered evidence.However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim against Fabrication, concluding that Vuoncino’s first amended complaint plausibly alleged that Fabrication employed him. The court found that Vuoncino’s allegations, taken as true, were sufficient to raise a plausible inference that he was a Fabrication employee. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act claims against Forterra, Bradley, and Kerfin, as Vuoncino failed to sufficiently plead that these defendants were his employer’s alter ego or that he could sue Forterra directly without establishing an employment relationship.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vuoncino v. Forterra" on Justia Law

In 2006, Cabot Oil & Gas Company began fracking in Dimock Township, Pennsylvania. By 2009, their operations caused a residential water well explosion, leading to methane gas contamination in local water supplies. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) found Cabot in violation of environmental laws, resulting in the 2009 Consent Order, which mandated corrective actions and a $120,000 penalty. Cabot violated this order by 2010, leading to another consent order and additional fines. Over the next decade, Cabot received numerous violation notices and faced lawsuits, including a 2020 grand jury finding of long-term indifference to remediation efforts, resulting in criminal charges and a nolo contendere plea.Shareholders filed a derivative suit against Cabot’s directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, including failure to oversee operations, issuing misleading statements, and insider trading. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the claims, finding no serious oversight failure or bad faith by the directors, and insufficient particularized allegations to support claims of material misrepresentation or insider trading.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that the directors had implemented and monitored compliance systems, and that the shareholders failed to demonstrate bad faith or conscious disregard of duties. The court also found that the statements in Cabot’s disclosures were not materially misleading and that the shareholders did not adequately plead demand futility regarding the insider trading claim. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of all claims with prejudice. View "Ezell v. Dinges" on Justia Law

Timothy Barton was involved in a scheme to develop underutilized land with loans from Chinese nationals. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice initiated parallel civil and criminal proceedings against Barton and his associates, alleging violations of antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. The SEC sought a receivership to preserve lenders' assets, leading to various district court orders imposing and administering a receivership and freezing Barton’s assets. Barton appealed these orders and requested reassignment of the case on remand.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially imposed a receivership, which Barton appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the receivership order, finding that the district court used the wrong standard and that the receivership's scope was too broad. On remand, the district court applied the correct standard from Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron and reimposed a receivership, including entities that received or benefited from assets traceable to Barton’s alleged fraudulent activities. Barton again appealed, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction, the decision to appoint the receiver, the scope of the receivership, the administration of the receivership, and the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition and scope of the receivership and the grant of a preliminary injunction. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s actions and dismissed Barton’s appeal of certain orders administering the receivership for lack of jurisdiction. The court also denied Barton’s request to reassign the case to another district-court judge, finding no basis for reassignment. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barton" on Justia Law

Two whistleblowers, John M. Barr and John McPherson, challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) calculation of their award amounts under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The case involves Life Partners Holdings, Inc., which was found guilty of extensive securities fraud from 1999 to 2013. In 2012, the SEC filed a civil action against Life Partners, resulting in a $38.7 million judgment. Life Partners subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid the appointment of a receiver. The bankruptcy court appointed a Chapter 11 trustee, and a reorganization plan was confirmed in 2016.The SEC posted a Notice of Covered Action in 2015, inviting whistleblowers to apply for awards. Barr and McPherson submitted applications. The SEC’s Claims Review Staff initially recommended denying Barr an award and granting McPherson 23% of the collected sanctions. After objections, the SEC revised its decision, granting Barr 5% and McPherson 20% of the collected amounts. The SEC argued that the bankruptcy proceedings did not qualify as a “covered judicial or administrative action” or a “related action” under the Dodd-Frank Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the SEC’s motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee did not constitute “bringing an action” under the Dodd-Frank Act. The court found that the ordinary meaning of “action brought” refers to initiating a lawsuit or legal proceedings, which did not apply to the SEC’s involvement in the bankruptcy case. The court also rejected the argument that the SEC’s actions in the bankruptcy case were a continuation of its enforcement strategy. Consequently, the court denied the petitions for review, upholding the SEC’s award calculations. View "Barr v. SEC" on Justia Law

Mark Nordlicht, founder and chief investment officer of Platinum Partners, defrauded Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations' creditors of nearly $80 million, transferring the funds to his hedge fund’s investors, including Shlomo and Tamar Rechnitz, who received about $10.3 million. Nordlicht was later convicted of securities fraud. Black Elk declared bankruptcy, and the Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding against the Rechnitzes to recover the transferred funds.The bankruptcy court ruled that the Trustee could recover the money from the Rechnitzes under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 548(a)(1), and 550(a), rejecting their defense under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b)(1) that they were good faith transferees. The court imputed Nordlicht’s knowledge of the fraudulent scheme to the Rechnitzes, as he acted as their agent. The court also found that the funds transferred to the Rechnitzes were traceable to the fraudulent scheme. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' rulings. The court held that the knowledge of an agent (Nordlicht) is imputed to the principal (the Rechnitzes) under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b)(1), and thus, the Rechnitzes could not claim to be good faith transferees. The court also found that Nordlicht’s actions were within the scope of his authority as the Rechnitzes’ agent. Additionally, the court upheld the bankruptcy court’s tracing methodology, which assumed that tainted funds were used first, finding it appropriate under the circumstances. The court concluded that the Trustee could recover the $10.3 million from the Rechnitzes. View "Rechnitz v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Robert Allen Stanford operated a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme through various entities in Texas and Antigua. In 2009, a federal district court appointed an equity receiver (the "Receiver") to manage the assets of the Stanford entities, handle claims from defrauded investors, and pursue claims against third parties. This appeal concerns a settlement with Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A. ("SGPB"), which included a bar order preventing future Stanford-related claims against the Swiss bank. Two individuals appointed by an Antiguan court to liquidate one of the Stanford entities argued that the bar order should not apply to their claims against SGPB.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the settlement and issued the bar order. The Joint Liquidators objected, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. They filed their objection in a related Chapter 15 proceeding rather than the main SEC action, leading to a jurisdictional dispute. The district court held a hearing, during which it indicated that any participation by the Joint Liquidators' counsel would be considered a waiver of their jurisdictional objection. The court approved the settlement and entered the bar order, prompting the Joint Liquidators to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not have the necessary personal jurisdiction to bind the Joint Liquidators with its bar order. The court emphasized that injunctions require in personam jurisdiction, which the district court lacked over the Joint Liquidators. The court vacated the district court's scheduling order and the bar order as it applied to the Joint Liquidators, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Dickson v. Janvey" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Association of Manufacturers and Natural Gas Services Group, Incorporated (plaintiffs-appellants) against the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Gary Gensler, in his official capacity as Chair of the SEC (defendants-appellees). The dispute arose after the SEC, in 2020, adopted a rule regulating businesses that provide proxy voting advice to institutional shareholders of public corporations. Two years later, the SEC rescinded this rule. The appellants challenged the rescission in district court, arguing that the SEC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to provide an adequate explanation for its abrupt change in policy. The district court rejected the appellants’ contentions and granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the SEC's explanation for rescinding the 2020 rule was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore unlawful. The court held that the SEC failed to provide an adequate justification for contradicting its prior factual finding that the 2020 Rule did not threaten the timeliness and independence of proxy voting advice. The court also found that the SEC failed to provide a reasonable explanation why these risks were so significant under the 2020 Rule as to justify its rescission. The court vacated the 2022 rescission in part and remanded the case back to the SEC. View "National Association of Manufacturers and Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aimed at enhancing the regulation of private fund advisers. The rule was designed to protect investors who invest in private funds and to prevent fraud, deception, or manipulation by the investment advisers to those funds. The petitioners, a group of associations representing private fund managers, challenged the rule, arguing that the SEC exceeded its statutory authority in adopting it.The case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The petitioners argued that the SEC had overstepped its authority under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Dodd-Frank Act. They contended that the rule imposed requirements that were not authorized by these statutes and that the SEC had failed to adequately consider the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.The SEC, on the other hand, argued that it had the authority to adopt the rule under sections 206(4) and 211(h) of the Advisers Act. It contended that these provisions authorized it to define and prescribe means to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts by investment advisers.The Fifth Circuit sided with the petitioners, holding that the SEC had exceeded its statutory authority in adopting the rule. The court found that the rule was not authorized by the relevant provisions of the Advisers Act and that the SEC had failed to establish a close nexus between the rule and the prevention of fraud or deception. As a result, the court vacated the rule. View "NA of Private Fund Managers v. SEC" on Justia Law