The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of the federal securities laws. The decision in SEC v. Jarkesy means that the SEC must file enforcement actions in federal court, rather than before an administrative law judge, when it seeks civil penalties for alleged securities fraud.

The Jarkesy ruling on its face is somewhat limited: it applies only to enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties, and it addresses only the Seventh Amendment considerations that such proceedings raise.  The decision might not cover administrative enforcement proceedings seeking other types of relief, such as disgorgement or injunctive relief, and it does not address whether any constitutional issues other than the Seventh Amendment might bar those proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court’s ruling will limit the SEC’s ability to proceed in an administrative forum against alleged wrongdoers, and it could lead to further attacks on administrative proceedings based on grounds not covered here.


The Jarkesy litigation began as an SEC enforcement proceeding before an in-house administrative law judge (“ALJ”).  The SEC alleged that the defendants – the founder and the investment adviser of two hedge funds – had committed fraud under the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act by misrepresenting the funds’ investment strategies, misrepresenting the identities of the funds’ auditor and prime broker, and overvaluing the funds’ assets to increase the fees chargeable to investors.

After procedural wrangling about whether the administrative proceeding infringed on defendants’ constitutional rights and whether defendants could enjoin it on that basis, the ALJ held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that defendants had committed securities fraud. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s conclusions and ordered defendants to cease and desist from future violations, pay a civil penalty, and disgorge ill-gotten gains. The Commission also rejected defendants’ various challenges to the constitutionality of the ALJ proceeding.

Defendants sought review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which – in a divided 2-1 decision – granted the petition and vacated and remanded the Commission’s rulings. The majority held that (i) the ALJ administrative proceeding had deprived defendants of their constitutional right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, (ii) Congress had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by granting it sole discretion to choose between administrative and judicial proceedings without prescribing an “intelligible principle” to guide the SEC’s exercise of that delegated authority, and (iii) the statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate Article II of the Constitution by imposing two layers of for-cause protection, impeding the President’s ability to remove ALJs.

The SEC sought en banc rehearing from the Fifth Circuit, which denied the petition in a 10-6 split. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed in a 6-3 decision, reaching only the Seventh Amendment issue.

Supreme Court Decision

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the SEC’s enforcement proceeding implicates the Seventh Amendment because the securities laws’ anti-fraud provisions “replicate common law fraud, and it is well established that common law claims must be heard by a jury.” The majority rejected the contention that the “‘public rights’ exception” to Article III jurisprudence applies here “because the present action does not fall within any of the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives where the Court has concluded that a matter may be resolved outside of an Article III court, without a jury.”

Seventh Amendment’s Applicability

The Court began with the principles that the Seventh Amendment “extends to a particular statutory claim if the claim is legal in nature” and that governmental actions to recover statutory civil penalties “historically ha[ve] been viewed as [a] type of action in debt requiring trial by jury.” “What determines whether a monetary remedy is legal is if it is designed to punish or deter the wrongdoer, or, on the other hand, solely to restore the status quo.”

Examining the civil penalties available under the securities laws, the Court concluded that they were designed at least in part to punish and deter.

  • Of the six statutory factors determining the availability of civil penalties, three of them involved “culpability, deterrence, and recidivism.”  Because those factors “tie the availability of civil penalties to the perceived need to punish the defendant rather than to restore the victim, such considerations are legal rather than equitable.”
  • The considerations affecting the size of the available remedy are also legal in nature because they condition the penalty “on the culpability of the defendant and the need for deterrence, not the size of the harm that must be remedied.”
  • In addition, “the SEC is not obligated to return any money to victims,” so the civil penalty is punitive, not remedial.

The Court also reasoned that “the close relationship between the causes of action in this case and common law fraud” confirm that statutory securities-fraud claims are the “type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law,” with a right to a jury trial.

Inapplicability of “Public Rights” Exception

The Court held that the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment and Article III jurisprudence does not apply to the claims at issue here.  That exception historically applied only to matters that “could have been determined exclusively by [the executive and legislative] branches, . .  even when they were presented in such form that the judicial power [wa]s capable of acting on them.” But “if a suit is in the nature of an action at common law, then the matter presumptively concerns private rights, and adjudication by an Article III court is mandatory.”

In this case, the Court ruled, private rights were at issue. The securities laws’ anti-fraud provisions “provide civil penalties, a punitive remedy that we have recognized could only be enforced in courts of law,” and “they target the same basic conduct as common law fraud, employ the same terms of art, and operate pursuant to similar legal principles.”  Congress therefore could not withdraw the action “from judicial cognizance.”

Other Justices’ Opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred in the majority opinion but wrote a separate concurrence explaining that “other constitutional provisions reinforce the correctness” of the majority’s holding on the Seventh Amendment issue. Justice Gorsuch opined that “the Seventh Amendment’s jury-trial right does not work alone”; it operates together with Article III, which “entitles individuals to an independent judge who will preside over that trial,” and the Due Process Clause, which “promises any trial will be held in accord with time-honored principles.”

Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The dissent concluded that, “throughout our Nation’s history, Congress has authorized agency adjudicators to find violations of statutory obligations and award civil penalties to the Government as an injured sovereign.”  The dissenters warned that “more than 200 statutes authoriz[e] dozens of agencies to impose civil penalties for violations of statutory obligations” and that “Congress had no reason to anticipate the chaos today’s majority would unleash after all these years.”


The Court’s ruling on the Seventh Amendment appears to apply only to the SEC’s (and perhaps other government agencies’) enforcement proceedings to obtain civil penalties, which are considered legal rather than equitable relief.  The SEC will now need to bring such actions in federal court, where a jury-trial right exists, instead of before ALJs in an administrative proceeding.  For those who believe that SEC ALJ proceedings unduly favor the SEC and disadvantage the defendant, the decision will be viewed as a victory for present and future defendants faced with enforcement proceedings.  The SEC now will likely be forced to proceed in federal court in many instances, rather than before ALJs.

Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment ruling, however, does not appear to apply where the SEC (or some other agency) seeks relief other than civil penalties. As the Court noted: “What determines whether a monetary remedy is legal is if it is designed to punish or deter the wrongdoer, or, on the other hand, solely to restore the status quo” (emphasis added). Similarly, the Court observed that, although “only courts of law issued monetary relief to punish culpable individuals,” “courts of equity could order a defendant to return unjustly obtained funds” (emphasis added). Thus, Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment analysis might not apply where the SEC (or some other agency) seeks disgorgement or injunctive relief.

However, Jarkesy addressed only the Seventh Amendment arguments against ALJ proceedings.  The majority did not consider the other points the Fifth Circuit had decided:  (i) the allegedly unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the SEC to exercise sole discretion to choose between administrative and judicial proceedings in the absence of an “intelligible principle” to guide the SEC’s exercise of that discretion and (ii) the allegedly unconstitutional statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs.  Nor did the majority address the Article III and due-process arguments that Justices Gorsuch and Thomas raised in their concurrence.

Thus, if the SEC (or another agency) tries to avoid Jarkesy’s restrictions by bringing administrative proceedings only for disgorgement or injunctive relief, one can imagine that litigants might raise the panoply of arguments that the majority did not address. Accordingly, the assault on ALJ administrative proceedings probably is not over if the SEC (or some other agency) continues to use them as an alternative to suits in an Article III federal court. And potential challengers appear likely to have at least two votes (from Justices Gorsuch and Thomas) in support of their contentions.

Moreover, to the extent the dissent is correct that the majority’s ruling could affect the authority of “dozens of agencies” to impose civil penalties under “more than 200 statutes,” Jarkesy could have a major impact on administrative proceedings across the board and could channel those actions into federal court.

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jonathan Richman Jonathan Richman

Jonathan Richman represents a variety of companies in securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions, internal investigations, SEC investigations, corporate governance, insider trading, D&O insurance and related matters. Many of those matters involve international elements, including representations of non-U.S. issuers in U.S. litigation and…

Jonathan Richman represents a variety of companies in securities class actions, shareholder derivative actions, internal investigations, SEC investigations, corporate governance, insider trading, D&O insurance and related matters. Many of those matters involve international elements, including representations of non-U.S. issuers in U.S. litigation and in landmark non-U.S. collective settlements under Dutch law in the Netherlands. Jonathan’s clients have included Hewlett Packard, Royal Dutch/Shell, Zurich Insurance Group, Halliburton, Waste Management, and Bed Bath & Beyond.

Jonathan writes extensively on topics ranging from securities and insider-trading law, corporate governance and fiduciary issues to non-U.S. law on collective actions. His articles have been published in major legal publications.

Jonathan is the past co-head of the Firm’s Securities Litigation Group.

Class Action and SEC Enforcement Experience

  • Royal Dutch/Shell
  • Global Crossing
  • Waste Management
  • Zurich Insurance Group
  • Vestas Wind Systems A/S (class action only)
  • JBS S.A. (class action only)
  • Henry Schein, Inc. (class action only)
  • YRC Worldwide Inc. (class action only)
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (class action only)
  • Roka Bioscience, Inc. (class action only)
  • Fifth Street (class action only)
  • Vida Longevity Fund (class action only)
  • Former CEO of Lumber Liquidators (class action only)
  • Individual defendant in Third Avenue securities class actions
  • American General (class action only)
  • Metropolitan Life (class action only)
  • New York Life (class action only)
  • Leucadia/Jefferies merger litigation (class action only)
  • Realty Income/American Realty merger litigation (class action only)
  • ARCP/ARCT III merger litigation (class action only)
  • Aberdeen/Artio merger litigation (class action only)
  • PhotoMedex/LCA-Vision merger litigation (class action only)
  • RCS Capital/Summit Financial merger litigation (class action only)
  • First American/First Advantage merger litigation (class action only)
  • SEC inquiry involving CMBS servicing
  • SEC inquiry involving issuer’s confidentiality notice for internal investigations
  • Various SEC, CFTC, and FINRA inquiries involving trading issues

Shareholder Derivative Litigation

  • Hewlett-Packard
  • Royal Dutch/Shell
  • Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.
  • Halliburton Company
  • Waste Management, Inc.
  • Henry Schein, Inc.
  • YRC Worldwide Inc.
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
  • Fifth Street
  • Vida Longevity Fund
  • Former CEO of Lumber Liquidators
  • Individual defendant in Third Avenue derivative litigation

Department of Justice Proceedings

  • Royal Dutch/Shell
  • Global Crossing
  • Property and casualty insurers


  • Advising outside directors of for-profit educational institution on litigation and regulatory investigations
  • Providing advice and training sessions for clients on insider-trading issues
  • Representing Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico in pending litigation arising from Puerto Rico bankruptcy


  • Author, “Court Preliminarily Enjoins Florida’s ‘Stop Woke Act,’” National Law Review (Aug. 22, 2022)
  • Author, “Blockchain Meets Morrison:  Court Rejects Blockchain Class Settlement Because of Concerns About Adequacy of Representation,” National Law Review (Aug. 16, 2022)
  • Author, “Delaware Supreme Court Allows Use of ‘Reliable’ Hearsay to Support Books-and-Records Demand,” National Law Review (July 20, 2022)
  • Author, “Divided Delaware Supreme Court Decision Highlights Issues About Director Independence in Derivative Actions,” National Law Review (June 30, 2022)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Securities Claim Alleging Failure to Disclose SEC Investigation,” National Law Review (May 25, 2022)
  • Author, “Ninth Circuit Upholds Delaware-Forum Bylaw That Precludes Assertion of Federal Proxy Claim,” National Law Review (May 13, 2022)
  • Co-author, “SEC Defeats Motion to Dismiss Insider Trading Complaint Alleging Novel ‘Shadow Trading’ Theory, The Corporate Lawyer, vol. 59, no. 3 (Feb. 2022), at 1
  • Co-author, “Seventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Derivative Action Based on Forum Clause as Applied to Federal Claim,” National Law Review (Jan. 21, 2022)
  • Author, “California Federal Court Holds U.S. Securities Laws Inapplicable to Unsponsored, Unlisted ADR Transaction Preceded by Purchase of Common Stock Outside the U.S.,” National Law Review (Jan. 10, 2022)
  • Co-author, “SEC Pursues ‘Shadow Trading’ Insider Trading Case,” Corporate Governance Advisor, vo. 29, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2021), at 29
  • Co-author, “SEC Investor Advisory Committee Considers Recommendations to Tighten Rules for Insiders’ Trading Plans,” National Law Review (Sept. 7, 2021)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Holds that Accurately Reported Financial Statements Are Not Actionable and that Materiality Has a Half-Life,” National Law Review (Aug. 27, 2021)
  • Author, “First Circuit Adopts Prevailing Standard for Applicability of Federal Securities Laws to Foreign Investors, But Rejects Second Circuit’s Narrower Test,” National Law Review (May 11, 2021)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Upholds Insider Trading Conviction, Finding Sufficient Confidentiality Duty and Personal Benefit,” National Law Review (Apr. 7, 2021)
  • Co-author, “Second Circuit Reaffirms that Federal Securities Laws Do Not Apply to Predominantly Foreign Transactions,” National Law Review (Jan. 26, 2021)
  • Author, “Corporate Scienter Requires Link Between Employees with Knowledge and the Alleged Misstatements,” National Law Review (May 26, 2020)
  • Author, “Delaware Supreme Court Rules that Corporate Charters Can Require Litigation of Federal Securities Act Claims in Federal Court,” National Law Review (Mar. 18, 2020)
  • Author, “California Federal Court Holds that U.S. Securities Laws Apply to Unsponsored, Unlisted ADRs,” National Law Review (Jan. 30, 2020)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Holds that a ‘Personal Benefit’ Is Not Required for Insider Trading Under Criminal Securities Statute,” National Law Review (Jan. 2, 2020)
  • Co-author, “When Passive Investors Drift into Activist Status,” CCR Corp. Deal Lawyers (Nov.-Dec. 2019)
  • Author, “Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Presumption of Confidentiality for Books-and-Records Productions,” National Law Review (Aug. 8, 2019)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Raises Questions About Private Rights of Action Under § 14 of Securities Exchange Act,” National Law Review (Apr. 24, 2019)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Rejects Securities Claims Based on Generic Statements About Ethics and Compliance,” Securities Reform Act Litigation Reporter, vol. 47, no. 1 (April 2019), at 54
  • Author,” Supreme Court Holds that Persons Who Do Not ‘Make’ Misstatements Can Nevertheless Be Liable for Other Securities-Fraud Violations,” National Law Review (Mar. 29, 2019)
  • Author, “The importance of documenting corporate actions: Delaware Supreme Court requires production of emails in books-and-records request,” Westlaw Journal Mergers & Acquisitions (Feb. 2019)
  • Author, “First Appellate Decision Holds that SEC Can Bring Extraterritorial Enforcement Action Based on Conduct or Effects in United States,” National Law Review (Jan. 24, 2019)
  • Author, “Insider Trading for Dummies: Judge Rakoff Tries to Simplify the Law,” National Law Review (Dec. 10, 2018)
  • Co-author, “Fortis Case Confirms Viability of Dutch Settlement Law,” Law360 (July 27, 2018) (with Professor Ianika Tzankova)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Again Holds That Tipper/Tippee Liability Can Arise from a Gift of Inside Information Even Without a Close Personal Relationship,” National Law Review (June 29, 2018)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Rules That Federal Courts Are Not Bound to Give Conclusive Effect to Foreign Governments’ Statements About Their Laws,” National Law Review (June 14, 2018)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Prohibits Stacking of Successive Class Actions Beyond Limitations Period,” National Law Review (June 14, 2018)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Rules That State Courts Can Adjudicate Class Actions Under the Securities Act of 1933,” Securities Arbitration Commentator (April 11, 2018)
  • Author, “Fourth Circuit Upholds Disclosure of Government Subpoena as Evidence of Loss Causation,” National Law Review (Feb. 24, 2018)
  • Author, “Revisiting Preclusion Principles in Derivative Actions,” Law360 (July 28, 2017)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Requires Increased Scrutiny of Securities Class Actions Involving Off-Exchange Transactions,” National Law Review (July 8, 2017)
  • Author, “Dutch Court Denies Approval of Collective Settlement Unless Changes Are Made as to Allocation of Compensation and Fees,” National Law Review (June 19, 2017)
  • Author, “Utah Court Bites Bullet with Dodd-Frank Jurisdiction Ruling,” Law360 (Apr. 13, 2017)
  • Author, “Non-Use Agreement Need Not Precede Disclosure of Confidential Information,” National Law Review (March 21, 2017)
  • Author, “Watch the Napkin: First Circuit Affirms Insider-Trading Conviction,” National Law Review (Feb. 28, 2017)
  • Author, “Dueling Shareholder Class Actions Could Raise Due Process Issues,” Law360 (Jan. 30, 2017)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Reaffirms Personal-Benefit Requirement for Insider Trading,” WestLaw Journal: Securities Litigation & Regulation and WestLaw Journal: White-Collar Crime (Dec. 22, 2016)
  • Author, “Rakoff Addresses Tippee Liability in SEC v. Payton,” Law360 (Dec. 2, 2016)
  • Author, “Dutch Collective Actions vs. Collective Settlements,” National Law Review (Oct. 18, 2016)
  • Author, “Judgment Recognition and the Reach of US Securities Laws,” Law360 (Oct. 3, 2016)
  • Author, “Executives Face SOX Disgorgement Uncertainty After Jensen,” Law360 (Sept. 8, 2016)
  • Author, “Wine, Steak and a Taste of the ‘Personal Benefit’ Tension,” Law360 (June 6, 2016)
  • Author, “Proskauer Explains Supreme Court’s Clarification of Jurisdiction Under Securities Exchange Act,” The CLS Blue Sky Blog (May 24, 2016)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Reinforces Liability Standard in Securities Cases Based on Statements of Opinion,” Business Law Today (Mar. 2016)
  • Author, “The Netherlands Returns as a Collective Settlement Forum,” Law360 (Mar. 15, 2016)
  • Author, “How Morrison v. Australia Bank Was Applied in Petrobras,” Law360 (Feb. 16, 2016)
  • Author, “New York Court Certifies Classes in Petrobras Securities Litigation,” National Law Review (Feb. 3, 2016)
  • Author, “Delaware Court of Chancery Rejects Another Disclosure-Only M&A Settlement and Warns of ‘Increasingly Vigilant’ Scrutiny,” National Law Review (Jan. 25, 2016)
  • Author, “What To Expect from High Court’s New Insider Trading Case,” Law360 (Jan. 19, 2016)
  • Author, “Second Circuit Upholds Common-Interest Privilege for Borrower’s Sharing of Legal Advice with Consortium of Lenders,” Transaction Advisors (Dec. 2015)
  • Author, “What Jarkesy Means for SEC Admin Court Challenges,” Law360 (Sept. 30, 2015)
  • Author, “A Farewell to Alms? Peppercorn Settlements of M&A Litigation,” National Law Review (Sept. 21, 2015)
  • Author, “Seventh Circuit Rejects Court Challenge to Pending SEC Administrative Proceeding,” com (Aug. 27, 2015)
  • Author, “9th Circuit Rebuffs Newman,” Law360 (July 8, 2015)
  • Author, “Proskauer Discusses Supreme Court’s Omnicare Decision, Clarifying Liability for Statements of Opinion in Registration Statements,” The CLS Blue Sky Blog (Mar. 24, 2015)
  • Author, “U.S. Appeals Court Rejects Bright-Line Test for Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Securities Laws,” Bloomberg BNA World Securities Law Report, vol. 20, no. 9 (Sept. 2014)
  • Author, “Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Provision Does Not Apply Outside the U.S.,” Westlaw Journal Securities Litigation & Regulation, vol. 20, issue 9 (Sept. 4, 2014)
  • Author, “So Much for Bright-Line Tests on Extraterritorial Reach of US Securities Laws?,” Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (Sept. 2, 2014)
  • Co-author, “Defending Directors: Cram Sheet,” Wolters Kluwer Law & Business (October 23, 2012)
  • Author, “Delaware Chancery Court Issues Decision on Collateral Estoppel in Derivative Suits,” Westlaw Journal Delaware Corporate, vol. 26, issue 25 (June 25, 2012)
  • Author, “SEC Issues Report on Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Securities Laws,” VCExperts on-line publication (June 2012)
  • Co-author, “Fraud? Foreign Purchase? Forget It! ‘Foreign-Cubed’ and Other Foreign-Issuer Cases After Morrison,” of Secs. & Commodities Reg., vol. 44, no. 4 (Feb. 23, 2011)
  • Author, “Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations in Securities-Fraud Actions,” Derivatives Financial Prods. Rpt., 11, no. 10, at 23 (June 2010)
  • Author, “Transnational Class Actions and Judgment Recognition,” Class Action Litigation Report (June 25, 2010)
  • Co-author, “Pushing the Limits of U.S. Securities Laws: ‘Foreign-Cubed’ (‘F-Cubed’) Cases,” 42 SRLR 10 (March 8, 2010)
  • Co-author, “Assignees Have Discovery Obligations When Asserting Assignors’ Claims,” Journal of Payment Systems Law (June/July 2005)
  • “Punitive Damages: Past, Present and Future,” International Commercial Litigation (July/August 1995)
  • Co-author and editor, Takeovers: Attack and Survival (1987)
  • Co-author, “New Life for State Takeover Statutes?,” New York Law Journal (July 27, 1987)
  • Co-author, “Damages in Defamation Actions,” Damages in Tort Actions (1985)
  • “Facial Adjudication of Disciplinary Provisions in Union Constitutions,” Yale Law Journal (1981)


  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG 2022: What It Means for Boards, Management, and Counsel” (June 1, 2022) (full-day program; program co-chair and panel chair)
  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG 2021: What It Means for Boards, Management, and Counsel” (webcast, June 24, 2021) (full-day program; program co-chair and panel chair)
  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG 2020: What It Means for Boards, Management, and Counsel) (webcast, July 24, 2020) (full-day program; program co-chair and panel chair)
  • Practising Law Institute: “ESG and Promoting Corporate Sustainability” (New York, June 25, 2019) (full-day program; program chair and panel chair)
  • The Mason Judicial Education Program, Symposium for Judges: Securities Class Action Litigation (Arlington, VA, May 5, 2019)
  • The Mason Judicial Education Program, Symposium for Judges: The Economics of Corporate & Securities Law (San Diego, April 12-14, 2018)
  • ABA Section of Litigation: “Recent Developments in Securities Class Actions” (webinar, May 11, 2017)
  • Professional Liability Underwriters Society D&O Symposium: “Behaving Badly: The Non-U.S. Corporate Scandal Wave” (New York, February 9, 2017)
  • New York State Bar Association International Section: “Hot Topics in Cross-Border Securities Litigation” (São Paulo, October 16, 2015)
  • Proskauer Hedge-Fund Breakfast Seminar on Insider Trading (New York, Feb. 5, 2015)
  • CLE International’s 9th Annual Class Action Conference: “Collective Proceedings Abroad: Evolving Approaches & Attitudes” (Washington, D.C., October 2013)
  • Practising Law Institute: “Handling a Securities Case: From Investigation to Trial and Everything in Between” (New York, April 2012)
  • Institutional Investor Educational Foundation: Corporate Governance Roundtable Forum (New York, December 2011)
  • Institutional Investor Educational Foundation Amsterdam Roundtable: “The Netherlands and the Future of European Securities Litigation” (The Hague, September 2011)
  • Summer Institute on Law & Government, American Univ. Washington College of Law: “Securities Class Actions – An Update” (Washington, D.C., June 2010)
  • ABA Section on Litigation Annual Conference: “Global Class Actions: Lasting Peace or Ticking Time Bombs?” (New York, April 2010)