In 2015, we saw high-profile whistleblower litigation around the country under a variety of statutes (such as SOX and Dodd-Frank) that yielded decisions expanding the scope of protected activity and even limiting defenses to causation. We also saw significant activity from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the

Potentially abusive trading algorithms, such as algorithms that purportedly engage in “spoofing” or “layering” are the subject of considerable regulatory interest.  However, in an interesting complaint filed on October 19, 2015, the CFTC alleged that a firm manually entering futures orders engaged in illegal spoofing that appears to have lured algorithmic traders into the market. 

Following the D.C. Circuit’s July 14, 2015 decision in Koch et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 14-1134 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2015), which held that the SEC could not retroactively punish an investment advisor for conduct that occurred prior to the enactment of the statute authorizing the punishment, the SEC announced last week that it would not seek further review of that decision.

The Securities and Exchange Commission again rejected constitutional challenges to the use of administrative enforcement proceedings presided over by Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”).  The Commission’s September 17, 2015 decision in In the Matter of Timbervest, LLC – the Commission’s second ruling on the constitutional issue in the past two weeks – rebuffed arguments that ALJ proceedings such as this one violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and removal provisions and deprived respondents of equal protection of the laws.

The Securities and Exchange Commission joined the raging debate about whether SEC administrative proceedings conducted by administrative law judges (“ALJs”) are unconstitutional if the ALJs have not been appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In a 3-2 decision in In the Matter of Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc., the Commission ruled on September 3, 2015 that ALJs are “mere employees” of the Commission – not “inferior officers” of the United States – and are therefore not subject to the Appointments Clause’s requirements.