1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Supreme Court Rejects SEC's Ability to Seek Civil Penalties More than Five Years after an Alleged Fraud

Supreme Court Rejects SEC's Ability to Seek Civil Penalties More than Five Years after an Alleged Fraud

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.01.13

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission's argument that the five-year statute of limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2462—the default limitations provision that governs civil penalties—begins to run when the fraud is discovered, not when the underlying violation occurred. Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission (Feb. 27, 2013). The Court held that the discovery rule, which tolls the statute of limitations when a defendant's fraud prevents the plaintiff from realizing the injury, does not apply to government enforcement actions for civil penalties.

In Gabelli, the SEC filed fraud charges against individual defendants based on allegations of market timing. Although the SEC alleged violations from 1999 through August 2002, it did not file its complaint until April 2008, well after the five-year statute of limitations had lapsed. In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court soundly rejected the SEC's request to apply the discovery rule, holding that "the five-year clock begins to tick [] when a defendant's allegedly fraudulent conduct occurs." The Court stressed that the "SEC as enforcer is a far cry from the defrauded victim the discovery rule evolved to protect" and recognized that, as a practical matter, the limitations period should not depend on the speculative nature of when a government agency—"with hundreds of employees, dozens of offices, and several levels of leadership"—knows or should know of a violation.

The Court's Gabelli decision may serve as a wake-up call to the SEC to hone and accelerate its investigation and enforcement practices. It may also have the immediate effect of increasing the number of SEC Staff requests for tolling agreements. In addition, the Court's decision will likely cause certain SEC inquiries to end with no enforcement action at all, given their age and investigative pace. Notably, the Gabelli decision only addresses civil monetary penalties and does not affect the SEC's other enforcement tools, such as injunctions and other forms of equitable relief.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights