Mark K. Schonfeld is a partner, Tina Samanta is of counsel, and Amy Mayer is an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. This post is based on a Gibson Dunn memorandum by Mr. Schonfeld, Ms. Samanta, Ms. Mayer, Jaclyn Neely, Zoey G. Goldnick, and Erin E Galliher.
I. Introduction: Themes and Notable Developments
A. Behind and Beyond the Enforcement Numbers
This year, the SEC’s review of the performance of the Enforcement Division has de-emphasized the statistics and focused more on qualitative measures of its performance. As Chairman Clayton noted in his December testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, “purely quantitative measures alone cannot adequately measure the effectiveness of Enforcement’s work, which can be evaluated better by assessing the nature, quality and effects of each of the Commission’s enforcement actions with an eye toward how they further the agency’s mission.”
With that said, this fiscal year saw a spike in the number of enforcement actions—the number of standalone enforcement actions increased to 526 from 490 the prior year, and the amount of financial remedies obtained also increased to $4.3 billion from $3.9 billion the prior year. However, an unstated reason to avoid focus on statistical metrics could be that looking behind the numbers reveals that the increase is attributable to a one-time Mutual Fund Share Class Disclosure Initiative, a group of cases in which investment advisers were encouraged to self-report issues associated with the selection of fee-paying mutual fund share classes when a lower or no-cost share class of the same fund was available. Consequently, the apparent increase is more likely an anomaly than a trend.