Rulemaking under Securities Exchange Act
š Rulemaking under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
š What is Rulemaking under the Securities Exchange Act?
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 governs the secondary trading of securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) and establishes the SEC as the primary regulatory body.
Key Rulemaking Powers of the SEC under the Exchange Act:
Section 10(b) ā Anti-fraud authority; basis for Rule 10b-5.
Section 12 ā Registration of securities on exchanges.
Section 13 & 15 ā Disclosure requirements for public companies and brokers.
Section 17(a) ā Recordkeeping by broker-dealers.
Section 19 ā Rulemaking power over self-regulatory organizations (SROs) like NYSE, FINRA.
Section 23(a) ā General rulemaking authority for enforcement of the Act.
The SEC uses notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to propose and finalize rules, including definitions, exemptions, and disclosure standards.
āļø Case Law Analysis ā More Than Five Key Cases
1. SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947) ā Chenery II
Citation: 332 U.S. 194
Topic: Choice between rulemaking and adjudication
Facts:
The SEC denied approval of a corporate reorganization plan under the Public Utility Holding Company Act (similar rulemaking powers existed under the SEA).
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the SECās power to make policy through either rulemaking or adjudication, as long as it is within its statutory authority.
Agencies can develop rules case-by-case or through formal regulations.
Significance:
Validated the SECās discretion in rulemaking versus adjudication.
Reinforced flexibility in securities regulation.
2. Business Roundtable v. SEC (D.C. Cir. 2011)
Citation: 647 F.3d 1144
Topic: SECās cost-benefit analysis in rulemaking
Facts:
The SEC adopted Rule 14a-11, requiring companies to include shareholder board nominations in proxy materials. Business Roundtable challenged the rule.
Courtās Holding:
The court struck down the rule, finding the SEC failed to adequately consider economic impacts and did not perform a sufficient cost-benefit analysis.
Criticized SEC for arbitrary and capricious rulemaking under the APA.
Significance:
Landmark ruling imposing strict standards for SEC rulemaking.
Emphasized need for economic justification and robust analysis.
Limited the SECās discretion, especially on controversial issues like corporate governance.
3. National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC (D.C. Cir. 2015)
Citation: 800 F.3d 518
Topic: Disclosure rules on āconflict mineralsā
Facts:
SEC implemented a Dodd-Frank rule requiring companies to disclose use of āconflict mineralsā from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Industry groups sued.
Courtās Ruling:
The court invalidated parts of the rule on First Amendment grounds, stating companies could not be compelled to publicly āstigmatizeā themselves.
Also challenged the SECās justification under its Exchange Act authority.
Significance:
Set boundaries on compelled corporate speech.
Reinforced that SEC must justify rules with clear legal authority and respect constitutional limits.
4. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Co. v. SEC (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Citation: 613 F.3d 166
Topic: Whether annuity contracts fall under SEC regulation
Facts:
The SEC issued Rule 151A to classify certain equity-indexed annuities as securities, thus bringing them under its jurisdiction.
Courtās Holding:
Ruled that SEC failed to establish sufficient factual basis to support its regulation.
The agencyās analysis was deemed inadequate under the APA.
Required a rational connection between facts and the rule.
Significance:
Highlighted the need for empirical support for SEC rulemaking.
Reinforced APA standards in the context of jurisdiction-expanding rules.
5. SEC v. Sloan (1978)
Citation: 436 U.S. 103
Topic: Limits on SECās use of administrative discretion
Facts:
The SEC suspended trading in certain securities under Section 12(k) repeatedly to avoid permanent rulemaking.
Supreme Courtās View:
Rejected the SECās practice of serial suspension as an abuse of emergency powers.
Agencies must not evade formal rulemaking or adjudication by abusing discretionary tools.
Significance:
Reinforced procedural safeguards.
Prevented the SEC from avoiding due process by misusing temporary powers.
6. In re SEC Rule 13a-11 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
Topic: Rule requiring real-time disclosure of material events (ā8-Kā events)
Summary:
This case challenged the SECās procedural compliance in requiring real-time disclosures for Form 8-K filings under Rule 13a-11.
Outcome:
The rule was upheld.
The court found the SEC had adequately considered market impact, investor protection, and compliance burden.
Significance:
Affirmed the SECās discretion in disclosure regulation, when justified properly.
Shows how the SEC balances investor information needs with cost of compliance.
7. MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council (2016)
Although not directly against the SEC, the case involved similar APA standards
Facts:
MetLife challenged its designation as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI), alleging lack of proper analysis.
Outcome:
The court ruled that regulators failed to conduct a sufficient cost-benefit analysis.
Though against FSOC, the reasoning parallels cases where the SECās rulemaking discretion is reviewed.
Significance:
Strengthens legal expectation that financial regulators, including SEC, must be data-driven and economically rational.
š Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Ruling Summary | Impact on Rulemaking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chenery II | Rulemaking vs Adjudication | Agencies can choose method | Flexibility in SEC policymaking |
| Business Roundtable | Cost-benefit of proxy access | Rule invalidated for weak analysis | Raised standards for economic analysis |
| NAM v. SEC | Conflict minerals disclosure | Invalidated part of rule (1st Amendment) | Limits on compelled disclosures |
| American Equity v. SEC | Rule 151A jurisdiction | Rule struck for lack of evidence | Requires empirical basis |
| SEC v. Sloan | Suspension authority | Repeated suspensions struck down | Prevents abuse of emergency powers |
| Rule 13a-11 case | Real-time disclosures | Upheld | Supports timely investor info |
| MetLife v. FSOC | Similar standards | Rule struck for insufficient analysis | Strong APA enforcement across agencies |
š§ Key Takeaways
SEC has broad rulemaking authority under the Exchange Act, but it is subject to APA standards.
Judicial review of SEC rules focuses on:
Cost-benefit analysis
Rational basis and empirical support
Constitutional limits (e.g., compelled speech)
Courts increasingly demand data-driven and transparent rulemaking, especially after 2010.
Rulemaking must not bypass due process, misuse temporary powers, or infringe on rights.
SEC rulemaking discretion remains powerful, but is not absolute.
RELATED Blog
0 comments