Master The Supreme Court held that SEC disgorgement is a "penalty" subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2462's five-year statute of limitations. with this comprehensive case brief.
Kokesh v. SEC is a landmark Supreme Court decision that reshaped the contours of federal securities enforcement by clarifying that SEC "disgorgement" operates as a penalty and is therefore subject to the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. For decades, the SEC had obtained disgorgement in civil enforcement actions without a clear temporal limit, often reaching conduct a decade or more in the past. Kokesh closed that door, insisting that when a remedy functions punitively—imposed for wrongdoing against the public and intended to deter—it must be brought within Congress's chosen time limit.
The case is significant beyond securities law. It illuminates the broader doctrinal line between equitable and legal remedies, the meaning of "penalty" under federal limitations statutes, and the Court's insistence that labels do not control substance. By holding that disgorgement is penal in this context, the Court not only constrained the SEC's enforcement reach but also set the stage for Liu v. SEC (2020), which addressed when and how disgorgement can qualify as "equitable relief." For law students, Kokesh is a study in statutory interpretation, remedies, and government enforcement policy, with immediate practical consequences for litigation strategy and regulatory compliance.
Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017) (Supreme Court of the United States)
From 1995 to 2009, Charles Kokesh controlled investment-adviser entities that raised money for several business development companies (BDCs). The SEC alleged that Kokesh caused the BDCs to pay him and his companies millions of dollars in advisory fees, distributions, and expense reimbursements that he then misappropriated for personal use and to cover other unrelated business expenses, violating federal securities antifraud provisions (including the Investment Advisers Act of 1940). In 2009, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action in federal district court seeking (1) civil monetary penalties, (2) an injunction and industry bar, and (3) disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest. A jury found Kokesh liable. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 2462's five-year statute of limitations to the civil penalties, the district court limited those penalties to about $2.35 million for post-2004 conduct. But the court ordered disgorgement of approximately $34.9 million for the entire 1995–2009 period, plus about $18.1 million in prejudgment interest, reasoning that disgorgement was neither a "penalty" nor a "forfeiture" under § 2462 and thus not time-barred. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether SEC disgorgement in civil enforcement actions is subject to § 2462's five-year limitations period.
Is SEC "disgorgement" in civil enforcement actions a "penalty" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2462 such that the SEC must commence an action seeking disgorgement within five years from when the claim first accrued?
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2462, any action, suit, or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, must be commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued. A remedy constitutes a "penalty" if it is imposed as a consequence of a public wrong (an offense against the United States), is sought primarily to deter or punish rather than to compensate victims, and is not limited to restoring victims' losses or the defendant's net gains. In SEC civil enforcement actions, disgorgement functions as a penalty for purposes of § 2462 and is therefore subject to the five-year statute of limitations.
Yes. The Supreme Court unanimously held that SEC disgorgement is a "penalty" under § 2462. Accordingly, the SEC must bring claims for disgorgement within five years of the date the claim accrued. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the case remanded.
The Court, per Justice Sotomayor, reasoned that SEC disgorgement bears the hallmark features of a penalty and thus falls within § 2462. First, disgorgement in SEC enforcement actions is imposed for violations of public laws and serves to redress a wrong against the United States rather than to compensate identified victims. That public-law focus aligns with the classic understanding of a penalty, as articulated in sources like Huntington v. Attrill (1892). Second, the primary purpose of SEC disgorgement is deterrence. Courts routinely describe and apply disgorgement to deter violations, and deterrence is a punitive aim. Remedies designed chiefly to deter or punish, rather than to compensate, are penal. Third, SEC disgorgement is not solely remedial in practice. It is often not limited to the defendant's net profits because courts have required defendants to disgorge gross receipts without deducting legitimate expenses; courts have imposed joint-and-several liability; and the funds are frequently deposited in the Treasury rather than returned to victims when distribution is impracticable. These features reveal that disgorgement can exceed mere restitution to victims or restoration of unjust enrichment, placing it squarely within the category of a penalty under § 2462. The Court rejected the SEC's argument that disgorgement's equitable label exempts it from § 2462, emphasizing that statutory interpretation turns on function, not nomenclature. Because disgorgement operates as a penalty, actions seeking it must be initiated within five years of accrual. The Court explicitly reserved whether courts possess authority to order disgorgement in SEC enforcement actions and, if so, the bounds of such relief under traditional equity principles. That question was later addressed in Liu v. SEC (2020), which held that disgorgement may qualify as equitable relief if limited to the wrongdoer's net profits and awarded for victims.
Kokesh immediately curtailed the SEC's ability to seek disgorgement for long-ago conduct, placing disgorgement claims under the same five-year limitations period that governs civil penalties. The decision drove substantial changes in SEC enforcement strategy, accelerated investigations, and led the SEC to acknowledge that billions of dollars in potential disgorgement would be time-barred. Doctrinally, Kokesh underscores that courts will look past remedial labels to the substantive function of a sanction in determining whether limitations statutes apply. It also served as a springboard to Liu v. SEC, which confined the contours of disgorgement as equitable relief. For law students, Kokesh is essential for understanding statutes of limitations, the penalty–remedy distinction, and the remedial powers of government agencies in civil enforcement.
Kokesh applied 28 U.S.C. § 2462, which imposes a five-year limitations period on actions for enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture. The Court held that disgorgement in SEC civil enforcement actions is a "penalty" under § 2462, so the SEC must file such claims within five years of accrual.
No. Kokesh did not abolish disgorgement; it held only that disgorgement claims are time-barred if not brought within five years. The Court expressly reserved whether and when disgorgement is available as equitable relief. That question was later addressed in Liu v. SEC (2020), which allowed disgorgement as equitable relief if limited to net profits and generally returned to victims.
Gabelli v. SEC (2013) held that, under § 2462, the five-year period begins when the violation occurs, not when it is discovered, rejecting a discovery rule for government enforcement. Kokesh complements Gabelli: once a claim accrues at the time of the violation, any disgorgement tied to that violation must be pursued within five years.
Yes. Section 2462 applies to "an action, suit or proceeding" for enforcement of a penalty, and courts have applied Kokesh's reasoning to SEC administrative proceedings seeking penal remedies. The core inquiry is whether the relief sought is penal in nature; if so, the five-year limit applies regardless of forum.
For the SEC, Kokesh incentivized faster investigations and filings, and greater focus on obtaining relief within five years, including coordination to return funds to victims. For defendants, Kokesh provides a powerful limitations defense to trim disgorgement demands to timely conduct, shapes negotiation leverage, and frames disputes over whether particular remedies (e.g., injunctions, industry bars) function punitively.
Kokesh v. SEC squarely held that SEC disgorgement operates as a penalty for limitations purposes and therefore must be pursued within five years. By focusing on the function—punishment and deterrence for a public wrong—rather than the label of "equitable relief," the Court aligned disgorgement with civil penalties under § 2462, immediately constraining the SEC's reach over stale conduct.
Beyond its immediate effect, Kokesh exemplifies the Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation and remedies: it demands fidelity to Congress's temporal limits and skepticism toward expansive remedial claims untethered to traditional equity. The decision reframed securities enforcement and set the stage for Liu's refinement of disgorgement's equitable boundaries, making Kokesh essential reading for courses in securities regulation, remedies, and civil procedure.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →