SEC v. Goldstone, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116847 (D. N.M. Aug. 22, 2015):

5. Deceit-of-Auditors Claims.

Exchange Act rule 13b2-2 "provides that directors or officers shall not make or cause to be made a materially misleading statement or omission to an accountant in connection with SEC filings, among other things." SEC v. Espuelas, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 436. Specifically, the rule states:

   (a) No director or officer of an issuer shall, directly or indirectly:

   (1) Make or cause to be made a materially false or misleading statement to an accountant in connection with; or

(2) Omit to state, or cause another person to omit to state, any material fact necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading, to an accountant in connection with:

   (i) Any audit, review or examination of the financial statements of the issuer required to be made pursuant to this subpart; or

(ii) The preparation or filing of any document or report required to [*993]  be filed with the Commission pursuant to this subpart or otherwise.

(b)

   (1) No officer or director of an issuer, or any other person acting under the direction thereof, shall directly or indirectly take any action to coerce, manipulate, mislead, or fraudulently influence any independent public or certified public accountant engaged in the performance of an audit or review of the financial statements of that issuer that are required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to this subpart or otherwise if that person knew or should have known that such action, if successful, could result in rendering the issuer's financial statements materially misleading.

(2) For purposes of paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(2) of this section, actions that, "if successful, could result in rendering the issuer's financial statements materially misleading" include, but are not limited to, actions taken at any time with respect to the professional engagement period to coerce, manipulate, mislead, or fraudulently influence an auditor:

   (i) To issue or reissue a report on an issuer's financial statements that is not warranted in the circumstances (due to material violations of generally accepted accounting principles, generally accepted auditing [*994]  standards, or other professional or regulatory standards);

(ii) Not to perform audit, review or other procedures required by generally accepted auditing standards or other professional standards;

(iii) Not to withdraw an issued report; or

(iv) Not to communicate matters to an issuer's audit committee.

(c) In addition, in the case of an investment company registered under section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8), or a business development company as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(48)), no officer or director of the company's investment adviser, sponsor, depositor, trustee, or administrator (or, in the case of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, any other person acting under the direction thereof) shall, directly or indirectly:

   (1)

   (i) Make or cause to be made a materially false or misleading statement to an accountant in connection with; or

(ii) Omit to state, or cause another person to omit to state, any material fact necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading to an accountant in connection with:

(A) Any audit, review, or examination of the financial statements of the investment company required to be made [*995]  pursuant to this subpart; or

(B) The preparation or filing of any document or report required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to this subpart or otherwise; or

(2) Take any action to coerce, manipulate, mislead, or fraudulently influence any independent public or certified public accountant engaged in the performance of an audit or review of the financial statements of that investment company that are required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to this subpart or otherwise if that person knew or should have known that such action, if successful, could result in rendering the investment company's financial statements materially misleading.

17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-2. Notably, rules 13b2-2(a) and (c)(1) do not prescribe a scienter requirement. The Ninth Circuit, and the Eighth and Second Circuits, have split whether the SEC must plead and establish a defendant's scienter to succeed on a claim for materially false statements or omissions made to an auditor, and the Tenth Circuit has not reached the issue. The Ninth Circuit holds that, "[t]o be liable, one must 'knowingly' make false statements." SEC v. Todd, 642 F.3d 1207, 1219 (9th Cir. 2011)(quoting United States v. Goyal, 629 F.3d 912, 916 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010)). See United States v. Goyal, 629 F.3d at 916 n.6 ("[L]iability under Rule 13b2-2 . . . requires that a false statement to an auditor be made knowingly."). Notably, the Ninth Circuit's precedent [*996]  requiring a scienter element in rule 13b2-2(a) and (c)(1) originates from its decision in United States v. Goyal, a criminal matter. In United States v. Goyal, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the United States must establish that a defendant knowingly deceived auditors to be criminally liable under the rule, because 15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(4) and (5), under which the SEC promulgated rule 13b2-2, imposes criminal liability for only those who "'knowingly'" violate § 13(b)(2)'s provisions. United States v. Goyal, 629 F.3d at 916 n.6 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 78m(b)(5)). The Ninth Circuit held that the SEC could not promulgate a rule which encompassed criminal liability beyond the scope of § 13(b)(2)'s allowance, and, therefore, the United States must establish a knowing scienter when alleging a criminal violation of rule 13b2-2. See United States v. Goyal, 629 F.3d at 916, 916 n.6.

The Second and Eighth Circuits, on the other hand, have read the SEC's interpretive guidance on rule 13b2-2(a) and (c)(1), and its statutory history, to not require the SEC to plead scienter in a civil enforcement action. See SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d 732, 741 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[T]he court's ruling that lack of scienter would not be a defense to the claims under § 13 and the regulations thereunder was consistent with precedent in this Circuit and with the Commission's interpretive regulations indicating that scienter is not an element of civil claims under those provisions."); SEC v. Das, 723 F.3d 943, 955 (8th Cir. 2013)("Based on the [*997]  foregoing, we conclude that Rule 13b2-2 does not require that the SEC prove [the defendant] acted knowingly."); SEC v. Espuelas, 698 F. Supp. 2d at 436 ("Like rule 13b2-1, 13b2-2 does not require the SEC to plead scienter."). The Second Circuit has noted that, before the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Pub. L. No. 100-418, § 5002, 102 Stat. 1415, 1415 (1988) amendments to § 13 of the Exchange Act, § 13 contained no scienter elements. Scienter was added to § 13 in connection with the imposition of criminal liability for the "deliberate falsification of books and records and other conduct calculated to evade the internal accounting controls requirement." H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 916-17 (1988)(Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1949-50. The Second Circuit has determined that, because Congress specifically added a scienter requirement to § 13(b) in connection with criminal liability, congressional intent "plainly impl[ies] that falsification of the information to be filed in accordance with § 13(b) need not be knowing in order to lead to civil liability." SEC v. McNulty, 137 F.3d at 741.

Indeed, when promulgating rule 13b2-2, the SEC rejected a request to include a scienter requirement for those who make material misstatements or omissions to auditors:

   The Commission received comments from approximately 80 persons . . . most of which questioned certain aspects of the proposal. [*998]  The majority of these comments expressed concern that the proposed rule would: (a) require no showing of scienter in order to establish a violation based upon the making of false, misleading or incomplete statements to an accountant in the course of an examination or audit; (b) impose liability for oral, as well as written, statements made to an accountant; . . . . [M]any of the comments asserted that imposition of liability for misstatements or omissions, in the absence of a scienter requirement, would be counter-productive and impede communications between auditors and those from whom they seek information in the course of an audit. In fact, a number of comments suggested that some persons would refuse to communicate with an auditor rather than expose themselves to potential liability.

. . .

[T]he Commission believes its experience concerning questionable and illegal payments is more persuasive as to the need for such a rule than the opinions expressed by some commentators to the effect that the rule will impede communications between auditors and those from whom they seek information. Under these circumstances, the Commission has decided that the advantages of the new Rule outweigh the potential [*999]  disadvantages suggested by certain commentators.

SEC Release No. 34-15570, 1979 WL 173674, at *12. See SEC Release No. 34-15570, 1979 WL 173674, at *10 (noting that the congressional history of Exchange Act Section 13 does not indicate the necessity of pleading violator's scienter). Further, when rules 13b2-2(b) and (c) were added in 2003, as part of the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002), the SEC, again, explicitly stated that the amendment does not alter rule 13b2-2(a)'s imposition of civil liability without a showing of scienter. The SEC explained that, although rules 13b2-2(b) and (c)(2) prohibit a director or officer from misleading an auditor, the amendment "does not alter" rule 13b2-2(a)'s prohibition against "directly or indirectly causing to be made materially misleading statements to auditors," without "imposing what would amount to a new scienter requirement on the pre-exiting provision prohibiting officers and directors from causing misleading statements or omissions to be made to auditors." 68 F.R. 31820-01, 31823, 2003 WL 21218518.

The Court finds the Second and Eight Circuits' interpretation of rule 13b2-2(a) and (c) persuasive, and consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance regarding administrative interpretations. In Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the Supreme Court held that an administrative agency's interpretation of its rules "becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent [*1000]  with the regulation." 325 U.S. at 413-14. "When agencies interpret their own regulations -- to, for example, adjudicate whether a regulated party was in compliance with them -- courts accord agencies what is known as Auer or Seminole Rock deference." Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 305 F.R.D. 256, 286 (D.N.M. 2015)(Browning, J.)(citing Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997); Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. at 410).

"Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose." Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 194 (1985)(citing Am. Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68 (1982)). The first step in construing a statute requires the court to "determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case." Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). The inquiry stops there "if the statutory language is unambiguous and 'the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.'" Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. at 340 (citing United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240 (1989)). Whether the statutory language is plain on its face or ambiguous "is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole." Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. at 341 (citing Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 477 (1992)).

Congress has not specifically addressed the state of mind necessary for personal civil liability under § 13(b)(2). Congress did not add scienter, however, to § 13(b)(2) until the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in [*1001]  1988, and it added scienter with the intent to hold criminally liable only those who knowingly violate the section. The congressional intent in adding an element of scienter to § 13(b) evidences that Congress intended to heighten the requirements for holding directors and officers criminally liable under the section, but the congressional history bears no indication that Congress intended to change any elements of § 13(b) beyond those necessary for criminal liability. See H.R. Rep. 10-576, at 916, (1988)(Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1949 ("The Conferees intend to codify current [SEC] enforcement policy that penalties not be imposed for insignificant or technical infractions or inadvertent conduct. The amendment . . . accomplishes this by providing that criminal penalties shall not be imposed for failing to comply with the . . . books and records or accounting control provisions."). The SEC has consistently interpreted § 13(b)(2) as not requiring it to allege that a defendant acted knowingly to be civilly liable for deceiving auditors, and this interpretation is consistent with the statute's plain language, which did not include an element of scienter when the SEC promulgated rule 13b2-2. The Court [*1002]  determines that the SEC's interpretation that § 13(b)(2) does not impose an element of scienter for civil enforcement actions is consistent with § 13(b)(2)'s plain language, and with congressional history and intent, and is therefore based on a "permissible construction of the statute." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 843. Accordingly, the Court adopts the SEC's, and the Second and Eight Circuits' interpretation of rule 13b2-2(a) and (c)(1), which does not require the SEC to allege that defendants knowingly misled auditors to state a claim for civil liability under those provisions.