Eyecity.com Inc (ICTY)

[jhnvtjll]

One of the attorney's arguments is about the statute of limitations. It's a very convincing argument. It's ridiculous that FINRA wants something from 17 years ago.




https://www.sec.gov/litigation/apdocuments/3-19239-event-3.pdf

IV. The SEC's Enforcement of FINRA's Denial Would Be Improper Because It Violates The Five
Year Statute Of Limitations.

Lastly, as demonstrated above, FINRA's deficiency determination and the Commission's
affirmation of FINRA's deficiency determination would amount to punishing ICTY for the past conduct of
its management. Accordingly, the FINRA actions as well as this appeal should constitute "an action, suit
or proceeding" for the enforcement of a "penalty," and the Commission should be time-barred from
affirming FINRA's denial by the general statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2462.

As an initial matter, the five year limitations period has clearly passed. In the Supreme
Court's recent decision in Gabelli v. S EC, 133 U.S. 1216 (2013), the Supreme Court held that the five year statute of limitations period in Section 2462 begins to run at the time the actions at issue are
"complete" rather than when they are discovered. The Court rejected the SEC's arguments that the
discovery rule should apply to Section 2462. Here, the conduct at issue occurred at the latest March 2013.
Under the rule in Gabelli, the statute began to run no later than 2013. Even under the "discovery rule",
however, the clock began to tick when ICTY publicly filed its Form 15.