United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rogas

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rogas · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · August 6, 2026 · No. 25-35 (Lead), 25-36 (Con)

Summary

This Second Circuit opinion affirms two consolidated appeals from the Southern District of New York regarding a securities fraud enforcement action. The court upheld a lifetime officer and director bar against defendant Adam Rogas for systematically falsifying NS8 Inc.'s financial statements and revenue to defraud investors. It also affirmed the lower court's order directing Rogas's law firm to surrender a frozen $3.6 million legal retainer to the court registry.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Kearse; Raggi; Livingston
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
August 6, 2026
Docket number
25-35 (Lead), 25-36 (Con)
Procedural posture
Consolidated appeals from two orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: an order permanently barring Adam P. Rogas from serving as an officer or director of a covered public company, and an order requiring Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP to deposit the unspent portion of a retainer with the court registry.
Standard of review
The imposition of injunctive relief and civil penalties, including an officer-and-director bar, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Reversal requires a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. The Second Circuit reviewed the asset-freeze turnover ruling for error and affirmed its application to the undisputed record.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Adam P. Rogas, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate procedurestandard of reviewremediessecurities fraudequitable relief

Practice areas

securities regulationappellate procedurecivil enforcementremedieslegal ethics and attorney retainers

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a permanent officer-and-director bar rather than a shorter bar.
  2. Whether the district court properly determined that the unearned portion of Rogas's $4 million retainer was covered by the asset-freeze order and could not be used for his legal defense.

Holdings

  1. The district court acted within its discretion in permanently barring Rogas from serving as an officer or director of a covered public company. The statutory officer-and-director-bar provision gives courts discretion to impose a permanent bar when the defendant's conduct demonstrates unfitness, and neither prior securities-law violations nor application of every Patel factor is required.
  2. The district court properly ordered Pillsbury to deposit the remaining retainer funds, together with any gains from holding them, with the court registry because the funds were held in the name of, for the benefit of, or under the control of Rogas and were therefore covered by the freeze order. Rogas and Pillsbury could not use fraud proceeds subject to the freeze to fund Rogas's legal defense.

Key quotations

These factors are useful in making the unfitness assessment, although we do not mean to say that they are the only factors that may be taken into account or even that it is necessary to apply all these factors in every case. (28)
We see no error in the district court's ruling that the $4 million Rogas sent to Pillsbury--from an account into which he had deposited $10 million he received as part of his profits from the 30 months of fraudulent inflation of NS8's revenues--was covered by the Freeze Order. (54)

Factual background

From January 2018 through June 2020, Adam Rogas, NS8's president and CEO, repeatedly altered the company's bank statements to inflate its revenue and asset balances, and caused the falsified information to be used in securities offerings that raised approximately $149 million. Rogas personally and through an entity he controlled received more than $17.5 million from NS8's repurchase of shares. After the SEC commenced its action and obtained an asset freeze, Rogas had approximately $4 million transferred to Pillsbury as a purported retainer; Pillsbury was notified of the freeze on September 18, 2020, and approximately $3.6 million remained at that time.

Procedural history

The SEC brought a civil enforcement action alleging securities fraud by Rogas in connection with NS8 securities offerings. The district court entered an interim consent judgment holding Rogas liable for disgorgement and prejudgment interest and permanently enjoining securities-law violations, later imposed a lifetime officer-and-director bar, and ordered Pillsbury to turn over the remaining retainer funds subject to the asset freeze. Rogas and Pillsbury appealed, and the Second Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed both orders.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…