Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2023

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rayat

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-04777
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rayat, Judge Liman ordered both sides to brief whether foreign tax information receives special discovery protection.

Who this affects

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the defendants—Harmel S. Rayat, Renovacare, Inc., Jatinder Bhogal, Jeetenderjit Singh Sidhu, and Sharon Fleming—were affected by the briefing order concerning foreign tax-return information. The opinion also lists Treadstone Financial Group Ltd., Treadstone Financial Group LLC, Blackbriar Asset Management Ltd., and 1420527 Alberta Ltd. as relief defendants.

What happened

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rayat, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the defendants made competing requests for a court letter seeking tax-return information from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The information concerned defendants Harmel S. Rayat, Jatinder Bhogal, and Jeetenderjit Singh Sidhu, whose returns apparently were filed in Canada.

The defendants sought information limited to certain transactions, while the Securities and Exchange Commission argued that complete returns were needed to respond to the defendants’ arguments and prove its securities-law claims. Both sides assumed that a two-part test for discovering U.S. tax returns applied, but the court questioned whether that test also applies to foreign tax information.

Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide whether the returns must be produced. He ordered each side to submit a letter identifying relevant authority on whether the two-part test protects the discoverability of foreign tax information. The order states a deadline of 12:00 p.m. on February 3, 2022, although the order is dated January 31, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rayat · No. 1:21-cv-04777
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 31, 2023

Background

The court considered competing requests for a Letter of Request to the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking tax-return information for defendants Harmel S. Rayat, Jatinder Bhogal, and Jeetenderjit Singh Sidhu. The opinion states that the returns apparently were filed in Canada. The defendants sought information limited to certain transactions among the defendants. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleges violations of federal securities laws, argued that complete return information was necessary to contest the defendants’ arguments and prove its claims.

Legal issue

Both sides assumed that a two-part test discussed in a prior Southern District of New York decision applied to the requested information. Under that test, a party seeking tax returns in a civil case must show that the returns are relevant to the case and that there is a compelling need for them because the information is not readily available from a less intrusive source.

The court explained that the test is based at least partly on policies protecting U.S. federal and state tax systems and on federal law concerning the confidentiality of federal tax returns. The court stated that it was not obvious whether those same standards apply when the information comes from foreign tax returns and is sought in connection with alleged violations of U.S. law.

Order

The court did not rule on whether the foreign tax information was discoverable or whether the requested letter should issue. Instead, it ordered each side to submit a letter of no more than three single-spaced pages identifying authority on whether the two-part test protects the discoverability of foreign tax information. The order states that the submissions were due by 12:00 p.m. on February 3, 2022. Because the order is dated January 31, 2023, the stated year for the deadline appears inconsistent within the opinion; this summary does not resolve that inconsistency.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.