Tag: SEC enforcement

New Records in SEC Enforcement Actions

John C. Wander is a partner in the Shareholder Litigation & Enforcement practice at Vinson & Elkins LLP. This post is based on a Vinson & Elkins publication authored by Mr. Wander, Jeffrey S. JohnstonClifford Thau, and Olivia D. Howe.

In late October, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that under the leadership of chair Mary Jo White and enforcement director Andrew Ceresney, the SEC has continued to ramp up enforcement activity. In its 2015 fiscal year, the SEC reported filing a total of 807 actions for the year—including 507 independent enforcement actions, 168 follow-on actions, and 132 actions for delinquent filings—resulting in $4.19 billion in monetary penalties and disgorgements.

SEC Enforcement Actions Against Investment Advisers

Jon N. Eisenberg is partner in the Government Enforcement practice at K&L Gates LLP. This post is based on a K&L Gates publication by Mr. Eisenberg. The complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.

According to the SEC’s most recent financial report, as of August 2014, SEC-registered investment advisers managed $62.3 trillion in assets. Not surprisingly, investment advisers attract a great deal of attention from the SEC’s Enforcement Division. The Division of Enforcement’s Asset Management Unit has 75 professionals spread across all 12 SEC offices. The group has developed strong industry expertise: it includes more than a half-dozen former industry professionals and works closely with the examination teams of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, as well as with the Divisions of Investment Management and Economic and Risk Analysis. In the first 10 months of 2015, it brought over two dozen cases, resulting in over $190 million in settlements; nearly a dozen cases are being litigated.


Recap of the 2015 Proxy Season

Avrohom J. Kess is partner and head of the Public Company Advisory Practice at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. This post is based on a Simpson Thacher presentation by Mr. Kess, Yafit Cohn, Arthur B. Crozier and Lissa Perlman. The complete presentation is available here.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP recently released a PowerPoint deck, titled “Recap of the 2015 Proxy Season: What Happened, Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead to 2016.”  The deck (available here) provides an overview of the 2015 proxy season, as well as in-depth analysis regarding key developments, proposals and trends from the proxy season.


Fund Advisers and Fee Disclosure in SEC Enforcement Action

Veronica Rendón Callahan is a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP and co-chair of the firm’s Securities Enforcement and Litigation practice. This post is a based on an Arnold & Porter memorandum by Ms. Callahan, Ellen Kaye Fleishhacker, Daniel M. Hawke, Robert E. Holton, and Kevin J. Lavin.

October 7, 2015, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission or SEC) entered into a settlement agreement with Blackstone Management Partners L.L.C., Blackstone Management Partners III L.L.C., and Blackstone Management Partners IV L.L.C. (collectively, Blackstone) regarding certain Blackstone fee and expense disclosure practices. Without admitting or denying the Commission’s findings, Blackstone consented to a cease-and-desist order and agreed to pay nearly $40 million to settle the charges consisting of $26,225,203 of disgorgement, $2,686,553 of prejudgment interest, and $10,000,000 of civil money penalties. This action represents a continuing focus by the SEC on fee and expense allocation and disclosure practices of private fund advisers. [1] It serves as a reminder of the need for advisers to private investment funds to review and revise as necessary their compliance and disclosure policies and procedures related to the allocation of fees and expenses.


Building Effective Relationships with Regulators

Norm Champ is a lecturer at Harvard Law School and the former Director of the Division of Investment Management at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. This post is based on a Keynote Address by Mr. Champ at the CFO Compliance & Regulation Summit.

Today [September 10, 2015] I will try to bring together my experience at the SEC in the Division of Investment Management and the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations to talk about how you can build effective relationships with regulators. Each business, no matter what the industry, must decide what strategy it is going to pursue with regulators. As a former CCO of an investment management business and a former regulator, I propose that you follow a strategy of constructive engagement with the regulator in your industry. I know there are those who disagree with that strategy and advocate a posture of avoidance of your regulator and even those who advocate a strategy of opposition to your regulator. I have dealt with that advice in my ten years in a regulated financial services business and seen it in action in five years as a regulator. I’m going to argue that the strategies of avoidance and opposition are misguided and that constructive engagement is the only viable choice for a business seeking an effective relationship with its regulator.


Enforcement Discretion at the SEC

David Zaring is an Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Zaring.

The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act allowed the Securities & Exchange Commission to bring almost any claim that it can file in federal court to its own Administrative Law Judges. The agency has since taken up this power against a panoply of alleged insider traders and other perpetrators of securities fraud. Many targets of SEC ALJ enforcement actions have sued on equal protection, due process, and separation of powers grounds, seeking to require the agency to sue them in court, if at all.

The SEC has vigorously—and, my article argues, correctly—defended its power to choose where it sues. Agencies have always enjoyed unfettered discretion to choose their enforcement targets and their policy making fora. Formal adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is the process SEC ALJs offer, has been with us for decades, and has never before been thought to be unconstitutional in any way. It violates no rights, nor offends the separation of powers; if anything scholars have bemoaned the fact that it offers inefficiently large amounts of process to defendants, administered by insulated civil servants who in no way threaten the president’s control over the executive branch. Nonetheless, because defendants, advised by high profile lawyers, have raised appointments clause, due process, equal protection, and right to a jury trial claims against the agency, the article reviews the reasons why these claims will fail, and discusses the timing issues that have led the two appellate courts to address the claims to dismiss them as prematurely brought.


The SEC’s Focus on Cybersecurity

Jessica Forbes is a corporate partner resident the New York office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. This post is based on a Fried Frank publication authored by Ms. Forbes, Joanna D. Rosenberg, and Stacey Song.

On September 22, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a cease-and-desist order (the “Order”) and settled charges against St. Louis-based investment adviser R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management (“R.T. Jones”) for failing to establish required policies and procedures to safeguard customer information in violation of Rule 30(a) of Regulation S-P (“Rule 30(a)”) under the Securities Act of 1933. [1]

Rule 30(a) requires every broker, dealer, investment company and registered investment adviser to adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information and to protect customer information from anticipated threats or unauthorized access. According to the Order, from at least September 2009 through July 2013, R.T. Jones stored personal information of its clients and other persons on its third party-hosted web server without adopting any such written policies and procedures. In July 2013, a hacker gained access to the data on R.T. Jones’ web server, rendering the personal information of more than 100,000 individuals vulnerable to theft. In response to the cyber attack, R.T. Jones notified each individual whose information was compromised.


SCOTUS Declines Petition on Insider Trading Ruling

Brad S. Karp is chairman and partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. This post is based on a Paul Weiss client memorandum.

Today [October 5, 2015], the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the petition for a writ of certiorari (the “Petition”) filed by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), a landmark decision that dismissed indictments against two insider trading defendants. By declining to hear the Petition, the Supreme Court ensured that the Second Circuit’s decision in Newman will remain binding in the Second Circuit and influential across the country.

As we explain below, two of Newman’s holdings are particularly important: first, that the government must prove that a remote tippee knew or should have known of the personal benefit received by a tipper in exchange for disclosing nonpublic information; and second, that the benefits alleged by the government in United States v. Newman were not sufficient to support a conviction, as they were not sufficiently “consequential.”


Asset Managers: AML ready?

Dan Ryan is Leader of the Financial Services Advisory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. This post is based on a PwC publication by Mr. Ryan, Jeff Lavine, Adam Gilbert, and Armen Meyer. The complete publication, including footnotes and appendix, is available here.

On August 25th, the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposed anti-money laundering requirements for US investment advisers. The proposal requires advisers that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to establish anti-money laundering (AML) programs, to report suspicious activities related to money laundering and terrorist financing, and to comply with other sections of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).

If finalized as proposed, the impact of these new requirements will vary. Advisers owned by bank holding companies (BHCs) are already subject to similar requirements that are applicable to their BHC parents and enforced by the Federal Reserve. These advisers will nevertheless likely experience an increase in regulatory oversight, as the proposal now allows the SEC to enforce AML requirements.


Announcement of New Rulemaking Database

Mary Jo White is Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The following post is based on Chair White’s recent public statement, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Chair White and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Strong regulations are central to the Commission’s mission. For more than 80 years, we have used rulemaking to establish a comprehensive framework for our securities markets that protects investors, enhances market integrity, and promotes capital formation. The rulemaking process is the means through which the Commission responds to the ever-changing securities markets, targets and attacks harmful practices in those markets, and meets the goals mandated by Congress. Our rules provide important standards against which we assess compliance in our examinations and hold wrongdoers accountable in our enforcement actions.


  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    David Fox
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    Jack B. Jacobs
    Paula Loop
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Morton Pierce
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward