Tag: SEC enforcement


In re Lions Gate: Corporate Disclosure of Securities Enforcement

David M.J. Rein is a partner in the Litigation Group at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP . This post is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell memorandum by Mr. Rein and Jacob E. Cohen. The complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.

On January 22, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge John Koeltl) dismissed In re Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. Securities Litigation, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit, brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleged that the company should have disclosed publicly the pendency of a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation, the company’s intention to settle with the SEC and the company’s receipt of a so-called “Wells Notice”—i.e., a letter from the SEC Enforcement Division staff informing the company that it “has decided to recommend that the Commission bring an enforcement proceeding.”

READ MORE »

White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What to Expect In 2016

John F. Savarese is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum.

One way in which we expect the white-collar/regulatory enforcement regime in 2016 to continue last year’s pattern is that the government’s appetite for extracting enormous fines and penalties from settling companies will likely continue unabated. However, as we discuss below, the manner in which well-advised companies facing criminal or serious regulatory investigations will seek to mitigate such fines and sanctions will likely change in some important respects in 2016. The reason for this expected change is that U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced late in 2015 that DOJ was formalizing a requirement that, in order to get “any” cooperation credit, companies must come forward with all available evidence identifying individuals responsible for the underlying misconduct subject to investigation.

READ MORE »

Calculating SEC Civil Money Penalties

Jonathan 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.

In addition to going to court to seek sanctions, the Securities and Exchange Commission may impose civil money penalties in its own administrative proceedings on any person who violates or causes a violation of the securities laws. [1] Unlike district courts, administrative law judges do not have authority to base penalties on respondents’ pecuniary gains resulting from violations. [2] Instead, under the various penalty statutes, maximum penalties in administrative proceedings are based on “each act or omission” violating or causing a violation of the securities laws. Currently, the maximum penalties for each act or omission violating the securities laws are:
READ MORE »

Governance Challenges When Gatekeepers are “Chilled”

Michael W. Peregrine is a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. This post is based on an article by Mr. Peregrine, with assistance from Joshua T. BuchmanEugene I. Goldman, and Kelsey J. Leingang; the views expressed therein do not necessarily reflect the views of McDermott Will & Emery LLP or its clients.

An emerging governance challenge is the need to address the tension between the pursuit of legitimate corporate strategic goals, and the concerns of internal “gatekeepers” who perceive themselves at increasing personal legal risk for corporate wrongdoing. This challenge is a direct byproduct of new enforcement initiatives of the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other recent developments with respect to corporate officials.

The concern is that these developments may cause some gatekeepers and other corporate officials to be much more self-protective in performing their corporate and fiduciary responsibilities, to the possible detriment of strategic implementation. Attentive boards will acknowledge this challenge and engage its gatekeepers in an appropriate resolution.

READ MORE »

Resource Extraction Payments

Nicolas Grabar and Sandra L. Flow are partners in the New York office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Grabar, Ms. Flow, Nina E. Bell, and Daniel Chor.

On December 11, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposed rule on disclosure of resource extraction payments, over two years after a federal court vacated a prior version of the rule. The new proposal is similar in many ways to the SEC’s original rule, adopted in August 2012—in large part because the SEC is implementing a detailed congressional directive contained in Section 1504 of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. However, in addition to addressing the deficiencies the court found in the original rulemaking, the SEC has made other notable changes to reflect global developments in transparency for resource extraction payments, particularly in the European Union and Canada.

READ MORE »

Ten Trends in SEC Enforcement Actions

Jonathan 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.

As 2015 winds down, we offer the following observations about ten important trends in SEC enforcement actions.

1. Increased Number of Enforcement Actions

The number of SEC enforcement actions continues to grow. In FY 2015, the SEC filed 807 enforcement actions, of which 507 were independent actions for violations of the securities laws and 300 were either follow-on actions (e.g., seeking bars against individuals based on prior orders) or actions against issuers who were delinquent in making required filings. This was up from 755 enforcement actions in 2014, of which 413 were independent actions, and that in turn was up from 676 enforcement actions in 2013, of which 341 were independent actions. Total monetary relief ordered rose from $3.4 billion in 2013 to $4.16 billion in 2014 to $4.19 billion in 2015.
READ MORE »

SEC Enforcement Actions Against Broker-Dealers

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.

In its 2015 Financial Report, the SEC repeated its view that one of the two principal purposes of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is to ensure that “people who sell and trade securities—brokers, dealers and exchanges—must treat investors fairly and honestly, putting investors’ interests first.” Broker-dealers have been and remain a critical focus of the Commission’s enforcement program. In the first 11 months of 2015, the SEC brought enforcement actions against broker-dealers in approximately two dozen distinct areas, with sanctions ranging from less than $100,000 to nearly $180 million.

READ MORE »

Looking Back at the SEC’s Transformation

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent public statement; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

I started my tenure as an SEC Commissioner in the late summer of 2008, only a few weeks before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the financial turmoil that followed, and only a few months before one of the largest financial frauds in U.S. history—the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme—was exposed. Beyond their obviously substantial impact on the capital markets and the greater economy, these historical events demonstrated that the Commission needed to change and adapt if it was to continue to be an effective regulator. Indeed, in late 2008 and in 2009, the continuing existence of the Commission was a matter of serious speculation. Thus, whether by coincidence or circumstance—some would say a fate of timing—it is not surprising that my tenure has corresponded with one of the most transformational periods in the SEC’s august history.

READ MORE »

Protecting Investors through Proactive Regulation of Derivatives

Luis A. Aguilar is a Commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Commissioner Aguilar’s recent public statement at an open meeting of the SEC; the full text, including footnotes, is available here. The views expressed in the post are those of Commissioner Aguilar and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the other Commissioners, or the Staff.

Today [December 11, 2015], the Commission considers new rules that are designed to protect investors by addressing the use of derivatives by registered investment companies. As demonstrated by the 2008 financial crisis, and the economic turmoil that followed, years of regulatory complacency and deregulation enabled an unregulated derivatives marketplace to cause significant losses to investors. In response to that crisis, in 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to address the causes of the financial crisis, and specifically included provisions in Title VII of the Act mandating the establishment of a regulatory framework for addressing broad categories of derivatives. This process is still ongoing.

READ MORE »

Scope of Federal Statutory Whistleblower Provisions

Joseph M. McLaughlin is a Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. This post is based on a Simpson Thacher memorandum by Mr. McLaughlin and Yafit Cohn. This article appeared in the December 10, 2015 edition of the New York Law Journal.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) contain provisions protecting from retaliation individuals who provide information regarding a violation of U.S. securities laws. Various ambiguities in these statutory provisions have been adjudicated, most recently by the Northern District of California, which grappled with a new issue: whether directors who allegedly engage in retaliatory conduct may be liable under SOX and Dodd-Frank.

In Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, [1] Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero held that directors who take retaliatory action against a whistleblowing employee by voting in favor of that employee’s termination are subject to individual liability under both SOX and Dodd-Frank. In addition, the court addressed the unsettled question whether Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation protection extends to whistleblowers who report internally but not to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), joining a divided Second Circuit in according deference to the SEC’s view that it does.

READ MORE »