Search results

To explain and analyze two Enforcement Advisories that set forth the factors the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Enforcement may consider in assessing cooperation by companies and individuals in the context of CFTC enforcement proceedings.

Explains the background, including the 2007 Enforcement Advisory for Companies. Explains the 2017 Enforcement Advisory for Companies and the parallel Enforcement Advisory for Individuals, including policy-based considerations and factors such as the materiality, timeliness, nature, and quality of a company’s cooperation; the value of a company’s cooperation to the Commission’s broader law enforcement interests; and the company’s culpability, culture and other relevant factors. Provides examples of uncooperative conduct. Discusses a broader trend among enforcement authorities in the US and abroad of setting higher cooperation standards.

The new Advisories make clear that merely complying with requests for information from the CFTC staff will not be sufficient; a company or individual seeking cooperation credit as part of a resolution with the CFTC must go above and beyond its legal obligations in order to qualify for such credit.

Practical guidance from experienced white collar defense, regulatory enforcement, civil litigation and arbitration lawyers.

This paper aims to analyze the March 6, 2019 enforcement advisory in which the Division of Enforcement (Division) of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) announced that it will work alongside the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies to investigate foreign bribery and corruption relating to commodities markets.

This paper explains the enforcement advisory and outlines key considerations for industry participants and their compliance teams, including the CFTC’s plan to investigate in parallel with other enforcement authorities, an expansion of the CFTC’s existing self-reporting, cooperation and remediation policy to address foreign corruption and the CFTC’s focus on market and economic integrity, and provides guidelines for commodities companies concerning anti-corruption compliance and training programs, investigating potential incidents of bribery and corruption, reporting obligations under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, voluntary reporting of incidents of foreign corruption and whistleblowing.

The CFTC announcement adds a new dimension to an already crowded and complex landscape for anti-corruption enforcement. A range of industries, including energy, agriculture, metals, financial services, cryptocurrencies and beyond, must now consider the CFTC and the CEA when assessing global compliance and enforcement risks relating to bribery and corruption.

Expert guidance from lawyers with broad experience in white collar defense, investigations, financial services, securities, commodities, energy and derivatives.

To provide an overview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC’s) new self-reporting and cooperation program.

Summarizes the key features of the CFTC’s new cooperation program and the CFTC’s statement of its purpose in enacting the program; provides the authors’ views on the likely implications of the program for CFTC enforcement actions.

Whether the CFTC’s self-reporting and cooperation program will be a useful tool for deterring misconduct remains to be seen as the CFTC begins to implement it, but there are indications that it may encourage cooperation. If properly implemented, the program has the potential to benefit the CFTC and regulated parties significantly.

Practical insights on a new CFTC policy from experienced civil enforcement lawyers.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive background on the recent legislative, regulatory, and prosecutorial scrutiny of mutual funds and underlying issues such as the level and transparency of fees and costs, distribution and sales practices, and fund governance.

Provides a detailed chronology of events since January 2003 concerning mutual fund scandals such as trading abuses and questionable sales practices and related issues such as revenue sharing, directed brokerage, soft dollars, market timing, late trading, and selective disclosure. The chronology in this issue of JOIC will be followed an article in the next issue that describes reform initiatives that have taken place in response to the scandals.

Despite criticism and scrutiny of equity mutual funds following poor performance in 2001 and 2002, meaningful efforts to achieve reform began to lose momentum in mid‐2003. Then concern with mutual fund abuses was reignited in September 2003 when New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced a settlement with Canary Capital that involved market timing, late trading, and selective disclosure. Since then there have been numerous disclosures of fund trading abuses and questionable trading practices, and the resulting uproar has triggered significant efforts to reform the manner in which funds and their service providers conduct business.

This comprehensive chronology provides an essential reference by bringing together all the events and underlying issues related to mutual fund scandals, abuses, regulation, compliance, and reform efforts since January 1, 2003.

The purpose of the paper is to summarize and discuss selected investor‐protection and other related enhancements to federal securities regulation contained in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The paper discusses the following investor protections and related enhancements: enhanced whistleblower incentives and protections; expanded SEC investor‐protection administrative functions including the establishment of an Office of the Investor Advocate, the appointment of an Ombudsman, and the establishment on a permanent basis of an Investor Advisory Committee; expanded enforcement authority against aiders and abettors of securities violations; evaluation of the existing standards of care employed by broker‐dealers and investment advisers; a narrowing of exemptions from registration under the Securities Act, including by directing the SEC to enact rules to disqualify “bad actors” from relying on Rule 506 of Regulation D and adjusting the definition of “accredited investor” for purposes of the SEC's rules under the Securities Act; an exemption for certain small companies from the auditor attestation requirements of Sarbanes‐Oxley; provisions to increase the oversight and accountability of credit rating agencies; and steps to bolster the regulatory oversight of the municipal securities market, including by creating a new class of regulated intermediaries – “municipal advisors”

The Dodd‐Frank Act leaves many critical issues to be fleshed out through further SEC rulemaking and in the implementation phase, including: procedures regarding whistleblower information submitted to the SEC; the actual role of the Office of the Investor Advocate; whether the SEC will adopt a broker‐dealer fiduciary‐duty standard of care; additional texture on rules disqualifying bad actors from relying on Rule 506 of Regulation D; adjustments to net worth requirements related to accredited investor status; rules on disclosure of credit ratings in registration statements; and qualification standards for municipal advisors.

Public companies and other persons affected by the Dodd‐Frank Act should: keep abreast of key developments in the rulemaking phase; possibly participate in the rulemaking process: develop realistic strategies to respond to the proposed rules; develop compliance action plans; and review whistleblower‐related compliance policies and procedures.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

This paper aims to review the case for improved (supra‐national) regional social and labour policies in principle, assess the extent to which existing regional associations of governments and regional organizations are actually developing effective regional labour policies in different sub‐regions of Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia, and finally explore the driving forces behind their development and suggest how they might be further enhanced.

The paper compares the emergence of regional policies concerning labour rights and migrant workers' rights across regions. A sample of more than 15 regional arrangements are then ranked on the basis of their commitment in these areas. Finally, correlations between these rankings and different indicators of (real) regional interdependence are looked at.

The paper shows that regional socio‐economic policies are gaining importance in different world regions, although speeds are varied and generally low. It is difficult, however, to find strong correlations with indicators of regional interdependence such as trade or migration.

The paper presents one of the first systematic accounts of the development of regional socio‐economic policies in different world regions. It shows at the same time that huge opportunities for new policy initiatives exist in this area.

The purpose of this paper us to summarize the remarks of the Commissioners and participants in several panel sessions and workshops during the 2013 annual “SEC Speaks” conference held by the Practising Law Institute in cooperation with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, discussing the SEC's accomplishments in 2012 and its agenda for 2013.

The paper summarizes remarks by Chairman Walter and Commissioners Aguilar, Paredes, and Gallagher; provides highlights from panel sessions and workshops concerning the Division of Corporation Finance, the Division of Trading and Markets, the Division of Enforcement, the Division of Investment Management, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations as well as highlights from the panel sessions relating to Accounting, Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation. Judicial and Legislative Developments, and Ethics.

The summaries provide an overview of the SEC's most important current rulemaking, projects and policy priorities.

The paper presents current SEC issues and developments addressed by experienced SEC lawyers.

The reality of domestic violence does not disappear when people enter the digital world, as abusers may use technology to stalk, exploit, and control their victims. In this chapter, we discuss three unique types of technological abuse: (1) financial abuse via banking websites and apps; (2) abuse via smart home devices (i.e., “Internet of Things” abuse); and (3) stalking via geo-location or GPS. We also argue pregnancy and wellness apps provide an opportunity for meaningful intervention for pregnant victims of domestic violence.

While there is no way to ensure users' safety in all situations, we argue thoughtful considerations while designing and building digital products can result in meaningful contributions to victims' safety. This chapter concludes with PenzeyMoog's (2020) “Framework for Inclusive Safety,” which is a roadmap for building technology that increases the safety of domestic violence survivors. This framework includes three key points: (1) the importance of educating technologists about domestic violence; (2) the importance of identifying possible abuse situations and designing against them; and (3) identifying user interactions that might signal abuse and offering safe interventions.