Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

In a high‐profile case that first drew big media headlines last February, a New York brokerage firm and a ring of eight brokers on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange were charged with perpetrating a scheme in which they made over $11.1m in illegal profits and at the same time covered their tracks with an elaborate fraud.

A legal obligation to adopt reasonable information security procedures exists in a variety of laws around the world, such as the EU Data Directive (Directive 95/46), Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and sectoral and state privacy laws in the U.S. The latter include security breach notification laws, and laws establishing a general duty of security. This paper compares and contrasts the privacy and information security landscape inside and outside the U.S. and offers suggestions for corporate “best practices” in data security designed to enhance consumer trust and minimize liability.

This paper examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to deter and detect fraud, domestically and abroad. Specifically, it focuses on the role played by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the US Government Accounting Office (GAO), and other national and foreign professional associations, in promulgating auditing standards and procedures to prevent fraud in financial statements and other white‐collar crimes. It also examines several fraud cases and the impact of management and employee fraud on the various business sectors such as insurance, banking, health care, and manufacturing, as well as the role of management, the boards of directors, the audit committees, auditors, and fraud examiners and their liability in the fraud prevention and investigation.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 and its amendment – the Trade and Competitive Act of 1988 – are unique not only in the history of the accounting and auditing profession, but also in international law. The Acts raised awareness of the need for efficient and adequate internal control systems to prevent illegal acts such as the bribery of foreign officials, political parties and governments to secure or maintain contracts overseas. Its uniqueness is also due to the fact that the USA is the first country to pioneer such a legislation that impacted foreign trade, international law and codes of ethics. The research traces the history of the FCPA before and after its enactment, the role played by the various branches of the United States Government – Congress, Department of Justice, Securities Exchange commission (SEC), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the contributions made by professional associations such as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICFA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Bar Association (ABA); and, finally, the role played by various international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). A cultural, ethical and legalistic background will give a better understanding of the FCPA as wll as the rationale for its controversy.

To provide a brief overview of US securities laws that apply to the marketing of hedge funds.

Summarizes US securities offering rules, including Regulation S and Regulation D at the federal level, state securities laws, antifraud standards, and broker‐dealer regulation.

All securities offered and sold in the USA must be registered with the SEC unless an exemption is available under the Securities Act. Offerings offshore under Regulation S and private placements in the USA under Regulation D offer two such exemptions. Most states have private placement exemptions similar to Regulation D. While certain state‐level regulation over the registration of securities has been preempted by federal law, a level of state regulation continues to exist. All US offers and sales of securities are subject to general antifraud standards under both US federal and state laws. Funds and their employees, investment managers and their employees, and any placement agents may not contact any US investor in the USA or any non‐US investor from the USA without registering as broker‐dealers.

Provides a concise overview of laws and regulations that apply to the marketing of hedge funds.

The year 1986 did not bode well for investment banker Dennis Levine. In a civil injunctive action the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) alleged that Levine, through an insider dealing scheme, violated several anti‐fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Without admitting or denying that he obtained over $12m in illicit profits from secretly trading in the securities of 54 companies, Levine settled the SEC action and was ordered to disgorge over $10m to the court.

To explain the recent determination by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to so-called “token sales” or “initial coin offerings” (ICOs) that some tokens may be securities under federal securities laws and to address other recent actions by the SEC with respect to ICOs.

Reviews the SEC’s determination that some tokens issued in an ICO may be securities under federal securities laws as outlined by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement in a “Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO.” Provides overview of SEC Investor Alert, Investor Bulletin, and recent comments and actions of the Staff regarding investment in ICOs and provides guidance to those interested in participating in an ICO as an investor or issuer.

These actions by the SEC make it clear that the SEC is closely monitoring the market for ICOs, and that it wants potential investors and issuers to be aware that it is watching and may take action if it believes the securities laws have been violated.

Practical overview of recent developments and guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

This chapter discusses legal considerations relating to digital assets. The legal aspects of tokenized and non-tokenized assets are evolving. Although some states have enacted specific laws or regulations for digital assets, Congress and federal agencies have been slower to craft specific rules and regulations for such assets. As a result, regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Internal Revenue Service, and market participants must apply existing guidance to digital assets. This chapter examines applying specific aspects of federal securities and tax law to digital assets. It also discusses general business law considerations for blockchain and cyber enterprises. The discussion of state law applications centers on the New York Virtual Currency License and Wyoming and Delaware crypto initiatives. This chapter does not provide a comprehensive review of all legal issues related to cryptocurrency. Each legal issue about cryptocurrency is complex and requires separate analyses.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc v. Somers and its significance for whistleblower retaliation remedies and securities law interpretation generally.

The authors review the statutory, regulatory and decisional history of the anti-whistleblower retaliation remedies of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and the Dodd–Frank Act; how they were seen by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and most courts to be in conflict, and how they were ultimately harmonized by the Supreme Court in Digital Realty.

In Digital Realty, the Supreme Court ruled against the SEC and the leading Courts of Appeal and established that only one who reports securities law violations to the SEC can sue in federal court under the Dodd–Frank Act; all others are limited to the lesser remedies provided by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. This simple conclusion raises a number of unresolved questions, which the authors identify and discuss. Also, the Supreme Court unanimously continued the pattern of federal securities laws decisions marked by a close reading of the text and a desire to limit private litigants’ access to the federal courts.

This paper provides valuable information and insights about the legal protections for SEC whistleblowers from experienced securities lawyers and more generally on the principles that appear to guide securities law decisions in the Supreme Court.