Search results

To discuss and analyze the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) FY 2017 Annual Report, which details its priorities for the coming year and evaluates enforcement actions that occurred during FY2017.

Summarizes key shifts from FY 2016, outlines the Enforcement Division’s current priorities, and, in view of its stated focus on the conduct of investment professionals and protection of retail investors, provides guidance to the investment management industry as it gears up for the coming year.

The Report provides insight into changes in the SEC’s approach to enforcement actions, including a general shift in tone suggesting a more measured approach to enforcement and remedies and a move away from a statistics-oriented approach, and a glimpse into its priorities for the coming year, including five core principles guiding the Division’s enforcement decisions.

As those in the asset management industry consider revisions to their policies and procedures for FY 2018, as well as their risk profile more generally, they should keep in mind key insights into the Commission’s enforcement strategy offered by the Report.

Practical guidance from experienced securities enforcement, litigation, compliance and anti-corruption lawyers.

This paper aims to explain the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) recent Share Class Selection Disclosure (SCSD) Initiative, which offers potentially favorable settlement terms to investment advisers who self-report to the SEC’s Enforcement Division violations of the federal securities laws relating to certain mutual fund share class selection issues and to discuss factors for consideration by investment advisers regarding their possible participation in this initiative.

This paper discusses the conditions and terms of the SEC’s SCSD Initiative, the SEC’s focus on conflicts of interest associated with mutual fund share class selection, the applicable law, the complex nature of these issues and the factors that investment advisers should consider in determining whether to participate in the initiative.

The assessment of the facts and the evaluation and analysis of the issues may be both time-consuming and complex. Firms need to carefully consider whether the potential benefits of self-reporting outweigh any possible downsides, including the potential collateral consequences that an SEC enforcement action may have on their business operations.

This paper contains valuable information about a recent SEC Enforcement Initiative and provides practical guidance from experienced securities counsel.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the SEC enforcement staff's recent scrutiny of the roles and responsibilities of securities firms for the protection of confidential information.

The article reviews the SEC's implementation and enforcement of section 15(f) of the Exchange Act and section 204A of the Advisers Act. Part I discusses the legislative history of these provisions and reviews SEC and staff pronouncements relating to procedures for the protection of material nonpublic information. Part II discusses the potential consequences, from an enforcement perspective, of a firm's failure to satisfy the requirements of section 15(f) or section 204A. Part III describes the SEC's enforcement program in this area and distills guidance for securities firms from the SEC's actions.

Sections 15(f) and 204A require brokers, dealers, and investment advisers to “establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed, taking into consideration the nature of such (broker, dealer, or investment adviser's) business, to prevent the misuse” of material nonpublic information. Thus, the statutory terms frame the issues in any SEC investigation. Does the firm maintain written procedures? Are the written procedures reasonably designed to safeguard material nonpublic information? In particular, are the procedures designed with a view toward the specific structure and business activities of the firm? Has the firm taken reasonable steps to enforce its written procedures?

Given the SEC's current enforcement emphasis in this area, it is essential that brokers, dealers, and investment advisers look critically at whether they are taking adequate steps to protect the confidential information they may handle on a daily basis.

The paper presents a practical guide by an experienced enforcement attorney.

The purpose of this paper is to expose inefficient regulatory policies and organizational weaknesses at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that have contributed to a series of regulatory oversights that have produced some of the largest fraud schemes perpetrated on investors.

Sources of information consisted of scholarly articles and articles retrieved from the web.

Findings suggest that although weaknesses that have been exposed at the SEC may not account for any one securities fraud oversight, cumulatively, the weaknesses create negative synergy that increases the probability that a regulatory oversight will occur.

This paper serves as a useful guide to alert and educate securities regulators and enforcement, regardless of the country they may operate in, to examine their own regulatory policies and organizational structures for weakness that may be similar to the SEC.

To examine the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on regulated entities within the context of cybersecurity, US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) compliance, and parallel proceedings.

Describes the SEC’s ability to conduct its operations within the telework environment, its commitment and ability to monitor the securities market, its enhanced monitoring of the adverse effects of SEC-regulated companies from COVID-19, its guidance to public companies of disclosure obligations related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, the SEC Office of Compliance and Examinations’s (OCIE’s) focus on broker-dealers’ and investment advisories’ cybersecurity preparedness, the role and activities of the SEC Division of Enforcement’s Cyber Unit, and parallel proceedings on cyberbreaches and incidents by different agencies, branches of government or private litigants.

SEC-regulated entities face many challenges in trying to maintain their ongoing business operations and infrastructure due to severe financial pressures, the threat of infection to employees and customers, and cybersecurity risks posed by remote operations from hackers and fraudsters. The SEC has reemphasized that its long-standing focus on cybersecurity and resiliency within the securities industry will continue, including ongoing vigilance over companies’ efforts to identify, assess, and address the inherent, heightened cybersecurity risks of teleworking and the resource reallocation that business need to sustain their operations until a safe and effective vaccine is developed for COVID-19.

Expert analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers with expertise in securities, litigation, government enforcement, information technology, data protection, privacy and cybersecurity.

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 examine what to expect from Chair Gary Gensler’s SEC and the new Biden presidential administration following Chair Gensler’s U.S. Senate confirmation on April 14, 2021.

Reviews past SEC Chair Jay Clayton’s legacy and Chair Gensler’s prior regulatory actions and focus, and outlines Chair Gensler’s expected initiatives, including a heightened focus on cryptocurrency regulation, investigation of COVID-19-related fraud, and ESG and climate change disclosure.

This change will bring forth a Democratic majority at the SEC which, in turn, suggests that the Commission will change its current emphasis on capital formation to focus more on investor protection, rules required by the Dodd-Frank Act, inspections, examinations, and enforcement

Firms should examine their compliance programs in anticipation of heightened advocacy for investor protection; an increased focus on cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, as well as ESG disclosures with an emphasis on climate change; and an increase in inspections and examinations which will drive more enforcement in the fund industry, as well as increases in initiatives regarding transparency, additional disclosures, and investor protection. Organizations will also benefit by reexamining their existing compliance programs with the advice of counsel as a mechanism to mitigate the risk of potential securities laws violations.

Practical guidance from experienced securities enforcement and litigation lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to explain new initiatives announced by SEC Division of Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami on August 5, 2009 as Phase I of the division's self‐assessment.

The paper outlines five initiatives: creating specialized units; creating an Office of Market Intelligence; streamlining the Division's management structure; fostering cooperation by individuals in staff investigations, and using the Division's resources more strategically in areas such as mortgages and the credit crisis, Ponzi schemes, and cross‐market misconduct.

The Division expects the structural and process changes to make the enforcement staff more nimble and effective.

The paper offers practical guidance by experienced securities lawyers.

To explain the significance of the first enforcement action under the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was announced on September 26, 2018.

Explains how the SEC’s order not only cites violations of the Safeguards Rule under Regulation S-P (a staple of SEC cybersecurity enforcement actions against broker-dealers and investment advisers) but also is the SEC’s first enforcement action for a violation of the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule under Regulation S-ID, which requires certain SEC registrants to create and implement policies to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft.

Cybersecurity policies and procedures must match business risks and change as business risks change.

Practical guidance from experienced cybersecurity and privacy lawyers.

This paper builds on the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) Report, which examined US Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). The purpose of this paper is to provide valuable insights into the characteristics and realities of financial statement fraud in the post‐Enron regulatory environment.

This paper analyses a sample of AAERs from 2002 to 2005. It also provides case studies of an additional five high‐profile case studies from that period.

This paper finds evidence of changes in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement activities since the COSO Report. Specifically, it is found that enforcement activities have increased substantially post‐Enron and the companies subject to AAERs are, on average, much larger, more profitable and the frauds are more substantial than those exhibited in the COSO Report. These findings suggest that the SEC has become more aggressive at pursuing larger companies for financial statement fraud in the post‐Enron environment.

This paper relies on AAERs as the source of analysis of financial statement fraud, its findings must be viewed in light of the limitations of using these documents. Specifically, the prevailing prosecutions agenda of the US SEC may be reflected in these results.

The study findings are of great practical relevance to accounting regulators and practitioners as they provide valuable insights into the nature and characteristics of financial statement fraud.

The paper provides empirical evidence concerning the changing face of financial statement fraud enforcement and provides a more in‐depth comparison of fraud than possible with most previous studies that have tended to focus on quantitative measures. This is possible because the present investigation utilises qualitative data from AAERs to supplement quantitative findings. Its originality is also due to the use of institutional theory which is not commonly applied in the corporate governance field.