Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the enforcement initiative announced by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in September 2014 directed at reporting violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) by public company officers, directors and significant stockholders. The paper considers the notable features of the first round of SEC enforcement actions pursuant to that initiative and proposes measures public companies and their insiders can adopt to enhance compliance with their reporting and related disclosure obligations under the Exchange Act.

The paper examines the SEC’s enforcement initiative against the backdrop of the agency’s enforcement activity since 1990 for violations by public company insiders of the reporting provisions of Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act. The paper summarizes the features of the reporting violations that attracted SEC enforcement interest in the recent proceedings and identifies the factors apparently weighed by the SEC in determining the amount of the penalties sought against those charged with the violations.

The SEC’s latest enforcement actions are unprecedented for insider reporting violations. The new enforcement initiative represents an abandonment by the SEC of its largely passive approach of the past dozen years in which it charged insider reporting violations only when they related to fraud or other major violations of the securities laws. If reporting violations are flagrant, the SEC now promises to target the offenders for enforcement on a stand-alone basis without regard to other possible wrongdoing. The SEC also cautions that, as it did in some of the recent enforcement actions, it may charge companies that promise to assist their insiders in the preparation and filing of their reports, but do not to make the filings in a timely manner, with contributing to the filing failures.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

As surely as night follows day, the internationalisation of securities fraud has followed the internationalisation of the world's securities markets. As a result, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has had to develop new investigative and enforcement tools. If a boiler room operator in another country defrauds investors in the US by means of the Internet, the telephone or the mails, the SEC's ability to investigate the activities in the foreign country depends on its ability to obtain information and documents from persons it is able to assert jurisdiction over in the US, or to obtain assistance of its foreign counterparts.

The purpose of this article is to inform the various securities market participants about new Exchange Act Rule 13h‐1, its specifics and the requirements it may impose.

The paper outlines the various requirements of the Rule and additional background information and some clarifications based on the SEC adopting release.

The Rule requires “large traders”, as defined in the Rule, to self‐identify to the SEC and to obtain from the SEC a large trader identification number (“LTID”) and provide the LTID to each US‐registered broker‐dealer through which it effects transactions in NMS securities. The Rule also requires US‐registered broker‐dealers to provide to the SEC, on request, data on large traders' transactions in NMS securities by the morning after the transactions are effected; and it requires US‐registered broker‐dealers to maintain books and records, and perform certain monitoring functions, with respect to these transactions. The SEC has also adopted Form 13H under Exchange Act Section 13(h). A large trader must submit to the SEC Form 13H as an “Initial Filing” to receive its LTID and file various periodic amendments thereafter.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers. The authors hope the discussion in the paper will enable affected market participants, which include US‐ registered broker‐dealers as well as other persons within the Rule's definition of large trader, to be informed about and to prepare for compliance with the Rule.

As financial markets across the world become more integrated, the potential for financial shocks to be transmitted both from one jurisdiction to another and from one financial sector to another increases. At the same time differences in national regulatory arrangements can be the source of important competitive distortions between financial institutions. Against this background national authorities have been seeking to coordinate the regulation of securities firms and of banks undertaking securities business. This paper, which is published in two parts, aims to clarify some of the policy issues arising from recent convergence initiatives by examining the US capital adequacy rules for US investment firms and contrasting the US approach with European securities regulation as formulated in the Capital Adequacy Directive. The second part of this paper will be published in the next issue of Journal of Financial Regulation & Compliance.

Examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to foster auditor independence domestically and abroad. Focuses specifically on the role played by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Government Accounting Office. Also looks at other professional associations in banking, industry, and manufacturing sectors dealing with sensitive issues of auditors′ involvement in such matters as management advisory services, operating responsibilities, outsourcing, opinion shopping, auditor rotation, and other conflicts of interest which may impair auditor independence.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Regulation S in 1990 to clarify that offshore offers and sales of securities need not comply with the onerous registration requirements of US securities laws. In the short time since Regulation S was adopted, a number of issuers have abused the regulation. Amendments designed to curb these abuses have been recently proposed. This paper addresses the impact of the amendments and identifies significant issues to consider when undertaking a Regulation S transaction.

To explain a February 20, 2019 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled enforcement action against Gladius Network LLC for failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) under the federal securities laws, in which Gladius was able to avoid a civil penalty by self-reporting the violation and cooperating with the SEC enforcement staff.

Explains Gladius’ self-reporting, cooperation and remedial steps; why the SEC imposed no civil penalty on Gladius; and two similar cases the SEC instituted in July 2018 against companies that conducted unregistered ICOs, did not self-report, and were penalized. Provides analysis and conclusions.

The Gladius case offers important insight into how the SEC and its staff think about cooperation credit in resolving SEC enforcement actions and sends a clear message that self-reporting to the SEC can result in meaningful cooperation credit. In three recent cases, the Commission has made clear that once it put the industry on notice that ICOs could be securities that must be registered under the federal securities laws, a party risks enforcement action by failing to do so.

Expert analysis and guidance from an experienced securities lawyer who counsels clients on all manner of SEC enforcement, examination and regulatory policy matters.

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.

To explain an October 16, 2018 US Securities and Exchange Commission order that unanimously upheld a SIFMA challenge to fee increases for “depth-of-book” market data filed by Nasdaq and NYSE Arca and the SEC’s simultaneous remanding of over 400 market data fee and other filings back to the exchanges for consideration under the standards set out in the order.

Explains the criteria for fee increases under the Exchange Act, the SEC’s historic routine approval of exchanges’ proposed fee increases, the SEC’s challenge to two recent market data filings, and the SEC’s remanding of 400 additional market data fee filings challenged by SIFMA to the exchanges and the National Market System (NMS) for reconsideration. Analyzes and discusses the SEC’s order.

The SECs’ SIFMA order appears to raise the bar significantly for what exchanges must show to justify fee increases.More broadly, all five SEC Commissioners (of both parties) appear to be rethinking the role of for-profit exchanges in the regulatory structure.These orders have the potential to rewrite the regulation of market data, other exchange fees, and potentially the relationship between the exchanges and other market participants, for the entire securities industry.

Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.