Search results

On 6th September, 2000 the SEC issued a press release accusing 33 companies and individuals of fraudulently using the Internet to make more than $10m in illegal profits by driving up the prices of more than 70 small stocks. The companies and individuals, including a bus mechanic, a car service driver and a self‐chilling can company, boosted the total market value of these stocks by $1.7bn, claimed the SEC, in announcing 11 civil fraud lawsuits filed in federal courts. ‘What used to require a network of professional promoters and brokers, banks of telephones and months to accomplish can now be done in minutes by a single person using the Internet and a home computer,’ SEC enforcement director Richard H. Walker said. Two weeks later, the SEC announced that it had settled an enforcement proceeding brought against a 15‐year‐old stock trader who, operating from a computer in a bedroom in his parents' home, had earned more than $270,000 in profits over a six‐month period by engaging in classic ‘pump and dump’ market manipulation of small over‐the‐counter stocks.

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.

To analyze the settled order of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against TokenLot LLC (TokenLot), which was the SEC’s first action charging a seller of digital tokens as an unregistered broker-dealer.

Analyzes the SEC’s order within the context of other recent actions by the SEC on cryptocurrencies and digital tokens and discusses future implications of the order in this area.

The SEC’s order against TokenLot as an unregistered broker-dealer was a logical next step in its enforcement activity in the cryptocurrency and digital token space.The order demonstrates that the SEC expects firms in the cryptocurrency space to use the well-established constructs of federal securities laws to evaluate their business activities to ensure those activities are legally compliant.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers analyzing recent developments in a nascent area of SEC enforcement.

The private placement is the principal alternative method of financing to an SEC registered offering. The private placement avoids registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) with its concomitant costs and delays. It also avoids periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) for foreign private issuers. Issuers frequently resell their private placement securities abroad or to other qualified institutional investors. The combination of statutory exemptions, Rule 144A, Regulation S, and other SEC initiatives enable issuers to take advantage of these benefits

The purpose of this summary is to provide excerpts of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Regulatory Notices and Disciplinary Actions issued from April to June 2009 and a sample of disciplinary actions during that period.

The paper provides excerpts from Regulatory Notice 09‐22, Personal Securities Transactions; 09‐25, Suitability and “Know Your Customer”; 09‐27, Member Public Offerings; 09‐30, Credit Default Swaps; 09‐34, Investment Company Securities; 09‐35, Municipal Securities.

Notice 09‐22: Sound supervisory practices require that a member firm monitor personal securities transactions outside of the firm by or for its associated persons. Notice 09‐25: Suitability obligations and know‐your customer obligations are critical to protecting investors. Notice 09‐27: The offering of securities by a member firm or a control entity of the firm in a private placement raises conflicts of interest and has been an area of regulatory concern in recent years. Notice 09‐30: Regulatory authorities are adopting measures to address system risk arising from credit default swaps (CDS), including risks to the financial system arising from the lack of a central clearing counterparty to clear and settle CDS; the SEC has approved a rule establishing an interim pilot program on margin requirements for CDS transactions. Notice 09‐34: As part of the process to develop a new consolidated rulebook, FINRA is requesting comment on a proposed rule regarding the distribution and sale of investment company securities. Notice 09‐35: FINRA recommends that firms engaged in municipal securities business review and, if necessary, modify their policies and procedures in light of changes to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's (MSRB) Electronic Municipal Market Access system (EMMA) that take effect July 1, 2009, and changes to MSRB rules that went into effect June 1, 2009. FINRA also encourages firms to review the overall adequacy and effectiveness of their current policies and procedures for municipal securities activities generally, particularly those relating to the disclosure of material information, the suitability of recommendations to retail customers, and the general supervision of their municipal securities activities.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends. The FINRA staff is aware of this summary but has neither reviewed nor edited it. For further detail as well as other useful information, the reader should visit www.finra.org

The purpose of this paper is to provide an empirical insight into the functioning of the informal sector in Poland and highlight the reasons for involvement of economic agents in the new forms of the shadow economy.

The paper is focused on the analysis of different manifestations of unregistered economic activities in Poland. The author draws upon the latest available research findings on the subject including shadow economy estimates. Finally, the case study analysis of the tobacco industry in Poland has been used to exemplify and highlight the driving forces conducive to the expansion of the informal sector.

The informal sector’s share of the Polish economy in the years 2010-2015 was put as ranging between 12.1 per cent gross domestic product (GDP) and 14.5 per cent GDP (with the peak in 2013) by the GUS (Polish Main Statistical Office), between 19.2 per cent GDP and 21.1 per cent GDP by the IBnGR think tank (peak in 2012) and between 23.3 per cent and 25.4 per cent GDP by Professor F. Schneider.

The case study of the tobacco industry, although well illustrates the dynamics of the shadow economy, does not provide a comprehensive picture of the Poland’s informal sector.

The paper provides tips and recommendations aimed at reducing the size of the shadow economy.

Reducing the size of the informal sector could strengthen the social integrity and cohesion.

The paper provides insight into new areas and manifestations of the shadow economy in Poland exemplified by the case study of the tobacco industry.