<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<channel>
			<title>A&amp;O Shearman | Government Regulatory Enforcement Blog</title>
			<link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A&amp;O Shearman Government Regulatory Enforcement Blog]]></description>
			<atom:link href="https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/rss/blogs" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC And CFTC Enter Memorandum Of Understanding To Promote Cross Agency Collaboration </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/sec-and-cftc-enter-memorandum-of-understanding-to-promote-cross-agency-collaboration</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 11, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding[1] (&quot;MOU&quot;) to &quot;guide coordination and collaboration&quot; between the agencies. 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/sec-and-cftc-enter-memorandum-of-understanding-to-promote-cross-agency-collaboration</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Foreign Nationals Charged In International Operation Targeting Wash Trading In Cryptocurrency Markets </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/foreign-nationals-charged-in-international-operation-targeting-wash-trading-in-cryptocurrency-markets</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 30, 2026, the United States Attorney&apos;s Office for the Northern District of California announced indictments of ten executives and employees of four cryptocurrency focused financial services firms. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/foreign-nationals-charged-in-international-operation-targeting-wash-trading-in-cryptocurrency-markets</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Enforcement Division Issues Advisory On Prediction Market Trading Practices</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/cftc-enforcement-division-issues-advisory-on-prediction-market-trading-practices</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) Division of Enforcement released an advisory, reminding market participants of the agency&apos;s authority to pursue misuse of material nonpublic information to trade, and other forms of market abuse, in the nascent prediction markets (the &quot;Advisory&quot;). The Advisory follows the public release of two enforcement actions against traders on a U.S. predication market trading platform. Although the trading platform handled the investigations internally, the CFTC utilized the opportunity to emphasize its &quot;full authority to police illegal trading practices&quot; occurring on any Designated Contract Market (&quot;DCM&quot;), including prediction markets.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 20:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/cftc-enforcement-division-issues-advisory-on-prediction-market-trading-practices</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Provides Insights into False Claims Act Investigations Related to DEI and Antidiscrimination</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/doj-provides-insights-into-false-claims-act-investigations-related-to-dei-and-antidiscrimination</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[The U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) leadership has provided insight into how DOJ is pursuing investigations related to unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (&quot;DEI&quot;) programs.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 20:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/doj-provides-insights-into-false-claims-act-investigations-related-to-dei-and-antidiscrimination</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office For The Southern District Of New York Issues New Corporate Enforcement And Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program For Financial Crimes</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/us-attorneys-office-for-the-southern-district-of-new-york-issues-new-corporate-enforcement-and-voluntary-self-disclosure-program-for-financial-crimes</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 24, 2026, the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office for the Southern District of New York (&quot;Office&quot;) announced a new Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Program for illegal activity involving fraud and financial misconduct (&quot;Program&quot;).  While the Office already maintains a voluntary corporate self-disclosure program, the new Program&apos;s stated purpose is to improve corporate self-reporting to &quot;root out wrongdoing more quickly&quot; and &quot;strengthen the integrity of the financial markets&quot; while simultaneously establishing &quot;clear guidelines and predictable treatment for companies&quot; that promptly disclose criminal activity and fully cooperate with law enforcement.   ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 20:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/us-attorneys-office-for-the-southern-district-of-new-york-issues-new-corporate-enforcement-and-voluntary-self-disclosure-program-for-financial-crimes</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Updates Enforcement Manual: Key Changes To Wells Notices, Settlements, and Cooperation Guidance</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/sec-updates-enforcement-manual-key-changes-to-wells-notices-settlements-and-cooperation-guidance</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[For the first time in nearly a decade, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s Division of Enforcement (&quot;Division&quot;) released updates to its Enforcement Manual (&quot;Manual&quot;), emphasizing transparency and consistency in enforcement practices.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 14:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/sec-updates-enforcement-manual-key-changes-to-wells-notices-settlements-and-cooperation-guidance</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Rules That AI-Generated Documents Prepared Without The Direction Of Counsel Were Not Protected By Privilege</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/southern-district-of-new-york-rules-that-ai-generated-documents-prepared-without-the-direction-of-counsel-were-not-protected-by-privilege</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that certain AI-generated documents, created by an individual using an AI tool and then sent to that individual&apos;s attorney in the context of ongoing litigation, were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. While necessarily fact-specific, the ruling highlights the discovery risks that can be created when using AI outside the specific guidance of an attorney.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/southern-district-of-new-york-rules-that-ai-generated-documents-prepared-without-the-direction-of-counsel-were-not-protected-by-privilege</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York Attorney General Institutes Insider Trading Action Under Martin Act</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/new-york-attorney-general-institutes-insider-trading-action-under-martin-act</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 15, 2026, the New York Attorney General (&quot;NYAG&quot;) filed a complaint against a former life-sciences manufacturing CEO, alleging violations of New York&apos;s Martin Act for trading material nonpublic information related to the manufacturing of Covid-19 vaccinations.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 23:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/new-york-attorney-general-institutes-insider-trading-action-under-martin-act</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Record-Breaking Year Of Settlements And Judgments Under The False Claims Act</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/doj-announces-record-breaking-year-of-settlements-and-judgments-under-the-false-claims-act</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[At the same time that many members of Congress suggested that the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) has retreated from white collar enforcement,  DOJ announced that False Claims Act settlements and judgments reached a single-year record of $6.8 billion for the fiscal year ending September 2025.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 22:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/doj-announces-record-breaking-year-of-settlements-and-judgments-under-the-false-claims-act</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New DOJ Fraud Enforcement Division Announced </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/new-doj-fraud-enforcement-division-announced</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 8, 2026, a new U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) Division for National Fraud Enforcement was announced.  According to the announcement and accompanying fact sheet, the initiative aims to centralize strategy, strengthen coordination, and accelerate fraud enforcement actions involving federally funded programs and benefits, as well as matters affecting private citizens.  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/new-doj-fraud-enforcement-division-announced</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Agrees To Dismiss With Prejudice Spoofing Action Against Energy Trading Firm</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/cftc-agrees-to-dismiss-with-prejudice-spoofing-action-against-energy-trading-firm</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 15, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;Commission&quot; or &quot;CFTC&quot;) agreed to dismiss with prejudice its enforcement action against an energy trading firm (&quot;Firm&quot;) and its CEO (together, &quot;Defendants&quot;), alleging spoofing and manipulative trading.  Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Logista Advisors LLC et al., No. 1:23‑cv‑07485 (N.D. Ill.).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/cftc-agrees-to-dismiss-with-prejudice-spoofing-action-against-energy-trading-firm</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Private Equity Firm Pays Over $11 Million To Settle Russia-Related Sanctions With OFAC</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/private-equity-firm-pays-over-11-million-to-settle-russia-related-sanctions-with-ofac</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury&apos;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (&quot;OFAC&quot;) announced an $11,485,352 settlement with a Chicago-based private equity firm (the &quot;Company&quot;) to resolve alleged violations of Ukraine- and Russia-related sanctions due to continued indirect investment by the Company on behalf of a Russian oligarch, Suleiman Kerimov, designated by OFAC as a Specially Designated National (&quot;SDN&quot;) in 2018.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 20:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/private-equity-firm-pays-over-11-million-to-settle-russia-related-sanctions-with-ofac</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Announces Reforms To Rules Of Practice And Investigations</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/cftc-announces-reforms-to-rules-of-practice-and-investigations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 1, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot; or &quot;the Commission&quot;) announced amendments to its Rules of Practice and Rules Relating to Investigations, which will affect how enforcement matters are developed, presented to the Commission, and resolved.  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 20:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/cftc-announces-reforms-to-rules-of-practice-and-investigations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Judge Renews Scrutiny Of FCA&apos;s Qui Tam Constitutionality</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/fifth-circuit-judge-renews-scrutiny-of-fcas-qui-tam-constitutionality</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 3, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an action under the False Claims Act (&quot;FCA&quot;) against an inpatient-rehabilitation facility.  See United States v. Encompass Health Rehab. Hosp. of Pearland, No. 25-20093 (5th Cir. 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/fifth-circuit-judge-renews-scrutiny-of-fcas-qui-tam-constitutionality</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Fines Brokerage Firm $10M for Lavish Gifts and Entertainment</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/finra-fines-brokerage-firm-10m-for-lavish-gifts-and-entertainment</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 3, 2025, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) announced a $10 million sanction against a brokerage firm for alleged violations of its gifts, non-cash compensation, and entertainment rules.  According to FINRA, firm representatives provided excessive gifts and entertainment to brokerage firm personnel and created inaccurate and misleading internal records to hide the misconduct. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/finra-fines-brokerage-firm-10m-for-lavish-gifts-and-entertainment</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Robust Privilege And Work-Product Protection For Internal Investigations In FirstEnergy Mandamus Ruling</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Reaffirms-Robust-Privilege-And-Work-Product-Protection</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 3, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision granting FirstEnergy Corporation&apos;s (&quot;FirstEnergy&quot;) petition for a writ of mandamus and vacating a district court order compelling production of materials created by outside counsel in the course of conducting two internal investigations.  In re FirstEnergy Corp., No. 24-3654 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 17:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Reaffirms-Robust-Privilege-And-Work-Product-Protection</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Restores Practice Of Considering Settlement Offers Conditioned On The Issuance Of Collateral Consequence Waivers</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Restores-Practice-Of-Considering-Settlement-Offers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 26, 2025, Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or the &quot;Commission&quot;) Chairman Paul Atkins issued a Statement on Simultaneous Commission Consideration of Settlement Offers and Related Requests (the &quot;Public Statement&quot;), announcing a significant policy reversal and return to prior practice. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 18:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Restores-Practice-Of-Considering-Settlement-Offers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Sole Democratic Commissioner Kristin Johnson To Leave The Commission</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Sole-Democratic-Commissioner-Kristin-Johnson-To-Leave-The-Commission</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 26, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) announced that Commissioner Kristin Johnson will step down, effective September 3, 2025.  Johnson, who was appointed in 2022, previously indicated her intent to leave when her term expired in April 2025, but—as is customary for commissioners—she continued to serve beyond that date.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Sole-Democratic-Commissioner-Kristin-Johnson-To-Leave-The-Commission</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Launches Cross-Border Fraud Task Force, Signaling An Initial Focus On China</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Launches-Cross-Border-Fraud-Task-Force-Focusing-on-China</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 5, 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced the formation of a Cross-Border Task Force within its Division of Enforcement.  According to the SEC, the initiative is intended to strengthen and coordinate its efforts to identify and combat fraud that crosses national borders and harms U.S. investors.  This is the first major enforcement initiative under the SEC&apos;s newly appointed Enforcement Director, Judge Meg Ryan.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Launches-Cross-Border-Fraud-Task-Force-Focusing-on-China</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>First DOJ Declination For FCPA Violations Since Renewed Enforcement Guidelines</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/First-DOJ-Declination-For-FCPA-Violations-Since-Renewed-Enforcement-Guidelines</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 7, 2025, the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (&quot;DOJ&quot;) issued a declination letter to a U.S.-based insurance company (the &quot;Company&quot;) to resolve alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) by the Company&apos;s subsidiary in India.  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/First-DOJ-Declination-For-FCPA-Violations-Since-Renewed-Enforcement-Guidelines</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Appoints Judge Margaret &quot;Meg&quot; Ryan As The New Director Of The Division Of Enforcement</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Appoints-Judge-Margaret-Ryan-New-Director-Of-The-Division-Of-Enforcement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[The Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) has named Judge Margaret &quot;Meg&quot; Ryan as the new Director of the Division of Enforcement.  Judge Ryan will succeed Acting Director Sam Waldon, who has served as Acting Director of the Division of Enforcement since January 2025, following Sanjay Wadhwa&apos;s departure from the agency.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Appoints-Judge-Margaret-Ryan-New-Director-Of-The-Division-Of-Enforcement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Vacates Wire Fraud Conviction For &quot;Insider Trading&quot; On NFTs</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Vacates-Wire-Fraud-Conviction-For-Insider-Trading-On-NFTs</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 31, 2025, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating the wire fraud and money laundering convictions of a former manager of a marketplace for non-fungible tokens (&quot;NFTs&quot;) that had been obtained on a misappropriation insider trading theory.  The Court held that the district court had erred in instructing the jury on what constituted &quot;property&quot; under the statute.  United States v. Chastain, No. 23-7038 (2d Cir. July 31, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 17:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Vacates-Wire-Fraud-Conviction-For-Insider-Trading-On-NFTs</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Pharma Company Brings Latest Constitutional Challenge To False Claims Act In Third Circuit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Pharma-Co-Brings-Latest-Constitutional-Challenge-To-False-Claims-Act</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 29, 2025, a pharmaceutical company filed the latest constitutional challenge to the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act (&quot;FCA&quot;) when it appealed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a record-setting $1.6 billion judgment for allegedly defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program by marketing HIV drugs for unapproved uses.  Penelow, et al. v. Janssen Prods. LP, No. 12-cv-7758, 2025 WL 342079 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 17:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Pharma-Co-Brings-Latest-Constitutional-Challenge-To-False-Claims-Act</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New DOJ-USPS Whistleblower Rewards Program For Antitrust Tips</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-DOJ-USPS-Whistleblower-Rewards-Program-For-Antitrust-tips</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 8, 2025, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced the launch of a whistleblower rewards program in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service (&quot;USPS&quot; or the &quot;Postal Service&quot;) and the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (&quot;USPS OIG&quot;) (the &quot;Program&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-DOJ-USPS-Whistleblower-Rewards-Program-For-Antitrust-tips</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Issues First-Ever Declination For Sanctions Violations Since Creation Of The M&amp;A Safe Harbor Policy</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Issues-First-Ever-Declination-For-Sanctions-Violations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 16, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) National Security Division (&quot;NSD&quot;) and the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office for the Southern District of Texas (&quot;SDTX&quot;) announced the first-ever declination to prosecute a firm and its affiliates following the firm&apos;s voluntary disclosure of sanctions- and export control-related violations involving an entity the firm acquired in 2020.  The watershed announcement marks the first application of the voluntary self-disclosure safe harbor provision from the DOJ&apos;s Mergers and Acquisitions Policy (&quot;M&amp;A Policy&quot;) adopted in March 2024.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Issues-First-Ever-Declination-For-Sanctions-Violations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Declines To Hear Constitutional Challenge To FINRA&apos;s Enforcement Powers</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Declines-To-Hear-Constitutional-Challenge-To-FINRA-Enforcement-Powers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by a member firm against the enforcement power given to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;).  The Court&apos;s decision to turn away the petition for certiorari permits FINRA to proceed with an enforcement action against the member firm for allegedly stealing over $54.5 million in customer funds, but because the challenge was presented as part of a petition from a partial denial of a preliminary injunction rather than from a final order, it may not be the last word as to the constitutionality of FINRA&apos;s enforcement powers.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Declines-To-Hear-Constitutional-Challenge-To-FINRA-Enforcement-Powers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Decision Endorses Fraudulent-Inducement Theory Under Federal Wire Fraud Statute, Resolving Circuit Split And Confirming Broad Reading Of Statute</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Endorses-Fraudulent-Inducement-Theory-Under-Federal-Wire-Fraud-Statute</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 22, 2025, in a significant decision that clarifies the scope of the federal wire fraud statute and resolves a circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a pair of wire fraud convictions that had been premised on a fraudulent-inducement theory without a showing that defendants intended to cause, or in fact caused, their victims a net economic loss.  Kousisis v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1382 (2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Endorses-Fraudulent-Inducement-Theory-Under-Federal-Wire-Fraud-Statute</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Releases New FCPA Enforcement Guidelines</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Releases-New-FCPA-Enforcement-Guidelines</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released new guidelines for investigating and enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), in response to President Trump&apos;s February 10, 2025 Executive Order 14209 pausing FCPA enforcement (the Executive Order) pending the issuance of new guidance.  The new, more restrictive enforcement guidelines recalibrate FCPA enforcement to more closely align with the enforcement objectives set out in the Executive Order.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Releases-New-FCPA-Enforcement-Guidelines</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Releases Guidance On Registered Non-U.S. Swap Entities Using Substituted Compliance</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Releases-Guidance-On-Registered-Non-US-Swap-Entities</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 20, 2025, two divisions within the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) — the Market Participants Division (&quot;MPD&quot;) and the Enforcement Division (&quot;DOE&quot;) — released procedures providing guidance on how the divisions will address potential non-compliance issues under foreign law.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 14:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Releases-Guidance-On-Registered-Non-US-Swap-Entities</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Civil Rights Fraud Initiative Targeting Federal Fund Recipients&apos; Use Of DEI</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Civil-Rights-Fraud-Initiative-Targeting-Federal-Fund-Recipients-Use-Of-DEI</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 19, 2025, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced its plan to use the False Claims Act to investigate and pursue claims of civil rights violations against federal fund recipients.  The plan, entitled the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (the &quot;Initiative&quot;), seeks to target universities&apos; and government contractors&apos; use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (&quot;DEI&quot;) programs.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 14:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Civil-Rights-Fraud-Initiative-Targeting-Federal-Fund-Recipients-Use-Of-DEI</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Substantial Strategic Shifts In White-Collar Crime Enforcement</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Substantial-Strategic-Shifts-In-White-Collar-Crime-Enforcement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 12, 2025, Matthew Galeotti, serving as Head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) in the absence of a nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General, issued a memorandum titled &quot;Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime&quot; (the &quot;Memo&quot;).  The Memo, which was accompanied by a speech by Galeotti on the same day in Washington, is the first memo from the Criminal Division under the Trump Administration.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 17:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Substantial-Strategic-Shifts-In-White-Collar-Crime-Enforcement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Defense Contractors To Pay $8.4 Million To Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Surrounding Non-Compliance With Cybersecurity Requirements</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Defense-Contractors-To-Pay-84-Million</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 1, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced an $8.4 million settlement agreement with several defense contract companies (&quot;companies&quot;) resolving alleged violations of the False Claims Act.  The settlement addresses allegations of non-compliance with federal cybersecurity requirements over government contracts and submitting false claims for work on government contracts due to the failure to meet mandated security standards.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 16:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Defense-Contractors-To-Pay-84-Million</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charges Founder &amp; Associates With Fraud For Allegedly Running A Nearly $200M Ponzi-like Crypto Investment Scheme</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Founder-and-Associates-With-Fraud-in-Ponzi-like-Crypto-Investment-Scheme</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 22, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against an individual and several related parties, alleging a large-scale international securities fraud scheme involving crypto and Forex trading.  The SEC&apos;s complaint details a multi-faceted operation that allegedly misappropriated over $57 million from investors through the offer and sale of unregistered securities, while operating what the SEC characterizes as a Ponzi-like scheme.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Founder-and-Associates-With-Fraud-in-Ponzi-like-Crypto-Investment-Scheme</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Heightened Surveillance And Regulatory Requirements For Virtual Currency Derivatives Exchanges Withdrawn</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Heightened-Surveillance-And-Regulatory-Requirements-for-virtual-currency-derivatives-exchanges</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 28, 2025, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) Division of Market Oversight (&quot;DMO&quot;) and Division of Clearing and Risk (&quot;DCR&quot;) withdrew Staff Advisory No. 18-14, Advisory with respect to Virtual Currency Derivative Product Listings (&quot;Advisory&quot;) effective immediately.  CFTC Advisory Letter, CFTCLTR No. 25-07 (March 27, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 16:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Heightened-Surveillance-And-Regulatory-Requirements-for-virtual-currency-derivatives-exchanges</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Criminal Case Against Former Executives Of Technology Company Dismissed</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Criminal-Case-Against-Former-Executives-Of-Technology-Company-Dismissed</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 2, 2025, the Department of Justice moved to dismiss with prejudice its Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) case against two former executives of a technology solutions company (&quot;Company&quot;). The executives were accused of authorizing a $2 million bribe to an Indian official in 2014. The district court dismissed the matter with prejudice on Thursday, April 3, 2025.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Criminal-Case-Against-Former-Executives-Of-Technology-Company-Dismissed</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charges Three Arizona Individuals With Fraudulent Municipal Bond Offering</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Three-Arizona-Individuals-With-Fraudulent-municipal-bond-offering</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 1, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint three individuals for allegedly defrauding investors in a $284 million municipal bond offering intended to finance a sports complex and family entertainment center in Mesa, Arizona (&quot;Facility&quot;).  SEC v. Randall J. Miller, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01234 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 1, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Three-Arizona-Individuals-With-Fraudulent-municipal-bond-offering</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Settlement Where Medical Group And Related Parties Will Pay Over $62M To Resolve False Claims Act Suit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Settlement-Where-Medical-Group-And-Related-Parties-Will-Pay-Over-USD62M</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 26, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that a California-headquartered healthcare provider, Seoul Medical Group Inc. (&quot;Seoul Medical&quot;), its former president and majority owner, and a Seoul Medical subsidiary were ordered to pay over $62 million for violating the False Claims Act.  According to the DOJ, Seoul Medical allegedly submitted false diagnosis codes to increase payments from the Medicare Advantage Program.  A radiology group that also worked with Seoul Medical agreed to pay $2,350,000 for allegedly conspiring with Seoul Medical.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Settlement-Where-Medical-Group-And-Related-Parties-Will-Pay-Over-USD62M</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>First Circuit Ruling Requiring &quot;But-For&quot; Causation In FCA Kickback Claims Deepens Circuit Split</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/First-Circuit-Ruling-Requiring-But-For-Causation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[In an opinion that may complicate the U.S. Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) efforts to enforce the False Claims Act (&quot;FCA&quot;), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a unanimous opinion on February 18, 2025 that the DOJ must show that illicit kickbacks were the &quot;but-for&quot; cause that led medical providers to submit claims for reimbursement to federal health care programs.  United States v. Regeneron Pharms., Inc., No. 23-2086, slip op. (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/First-Circuit-Ruling-Requiring-But-For-Causation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Declares Meme Coins Are Not &quot;Securities&quot; In New Statement</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Declares-Meme-Coins-Are-Not-Securities</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 27, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;SEC&quot;) issued a statement to provide clarity on the application of federal securities laws to crypto assets by declaring that &quot;meme coins&quot; do not fall under the definition of the term &quot;security.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Declares-Meme-Coins-Are-Not-Securities</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Cryptocurrency Exchange Pleads Guilty To Violating Anti-Money Laundering Laws, Agrees To Pay More Than $500 Million In Penalties And Forfeiture</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Cryptocurrency-Exchange-Pleads-Guilty-To-Violating-anti-money-laundering-laws</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On Monday, February 24, 2025, the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office for the Southern District of New York (the &quot;SDNY&quot;), in conjunction with the FBI, announced that a Seychelles-based cryptocurrency exchange (&quot;the Exchange&quot;) pled guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business.  The Exchange agreed to pay over $504 million for violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws and facilitating over $5 billion in suspicious transactions.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Cryptocurrency-Exchange-Pleads-Guilty-To-Violating-anti-money-laundering-laws</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>US Attorney For The District of New Jersey Reverses Course And Requests Adjournment For Foreign Bribery Case Against Tech Executives On Eve of Trial</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Attorney-For-The-District-of-New-Jersey-Reverses-Course-in-bribery-case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 4, 2025, one day before a trial against former tech executives for alleged foreign bribery charges was set to commence, the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey requested 180-day adjournment.  The United States Attorney sought the adjournment to allow time to consider the application of President Trump&apos;s executive order (&quot;Executive Order&quot;) related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;), noting that he only assumed the position of US Attorney on March 3, 2025.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Attorney-For-The-District-of-New-Jersey-Reverses-Course-in-bribery-case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Departments And Regulatory Agencies Move Quickly To Reorganize Structure And Policy Goals Following Introduction Of New Administration</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Departments-And-Regulatory-Agencies-Move-to-reorganize-structure-and-policy</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[One day after her confirmation on February 4, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued two Memos addressed to the entire Department of Justice (DOJ), which curtailed enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in favor of prosecution against Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs).  This shift in priorities comes in response to President Trump&apos;s Executive Order on January 20, 2025, which Attorney General Bondi described as a directive that the federal government &quot;revise existing national security and counter-narcotics strategies to pursue total elimination&quot; of Cartels and TCOs.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Departments-And-Regulatory-Agencies-Move-to-reorganize-structure-and-policy</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Major Crypto Exchange Pleads Guilty, Agrees To $297 Million Penalty; Founders Secure DPAs</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Major-Crypto-Exchange-Pleads-Guilty-Agrees-To-USD297-million-penalty</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 27, 2025, one of the largest global cryptocurrency exchange platforms (the &quot;Exchange&quot;) pled guilty to one count of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and agreed to pay $297 million in connection with a grand jury indictment (the &quot;Indictment&quot;) brought by the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) in the Southern District of New York in March 2024. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Major-Crypto-Exchange-Pleads-Guilty-Agrees-To-USD297-million-penalty</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Energy Company Settles Long-Running Dispute With FERC After Jarkesy Decision Undercuts FERC&apos;s Enforcement Authority</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Energy-Company-Settles-Long-Running-Dispute-With-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a stipulation and consent agreement between its Office of Enforcement and an energy company (the &quot;Company&quot;) to resolve a dispute pending since 2016 concerning allegations of market manipulation in violation of Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act (&quot;NGA&quot;). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Energy-Company-Settles-Long-Running-Dispute-With-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Settlement With Investment Advisory Firm For Allegedly Breaching Fiduciary Duties And Violating Whistleblower Protection Rule</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settlement-With-Investment-Advisory-firm</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 16, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a settled enforcement action against a pair of related investment advisers (the &quot;Investment Adviser&quot;) for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to reasonably address known vulnerabilities in their investment models, and also for allegedly taking steps to impede employees from serving as whistleblowers in violation of SEC Rule 21F-17. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settlement-With-Investment-Advisory-firm</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Enters Into Off-Channel Settlements With Twelve Additional Firms Prior To Leadership Turnover</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enters-Into-Off-Channel-Settlements-With-Twelve-additional-firms</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 13, 2025, one week before Chair Gary Gensler is expected to step down as Chair, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced settlements with twelve additional regulated entities for alleged recordkeeping failures related to off-channel communications. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enters-Into-Off-Channel-Settlements-With-Twelve-additional-firms</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Files Complaint Alleging Hedge Fund Manager Failed To Maintain And Enforce Adequate MNPI Policies And Procedures To Separate Public And Private Side Employees</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Complaint-Alleging-Hedge-Fund-Manager-Failed-to-maintain-mnpi-policies</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 12, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a litigated complaint (the &quot;Complaint&quot;) in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against a hedge fund manager (the &quot;Firm&quot;) registered with the SEC as an investment adviser alleging that the Firm violated Section 204A and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (&quot;Advisers Act&quot;) by failing to maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public information (&quot;MNPI&quot;), particularly as to a consultant the Firm utilized who allegedly acted upon both the public and private side of the Firm&apos;s information barriers in connection with information received from creditors&apos; committees. SEC v. Silverpoint Capital L.P., 24-cv-2018 (D. Conn.). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Complaint-Alleging-Hedge-Fund-Manager-Failed-to-maintain-mnpi-policies</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Vacates SEC Order Approving Nasdaq&apos;s Board Diversity Proposal</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Vacates-SEC-Order-Approving-Nasdaq-board-diversity-proposal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a 9-8 en banc decision, vacated NASDAQ&apos;s Board Diversity Rules (the &quot;Rules&quot;) in Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC, finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;SEC&quot;) exceeded its authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quot;Exchange Act&quot;) when it approved the Rules.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Vacates-SEC-Order-Approving-Nasdaq-board-diversity-proposal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Consulting Firm Agrees To Pay $650 Million In A Deferred Prosecution Agreement To Avoid Opioid Misbranding Conspiracy Charges</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Consulting-Firm-Agrees-To-Pay-650-Million</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 13, 2024, the United States Attorney&apos;s Offices for the Western District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts, along with the Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) Consumer Protection Branch (collectively, &quot;the United States&quot;) filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia with a global consulting firm (&quot;Consulting Firm&quot;) to settle charges that it conspired with a pharmaceutical company (&quot;Pharmaceutical Company&quot;) to aid and abet the misbranding of prescription drugs and knowingly destroyed and concealed records and documents to impede and obstruct the investigation.  United States v. McKinsey &amp; Co., Inc. United States, No. 1:24-cr-00046, Doc. 2 at 6 (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024).  A corresponding civil case, United States v. McKinsey &amp; Co., Inc. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00063, Doc. 2 (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024), was settled the same day.  The Consulting Firm agreed to pay $650 million to resolve the criminal and civil investigation.  A former Consulting Firm senior partner also separately pled guilty to a charge of knowingly destroying and concealing records and documents to impede and obstruct the investigation.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Consulting-Firm-Agrees-To-Pay-650-Million</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Issues Advisory Guidance For Anticipated Growth In Use Of Artificial Intelligence By Regulated Entities</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Issues-Advisory-Guidance-For-Anticipated-Growth</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 5, 2024, the Divisions of Clearing and Risk, Data, Market Oversight, and Market Participants of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) issued an advisory on the use of artificial intelligence (&quot;AI&quot;) in CFTC-regulated markets by registered entities and registrants (&quot;Guidance&quot;). The Guidance anticipates areas wherein CFTC-regulated entities may deploy AI to perform regulated activities and fulfill regulatory requirements. It then reminds the audience of the statutory and regulatory requirements that may be implicated as a result.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Issues-Advisory-Guidance-For-Anticipated-Growth</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Limits OFAC Authority Over Certain Cryptocurrency Products</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Limits-OFAC-Authority-Over-Certain-Cryptocurrency-Products</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 26, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (&quot;OFAC&quot;) exceeded its authority by adding an entity that pools and anonymizes crypto transactions to OFAC&apos;s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list (&quot;SDN list&quot;).  Van Loon, et al. v. Dep&apos;t of Treasury, et al., No. 23-50669, — F.4th — (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 18:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Limits-OFAC-Authority-Over-Certain-Cryptocurrency-Products</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DC Circuit Grants Preliminary Injunction Preventing FINRA From Expelling Member Without SEC Review, Finding Private Nondelegation Doctrine Likely To Apply</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Grants-Preliminary-Injunction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 22, 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the Financial Institution Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) from expelling a member firm without Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) review.  Alpine Securities v. FINRA, No. 23-5129, ECF Doc. No. 2086156 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2024).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 18:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Grants-Preliminary-Injunction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Awards $4 Million To Whistleblowers, Citing Disclosure Timing
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Awards-4-Million-To-Whistleblowers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) awarded nearly $4 million to two whistleblowers who provided information leading to a successful enforcement action. In awarding the sum, the CFTC considered the timeliness of the disclosures, ultimately granting a larger sum to the whistleblower who reported first and a lesser sum to the second whistleblower. In re of Claims for Award by [Redacted], CFTC Whistleblower Award Determination No. 25-WB-01 (Nov. 8, 2024). 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 20:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Awards-4-Million-To-Whistleblowers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Undeterred By Recent Court Loss, SEC Charges Four Companies With Inadequate Cyber Disclosures In The Aftermath Of SolarWinds Breach</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Undeterred-By-Recent-Court-Loss-SEC-Charges</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 22, 2024, the SEC announced that it had entered into settlements with four separate companies for making allegedly misleading disclosures about how they were impacted by the SolarWinds data breach in 2019. The SEC&apos;s approach to the SolarWinds data breach has already been recognized as very aggressive, and these actions, which elicited a pointed dissent from two Commissioners, will only further the debate. The companies at issue were each charged with violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and certain rules thereunder, and, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to pay civil monetary penalties ranging from $990,000 to $4 million.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Undeterred-By-Recent-Court-Loss-SEC-Charges</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Files Its First Actions For Fraud In The Voluntary Carbon Credit Market </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Commodity-Futures-Trading-Commission-Files</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 2, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the former chief executive officer of a carbon credit project developer. The CFTC complaint alleges that the CEO, from approximately 2019 to December 2023, reported false and misleading information to at least one carbon credit registry and to third-party reviewers, presenting a misleading impression of the quality of emissions-reduction projects to obtain carbon credits above what the company was entitled to receive, and sold them to others.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Commodity-Futures-Trading-Commission-Files</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Securities And Exchange Commission Alleges That Crypto Trading Firm Sold Unregistered Securities</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Securities-And-Exchange-Commission-Alleges-That-C</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 10, 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a complaint in Illinois federal district court, alleging that diversified trading firm (&quot;Company&quot;) has operated as an unregistered securities dealer by buying and selling more than $2 billion worth of crypto assets. SEC v. Cumberland DRW LLC, 24-cv-9842 (N.D. Ill. 2024). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Securities-And-Exchange-Commission-Alleges-That-C</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Crypto Exchange Challenges SEC&apos;s Jurisdiction Over Sale Of Digital Assets</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Crypto-Exchange-Challenges-SECrsquos-Jurisdiction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 8, 2024, a crypto exchange (the &quot;Exchange&quot;) sued the Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;), the Chair of the SEC Gary Gensler, and four SEC Commissioners, challenging the SEC&apos;s jurisdiction over the secondary sale of network tokens, a type of digital asset, on the crypto platform. Foris DAX Inc. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Case No. 6:24-cv-00373 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2024). Essentially, the Exchange is challenging the SEC&apos;s jurisdiction to regulate the cryptocurrency industry. The Exchange, as a secondary-market purchaser, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to estop the SEC from &quot;expanding its jurisdiction&quot; to reach the sale of network tokens on the platform.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Crypto-Exchange-Challenges-SECrsquos-Jurisdiction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Florida District Court Holds FCA&apos;s Qui Tam Provision Unconstitutional</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/florida-district-court-holds-fca-s-qui-tam-provision-unconstitutional</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[A groundbreaking decision out of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, if affirmed and adopted by higher courts, could impact the ability of private citizens to file suit against those attempting to defraud the United States Government (the &quot;Government&quot;). On September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (&quot;FCA&quot;), holding that the FCA&apos;s qui tam provision is unconstitutional. U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/florida-district-court-holds-fca-s-qui-tam-provision-unconstitutional</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The SEC Files Settled Complaint Against A Public Company Director For Allegedly Hiding Close Friendship With Company Executive To Be Deemed Independent</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-SEC-Files-Settled-Complaint-Against-A-Public</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 30, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a settled enforcement action against a former director of a public company (the &quot;Company&quot;) over claims that the director had failed to disclose his close personal friendship with a senior executive at the Company, leading to alleged misstatements in the Company&apos;s proxy materials identifying him as an independent director from 2019 to 2023. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Craigie, Docket No. 1-24-cv-07382 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024). Without admitting or denying the allegations, the former director agreed to settle the claims which impose a five-year bar on him serving as an officer or director of a public company and require him to pay a civil penalty of $175,000. The Court approved this settlement on October 1, 2024.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 18:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-SEC-Files-Settled-Complaint-Against-A-Public</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Reaches Three Separate Resolutions In Continued Focus On Whistleblowers And Rule 21F-17(a)</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reaches-Three-Separate-Resolutions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[In September 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;the Commission&quot;) resolved three separate actions against corporate entities for reaching agreements with employees, potential employees, and clients that, according to the SEC, impeded an individual&apos;s ability to report violations of the securities laws to the Commission in violation of Rule 21F-17(a) (the &quot;Rule&quot;). This trio of resolutions is the latest in a series of actions focused on protecting whistleblowers and follows the SEC&apos;s first-ever application of the Rule in January 2024 to an agreement reached with a customer or client,[1] rather than an employee, and the first-ever enforcement action by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) for alleged violations of its similar whistleblower rules. See CFTC Resolves First Action for Impeding Whistleblowers Over Objections of Two Commissioners.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 19:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reaches-Three-Separate-Resolutions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charges Company With Reg FD Violations For Disclosing Information Via Posts On CEO&apos;s Social Media Accounts</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Company-With-Reg-FD-Violations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 26, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;the Commission&quot;) charged a sports-betting company (the &quot;Company&quot;) with violating Regulation Fair Disclosure (&quot;Reg FD&quot;) by disclosing material, nonpublic information to investors via posts to the Company&apos;s CEO&apos;s social media accounts without simultaneously disclosing that same information to all investors via a press release or Form 8-K. The Company agreed to pay a $200,000 civil penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s charges without admitting or denying the allegations.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Company-With-Reg-FD-Violations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Looking Back And Moving Forward - 2023 FCPA Enforcement Trends And Patterns</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/looking-back-and-moving-forward-2023-fcpa-enforcement-trends-and-patterns</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[While 2023 saw a slight increase in the number of FCPA enforcement actions from 2022, there was a marked decline in total penalties from the prior year. Last year, the DOJ and the SEC resolved a total of 14 corporate enforcement actions under the FCPA—four more than 2022—but yielded total penalties of approximately $571 million, as compared to $1.68 billion in 2022. As in previous years, the geographic reach was generally diverse, with corporate enforcement actions targeting activity in Latin and Central America, Asia, and Africa.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 18:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/looking-back-and-moving-forward-2023-fcpa-enforcement-trends-and-patterns</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Reaches $48 Million Settlement With Swiss Energy Trader Over Attempted Gasoline Market Manipulation Scheme</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Reaches-48-Million-Settlement-With-Swiss</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 27, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against a Swiss energy trader (the &quot;Company&quot;), for allegedly attempting to manipulate the European gasoline market in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;) and CFTC regulations. The order imposes a $48 million civil monetary penalty against the Company, which the CFTC claimed improperly sold gasoline at below-market prices to benefit certain short positions it held in gasoline-linked futures contracts.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 17:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Reaches-48-Million-Settlement-With-Swiss</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Beats First Post-Jarkesy Challenge
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/finra-beats-first-post-jarkesy-challenge</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 4, 2024, Judge John Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed on jurisdictional grounds the first post-Jarkesy constitutional challenge to FINRA&apos;s disciplinary proceedings in Blankenship v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2024 04:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/finra-beats-first-post-jarkesy-challenge</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York Federal Judge Orders $125 Million Penalty Against Digital Asset Infrastructure Company</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-Federal-Judge-Orders-125-Million-Penalty</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 7, 2024, a digital asset infrastructure company (the &quot;Company&quot;) was ordered to pay a $125 million civil penalty for its failure to register institutional sales of its XRP token with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;SEC&quot;).  SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 20-cv-10832-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 19:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-Federal-Judge-Orders-125-Million-Penalty</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Kicks Off Whistleblower Rewards Program </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Kicks-Off-Whistleblower-Rewards-Program</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 1, 2024, the Department of Justice issued guidance outlining its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which offers financial incentives to whistleblowers who bring original and truthful information regarding corporate criminal conduct to the attention of the Department. This pilot program, which was previewed in March and is described in the Department&apos;s Program Guidance, resembles other enforcement agencies&apos; whistleblower rewards programs, such as that of the Securities Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 17:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Kicks-Off-Whistleblower-Rewards-Program</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Faces Post- Jarkesy Challenge To Its Enforcement Program</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Faces-Post-Jarkesy-Challenge</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) is now facing a second litigation challenging the constitutionality of its use of disciplinary tribunals to impose sanctions on FINRA members. A broker filed a complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania on the heels of the Supreme Court&apos;s landmark ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S.Ct. 2117 (2024). The case, Blankenship v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Docket No. 2:24-cv-03003 (E.D. Pa. Jul 10, 2024), seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions to halt disciplinary proceedings brought against him by FINRA&apos;s Department of Enforcement. FINRA had previously charged the broker with allegedly engaging in unsuitable mutual fund trading practices including, among other things, recommending short-term holds for Class A mutual funds designed to be long-term investments which allegedly resulted in unnecessary charges to customers and excess commissions to the broker.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Faces-Post-Jarkesy-Challenge</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Judge Dismisses Most Of SEC&apos;s Suit Against An IT Management Software Company Over Cybersecurity Disclosures</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Judge-Dismisses-Most-Of-SECs-Suit-Against</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 18, 2024, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a comprehensive 107-page opinion that may have significant implications for the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s (&quot;SEC&quot;) enforcement strategy for alleged disclosure and accounting and disclosure controls violations by public companies and their executives. In particular, the decision may affect the Enforcement Division&apos;s efforts to extend the application of existing requirements for public companies to maintain a system of internal controls over financial reporting to cover situations that are not directly related to financial reporting or accounting matters. 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Judge-Dismisses-Most-Of-SECs-Suit-Against</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Holds That The SEC Cannot Pursue Civil Fraud Penalties In Administrative Proceedings, Potentially Altering How Many Agencies Will Be Forced To Pursue Certain Rule Violations</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Holds-That-The-SEC-Cannot-Pursue-Civil-Fraud-Penalties</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 ruling, held that when the Securities Exchange Commission seeks civil monetary penalties from defendants for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment gives such defendants a right to demand a jury trial, making it unconstitutional to force them into an administrative proceeding administered by one of the SEC&apos;s own Administrative Law Judges. While the Court did not invalidate the use of administrative proceedings for other rule violations, it is clear that this decision will have an impact far beyond the SEC. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. SEC v. Jarkesy, et al., No. 22-859, 603 U.S. ____ (2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 19:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Holds-That-The-SEC-Cannot-Pursue-Civil-Fraud-Penalties</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Holds That Federal Bribery Statute Does Not Criminalize Gratuities In An Opinion Again Focusing On Importance Of Clear Lines In Criminal Statutes</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Holds-That-Federal-Bribery-Statute-Does-Not-Criminalize-Gratuities</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 26, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, held that 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 666(a)(1)(B) (&quot;&amp;sect; 666&quot;) does not prohibit gratuities made to state or local government officials for past official acts. Rather, the Court clarified that &amp;sect; 666 only forbids state or local officials from accepting or agreeing to accept bribes (i.e., future payments for future official acts). Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Snyder v. United States, No. 23- 108, 603 U.S.  ____  (2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 19:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Holds-That-Federal-Bribery-Statute-Does-Not-Criminalize-Gratuities</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Resolves First Action for Impeding Whistleblowers Over Objections of Two Commissioners</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Resolves-First-Action-for-Impeding-Whistleblower</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 17, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot; or &quot;the Commission&quot;) issued a groundbreaking order against an energy, metals, and minerals commodity trading company (the &quot;Company&quot;) registered in Singapore. The Order resolved three separate alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (the &quot;CEA&quot;) and related CFTC regulations, and resulted in fines totaling $55 million. While the resolution primarily focused on allegations that the Company misappropriated nonpublic information and manipulated the gasoline market, the Order also encompassed the Company&apos;s alleged interference with whistleblowers through its use of nondisclosure clauses that did not explicitly exempt disclosures to regulators. This component of the resolution, which the CFTC announced as its &quot;First Action Against an Entity for Impeding Whistleblower Communications,&quot; was publicly criticized by two CFTC Commissioners who suggested the Enforcement Division had enlarged the scope of Regulation 165.19(b). 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 05:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Resolves-First-Action-for-Impeding-Whistleblower</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC v. Panuwat - Northern District Of California Jury Endorses SEC&apos;s &quot;Shadow Trading&quot; Theory</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-v-Panuwat-emndash-Northern-District</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 5, 2024, a jury in the Northern District of California found that Matthew Panuwat had misappropriated his employer&apos;s confidential information and committed insider trading. The closely followed case represented the SEC&apos;s first action under the so-called &quot;shadow trading&quot; theory. The SEC alleged that Panuwat possessed material nonpublic information (&quot;MNPI&quot;) that his employer, Medivation, would soon be acquired by Pfizer. The SEC further alleged that this information influenced his decision to purchase call options in a Medivation competitor—Incyte Corporation—because Panuwat believed the announcement of the Medivation acquisition would increase the stock prices of competitors. Despite the almost certain appeal of this decision to the Ninth Circuit, this verdict could strengthen the SEC&apos;s resolve to bring more claims under the shadow trading theory and leaves open questions concerning whether legal and compliance officers should revise their insider trading policies and procedures to account for this development.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-v-Panuwat-emndash-Northern-District</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Achieves Jury Verdict In Cryptocurrency Fraud Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Achieves-Jury-Verdict-In-Cryptocurrency</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 5, 2024, a jury in the Southern District of New York found cryptocurrency startup Terraform Labs PTE Ltd. (the &quot;Company&quot;) and its co-founder, Do Kwon, liable for securities fraud. The jury sided with the SEC in determining that the Company lied to investors about the stability of their digital assets to raise billions of dollars by selling digital securities, many of which were unregistered. The verdict was delivered following a two-week long trial, providing a significant win to the SEC in its campaign to regulate the cryptocurrency sector and continuing a split among judges related to how to evaluate whether a cryptocurrency is a security.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Achieves-Jury-Verdict-In-Cryptocurrency</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Plan To Pay Corporate Whistleblowers</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Plan-To-Pay-Corporate-Whistleblower</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 7, 2024, the Department of Justice announced a whistleblower rewards program intended to compensate individuals who assist the Department in discovering unknown significant corporate or financial misconduct with a portion of any resulting forfeiture. 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Plan-To-Pay-Corporate-Whistleblower</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York Attorney General Sues Beef Processing Company In &quot;Greenwashing&quot; Complaint Alleging The Company Publicized Unrealistic &quot;Net Zero&quot; Goals For Itself To Deceptively Promote Its Products And Company As Environmentally Friendly</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-Attorney-General-Sues-Beef-Processing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 28, 2024, the New York Attorney General filed suit against one of the world&apos;s largest beef processing companies (the &quot;Company&quot;), alleging that the Company engaged in deceptive business practices and false advertising by misleading the public about its environmental impact. The People of the State of NY v. JBS USA Food Co., et al., (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 28, 2024). Of particular note, the complaint focuses not on statements by the Company about its current environmental impact, or presently measurable facts—instead, the complaint focuses on statements by the Company about its future plans and ambitions that the Attorney General claims were not realistic and not supportable. For instance, the complaint alleges that the Company claimed that it would reach &quot;net zero&quot; by 2040 when, in fact, it had not yet measured its emissions or made plans for how it would do so. While not the first &quot;greenwashing&quot; complaint to be brought, it could be one of the most significant, and could shape expectations for companies going forward.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-Attorney-General-Sues-Beef-Processing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Rules Whistleblowers Need Not Prove Retaliatory Intent Under SOX
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Rules-Whistleblowers-Need-Not-Prove-Retaliatory-Intent</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that whistleblower-plaintiffs need not prove that adverse employment actions were motivated by their employer&apos;s retaliatory intent to obtain protection under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (&quot;SOX&quot;).  Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 (Feb. 8, 2024).  This decision resolved a Circuit split and clarified the whistleblower&apos;s burden under SOX is to prove that the protected activity was merely a contributing factor to the retaliatory act.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 22:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Rules-Whistleblowers-Need-Not-Prove-Retaliatory-Intent</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Historic Penalties For Cryptocurrency Exchange&apos;s AML-Related Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Historic-Penalties-For-Cryptocurrency-Exchange-AML-Related-Violations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 21, 2023, the Cayman Islands registered cryptocurrency exchange, Binance Holdings Limited (the &quot;Company&quot;), pled guilty to criminal violations related to allegedly failing to register as a money transmitting business (&quot;MTB&quot;), failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, and violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (&quot;IEEPA&quot;).  In connection with its plea agreement with the Department of Justice, the Company agreed to pay $4.3 billion in penalty, including $1.8 billion as a criminal fine and $2.5 billion in disgorgement.  The Company&apos;s founder also pled guilty to similar AML violations and agreed to resign as the Company&apos;s Chief Executive Officer.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Historic-Penalties-For-Cryptocurrency-Exchange-AML-Related-Violations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces $25 Million Enforcement Action Over Company&apos;s Use Of Stock Buyback Plans That SEC Alleged Failed To Comply With Rule 10b5-1</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-25-Million-Enforcement-Action-Over-Company-Use-Of-Stock-Buyback-Plans</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 14, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settled enforcement action against Charter Communications, Inc. (&quot;Company&quot;) imposing a $25 million civil penalty over allegations that the Company had used stock buyback plans that did not comport with Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The SEC claimed that the Company&apos;s stock buyback plans did not comport with Rule 10b5-1 because the plans contained provisions that allowed the Company to change the total dollar amounts available to buy back stock and the timing of buybacks after the plans took effect; and while Rule 10b5-1 is a safe harbor rather than a standard that must be met, the SEC alleged that the use of buyback plans that did not meet the Rule 10b5-1 standard evidenced insufficient accounting controls in violation of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-25-Million-Enforcement-Action-Over-Company-Use-Of-Stock-Buyback-Plans</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Groundbreaking Claims Against Company For Fraud Relating To Data Breach
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Groundbreaking-Claims-Against-Company-For-Fraud-Relating-To-Data-Breach</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 30, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed claims against a software company (the &quot;Company&quot;) and its Chief Information Security Officer for alleged fraud and internal control failures relating to known cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities.  SEC v. SolarWinds Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-9518 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2023).  The SEC&apos;s complaint alleges that the Company made misleading omissions, in connection with its disclosure in December 2020, that it had suffered a cyberattack that compromised its customers&apos; information.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 18:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Groundbreaking-Claims-Against-Company-For-Fraud-Relating-To-Data-Breach</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Issues Advisory Guidelines On Civil Penalties, Monitors And Admissions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Issues-Advisory-Guidelines-On-Civil-Penalties-Monitors-And-Admissions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 17, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission&apos;s Division of Enforcement released an advisory instruction to CFTC staff for future enforcement actions.  The advisory provided guidance on the following:  (i) whether proposed civil monetary penalties are sufficient; (ii) circumstances when the imposition of a corporate compliance monitor is appropriate; (iii) what duties and responsibilities of monitors should be; and (iv) whether admissions should be recommended in a particular enforcement action.  While the guidance leaves ample room for interpretation and development over time, the unambiguous thrust is to send a message that the CFTC is seeking to increase the severity of sanctions, both in terms of the size of monetary penalties and associated undertakings, continuing a trend that the CFTC has been pushing for several years.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2023 16:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Issues-Advisory-Guidelines-On-Civil-Penalties-Monitors-And-Admissions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Sues Company For Unregistered Offerings Of NFTs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Sues-Company-For-Unregistered-Offerings-Of-NFTs</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 13, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a settled enforcement action against Stoner Cats 2 LLC for raising approximately $8 million through an unregistered offering of Non-Fungible Tokens (&quot;NFTs&quot;) that the SEC alleged were securities.  This action is another example of the SEC alleging that crypto assets were securities based on the specific manner in which they were offered.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Sues-Company-For-Unregistered-Offerings-Of-NFTs</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Nine Investment Firms Fined By The SEC For Marketing Rule Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Nine-Investment-Firms-Fined-By-The-SEC-For-Marketing-Rule-Violations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 11, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced settled enforcement actions against nine separate investment advisory firms for alleged marketing rule violations, assessing a total of $850,000 in combined penalties.  In each case, the SEC alleged that the firms improperly provided hypothetical performance information on their firm websites without following the requirements of the marketing rule.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Nine-Investment-Firms-Fined-By-The-SEC-For-Marketing-Rule-Violations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Results Of Recent Enforcement Sweep Focused On Insider Ownership Reporting Failures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Results-Of-Recent-Enforcement-Sweep-Focused-On-Insider-Ownership</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 27, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced settled enforcement actions against six officers, directors and major shareholders of various public companies for allegedly failing to timely report information about their holdings and transactions in company stock, and simultaneously announced settled actions against five public companies for allegedly contributing to these insiders&apos; filing failures or for failing to report their insiders&apos; filing delinquencies.  The actions are part of a recent SEC enforcement initiative aimed at ensuring compliance with ownership disclosure rules by company insiders.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Results-Of-Recent-Enforcement-Sweep-Focused-On-Insider-Ownership</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Safe Harbor For Companies That Self-Disclose Misconduct Discovered During M&amp;A
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Safe-Harbor-For-Companies-That-Self-Disclose-Misconduct-Discovered</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 4, 2023, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco announced a Department of Justice-wide safe harbor policy for voluntary self-disclosures made in connection with mergers and acquisitions.  During her remarks at the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics&apos; 22nd Annual Compliance and Ethics Institute, the Deputy Attorney General said that the Safe Harbor provides companies with the presumption that the DOJ will decline criminal prosecution when they voluntarily self-disclose misconduct by companies they are acquiring or have recently acquired.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Safe-Harbor-For-Companies-That-Self-Disclose-Misconduct-Discovered</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Justice Department Announces New Corporate Enforcement Appointments In National Security Division
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Justice-Department-Announces-New-Corporate-Enforcement-Appointments-In-National-Security-Division</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 11, 2023, the Justice Department&apos;s National Security Division (the &quot;Division&quot;) announced that it had made key appointments to lead the Division&apos;s Corporate Enforcement program.  The new appointees include Ian Richardson as the first Chief Counsel for Corporate Enforcement and Christian Nauvel as Deputy Chief Counsel for Corporate Enforcement.  Richardson and Nauvel will be tasked with overseeing the Division&apos;s investigation and prosecution of corporate crime deemed to relate to U.S. national security.  The Division had previously announced the establishment of these positions in March 2023, when Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco also announced that the Division would add more than 25 prosecutors to investigate and prosecute sanctions evasion, export control violations and other such economic crimes.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Justice-Department-Announces-New-Corporate-Enforcement-Appointments-In-National-Security-Division</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Fines International Conglomerate $6.5 Million For FCPA Violations Related To Client Travel And Hospitality Expenses
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Fines-International-Conglomerate-6-point-5-Million-For-FCPA-Violations-Related-To-Client-Travel</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 25, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) accepted an Offer of Settlement (the &quot;settlement&quot;) from 3M Company (&quot;3M&quot;), related to alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act&apos;s (&quot;FCPA&quot;) books and records and internal accounting control provisions (&amp;sect;&amp;sect; 13(b)(2)(A) - (B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).  Without admitting or denying the findings, 3M agreed to pay $6,581,618 to resolve allegations that 3M&apos;s China subsidiary (&quot;3M-China&quot;) improperly accounted for overseas trips it provided to 3M-China&apos;s customers who were employed by Chinese state-owned entities (SOEs).  According to the SEC, 3M-China invited SOE customers, who are deemed foreign officials under the FCPA, &quot;to attend overseas conferences, educational events, and health care facility visits &amp;hellip; ostensibly as part of 3M-China&apos;s marketing and outreach efforts, but that in fact were often a pretext to provide overseas travel, sightseeing and entertainment &amp;hellip; to the Officials to obtain and retain business from the SOE Customers.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2023 21:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Fines-International-Conglomerate-6-point-5-Million-For-FCPA-Violations-Related-To-Client-Travel</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Corficolombiana Pays $80M To Resolve Bribery Probes
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Corficolombiana-Pays-80-Million-To-Resolve-Bribery-Probes</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 10, 2023, the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) and the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;), in coordination with Columbian authorities, announced that Colombian conglomerate Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A (&quot;Grupo Aval&quot;) and its banking subsidiary Corporacion Financiera Colombiana S.A. (&quot;Corficolombiana&quot;) agreed to pay approximately $80 million USD for their alleged involvement in a scheme to pay $23 million USD in bribes to high-ranking government officials in Colombia, in violation of the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  In resolving these allegations, Corficolombiana entered into a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) with the DOJ, and agreed to pay a $40.6 million USD criminal penalty, up to half of which may be credited against payments to the Columbian government.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 20:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Corficolombiana-Pays-80-Million-To-Resolve-Bribery-Probes</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In Denying Motion To Dismiss In Terraform Cryptocurrency Case, New York Federal Judge Rejects Key Aspects Of Ripple  Ruling, Continuing Uncertainty On How Securities Law Applies To Cryptocurrencies</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Denying-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Terraform-Cryptocurrency-Case-NY-Federal-Judge-Rejects</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 31, 2023, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York Judge Rakoff, denied cryptocurrency company Terraform Labs, Pte Ltd. (&quot;Company&quot;) and its founder&apos;s motion to dismiss a suit that had been brought against them by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;SEC&quot;).  The SEC sued the Company and its founder in February 2023 after the Company&apos;s algorithmic stablecoin collapsed in May 2022, contributing to multiple bankruptcies.  The SEC alleged that the Company and its founder made false and materially misleading statements to entice U.S. investors to purchase and hold on to the Company&apos;s products, which the SEC claimed were unregistered investment-contracts that qualified as securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the &quot;Securities Act&quot;).  SEC v. Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd., 2023 WL 4858299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023).  The Court held that the SEC had alleged a plausible claim for relief, and enough facts to establish the cryptocurrencies at issue were investment contracts requiring registration under the securities laws.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 19:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Denying-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Terraform-Cryptocurrency-Case-NY-Federal-Judge-Rejects</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York District Court Decides Significant Cryptocurrency Case, Holding That Whether Cryptocurrency Is A Security Turns On When And How It Was Sold
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-District-Court-Decides-Significant-Cryptocurrency-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 13, 2023, Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision on the parties&apos; cross-motions for summary judgment in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN, holding that Ripple Labs, Inc. (the &quot;Company&quot;) unlawfully sold unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (the &quot;Securities Act&quot;) by selling its cryptocurrency token, XRP, to certain institutional buyers, while at the same time holding XRP was not a security within the meaning of the Securities Act when sold on digital asset exchanges, given the different circumstances and expectations of buyers in those transactions.  The Court also held that the Company&apos;s distributions of XRP to employees and third parties for the development of its project did not constitute sales of unregistered securities.  This is a pivotal decision for the cryptocurrency market and is a significant win for cryptocurrency exchanges in particular.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 22:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-District-Court-Decides-Significant-Cryptocurrency-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DC Circuit Enjoins FINRA Disciplinary Proceeding, Questions Constitutionality Of Hearing Officers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Enjoins-FINRA-Disciplinary-Proceeding-Questions-Constitutionality</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an emergency injunction blocking the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) from halting the securities business of Alpine Securities Corporation (the &quot;Company&quot;) through an expedited hearing process pending the Company&apos;s appeal challenging the constitutionality of FINRA&apos;s enforcement proceedings.  Alpine Securities Corporation, et al v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 1:23-cv-01506-BAH (July 5, 2023).  While noting that this was not a decision on the merits, the court found that the Company had shown a likelihood that it will succeed on the merits in its challenge to the structure of FINRA enforcement actions, having at this early stage &quot;raised a serious argument that FINRA impermissibly exercises significant executive power.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2023 20:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Enjoins-FINRA-Disciplinary-Proceeding-Questions-Constitutionality</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court To Hear Appeal On SEC Power To Initiate Administrative Proceedings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-To-Hear-Appeal-On-SEC-Power-To-Initiate-Administrative-Proceedings</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 30, 2023, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal regarding the constitutionality of administrative proceedings in the case of George Jarkesy and Patriot28 LLC v. SEC, which could have important ramifications on how federal agencies bring actions against alleged wrongdoers.  This grant of certiorari stems from a May 18, 2022, Fifth Circuit decision, Jarkesy v. Sec. &amp; Exch. Comm&apos;n, 34 F.4th 446 (5th Cir. 2022), which held that the use of administrative proceedings by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) was unconstitutional, but its reasoning could also impact proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 16:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-To-Hear-Appeal-On-SEC-Power-To-Initiate-Administrative-Proceedings</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FCPA Charges Dismissed Due To DOJ&apos;s Unduly Delayed Prosecution
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FCPA-Charges-Dismissed-Due-To-DOJ-Unduly-Delayed-Prosecution</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 7, 2023, a United States District Judge in the Southern District of Texas dismissed conspiracy charges related to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) and money laundering violations brought against Paulo Jorge Da Costa Casquiero Murta (&quot;Murta&quot;) by the Department of Justice, finding that prosecutors had intentionally caused delays in Murta&apos;s trial, in violation of both the Speedy Trial Act and Murta&apos;s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.  United States v. Murta, 4:17-CR-00514-8 (S.D. Tex. June 6, 2023).  Murta, who had been in U.S. custody since July 2021, argued that despite his repeated demands for a speedy trial, the government had intentionally delayed his trial.  The Court agreed and dismissed the charges against Murta with prejudice, finding that DOJ&apos;s prosecutors had acted in bad faith.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FCPA-Charges-Dismissed-Due-To-DOJ-Unduly-Delayed-Prosecution</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Investment Adviser Fined $1.4 Million For Failure To Disclose SPAC Conflicts
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Investment-Adviser-Fined-1-Point-4-Million-For-Failure-To-Disclose-SPAC-Conflicts</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 31, 2023, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined a New York investment adviser (Investment Adviser) $1.4 million for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest regarding special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs).  In the Matter of RTW Invs., L.P., SEC Administrative Proceeding 3-21473 (May 30, 2023).  According to the SEC, Investment Adviser personnel sponsored two separate SPACs while those same personnel simultaneously invested client funds in the SPACs, which the SEC alleged was a conflict of interest that required disclosure.  The Investment Adviser neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the SEC&apos;s Order.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Investment-Adviser-Fined-1-Point-4-Million-For-Failure-To-Disclose-SPAC-Conflicts</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Clarifies Scienter Standard For False Claims Act Liability
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Clarifies-Scienter-Standard-For-False-Claims-Act-Liability</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the consolidated cases United States v. SuperValu Inc. and United States v. Safeway, Inc. holding that the False Claims Act&apos;s (&quot;FCA&quot;) scienter element refers to a defendant&apos;s knowledge and subjective beliefs—not what an objectively reasonable person would have known or believed.  No. 21-1326 (June 1, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Clarifies-Scienter-Standard-For-False-Claims-Act-Liability</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court And First Circuit Issue Decisions Reversing White Collar Convictions, Cautioning Against Prosecutorial Overreach In Honest Services Fraud Cases
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-And-First-Circuit-Issue-Decisions-Reversing-White-Collar-Convictions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Two facially unrelated decisions, issued last week by the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, continued a recent theme of courts pushing back against potential prosecutorial overreach in the application of fraud statutes—especially in the area of honest services fraud.  In the first case, the First Circuit reversed the convictions of two &quot;Varsity Blues&quot; parents who had been found guilty of honest services fraud, among other charges, after paying money to individuals to help get their children into college under false pretenses.  And in the second case, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of Joseph Percoco, a former manager of former New Governor Andrew Cuomo&apos;s re-election campaign who had likewise been found guilty of honest services fraud, unanimously holding that the jury instructions used to convict him were too vague and would sweep in too much innocent conduct.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2023 15:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-And-First-Circuit-Issue-Decisions-Reversing-White-Collar-Convictions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Dutch Company Settles Alleged FCPA Violations With SEC For $62M
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Dutch-Company-Settles-Alleged-FCPA-Violations-With-SEC-For-62M</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 11, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that Netherlands-based Koninklijke Philips N.V. (&quot;Philips&quot;) will pay more than $62 million to resolve claims that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) with respect to alleged conduct related to its sales of medical diagnostic equipment in China.  Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21411.  According to the SEC, Philips&apos; subsidiaries in China used special price discounts with distributors that created a risk that excessive distributor margins could be used to fund improper payments to employees.  Philips neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2023 15:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Dutch-Company-Settles-Alleged-FCPA-Violations-With-SEC-For-62M</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court To Review Second Circuit Decision On Whistleblower Retaliation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-to-Review-Second-Circuit-Decision-on-Whistleblower-Retaliation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 1, 2023, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari filed by alleged whistleblower against his former employer, a financial institution, in a case that is expected to clarify when the termination of a whistleblower amounts to unlawful retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2023 22:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-to-Review-Second-Circuit-Decision-on-Whistleblower-Retaliation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Holds That Structural Challenges To Agency Administrative Proceedings May Be Brought Directly In Federal Court
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Holds-That-Structural-Challenges-To-Agency-Administrative-Proceedings</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 14, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the consolidated cases of Axon Enterprises Inc. v. FTC and SEC v. Cochran, finding that constitutional challenges to the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) to bring certain claims as administrative proceedings can bypass the administrative appeals process and be brought directly in federal court. The Court concluded that the authorizing statutes of the regulatory agencies do not implicitly restrict federal district courts of original jurisdiction to hear any challenges to an agency&apos;s constitutionality. Thus, although the Court did not decide the substance of the petitioners&apos; constitutional challenges to the agencies&apos; administrative proceeding processes, it allowed petitioners&apos; challenges to move forward in federal court.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 22:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Holds-That-Structural-Challenges-To-Agency-Administrative-Proceedings</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Charges Digital Asset Exchange And Its Founder With Violating The Commodity Exchange Act And Commission Regulations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Charges-Digital-Asset-Exchange-And-Its-Founder-With-Violating-Commodity-Exchange-Act</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 27, 2023, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) filed a civil enforcement action against three entities that operate a digital asset exchange (the &quot;Company&quot;) and its Founder and Chief Executive Officer (collectively &quot;Defendants&quot;) for willful violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;) and CFTC regulations. Further, the CFTC charged the Company&apos;s Former Chief Compliance Officer with aiding and abetting these violations. See Complaint, Commodity Futures Trading Comm&apos;n v. Zhao, et al., Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01887 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 18:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Charges-Digital-Asset-Exchange-And-Its-Founder-With-Violating-Commodity-Exchange-Act</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Brazilian Mining Company To Pay $55.9 Million To Settle SEC Charges Of Misleading ESG Disclosures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Brazilian-Mining-Company-To-Pay-55-Million-To-Settle-SEC-Charges-Of-Misleading-ESG</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 28, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) submitted a settlement agreement (&quot;settlement&quot;) to the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New York with Brazilian mining company Vale S.A. (&quot;Vale&quot; or &quot;Company&quot;). Under the settlement, without admitting or denying the findings, the Company will pay a total of $55.9 million to resolve charges brought against it by the SEC on April 28, 2022, regarding the Company&apos;s allegedly false and misleading representations in its environmental, social, and governance (&quot;ESG&quot;) disclosures. The SEC averred in its complaint that the Company concealed the unsafe condition of its dams, which caused its ESG disclosures to be materially false and misleading for investors. See SEC v. Vale S.A., Case No. 22-cv-2405-LDH-SJB (Mar. 28, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 18:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Brazilian-Mining-Company-To-Pay-55-Million-To-Settle-SEC-Charges-Of-Misleading-ESG</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Telecommunications Company Agrees To Plead Guilty Following Alleged Breach Of 2019 Deferred Prosecution Agreement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Telecommunications-Company-Agrees-To-Plead-Guilty-Following-Alleged-Breach-Of-2019</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 2, 2023, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that a multinational telecommunications company headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden (the &quot;Company&quot;) agreed to plead guilty and to pay a penalty of approximately $206 million after allegedly breaching the cooperation and disclosure provisions of a 2019 Deferred Prosecution Agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) it had previously entered into to address claims that it participated in a scheme to pay bribes, falsify books and records, and failed to implement reasonable internal accounting controls in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Telecommunications-Company-Agrees-To-Plead-Guilty-Following-Alleged-Breach-Of-2019</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC Charge Individual For Insider Trading Through Use Of 10b5-1 Trading Plans
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Charge-Individual-For-Insider-Trading-Through-Use-Of-10b5-1-Trading-Plans</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 1, 2023, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) unsealed an indictment against the founder, CEO, and Chairman of a publicly traded health care company (the &quot;Company&quot;), alleging that he had illegally executed trades pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 trading plans while in possession of material nonpublic information. The Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a concurrent civil suit against defendant for the same activity. In each case, the government alleged that defendant improperly used his 10b5-1 plans by entering into them while in possession of material nonpublic information and triggering sales shortly thereafter, without any form of cooling-off period.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Charge-Individual-For-Insider-Trading-Through-Use-Of-10b5-1-Trading-Plans</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sterling Bancorp Pleads Guilty To Criminal Securities Fraud
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sterling-Bancorp-Pleads-Guilty-To-Criminal-Securities-Fraud</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 15, 2023, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that Michigan-based bank Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (&quot;Sterling&quot;) agreed to plead guilty to securities fraud for allegedly filing false statements relating to its 2017 initial public offering (&quot;IPO&quot;) and 2018 and 2019 annual financial reports. As part of its guilty plea, Sterling agreed to pay fines totaling $69 million, including $27.2 million in restitution to non-insider stockholders.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sterling-Bancorp-Pleads-Guilty-To-Criminal-Securities-Fraud</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charged McDonald&apos;s For Public Disclosure Violations Related To The Board&apos;s Exercise Of Discretion Respecting The Former CEO&apos;s Termination And Charged The Former CEO For Fraud
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charged-McDonalds-For-Public-Disclosure-Violations-Related-To-The-Board-Exercise-Of</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 9, 2023, the Securities Exchange Commission issued a cease-and-desist order against McDonald&apos;s Corporation and the Company&apos;s former CEO Stephen Easterbrook related to Easterbrook&apos;s departure. The SEC&apos;s order alleged that the Company failed to disclose in a Form 8-K that it exercised discretion in terminating Easterbrook &quot;without cause,&quot; and allowed him to retain more than $40 million in equity-based compensation that would have been forfeited if the company had terminated him &quot;for cause;&quot; and further alleged that Easterbrook withheld information about his relationships with Company employees in an internal investigation. Without admitting or denying the findings, the Company and Easterbrook consented to the entry of the Order. See In re Easterbrook &amp; McDonald&apos;s Corp., No. 3-21269 (Jan. 9, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charged-McDonalds-For-Public-Disclosure-Violations-Related-To-The-Board-Exercise-Of</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Department Of Justice Issues Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy Pursuant To Deputy Attorney General&apos;s September 15, 2022, Memorandum
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Department-Of-Justice-Issues-Voluntary-Self-Disclosure-Policy-Pursuant-To-Deputy</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 22, 2023, the United States Department of Justice issued the United States Attorney&apos;s Offices&apos; Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy for corporate criminal enforcement, which sets forth the criteria the 94 United States Attorney&apos;s Offices will use to determine the appropriate resolution for a corporate entity that voluntarily self-discloses misconduct to a USAO. The VSD Policy is intended to provide incentives, including declinations or reduced fines, to corporations that timely disclose misconduct, cooperate with the DOJ&apos;s investigation, and remediate misconduct. It applies to all USAOs and is effective immediately.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Department-Of-Justice-Issues-Voluntary-Self-Disclosure-Policy-Pursuant-To-Deputy</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Enforcement Action Over Company&apos;s Alleged Failure To Track Information About Workplace Misconduct Relevant To Risk Factor Disclosures About Employee Retention
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Enforcement-Action-Over-Companys-Alleged-Failure-To-Track-Information</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 3, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a settled enforcement action against video game maker Activision Blizzard Inc. (the &quot;Company&quot;) for an alleged failure to maintain procedures designed to collect employee complaints of workplace misconduct and analyze them for disclosure purposes. The SEC found that the lack of such procedures violated the Company&apos;s obligation to maintain procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Company&apos;s SEC reports was in fact timely reported. In addition, the SEC&apos;s enforcement action alleged that the Company had improperly impeded former employees from communicating directly with the SEC staff about possible securities law violations by requiring those employees, through a clause in their separation agreements, to notify the Company of any requests from an administrative agency in connection with a report or complaint. Without admitting or denying the findings, the Company agreed to pay a $35 million civil penalty, but Commissioner Hester Peirce issued a spirited dissent arguing that the SEC&apos;s allegations did not in fact amount to securities law violations.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Enforcement-Action-Over-Companys-Alleged-Failure-To-Track-Information</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Revisions To The Criminal Division&apos;s Corporate Enforcement Policy
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Revisions-To-The-Criminal-Divisions-Corporate-Enforcement-Policy</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 17, 2023, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite delivered remarks announcing revisions to the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) Criminal Division&apos;s Corporate Enforcement Policy (&quot;CEP&quot;) at Georgetown Law Center.  The revisions aim to encourage additional companies to voluntarily self-disclose potential criminal conduct they may uncover by setting more granular incentives that will be provided to companies in such circumstances.  While there is still substantial subjectivity embedded in the revised policy regarding when and how such incentives will be made available to companies, the revisions will put added pressure on companies to make self-disclosures in certain circumstances.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2023 02:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Revisions-To-The-Criminal-Divisions-Corporate-Enforcement-Policy</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC Extend FCPA Monitorship For Telecom Company
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Extend-FCPA-Monitorship-For-Telecom-Company</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 14, a multinational telecommunications company headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden (the &quot;Company&quot;), announced it had reached agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) to extend the Company&apos;s independent compliance monitorship by one year, to June 2024.  The agreement to extend the monitor, which had been required under a 2019 resolution with the DOJ, was the result of the DOJ determining that the Company had failed to adequately disclose compliance matters that it had investigated in Iraq.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 16:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Extend-FCPA-Monitorship-For-Telecom-Company</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Year-End Enforcement Results, Emphasizing Record-Setting Penalty Awards
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Year-End-Enforcement-Results-Emphasizing-Record-Setting-Penalty-Awards</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 15, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) released its summary of enforcement actions for the 2022 fiscal year, which ended on June 30, 2022. The SEC announced that it filed 760 enforcement actions, a nine percent increase over 2021. The actions resulted in orders of a record-breaking $6.439 billion to be paid to the SEC, including roughly $4.2 billion in penalties. The SEC noted that the high numbers reflect its &quot;sense of urgency to protect investors, hold wrongdoers accountable and deter future misconduct in our financial markets.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 22:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Year-End-Enforcement-Results-Emphasizing-Record-Setting-Penalty-Awards</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Releases Its Annual Enforcement Results
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Releases-Its-Annual-Enforcement-Results</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 20, 2022, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) released its enforcement results for Fiscal Year (&quot;FY&quot;) 2022, reporting that it had filed 82 enforcement actions. Eighteen of the actions brought in FY 2022 involved cryptocurrency or other digital assets, an area which has seen progressively increasing scrutiny from the CFTC and other enforcement agencies. The CFTC also reported that it obtained orders collectively imposing over $2.5 billion in fines in that period.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 21:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Releases-Its-Annual-Enforcement-Results</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC And CFTC Orders Concerning Electronic Communications
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-CFTC-Orders-Concerning-Electronic-Communications</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 27, 2022, the SEC announced charges against affiliates of 11 financial institutions (15 broker-dealers and one investment adviser) for allegedly failing to maintain and preserve electronic communications and allegedly failing to reasonably supervise from January 2018 through September 2021. See SEC Press Release 2022-174 (Sept. 27, 2022).  On the same day, the CFTC announced charges against affiliates of the same 11 financial institutions for allegedly failing to maintain, preserve, or produce required records, and allegedly failing to supervise matters related to their businesses as swap dealers and futures commission merchants.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-CFTC-Orders-Concerning-Electronic-Communications</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The DOJ Reinforces And Updates Corporate Criminal Enforcement Priorities With Speech By Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-DOJ-Reinforces-And-Updates-Corporate-Criminal-Enforcement-Priorities-With-Speech</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 15, 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco delivered remarks on the Department of Justice&apos;s corporate prosecution priorities at New York University, at the invitation of the University&apos;s Project on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement.  While many of her comments were simply a reiteration of existing priorities, some were potentially meaningful changes.  Indeed, by clarifying certain points and strengthening others, Monaco emphasized the &quot;carrot and stick&quot; approach to signal loud and clear that the DOJ remains as focused as ever on pursuing corporate crime.  She unambiguously encouraged corporations both to self-report potential criminal activity and cooperate in the investigation of culpable individuals, indicating that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences.  At the same time, as has long been the case, the policies leave somewhat subjective the true nature of any &quot;carrot&quot; and any &quot;stick&quot; that would apply in any given case, making the decision of how corporations should deal with potential criminal conduct one of the most challenging decisions corporations can face.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-DOJ-Reinforces-And-Updates-Corporate-Criminal-Enforcement-Priorities-With-Speech</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Actions Against Underwriters In First-Ever Municipal Bond Disclosure Cases
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Actions-Against-Underwriters-In-First-Ever-Municipal-Bond-Disclosure-Cases</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 13, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against an underwriter for allegedly failing to comply with the regulatory requirements of the Exchange Act&apos;s Rule 15c2-12 (17 C.F.R. &amp;sect; 240.15c2-12), which provides a limited exception to certain disclosure requirements where underwriters have a reasonable belief that the municipal securities are being sold only to sophisticated investors that are each buying the securities for a single account.  See SEC v. Oppenheimer &amp; Co., Inc., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:22-cv-7801 (Sept. 13, 2022).  The SEC also initiated settled enforcement actions with three other firms for similar alleged violations.  This is the first time that the SEC has initiated municipal-bond disclosure cases.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Actions-Against-Underwriters-In-First-Ever-Municipal-Bond-Disclosure-Cases</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Enforcement Action Against Investment Advisor For Allegedly Failing To Disclose Conflicts Of Interest In SPACs Into Which It Invested Client Funds
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Enforcement-Action-Against-Investment-Advisor-For-Allegedly-Failing-To-Disclose-Conflicts</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 6, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that New York-based, registered investment advisor Perceptive Advisors LLC (&quot;Investment Advisor&quot;) had agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest regarding ownership of its personnel in sponsors of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs).  According to the SEC, the Investment Advisor used private client funds to facilitate transactions benefitting SPACs in which the Investment Advisor&apos;s personnel and other clients had financial interests but failed to disclose the alleged conflicts resulting from those interests.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Enforcement-Action-Against-Investment-Advisor-For-Allegedly-Failing-To-Disclose-Conflicts</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Overturns $1 Million Whistleblower Award For Improper Jury Instruction
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/second-circuit-overturns-1-million-whistleblower-award-for-improper-jury-instruction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 5, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a judgment of approximately $1 million awarded to a purported whistleblower after a jury determined in 2017 that the financial institution unlawfully terminated the employee in retaliation for his refusal to change certain aspects of his research reports related to commercial mortgage-backed securities.  In narrowing the universe of alleged whistleblowers who may be entitled to relief for retaliation, the Second Circuit held that the trial judge failed to inform the jurors as to the critical burden whistleblowers bear under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: namely, that a whistle-blower must prove that their employer intended the alleged employment action to be retaliatory.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 19:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/second-circuit-overturns-1-million-whistleblower-award-for-improper-jury-instruction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York Fines Crypto Trading Platform $30M In First-Ever DFS Crypto Settlement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/new-york-fines-crypto-trading-platform-30m-in-first-ever-dfs-crypto-settlement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 2, 2022, New York State&apos;s Department of Financial Services (&quot;DFS&quot;) announced that Robinhood Crypto, LLC (&quot;RHC&quot;), a trading platform that allows customers to transact in cryptocurrencies, had agreed to pay a $30 million fine to resolve allegations of &quot;significant&quot; lapses in its compliance with New York State anti-money laundering and cybersecurity regulations.  In addition to the fine, the settlement will also require RHC to hire an independent consultant to evaluate the company&apos;s remediation efforts and compliance with DFS regulations. RHC did not admit to the allegations contained in the Consent Order.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 19:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/new-york-fines-crypto-trading-platform-30m-in-first-ever-dfs-crypto-settlement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC And DOJ Bring First Ever Charges For Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Tipping Scheme
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-DOJ-Bring-First-Ever-Charges-For-Cryptocurrency-Insider-Trading-Tipping-Scheme</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 21, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a complaint and the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) unsealed an indictment against Ishan Wahi, a former Coinbase employee, his brother, Nikhil Wahi, and friend, Sameer Ramani, for alleged insider trading.  SEC v. Ihan Wahi, Nikhil Wahi, and Sameer Ramani, 2:22-cv01009 (W.D. Wa. July 21, 2022); United States v. Ishan Wahi, Nikhil Wahi, and Sameer Ramani, 22-cr-392 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).  Both the complaint and indictment concern the same underlying conduct by Wahi, who allegedly provided dozens of tips to his brother and friend over several months to purchase certain digital assets tied to cryptocurrencies (the &quot;digital assets&quot;) shortly before they were publicly listed on Coinbase&apos;s exchange.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-DOJ-Bring-First-Ever-Charges-For-Cryptocurrency-Insider-Trading-Tipping-Scheme</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Rejects SEC Request To Revisit Holding That &quot;Scheme Liability&quot; Requires Conduct Beyond Misstatements And Omissions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Rejects-SEC-Request-To-Revisit-Holding-That-Scheme-Liability-Requires-Conduct</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 15, 2022, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) in an interlocutory appeal the SEC had brought seeking to expand the scope of &quot;scheme liability&quot; under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder.  SEC v. Rio Tinto plc, No. 21-2042 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2022).  Specifically, the SEC had urged the Second Circuit, in a case it had brought against a mining company and certain of its former executives (the &quot;Defendants&quot;), to hold that the Supreme Court&apos;s decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), abrogated the Second Circuit&apos;s prior decision in Lentell v. Merrill Lynch &amp; Co., 396 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2005), which had found that a defendant can only be liable for scheme liability under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) where they engage in misleading conduct beyond misstatements and omissions.  The Second Circuit panel ruled that Lentell remains good law, and that any expansion of the scheme liability provisions of Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) would need to come either from the Second Circuit en banc or the Supreme Court.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Rejects-SEC-Request-To-Revisit-Holding-That-Scheme-Liability-Requires-Conduct</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Fines Broker-Dealer $9 Million For Allegedly Attempting To Influence The Market For Offered Securities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Fines-Broker-Dealer-9-Million-For-Allegedly-Attempting-To-Influence</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 23, 2022, FINRA&apos;s Department of Enforcement announced a settlement in which a broker-dealer agreed to pay $3.6 million in fines, $4.77 million in disgorgement, and partial restitution of over $625,000 to resolve the broker-dealer&apos;s alleged misconduct under the Exchange Act and NASD and FINRA Rules in connection with three IPOs and seven follow-on offerings between June 2016 and December 2018 for which the broker-dealer acted as underwriter, as well as for other supervisory and operational violations.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 19:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Fines-Broker-Dealer-9-Million-For-Allegedly-Attempting-To-Influence</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Its First Regulation Best Interest Enforcement Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Its-First-Regulation-Best-Interest-Enforcement-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 15, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against registered broker-dealer Western International Securities, Inc. (&quot;Western&quot;) and five of its registered representatives (the &quot;Registered Representatives&quot;), alleging that they had violated the Best Interest Obligation under Rule 15l-1(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (&quot;Regulation Best Interest&quot; or &quot;Reg BI&quot;) in connection with their recommendations to retail customers to purchase certain unrated debt securities.  This is the first action brought by the SEC to enforce Reg BI, and the litigation could lead to important legal rulings clarifying its scope.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Its-First-Regulation-Best-Interest-Enforcement-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Action Against Investment Advisers For Allegedly Misleading Robo-Adviser Clients About Hidden Fees
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Action-Against-Investment-Advisers-For-Allegedly-Misleading-Robo-Adviser-Clients</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 13, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;), announced that it had instituted a settled administrative proceeding accusing several investment advisers (the &quot;Advisers&quot;) that focused on robo-advising, and all of which were themselves subsidiaries of a prominent investment adviser, of violating Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Broadly, the SEC accused them of failing to invest client cash in ways that their own analyses showed would be optimal for the clients, and instead retaining cash in a way that benefitted the Advisers.  The Advisers did not admit or deny the SEC&apos;s allegations as part of the resolution, but as part of the settlement agreed collectively to disgorge approximately $52 million and to pay a civil monetary penalty of $135 million and were also required to engage an independent consultant and engage in certain other undertakings.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Action-Against-Investment-Advisers-For-Allegedly-Misleading-Robo-Adviser-Clients</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Glencore Pleads Guilty And Agrees To $1.1 Billion Penalty To Resolve Manipulation And Foreign Corruption Allegations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Glencore-Pleads-Guilty-And-Agrees-To-1-Billion-Penalty-To-Resolve-Manipulation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 24, 2022, Glencore International A.G. of Switzerland (&quot;Glencore&quot;), an energy and commodities trading firm, and its affiliates Glencore Ltd. of New York and Chemoil Corporation of New York resolved long-running investigations by the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;), and regulators in the UK and Brazil related to alleged foreign bribery and market manipulation schemes.  The companies agreed to pay total fines and monetary penalties in excess of $1.1 billion, including the largest penalty and disgorgement ever ordered by the CFTC, for conduct that spanned over ten years.  As part of its resolutions with the CFTC and the DOJ, Glencore and Glencore Ltd. have agreed to retain independent compliance monitors for three years and continue to cooperate fully and expeditiously with both enforcement agencies.  In addition to the corporate resolutions, two Glencore former employees have previously been charged.  A Glencore Ltd. senior fuel oil trader, Emilio Jose Heredia Collado, pleaded guilty in March 2021 to one count of conspiracy to engage in commodities price manipulation.  His sentencing is scheduled for June 17, 2022.  Similarly, in July 2021, a senior trader in charge of Glencore&apos;s West Africa crude oil desk pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Glencore-Pleads-Guilty-And-Agrees-To-1-Billion-Penalty-To-Resolve-Manipulation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC ESG Fines Investment Adviser For Alleged ESG Misstatements In ESG Task Force&apos;s First Enforcement Resolution
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-ESG-Fines-Investment-Adviser-For-Alleged-ESG-Misstatements-In-ESG-Task-Force</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 4, 2021, the Securities &amp; Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) publicly announced the formation of a Climate and Environmental, Social and Governance (&quot;ESG&quot;) Task Force within its Enforcement Division.  This task force was reportedly staffed with 22 Enforcement staff members drawn from SEC headquarters, regional offices and specialized units.  The task force was assembled in response to, among other things, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler&apos;s focus on investigating misstatements related to ESG disclosures.  In remarks by Chairman Gensler on July 7, 2021, he described the SEC as focused on &quot;truth in advertising&quot; and confirming that &quot;funds that market themselves as &apos;green,&apos; &apos;sustainable,&apos; &apos;low carbon,&apos; and so on&quot; were in fact operating consistent with those disclosures.  Approximately 14 months later, the ESG Task Force has announced its debut enforcement action by ordering an investment adviser to pay a $1.5 million fine for alleged misrepresentations related to its ESG practices.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-ESG-Fines-Investment-Adviser-For-Alleged-ESG-Misstatements-In-ESG-Task-Force</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Holds SEC Administrative Proceedings Are Unconstitutional
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Holds-SEC-Administrative-Proceedings-Are-Unconstitutional</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 18, 2022, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a significant decision in George Jarkesy and Patriot28 LLC v. SEC, ruling that the use of administrative proceedings by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) was unconstitutional because, among other reasons, the Court found that Congress impermissibly delegated the decision of whether to bring enforcement actions as administrative proceedings or district court actions without providing adequate guidance to the SEC.  The decision is limited to the Fifth Circuit and will undoubtedly be appealed, but it raises significant questions about the use of administrative proceedings even beyond the SEC.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 22:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Holds-SEC-Administrative-Proceedings-Are-Unconstitutional</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Investment Firm Enters $6 Billion Parallel Resolutions With DOJ And SEC Over Allegations Of Fraudulent Conduct By Employees And Related Control Failures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Investment-Firm-Enters-6-Billion-Parallel-Resolutions-With-DOJ-And-SEC</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 17, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced parallel resolutions with a registered investment advisor (the &quot;Advisor&quot;), resolving criminal and civil securities fraud allegations concerning three portfolio managers&apos; concealment of downside risks associated with the Advisor&apos;s trading strategy, &quot;Structured Alpha,&quot; and the failure to implement an adequate control function in the Advisor&apos;s Structured Products Group.  United States v. AllianzGlobal Investors U.S. LLC, No. 1:22-cr-00279 (S.D.N.Y); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tournant, Taylor, and Bond-Nelson, No. 1:22-cv-04016 (S.D.N.Y.).  Three related indictments of former portfolio managers of the Advisor whose conduct contributed to the Advisor&apos;s settlement were also unsealed.  United States v. Gregoire Tourant, No. 22-cr-00276 (S.D.N.Y.); United States v. Trevor Taylor, No. 22-cr-00149 (S.D.N.Y.); United States v. Stephen Bond-Nelson, No. 22-cr-00137 (S.D.N.Y.).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 22:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Investment-Firm-Enters-6-Billion-Parallel-Resolutions-With-DOJ-And-SEC</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Jury Rejects SEC Fraud Claims Against Trader Accused Of Misstatements Over Pricing Commercial RMBS
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Jury-Rejects-SEC-Fraud-Claims-Against-Trader-Accused-Of-Misstatements-Over-Pricing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 6, 2022, the long-awaited trial between the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) and James Im (&quot;Im&quot;)—a former Nomura trader—came to an end when a Manhattan federal jury found in favor of Im.  The SEC brought suit against Im in 2017, claiming that he committed securities fraud by making various alleged misstatements to his trading counterparties in connection with trading commercial residential mortgage backed securities (&quot;RMBS&quot;).  The jury&apos;s decision - particularly in a civil trial as opposed to a criminal one - may raise further questions about the government&apos;s multi-year pursuit of misstatements in the commercial RMBS market that began with the Department of Justice&apos;s case against former trader Jesse Litvak.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2022 16:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Jury-Rejects-SEC-Fraud-Claims-Against-Trader-Accused-Of-Misstatements-Over-Pricing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>OCC Issues Consent Order Against A Digital Bank
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/OCC-Issues-Consent-Order-Against-A-Digital-Bank</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 21, 2022, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a consent order against Anchorage Digital Bank, a digital asset bank based in South Dakota.  Notably, Anchorage had previously become the first digital asset bank to be regulated by the OCC in January 2021.  In its consent order, the OCC determined that Anchorage had failed to adopt an effective compliance system as required by the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering (&quot;AML&quot;) laws, specifically highlighting failures related to &quot;internal controls for customer due diligence and procedures for monitoring suspicious activity, BSA officer and staff, and training.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2022 20:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/OCC-Issues-Consent-Order-Against-A-Digital-Bank</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Settled Enforcement Action Alleging Management Of Earnings Figures To Meet Analyst Estimates
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Enforcement-Action-Alleging-Management-Of-Earnings-Figures</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 18, 2022, the SEC announced it had reached an $8 million settlement with Rollins Inc. (&quot;Rollins&quot;), a nationwide pest control services company, and its CFO for allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices to boost quarterly earnings per share (&quot;EPS&quot;) to meet consensus quarterly estimates.  The SEC found that the CFO directed the company to make certain adjustments to its records in multiple quarters without performing a generally accepted accounting principles (&quot;GAAP&quot;) analysis or memorializing the basis for the changes.  The changes allegedly caused the EPS to go up a penny, allowing the company to meet analysts&apos; consensus estimates, and the company often publicly touted the consistency of its earnings growth in its press releases and public filings.  Under terms of the settlement, Rollins neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s findings and agreed to pay an $8 million civil penalty, while the CFO agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty.  However, the action was brought under Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 as opposed to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and although both the company and CFO agreed to the entry of a cease-and-desist order, the CFO was not required to agree to an officer or director bar.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Enforcement-Action-Alleging-Management-Of-Earnings-Figures</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Commissioner&apos;s Dissent Highlights Challenges In Responding To Whistleblowers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Commissioner-Dissent-Highlights-Challenges-In-Responding-To-Whistleblowers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Tuesday, April 12, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined David Hansen, the former Chief Information Officer of NS8, Inc., a Las Vegas-based fraud detection and prevention software firm, approximately $100,000 for interfering with an employee&apos;s ability to communicate with the SEC in violation of Rule 21F-17(a).  The SEC alleged that Hansen violated the rule by restricting the employee&apos;s access to NS8&apos;s IT systems and monitoring his use of corporate computer systems following the employee providing a tip to the SEC about NS8&apos;s corporate practices.  In dissent, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce said that the application of Rule 21F-17(a) was inappropriate in this case, arguing that restricting the tipster&apos;s access to IT systems and monitoring their use did not impede their ability to communicate with the SEC and was a reasonable step in preventing unauthorized disclosure of NS8&apos;s data to private parties and the media.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Commissioner-Dissent-Highlights-Challenges-In-Responding-To-Whistleblowers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Proposes New SPAC Disclosure Rules
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Proposes-New-SPAC-Disclosure-Rules</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 30, 2022, the Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) published its long-awaited proposed rules and rule amendments applicable to special purpose acquisition companies (&quot;SPACs&quot;) for comment by May 31.  The stated purpose of the proposed rules, which would impose significant changes to the rules affecting SPACs, is to &quot;more closely align the required financial statements of private operating companies in transactions involving shell companies with those required in registration statements for an initial public offering.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 17:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Proposes-New-SPAC-Disclosure-Rules</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Issues Regulatory Notice On The Scope Of Supervisor Liability For Chief Compliance Officers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Issues-Regulatory-Notice-On-The-Scope-Of-Supervisor-Liability</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 17, 2022, FINRA issued a notice to member firms about Rule 3110 as it pertains to the potential liability of Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) for failure to discharge designated supervisory responsibilities.  (Regulatory Notice 22-10, &quot;the Notice&quot;).  The Notice provides welcome guidance, clarifying when CCOs will, and will not, be held liable for supervisory violations and explicitly acknowledging that CCOs are generally not responsible for all supervisory activity within member firms.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Issues-Regulatory-Notice-On-The-Scope-Of-Supervisor-Liability</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Attorney General Announces Task Force To Target Russian Sanctions And Additional Resources For White Collar Enforcement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Attorney-General-Announces-Task-Force-To-Target-Russian-Sanctions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made two announcements this week related to the enforcement of white-collar crime by both individuals and corporations.  First, on March 2, 2022, Attorney General Garland announced the launch of Task Force KleptoCapture, an interagency law enforcement task force dedicated to enforcing sanctions, export restrictions, and economic countermeasures imposed against Russia in response to its military invasion of Ukraine.  Second, on March 4, 2022, the Attorney General discussed additional resources that the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) would devote to the prosecution of white-collar crime.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2022 17:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Attorney-General-Announces-Task-Force-To-Target-Russian-Sanctions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sweeping New Sanctions: US, EU, UK And Other Countries Target Russia For Ukraine Invasion
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sweeping-New-Sanctions-US-EU-UK-And-Other-Countries-Target-Russia-For-Ukraine-Invasion</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Over the past week, the United States, European Union, United Kingdom and several other countries imposed rounds of sweeping new sanctions on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Between February 21 and 23, 2022, the U.S., EU, U.K., Japan and Australia announced an initial round of sanctions after Russia officially recognized two Russian-backed separatist regions of eastern Ukraine—the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People&apos;s Republics (respectively, &quot;DNR&quot; and &quot;LNR&quot;), and then deployed troops to these regions. The first wave of sanctions targeted Russian sovereign debt, several Russian banks, and a number of Russian &quot;elites&quot; and officials, including Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. The measures additionally included a trade and investment embargo on the two separatist regions—similar to existing restrictions on Crimea. Germany also announced that it would halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 natural-gas pipeline. The U.S. followed with sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, its CEO, and its corporate officers on February 23, 2022.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2022 20:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sweeping-New-Sanctions-US-EU-UK-And-Other-Countries-Target-Russia-For-Ukraine-Invasion</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Settled Insider Trading Action Against Former Director Of Investor Relations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Insider-Trading-Action-Against-Former-Director</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 22, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that John-Michael Havrilla, a former Director of Investor Relations of PAVmed Inc. (PAVmed), a medical device company, had agreed to settle claims of insider trading.  The SEC simultaneously filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York, together with a consent agreement and proposed final judgment wherein Havrilla, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to the imposition of a permanent injunction, civil penalties of $160,230, and a five-year officer or director ban.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2022 18:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Insider-Trading-Action-Against-Former-Director</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Cryptocurrency Company Fined $100M In Novel Action Concerning Registration Obligations For Crypto Lending Product
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Cryptocurrency-Company-Fined-100M-In-Novel-Action-Concerning-Registration</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Monday, February 14, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged cryptocurrency lending company BlockFi Lending LLC (&quot;BlockFi&quot;) with failing to register the offers and sales of its retail crypto lending product, violating the registration provisions of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and making certain material misrepresentations regarding the level of risk associated with its product.  To settle the charges, BlockFi agreed to pay a $50 million penalty, cease its unregistered offers and sales of the lending product—BlockFi Interest Accounts (&quot;BIAs&quot;)—and bring its business within the provisions of the Investment Company Act within 60 days.  BlockFi also agreed to pay an additional $50 million in fines to 32 different states to settle similar charges.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Cryptocurrency-Company-Fined-100M-In-Novel-Action-Concerning-Registration</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Reverses Conviction Of Two Traders Accused Of LIBOR Rigging Scheme, Finding Insufficient Evidence Of False Or Fraudulent Statements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reverses-Conviction-Of-Two-Traders-Accused-Of-LIBOR-Rigging-Scheme</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 27, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the convictions of two former traders convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, part of the widely-publicized series of prosecutions for allegedly manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (&quot;LIBOR&quot;).  US v. Connolly, No. 19-3806, 2022 WL 244669 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2022).  The Court held that although the government had offered evidence that the former traders had sought to impact LIBOR through their submissions, the government had failed to offer sufficient evidence that they did so through fraud.  Because the LIBOR instructions with which the submitters were required to comply called for a hypothetical rate at which the submitting bank could borrow funds, the Court held that if the rate submitted was one a bank could request, be offered, and accept, the submission, irrespective of its motivation, would not be false.  And, in this case, the Court found that there was no evidence that the submitted rates were false under that standard.  Thus, even if the conduct could be perceived as dishonorable, the Court held that the convictions had to be reversed.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reverses-Conviction-Of-Two-Traders-Accused-Of-LIBOR-Rigging-Scheme</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California District Court Allows Novel SEC Insider Trading Theory To Proceed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Allows-Novel-SEC-Insider-Trading-Theory-To-Proceed</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 14, 2022, Judge William Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying a former biopharmaceutical company executive&apos;s motion to dismiss and allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) to proceed with a first-of-its-kind insider trading action against a corporate insider for misappropriating confidential nonpublic information related to his employer&apos;s upcoming merger to purchase securities issued by a third company that was not involved in the transaction.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Allows-Novel-SEC-Insider-Trading-Theory-To-Proceed</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Company Acquired By SPAC Agrees To Pay $125 Million To Settle SEC Probe Months After CEO Was Charged With Fraud
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Company-Acquired-By-SPAC-Agrees-To-Pay-125-Million-To-Settle-SEC-Probe</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 21, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that Nikola Corporation—a publicly traded company that develops, manufactures, and sells electric trucks—had agreed to a $125 million settlement agreement to end the SEC&apos;s investigation into claims that the company, both directly and through its former CEO, Trevor Milton, had deceived investors about the company&apos;s ability to build hydrogen-powered vehicles and other issues.  As part of the settlement, Nikola neither admitted nor denied the claims against it, and agreed to continue cooperating with the SEC in its separate investigation into Milton himself.  The SEC previously brought a suit against Milton, who was also charged by the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;), and that case remains pending.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Company-Acquired-By-SPAC-Agrees-To-Pay-125-Million-To-Settle-SEC-Probe</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Court Dismisses SEC Insider Trading Case, Holding That Suspicious Trading Plus Evidence Of Relationship And Communications With Insider Are Insufficient Basis To Get To A Jury
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Court-Dismisses-SEC-Insider-Trading-Case-Holding-That-Suspicious-Trading</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 13, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Claude Hilton, of the Eastern District of Virginia, dismissed the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s (&quot;SEC&apos;s&quot;) insider trading action against Christopher Clark before the defense put on its case-in-chief.  The Court agreed with defendant&apos;s arguments that the SEC&apos;s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, even though the SEC was able to present evidence of what it claimed to be (1) suspicious trading patterns, (2) a close relationship with a corporate insider; and (3) communications patterns corresponding to the trading.  Absent actual evidence of a tip, or testimony supporting the SEC&apos;s theory, the Court agreed with defendant that the SEC&apos;s case was simply too speculative.  As the SEC increasingly seeks to use data analytics and circumstantial evidence to prove insider trading cases, the decision is a reminder that Courts may at times decide that more is needed.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Court-Dismisses-SEC-Insider-Trading-Case-Holding-That-Suspicious-Trading</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC And CFTC Bring $200 Million Settled Action Against Financial Institution For Alleged Violations Of Record-Keeping Requirements Due To Employee Off-Platform Communications Including WhatsApp And Text Messages
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-CFTC-Bring-200-Million-Settled-Action-Against-Financial-Institution-For-Alleged</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 17, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that each had entered into an agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities (the &quot;Company&quot;) to resolve issues related to the Company&apos;s books-and-records obligations.  The agencies alleged that, over a period of several years, the Company failed to maintain and preserve copies of certain communications pursuant to recordkeeping rules for broker-dealer firms, swap dealers and future commission merchants - including WhatsApp and text messages on employee personal devices.  The Company admitted that its conduct was not in compliance with Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 171-4(j) thereunder as well as Section 4(s)(h)(1)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Regulations 166.3 and 23.602, and agreed to pay a total of $200 million to resolve the allegations ($125 million to the SEC and $75 million to the CFTC).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2021 00:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-CFTC-Bring-200-Million-Settled-Action-Against-Financial-Institution-For-Alleged</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Enforcement In FY 2021 Included Significant Actions In Traditional And Emerging Areas And Over $1 Billion In Whistleblower Awards
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enforcement-In-FY-2021-Included-Significant-Actions-In-Traditional-And-Emerging</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 18, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced its enforcement results for the 2021 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2021.  The SEC reported that it filed 434 new enforcement actions in FY2021, a 7% increase over FY2020.  But perhaps the most striking thing about the SEC&apos;s enforcement results for the year was its whistleblowing statistics.  The SEC has now awarded over $1 billion in whistleblower awards, and the SEC highlighted those figures in its press release—announcing that &quot;[t]he SEC&apos;s whistleblower program was critical to these efforts and had a record-breaking year.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enforcement-In-FY-2021-Included-Significant-Actions-In-Traditional-And-Emerging</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Consulting Firm Settles Allegations That It Had Inadequate Procedures For Handling Of MNPI Between Units
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Consulting-Firm-Settles-Allegations-That-It-Had-Inadequate-Procedures</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 19, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that an affiliate of McKinsey &amp; Company (&quot;McKinsey&quot;), McKinsey Investment Office Partners, Inc. (&quot;MIO&quot;), had agreed to pay an $18 million penalty for alleged compliance failures in its handling of material nonpublic investment information (&quot;MNPI&quot;).  While the SEC did not allege that MIO had ever improperly used material nonpublic investment information in executing trades, it alleged that MIO&apos;s procedures were inadequate to account for the risk that certain members of its investment committee had access to such information due to other roles they had with McKinsey.  MIO neither admitted nor denied the allegations in resolving the matter through an administrative proceeding.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Consulting-Firm-Settles-Allegations-That-It-Had-Inadequate-Procedures</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Major Policy Changes To How It Investigates And Prosecutes Corporate Crime, Signaling A Return To Tougher Enforcement And Individual Accountability
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Major-Policy-Changes-To-How-It-Investigates-And-Prosecutes-Corporate-Crime</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 28, 2021, at the American Bar Association&apos;s National Institute on White Collar Crime, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco announced revisions to the Department of Justice&apos;s policies, all designed to strengthen DOJ&apos;s response to corporate crime.  Deputy AG Monaco outlined major policy changes focused on individual accountability, when cooperation credit will be given to corporations, how corporations&apos; prior history of misconduct will be evaluated, and when corporate monitors will be imposed.  Deputy AG Monaco said these changes were just the beginning of DOJ&apos;s efforts to further incentivize corporations to embrace a culture of compliance, and she also announced the creation of a new DOJ Advisory Group that will focus on additional potential policy shifts.  Both were also discussed in DOJ&apos;s Memorandum published the same day, titled &quot;Corporate Crime Advisory Group and Initial Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 20:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Major-Policy-Changes-To-How-It-Investigates-And-Prosecutes-Corporate-Crime</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Awards Record $200 Million To Whistleblower
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Awards-Record-200-Million-To-Whistleblower</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 21, 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) announced it would be awarding a whistleblower its largest, publicly-announced single award under the Dodd-Frank whistleblower rewards program—nearly $200 million.  The whistleblower—who sources say worked for a major financial institution—provided extensive information and documents in 2012 that prompted the CFTC, another US regulator, and a foreign regulator to bring sizable enforcement actions related to benchmark manipulation.  The CFTC&apos;s order stated that the whistleblower&apos;s information provided &quot;direct evidence of wrongdoing&quot; and led to a successful enforcement action, and also assisted two other regulatory actions.  The record payment, according to the CFTC, reflects recognition of &quot;a &apos;meaningful nexus&apos; between the information provided and the CFTC&apos;s ability to successfully complete its investigation.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2021 20:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Awards-Record-200-Million-To-Whistleblower</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York AG Demands Crypto Platforms Cease Operations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-AG-Demands-Crypto-Platforms-Cease-Operations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 18, 2021, New York&apos;s Attorney General (NYAG) issued cease-and-desist letters to two cryptocurrency platforms, demanding that they discontinue all operations in New York within ten days for alleged violations of the Martin Act.  The NYAG&apos;s office also sent requests for information to three other cryptocurrency firms focused on &quot;tethers,&quot; a type of &quot;stablecoin&quot; cryptocurrency that is tied to the US dollar.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2021 20:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-York-AG-Demands-Crypto-Platforms-Cease-Operations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Comments At SEC Speaks Conference Suggest Heightened Bar For Cooperation Credit, Return Of Admissions Policy, And Increased Autonomy For Front-Line SEC Enforcement Staff
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Comments-At-SEC-Speaks-Conference-Suggest-Heightened-Bar-For-Cooperation-Credit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 13, 2021, SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir Grewal and Deputy Enforcement Director Sanjay Wadhwa appeared at the Practicing Law Institute&apos;s &quot;The SEC Speaks&quot; conference, an annual conference where Commission leaders provide updates on current initiatives and priorities of the Commission for the coming year.  Director Grewal and Deputy Director Wadhwa&apos;s remarks signaled some potentially significant policy changes, particularly in terms of how they will measure corporate compliance programs and cooperation levels, when the SEC will allow settling defendants to &quot;neither admit nor deny&quot; the allegations brought by the SEC, and the overall autonomy granted to the front-line enforcement staff.   While the impact of any such policy change is uncertain, and will need to be assessed over time, it is an unmistakable shift in tone from the prior administration.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Comments-At-SEC-Speaks-Conference-Suggest-Heightened-Bar-For-Cooperation-Credit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Department Of Justice Announces Enhanced Efforts Towards White-Collar Crime Enforcement And Creation Of National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Department-Of-Justice-Announces-Enhanced-Efforts-Towards-White-Collar-Crime-Enforcement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
In back-to-back speeches last week, senior Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) officials emphasized that the Department would devote additional resources and attention to white-collar enforcement actions, with a specific focus on enforcement in the cryptocurrency space.  These initiatives, which contemplate additional corporate enforcement actions, reflect a break from the prior administration&apos;s criminal enforcement priorities, which tended to focus on immigration and violent crime offenses.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2021 18:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Department-Of-Justice-Announces-Enhanced-Efforts-Towards-White-Collar-Crime-Enforcement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Fines Crypto Exchange That Offered Margin Trading For Failing To Register As FCM, Prompting Calls For Further Rulemaking From One Commissioner
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Fines-Crypto-Exchange-That-Offered-Margin-Trading-For-Failing-To-Register-As-FCM</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 28, 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) entered an order that imposed a $1.25 million fine on Payward Ventures Inc., which does business as digital asset exchange Kraken, for allegedly failing to register as a futures commission merchant (FCM) and for offering certain margin trading services in violation of Sections 4(a) and 4d of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).  Although the decision did not purport to break new legal ground, one CFTC Commissioner, Dawn Stump, noted that the decision &quot;is informed by&quot; the CFTC&apos;s Final Interpretive Guidance on retail commodity transactions involving certain digital assets issued in 2020, and issued a concurring statement calling upon the CFTC to issue rulemaking to clarify and codify that guidance, which is increasingly important in the cryptocurrency space.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 20:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Fines-Crypto-Exchange-That-Offered-Margin-Trading-For-Failing-To-Register-As-FCM</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Vacates $1.6 Million In FINRA Fines Against Broker-Dealer And Officers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Vacates-1-6-Million-In-FINRA-Fines-Against-Broker-Dealer-And-Officers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 17, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) vacated $1.6 million in fines and penalties that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) had previously levied against Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp. (&quot;Firm&quot;) and three of its officers (&quot;Applicants,&quot; collectively).  In 2015, FINRA alleged that the Firm failed to maintain appropriate internal controls and executed sales of unregistered microcap securities for its foreign financial institution customers.  The next year, following a disciplinary hearing, FINRA imposed a $1.5 million fine on the Firm, a lifetime bar on one of the Firm&apos;s officers, and a $50,000 fine and a two-year suspension on the two remaining Firm officers.  In reviewing FINRA&apos;s findings on appeal by the Applicants, the SEC overturned the sanctions after determining that FINRA&apos;s National Adjudicatory Council (&quot;NAC&quot;) applied incorrect legal standards, failed to adequately explain the basis of its conclusions, and conflated applicable regulations in its case against the Firm.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 20:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Vacates-1-6-Million-In-FINRA-Fines-Against-Broker-Dealer-And-Officers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Insider Trading Charges Based On Novel Theory
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Insider-Trading-Charges-Based-On-Novel-Theory</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 17, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) charged a former executive of California-based biopharmaceutical company Medivation Inc. with violating &amp;sect; 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (&quot;Exchange Act&quot;) and Rule 10b-5 for allegedly relying upon inside information he obtained through the course of his employment at Medivation to purchase stock of a different company, Incyte Corp., a practice that some academics have dubbed &quot;shadow trading.&quot;  According to the SEC&apos;s complaint—filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California—Matthew Panuwat, the then-head of business development at Medivation, purchased short-term, out-of-the money stock options in Incyte Corp., a biopharmaceutical company similar to Medivation, immediately after learning that Medivation would soon announce its upcoming acquisition by Pfizer.  The SEC claims that Panuwat knew that investment bankers engaged by Medivation had cited Incyte as a comparable company in their valuation analysis and that the announcement of Medivation&apos;s sale to Pfizer would likely cause Incyte&apos;s stock price to increase.  This is one of the SEC&apos;s first enforcement actions based on this novel theory, and Panuwat may be expected to vigorously contest not only the facts but the legal underpinnings of the SEC&apos;s complaint.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2021 18:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Insider-Trading-Charges-Based-On-Novel-Theory</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Settles &quot;First-Of-Its-Kind&quot; Action Over &quot;Decentralized Finance&quot; Technology, Alleging Fraud And Unregistered Sales Of Securities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-First-Of-Its-Kind-Action-Over-Decentralized-Finance-Technology</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that it reached a $13 million settlement in a cease-and-desist proceeding against Blockchain Credit Partners (&quot;the Company&quot;) and its two owners.  The Company marketed itself as a &quot;decentralized finance&quot; (&quot;DeFi&quot;) technology company that sold two kinds of digital assets: (1) &quot;mTokens,&quot; which were sold as accruing 6.2% interest, and (2) DMM Governance (&quot;DMG&quot;) tokens designed to give holders certain voting rights, a share of excess profits, and the ability to profit from DMG resales in the secondary market.  In its cease-and-desist order (the &quot;Order&quot;), the SEC concluded that both mTokens and DMG tokens were securities because they were offered and sold as investment contracts, claimed that the Respondents violated Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act for selling these securities without registering them, and further claimed that the Respondents made certain material misstatements and omissions in connection with the sale of the securities in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-First-Of-Its-Kind-Action-Over-Decentralized-Finance-Technology</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Cryptocurrency Derivatives Exchange Reaches $100 Million Settlement With CFTC, FinCEN
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Cryptocurrency-Derivatives-Exchange-Reaches-100M-Settlement-With-CFTC-FinCEN</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 10, 2021, BitMEX, an offshore cryptocurrency derivatives exchange (the &quot;Exchange&quot;), agreed to a $100 million settlement with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the &quot;CFTC&quot;) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (&quot;FinCEN&quot;), resolving claims that the Exchange operated illegally in the U.S. and failed to comply with anti-money laundering (&quot;AML&quot;) laws and regulations.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 16:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Cryptocurrency-Derivatives-Exchange-Reaches-100M-Settlement-With-CFTC-FinCEN</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC File Securities Fraud Charges Against Founder Of Company Acquired By A SPAC
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-File-Securities-Fraud-Charges-Against-Founder-Of-Company-Acquired</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 29, 2021, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced the unsealing of a criminal indictment against Trevor Milton, the founder, former CEO, and former Chairman of Nikola Corporation, a company that went public in March 2020 through a merger with a special purpose acquisition company (&quot;SPAC&quot;), for allegedly knowingly misleading investors about the company&apos;s ability to build electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles and other green technology.  The SEC filed a parallel civil action against Milton based on the same facts.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-File-Securities-Fraud-Charges-Against-Founder-Of-Company-Acquired</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Financial Institution Settles SEC Claims Related To Allegedly Unsuitable Investments In Complex Exchange-Traded Product
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Financial-Institution-Settles-SEC-Claims-Related-To-Allegedly-Unsuitable-Investments</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Monday, July 19, 2021, the SEC announced that it had settled an action involving an alleged failure to prevent what the SEC contended were unsuitable investments by the respondent&apos;s clients in a volatility-linked exchange-traded product (ETP).  As part of the settlement, the respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $8 million and disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $112,274.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Financial-Institution-Settles-SEC-Claims-Related-To-Allegedly-Unsuitable-Investments</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Settled Enforcement Action In Connection With SPAC Business Combination
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Enforcement-Action-In-Connection-With-SPAC-Business</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 13, 2021, the SEC announced its settlement with Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (&quot;Stable Road&quot;), a special-purpose acquisition company (&quot;SPAC&quot;); its CEO; its sponsor; and its proposed merger target, Momentus Inc. (&quot;Momentus&quot;), an early-stage space technology company.  The resolution was based on alleged violations of the federal securities laws stemming from material misstatements and omissions related to Momentus&apos;s space technology and national security concerns surrounding Momentus&apos;s former CEO.  The SEC has brought charges against and is litigating against Momentus&apos;s former CEO, who was not a party to the settlement.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Enforcement-Action-In-Connection-With-SPAC-Business</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Orders Record $70 Million Financial Penalty For Systemic Supervisory Failures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Orders-Record-70-Million-Financial-Penalty-For-Systemic-Supervisory-Failures</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 30, 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered Robinhood Financial LLC (&quot;Robinhood&quot;) to pay a $57 million fine, the highest financial penalty ever ordered in FINRA history, for supervisory failures.  Robinhood will also pay an additional $12.6 million of restitution to users.  In announcing the severe penalty, FINRA attributed it to the &quot;widespread and significant harm suffered by &amp;hellip; millions of customers&quot; as a result of Robinhood&apos;s various &quot;systemic supervisory failures.&quot;  Without admitting to the allegations, Robinhood consented to FINRA&apos;s findings and stated that it has &quot;invested heavily in improving platform stability, enhancing our educational resources, and building out our customer support and legal and compliance teams.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Orders-Record-70-Million-Financial-Penalty-For-Systemic-Supervisory-Failures</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split On Meaning Of &quot;Exceeding Authorized Access&quot; In The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Resolves-Circuit-Split-On-Meaning-Of-Exceeding-Authorized-Access</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 3, 2021, the United States Supreme Court&apos;s decision in Van Buren v. U.S. clarified a controversial provision in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the &quot;CFAA&quot;), which imposes civil and criminal liability on anyone who &quot;intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,&quot; and thereby obtains computer information.  18 U. S. C. &amp;sect;1030(a)(2).  The Court held that &quot;an individual &apos;exceeds authorized access&apos; when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him&quot; and rejected the prosecution&apos;s broader reading of the CFAA.  In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Resolves-Circuit-Split-On-Meaning-Of-Exceeding-Authorized-Access</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>UK Court Orders Aerospace Corporation Subsidiary To Pay &amp;pound;30 Million In Saudi Corruption Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/UK-Court-Orders-Aerospace-Corporation-Subsidiary-To-Pay</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 28, 2021, an Airbus subsidiary was ordered to pay more than &amp;pound;30 million ($41 million) after pleading guilty to one count of corruption for bribing senior Saudi Arabian officials between 2008 and 2010 in relation to a defense contract between the UK and Saudi Arabia for communications and electronic warfare equipment.  Last year, Airbus entered into one of the largest corporate resolutions in history with the UK Serious Fraud Office (&quot;SFO&quot;), the French Parquet National Financier (&quot;PNF&quot;), and the US Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;), settling allegations of bribery and corruption for a total payment of &amp;euro;3.598 billion plus interest and costs.  See Airbus Agrees Record-Breaking &amp;euro;3.6 Billion Settlement To Avoid Prosecution.  This year&apos;s resolution, while far smaller, is yet another reminder that, even with the increasing global coordination among enforcement agencies, individual agencies will often resist resolving all open issues at a given moment.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 21:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/UK-Court-Orders-Aerospace-Corporation-Subsidiary-To-Pay</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Rolls Back FTC&apos;s Ability To Obtain Restitution And Disgorgement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Rolls-Back-FTCrsquos-Ability-To-Obtain-Restitution</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC that the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) is not authorized to seek monetary relief, such as restitution or disgorgement, in enforcement actions brought directly in federal court without first initiating an administrative proceeding.  The Court&apos;s significant decision overturned the Ninth Circuit&apos;s ruling below and resolved a circuit split in favor of the minority position adopted by the Third and Seventh Circuits.  While the FTC retains the ability to seek such monetary penalties through other avenues, the Court&apos;s decision deprives the FTC of an enforcement tool on which it has heavily relied.  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Rolls-Back-FTCrsquos-Ability-To-Obtain-Restitution</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Second-Largest Whistleblower Award In Program&apos;s History
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Second-Largest-Whistleblower-Award-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 15, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a joint award of just over $50 million to a pair of whistleblowers, which represents the second-largest award in the whistleblower program&apos;s history.  The SEC&apos;s press release noted that the two recipients reported on &quot;violations that involved highly complex transactions [that] would have been difficult to detect&quot; without the information they provided.  This $50 million award continues a record-setting pace for the whistleblower program.  The SEC has now awarded over a quarter of a billion dollars to whistleblowers in the first seven months of fiscal year 2021 (&quot;FY2021&quot;) alone, which kicked off with an award of $114 million in October 2020—the largest in the program&apos;s history.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Second-Largest-Whistleblower-Award-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Commissioner Calls For Revisiting Approach To Corporate Penalties
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Commissioner-Calls-For-Revisiting-Approach-To-Corporate-Penalties</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 9, 2021, Caroline Crenshaw, a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) asserted, in a speech before the Council of Institutional Investors, that the SEC has focused excessively on the indirect impact on innocent shareholders at the time of penalty when assessing corporate penalties.  Instead, she called for the SEC to revisit its approach and give less weight to innocent shareholder impact as a mitigant against large corporate penalties.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Commissioner-Calls-For-Revisiting-Approach-To-Corporate-Penalties</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC&apos;s Whistleblowing Statistics Continue To Set Records Through Pandemic
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-Whistleblowing-Statistics-Continue-To-Set-Records-Through-Pandemic</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Following the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) September 2020 amendments to the rules governing its whistleblower program, which we previously discussed in this newsletter, the SEC is on track to shatter its previous records of awards paid out to whistleblowers.  Halfway into its fiscal year (&quot;FY2021&quot;), which started in October 2020, the SEC has already awarded nearly $200 million to whistleblowers, surpassing last year&apos;s record of $175 million paid out to whistleblowers.  And the awards have been sizable:  At the start of FY2021, the SEC issued a record $114 million dollar award; and so far this month, the SEC has already issued two multi-million dollar awards.  If this pace continues, the SEC will be on pace to award in one year the same total amount that it had awarded over the previous nine years, since the inception of the whistleblower program, combined.  In terms of the number of awards paid out, the SEC is also likely to have a banner year:  it has paid out 31 awards so far in FY2021, compared to 39 awards paid out last year.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-Whistleblowing-Statistics-Continue-To-Set-Records-Through-Pandemic</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces New Enforcement Task Force On Climate And ESG
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-New-Enforcement-Task-Force-On-Climate-And-ESG</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 4, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the creation of a Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement.  SEC Press Release 2021-42 (March 4, 2021).  The task force, led by Kelly L. Gibson, the Acting Deputy Director of Enforcement, and comprising 22 members, will aim to &quot;develop initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct.&quot;  Id.  The task force&apos;s initial focus will be the identification of material gaps and misstatements in issuers&apos; disclosure of climate risks, and &quot;will also analyze disclosure and compliance issues relating to investment advisers&apos; and funds&apos; ESG strategies.&quot;  Id.  It is not clear why the SEC concluded that this specific subject matter merits its own task force, and it is worth noting that recent investigations of climate disclosures by other regulators have faced significant challenges.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 20:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-New-Enforcement-Task-Force-On-Climate-And-ESG</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC&apos;s 2021 Examination Priorities Reveal Few Surprises
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECs-2021-Examination-Priorities-Reveal-Few-Suprises</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 3, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s Division of Examinations announced its examination priorities for this year.  Each year, the SEC publishes its list of examination priorities to identify areas that it believes present potential risks to investors and the integrity of the U.S. capital markets, and this year&apos;s list is largely as expected.  It reflects an intent to focus on conflicts of interest and questions of whether investment advisors are fulfilling their fiduciary duties, information security and business continuity (something that took on particular importance in the last year as firms were forced to adapt to the pandemic), and various other perennial topics of interest.  The only &quot;new&quot; priority is one that dovetails with other recent announcements from the Commission—an addition of &quot;enhancing its focus on climate and ESG-related risks by examining proxy voting policies and practices to ensure voting aligns with investors&apos; best interests and expectations, as well as firms&apos; business continuity plans in light of intensifying physical risks associated with climate change.&quot;
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 20:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECs-2021-Examination-Priorities-Reveal-Few-Suprises</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Reverses Position On Accepting Settlement Offers Contingent On Waivers, Creating Once Again Risk That Defendants Will Be Forced To Make Settlement Decisions With Significant Uncertainty
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reverses-Position-On-Accepting-Settlement-Offers-Contingent</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 11, 2021, the Acting Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;), Allison Herren Lee, announced that the Division of Enforcement will no longer recommend to the SEC a settlement offer that is conditioned on granting a waiver.  While Acting Chair Lee described this as a return to the SEC&apos;s &quot;long-standing practice&quot; of separately considering settlement negotiations and waiver requests, Allison Herren Lee, Acting Chair, SEC, Statement of Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee on Contingent Settlement Offers (Feb. 11, 2021), the decision is in fact a significant and surprising one that was opposed by two Commissioners and could have broad ramifications for the industry.  It signals, in no uncertain terms, that the SEC is looking to be extremely aggressive in enforcement, will almost certainly be far more stingy in granting waivers in future matters, and is prepared to deal with the consequences.  What remains to be seen is how the industry will respond, as the advanced assurance of waivers from the SEC is often not just a factor in a defendant&apos;s decision to settle—for some defendants it is a critical gating item without which no settlement is possible.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reverses-Position-On-Accepting-Settlement-Offers-Contingent</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Reauthorizes Senior Enforcement Officials To Issue Formal Investigation Orders
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reauthorizes-Senior-Enforcement-Officials-To-Issue</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 9, 2021, Acting Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;), Allison Herren Lee, announced that she had authorized senior officers in the SEC&apos;s Enforcement Division to approve the issuance of Formal Orders of Investigation without prior approval from the SEC&apos;s commissioners.  While significantly less surprising and less consequential than her announcement from the same week regarding conditional settlement offers, this reinstatement of delegated authority reflects another instance of swinging the pendulum back in favor of more aggressive enforcement.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reauthorizes-Senior-Enforcement-Officials-To-Issue</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC Charge Biotech Consultant With Insider Trading, But SEC Passes On Seeking Disgorgement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Charge-Biotech-Consultant-With-Insider-Trading</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 5, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) and the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) charged Mark Ahn, a consultant to a biotech company, with insider trading based on confidential information that he allegedly learned regarding a proposed acquisition of Dimension Therapeutics, Inc. (&quot;Dimension&quot;).  In parallel civil and criminal actions, the DOJ and SEC allege that Ahn executed trades prior to the public announcement of Dimension&apos;s acquisition, based on material non-public information (&quot;MNPI&quot;) that he obtained through his role as a consultant.  Ahn is facing criminal charges of two counts of securities fraud under 18 USC &amp;sect; 1348 and forfeiture pursuant to 18 USC &amp;sect; 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 USC &amp;sect; 2461(c), along with civil charges of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and a permanent injunction, civil monetary penalties, and an officer-and-director bar.  Notably, while the DOJ is seeking forfeiture, the SEC is not seeking disgorgement.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Charge-Biotech-Consultant-With-Insider-Trading</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United Kingdom Supreme Court Limits The Serious Fraud Office&apos;s Extra-Territorial Reach
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-Kingdom-Supreme-Court-Limits-The-Serious-Fraud-Offices-Extra-Territorial-Reach</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 5, 2021, the U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Serious Fraud Office (the &quot;SFO&quot;), the U.K.&apos;s top anti-fraud agency, lacks authority to compel a foreign company to produce documents to the regulator that are held outside of the U.K.  While this ruling on its face suggests the SFO&apos;s power to investigate foreign entities has been stymied, the decision may not have much effect in practice in light of the other cross-border tools that remain available to the SFO, including the mutual legal assistance (&quot;MLA&quot;) process.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 23:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-Kingdom-Supreme-Court-Limits-The-Serious-Fraud-Offices-Extra-Territorial-Reach</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Invites Comment On Possible SEC Staff Participation In Undercover Fraud-Detection Program
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Invites-Comment-On-Possible-SEC-Staff-Participation-In-Undercover-Fraud</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 7, 2021, the Securities &amp; Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) issued an unusual statement inviting comments on a proposal to create a fraud-detection program that had previously been considered internally.  Under the contemplated program, initially conceived in 2011, members of a new unit within the SEC, called the Fraud Surveillance Team (&quot;FST&quot;), would pose as prospective investors and contact individuals suspected of engaging in criminal violations of securities laws in an undercover capacity.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Invites-Comment-On-Possible-SEC-Staff-Participation-In-Undercover-Fraud</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FTC Secures Large Restitution Award In Shadow Of Pending AMG Capital
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FTC-Secures-Large-Restitution-Award-In-Shadow-Of-Pending-AMG-Capital</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 21, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) announced that a federal district court in Maryland entered final orders granting the FTC a $120.2 million restitution award against the operators of a large offshore real estate project alleged to have deceived American consumers, which follows an earlier memorandum opinion issued on August 28, 2020. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FTC-Secures-Large-Restitution-Award-In-Shadow-Of-Pending-AMG-Capital</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Vacates And Remands Blaszczak Insider Trading Decision, Providing Opportunity For Further Clarity By Second Circuit


</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Vacates-And-Remands-Blaszczak-Insider-Trading-Decision</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit&apos;s decision in United States v. Blaszczak, 947 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2019), remanding the case to the Second Circuit for consideration in light of the Court&apos;s decision in Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565 (2020).  In Kelly, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of two New Jersey public officials in the Bridgegate scandal, holding that while the conduct at issue may have constituted an abuse of power, it did not amount to a violation of either the federal wire fraud statute or a violation of the federal program fraud statute because the object of the scheme was the implementation of a regulatory object, rather than to obtain money or property.  This may lead the Second Circuit to reverse or at least modify its December 2019 decision affirming convictions in Blaszczak, a decision that caused concern over its potentially significant expansion of insider trading liability.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Vacates-And-Remands-Blaszczak-Insider-Trading-Decision</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>National Defense Authorization Act Passed Over President Trump&apos;s Veto Expands SEC&apos;s Disgorgement Authority And Reforms Anti-Money Laundering Laws
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Passed-Over-President-Trumps-Veto-Expands</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 1, 2021, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (&quot;NDAA&quot;) was approved by Congress, over the objections of President Trump who vetoed the bill a week before.  In addition to authorizing appropriations for defense related activities, the NDAA brings two significant changes relevant to regulatory enforcement.  First, the NDAA amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quot;Exchange Act&quot;), providing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) with explicit statutory authority to seek disgorgement for civil actions and expanding the statute of limitation for securing this relief.  Second, the NDAA includes the Corporate Transparency Act (&quot;CTA&quot;), which significantly expands the beneficial ownership disclosure requirements for U.S. entities.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Passed-Over-President-Trumps-Veto-Expands</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Broker-Dealer Settles SEC Claims Alleging Violations Of The Duty Of Best Execution And Related Misstatements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Broker-Dealer-Settles-SEC-Claims-Alleging-Violations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 17, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced the filing of settled administrative proceedings against a significant retail broker-dealer (the &quot;Company&quot;) for alleged violations of the duty of best execution and related misstatements.  According to the SEC, the Company &quot;fail[ed] to satisfy its duty to seek the best reasonably available terms to execute customer orders&quot; and simultaneously made &quot;repeated misstatements that failed to disclose the firm&apos;s receipt of payments from trading firms for routing customer orders to them&quot; in lieu of routing such orders to other trading firms that may have resulted in improved customer executions.  SEC Press Release 2020-321 (Dec. 17, 2020).  Without admitting or denying the allegations, the Company has agreed to settle the claims by agreeing to pay a $65 million civil penalty, as well as agreeing to hire an independent compliance consultant who will be required to review the Company&apos;s policies and procedures relating to customer communications, payment for order flow, and best execution of customer orders, and to report to the SEC on the Company&apos;s compliance.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2020 19:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Broker-Dealer-Settles-SEC-Claims-Alleging-Violations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Public Company Settles with SEC Over Misleading COVID-19-Related Disclosures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Public-Company-Settles-with-SEC-Over-Misleading-COVID-19</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 4, The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated (&quot;the Company&quot;) agreed to settle claims brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;Commission&quot;) that the Company had made materially misleading disclosures about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its business operations and financial condition.  Without admitting to the SEC&apos;s findings, the Company agreed to cease and desist from any future Exchange Act violations and to pay a $125,000 civil money penalty for alleged material misstatements to investors in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-11 and 12b-20, which require current and accurate financial disclosures.  This represents the first enforcement action brought by the Commission against a public company for misleading investors about the financial impacts of the pandemic.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 20:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Public-Company-Settles-with-SEC-Over-Misleading-COVID-19</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Energy Company Agrees To Pay Over $150 Million To DOJ, CFTC, And Foreign Regulator To Resolve Coordinated FCPA Allegations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Energy-Company-Agrees-To-Pay-Over-150-Million-To-DOJ-CFTC-And-Foreign-Regulator</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 3, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that a Texas-based subsidiary of the Swiss energy trading company (&quot;the Company&quot;) had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) pursuant to which it agreed to pay $135 million to resolve allegations that it conspired to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) and to end a parallel investigation in Brazil.  The Company also agreed to pay more than $28 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) for related matters, in the first coordinated resolution between the DOJ and the CFTC in an FCPA matter. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 20:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Energy-Company-Agrees-To-Pay-Over-150-Million-To-DOJ-CFTC-And-Foreign-Regulator</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Motion To Dismiss Filed In Eastern District Of New York Case Could Provide Opportunity For Clarity On Scope Of FCPA&apos;s &quot;Internal Accounting Controls&quot; Provisions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Motion-To-Dismiss-Filed-In-Eastern-District-Of-New-York-Case-Could-Provide-Opportunity</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 20, 2020, lawyers for a former investment banker, indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for his alleged role in the 1MDB matter, filed a Motion to Dismiss (&quot;MTD&quot;) the indictment against him, which includes charges of conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Other Relief, U.S. v. Ng Chong Hwa a.k.a. Roger Ng, 1:18-cr-00538-MKB (Nov. 20, 2020).  While the MTD raises a number of issues—including whether EDNY is a proper venue given that the only allegations relate to wires that were transmitted through the EDNY, and whether the banker was an &quot;employee&quot; or &quot;agent&quot; of an &quot;issuer&quot; for purposes of the FCPA—the most interesting argument may be one that squarely challenges the scope of the FCPA&apos;s internal accounting controls provisions.  The question of whether the FCPA&apos;s internal accounting controls provisions can be stretched to cover more traditional risk and compliance controls has long been debated, and even spurred a rare dissent from two SEC Commissioners last month, so a decision on the MTD could provide a much-needed opportunity for clarity.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 18:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Motion-To-Dismiss-Filed-In-Eastern-District-Of-New-York-Case-Could-Provide-Opportunity</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Beverage Company Agrees To Pay $19.6 Million And Enter DPA To Resolve FCPA Charges With The DOJ, In Follow-Up To SEC Action That Had Starkly Different Tone
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Beverage-Company-Agrees-To-Pay-196-Million-And-Enter-DPA-To-Resolve-FCPA-Charges</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 27, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that a Chicago-based company that produces and sells distilled beverages (the &quot;Company&quot;), agreed to pay a monetary penalty of approximately $19.6 million to resolve the DOJ&apos;s investigation into alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  As part of its resolution with the DOJ, the Company also entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;).  The DOJ settlement targets the same underlying conduct that was subject to a separate settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) in 2018, where the Company agreed to pay $8 million, including a civil penalty of $2 million; but the DOJ took a different view of certain facts and refused to credit the $2 million civil penalty paid by the Company to the SEC because, according to the DOJ, the Company &quot;did not seek to coordinate a parallel resolution&quot; with the DOJ.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Beverage-Company-Agrees-To-Pay-196-Million-And-Enter-DPA-To-Resolve-FCPA-Charges</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Amends Its Whistleblower Award Program Rules
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Amends-Its-Whistleblower-Award-Program-Rules</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 23, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that it voted to amend the rules governing its whistleblower award program.  According to the SEC, the amendments are intended to provide eligible whistleblowers with greater insight into the program as well as to improve efficiencies in reviewing and processing awards.  The SEC&apos;s Office of the Whistleblower also issued staff guidance for determining award amounts for eligible whistleblowers.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Amends-Its-Whistleblower-Award-Program-Rules</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Issues FCPA Opinion Procedure Approving Legitimate Payments To Government Instrumentalities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Issues-FCPA-Opinion-Procedure-Approving-Legitimate-Payments</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 14, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) released its first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) Opinion (the &quot;August 14 Opinion&quot;) in six years, in response to a request from a multinational company headquartered in the U.S. (the &quot;Requestor&quot;).  The Requestor sought to clarify whether contemplated payments to a majority government-owned foreign investment bank would result in an FCPA enforcement action against it.  The DOJ found that the facts and circumstances as presented by the Requestor evidenced a payment to a foreign government instrumentality, and not a &quot;foreign official,&quot; and were in any event supported by a proper business justification; therefore, such payment would not violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Issues-FCPA-Opinion-Procedure-Approving-Legitimate-Payments</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC, SEC, And FINRA Settle AML-Related Charges With Broker-Dealer
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-SEC-And-FINRA-Settle-AML-Related-Charges-With-Broker-Dealer</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 10, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;), Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;), and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (&quot;FINRA&quot;) settled charges with a broker-dealer and registered futures merchant for allegations that the broker-dealer failed to flag suspicious activity and fulfill anti-money laundering requirements.  Across three separate settlements, and without admitting any wrongdoing, the broker-dealer agreed to pay $15 million in fines to FINRA, over $12 million to the CFTC, and $11.5 million to the SEC, for a total penalty of nearly $38 million.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 20:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-SEC-And-FINRA-Settle-AML-Related-Charges-With-Broker-Dealer</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Pennsylvania Manufacturing Company To Pay $824,314 To OFAC After Self-Appointing Two Monitors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Pennsylvania-Manufacturing-Company-To-Pay-824314-To-OFAC</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 28, 2020, a Pennsylvania-based cookware coating manufacturer (the &quot;Company&quot;) agreed to pay a $824,314 penalty to the U.S. Department of Treasury&apos;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (&quot;OFAC&quot;) to settle claims that it violated OFAC&apos;s Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (&quot;ITSR&quot;).  Executive Order 13628, signed in October 2012, prohibited any U.S.-owned or U.S.-controlled foreign entity from knowingly engaging in any transaction, directly or indirectly, with Iran or any person subject to Iran&apos;s jurisdiction, ITSR at &amp;sect; 560.215, and the claims at issue here identified the risk in indirect transactions.  According to OFAC, the penalty amount was substantially reduced by virtue of voluntary remedial actions undertaken by the Company following the identification of the issue.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Pennsylvania-Manufacturing-Company-To-Pay-824314-To-OFAC</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Global Healthcare Company To Enter DPA, Pay $345 Million To DOJ And SEC, To Resolve FCPA Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Global-Healthcare-Company-To-Enter-DPA-Pay-345-Million-To-DOJ-And-SEC</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 25, 2020, Novartis AG, a global healthcare company headquartered in Switzerland, and two of its subsidiaries (one current and one former) agreed to pay a total of $345 million in disgorgement and fines to the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission to settle claims that they had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).  15 U.S.C. &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 78dd-1.  Specifically, the DOJ entered into deferred prosecution agreements with a current Novartis subsidiary operating in Greece and a former Novartis subsidiary based in Singapore and overseeing operations in Vietnam, which agreed to collectively pay more than $233 million in criminal fines.  And the parent company agreed to pay the SEC $112 million in disgorgement and pre-judgment interest. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Global-Healthcare-Company-To-Enter-DPA-Pay-345-Million-To-DOJ-And-SEC</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Upholds Jury Conviction Of Two Officials In FIFA For Honest Services Fraud, Rejecting Extraterritoriality Challenge
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Upholds-Jury-Conviction-Of-Two-Officials-In-FIFA</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 22, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury conviction of two former officials of the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) —the international sports organization based in Zurich, Switzerland—for committing multiple counts of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud.  United States v. Napout, Case No. 18-2750, (2d Cir. 2020).  Defendants, two Paraguayan employees of a Paraguayan company, were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for their involvement in an alleged scheme to sell broadcasting and marketing rights to FIFA games in exchange for kickbacks transmitted through U.S. bank accounts and wires.  And on appeal, the Second Circuit held that the government permissibly applied the honest services wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 1346, rejecting defendants&apos; claim that it was an impermissible extraterritorial overreach.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Upholds-Jury-Conviction-Of-Two-Officials-In-FIFA</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court In Liu Upholds SEC Ability To Seek Equitable Disgorgement Of Net Profits For Return To Victims, But Indicates Limits On Broader Disgorgement Theories
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-In-Liu-Upholds-SEC-Ability-To-Seek-Equitable-Disgorgement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 22, 2020, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the United States Supreme Court upheld the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek disgorgement in civil actions brought in district court as a form of &quot;equitable relief &quot; under 15 U. S. C. &amp;sect;78u(d), at least to the extent the disgorgement is of a defendant&apos;s &quot;net profits&quot; and the disgorged funds are returned to defendant&apos;s victims.  Liu v. SEC, No. 18-1501, __ S.Ct. __ (June 22, 2020).  Though it was generally expected that the Supreme Court would uphold the SEC&apos;s ability to seek disgorgement in some form, the precise contours of any such decision have been much anticipated since the Supreme Court held in Kokesh v. SEC, 581 U. S. ___ (2017), that at least certain forms of disgorgement sought by the SEC enforcement action impose a &quot;penalty&quot; for purposes of calculating the appropriate statute of limitations under 28 U. S. C. &amp;sect;2462, calling into question whether it could be considered &quot;equitable relief.&quot;  The Liu decision is ostensibly a win for the SEC, in that it upheld the SEC&apos;s ability to obtain disgorgement.  But by focusing on ensuring that a given disgorgement order constitutes &quot;equitable relief,&quot; the Supreme Court has placed important limits on the manner in which the SEC may obtain disgorgement that could have significant impacts on the way the SEC pursues enforcement actions.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-In-Liu-Upholds-SEC-Ability-To-Seek-Equitable-Disgorgement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Revises Guidance On Evaluation Of Corporate Compliance Programs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Revises-Guidance-On-Evaluation-Of-Corporate-Compliance-Programs</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice released a revision of its guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.  Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division (June 2020) (the &quot;Compliance Program Guidance&quot;).  The Compliance Program Guidance provides companies with general principles and factors to consider when designing, implementing, and updating their compliance policies and procedures.  It also provides a useful basis for companies seeking to avoid or mitigate prosecution pursuant to the DOJ&apos;s &quot;Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations&quot; and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, both of which require DOJ prosecutors to consider a company&apos;s compliance program as a factor in their decisions to instigate a case and in terms of punishment.  While the revisions to the Compliance Program Guidance generally represent incremental changes, there are sufficient updates that companies may still want to take this opportunity to reevaluate existing compliance programs to ensure that they are keeping step with evolving best practices.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Revises-Guidance-On-Evaluation-Of-Corporate-Compliance-Programs</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Announces Updated Guidance On Civil Monetary Penalties
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Announces-Updated-Guidance-On-Civil-Monetary-Penalties</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 20, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) announced that the Division of Enforcement had issued new guidance regarding the factors that it would consider when making recommendations to the CFTC on the amounts of civil monetary penalties in CFTC enforcement actions.  The binding guidance, which has been incorporated into the CFTC Enforcement Manual, states that the Division of Enforcement staff will be guided by the overarching consideration of ensuring that any proposed penalty achieves the dual goals of specific and general deterrence.  And it provides a three-pronged approach to evaluate the appropriate penalty to recommend to the CFTC:  (1) the &quot;gravity of the violation;&quot; (2) &quot;mitigating and aggravating circumstances;&quot; and (3) &quot;other considerations.&quot;  While not likely to result in any significant shift in CFTC penalty amounts, having written public guidance should make it easier for defense counsel to engage in transparent and productive negotiations with Enforcement Division staff as to how various cases should be viewed. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2020 19:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Announces-Updated-Guidance-On-Civil-Monetary-Penalties</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Overturns Third Circuit, Throws Out Bridgegate Convictions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Overturns-Third-Circuit-Throws-Out-Bridgegate-Convictions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 7, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that upheld the convictions of two former New Jersey officials who were part of the 2013 &quot;Bridgegate&quot; scandal to realign lanes to the George Washington Bridge (&quot;GWB&quot;).  Kelly v. United States, No. 18-1059, 588 U.S. __, 2020 WL 2200833 (2020).  Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Kagan wrote that while the conduct at issue may have constituted an abuse of power, it did not amount to a violation of either the federal wire fraud statute or a violation of the federal program fraud statute because the object of the scheme was the implementation of a regulatory object, rather than to obtain money or property.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 18:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Overturns-Third-Circuit-Throws-Out-Bridgegate-Convictions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Industrial Bank Settles AML Charges With U.S. And New York State Authorities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Industrial-Bank-Settles-AML-Charges-With-US-And-New-York-State-Authorities</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 20, 2020, Industrial Bank of Korea (the &quot;Bank&quot;) and its New York branch (&quot;NY Branch&quot;) reached settlements with the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office for the Southern District of New York (&quot;USAO&quot;) and the New York State Department of Financial Services (&quot;NYDFS&quot;), agreeing to pay a combined $86 million to resolve investigations into its anti-money laundering compliance program, which the USAO and NYDFS claimed led to the bank processing over $1 billion worth of transactions in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran.  Specifically, the Bank entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) with the USAO, agreeing to pay $51 million to settle charges that it willfully failed to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program at its New York Branch in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (&quot;BSA&quot;).  And both the Bank and the New York Branch entered into a consent order (&quot;Consent Order&quot; and, together with the DPA, the &quot;settlement agreements&quot;) with the NYDFS, agreeing to pay a $35 million fine for violating New York state law.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Industrial-Bank-Settles-AML-Charges-With-US-And-New-York-State-Authorities</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Co-Directors Of SEC&apos;s Division Of Enforcement Issue Statement On Market Integrity In Wake Of COVID-19 Emergency
 

</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Co-Directors-Of-SECrsquos-Division-Of-Enforcement-Issue</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 23, 2020, Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin, co-directors of the Securities &amp; Exchange Commission&apos;s (&quot;SEC&quot;) Division of Enforcement, issued a statement reminding public companies, officers, and directors of their responsibilities related to material, non-public information in connection to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Co-Directors-Of-SECrsquos-Division-Of-Enforcement-Issue</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Liu v. SEC to Determine Whether the SEC Can Seek Disgorgement in Judicial Proceedings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Hears-Oral-Arguments-In-Liu</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[

On March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Liu v. SEC, No. 18-1501, once again taking up the question of whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) may seek disgorgement as equitable relief in a civil enforcement action for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  While it is always difficult to predict the outcome of a given case from oral argument, the questioning suggested that the Justices are likely to preserve some form of the SEC&apos;s ability to seek disgorgement, albeit in perhaps a narrowed form more closely aligned to its underpinnings as an equitable remedy.


]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Hears-Oral-Arguments-In-Liu</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Reaches $8.8 Million Settlement With Pharmaceutical Company To Resolve Allegations Of FCPA Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reaches-88-Million-Settlement-With-Pharmaceutial-Company</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[

On February 28, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a settled administrative proceeding with an Ohio-based pharmaceutical company, Cardinal Health, Inc. (&quot;Cardinal&quot;) over alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the &quot;FCPA&quot;).  The settlement relates to alleged improper payments made by employees at its former Chinese subsidiary (&quot;Cardinal China&quot;) to government-employed healthcare professionals and employees at state-owned entities.

]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Reaches-88-Million-Settlement-With-Pharmaceutial-Company</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Judge Grants Post-Trial Acquittal On FCPA Counts
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Judge-Grants-Post-Trial-Acquittal-On-FCPA-Counts</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 26, 2020, a federal judge in Connecticut granted, in part, defendant Lawrence Hoskins&apos;s post-trial motion for acquittal on seven counts relating to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  United States v. Hoskins, No. 3:12cr238(JBA) (D. Conn.).  The acquittal is the latest development in the seven-year case of Mr. Hoskins, a closely watched FCPA prosecution that raises significant questions regarding the extraterritorial reach of FCPA enforcement.  Hoskins, a former vice president of French conglomerate Alstom SA, was convicted in November 2019 on charges that he helped to organize a scheme to bribe Indonesian officials in connection with a contract to build a power plant in Indonesia (the &quot;Tarahan Project&quot;).  Based on the evidence adduced at trial, District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton found that a reasonable jury could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoskins was an &quot;agent&quot; of Alstom&apos;s Connecticut subsidiary, Alstom Power Inc. (&quot;API&quot;).  Accordingly, he could not be convicted of FCPA violations. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Judge-Grants-Post-Trial-Acquittal-On-FCPA-Counts</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Overview Of Cases Of Particular Interest Currently Pending Before The Supreme Court Of The United State
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Enforcement-Overview-Of-Cases-Of-Particular-Interest-Currently-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Looking ahead, we preview cases currently pending before the Supreme Court—which have already been accepted for review by the Court—that may be of particular interest to readers of the Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly.  These cases pertain to various topics in Securities, Enforcement, and, as to one, arbitration.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 19:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Enforcement-Overview-Of-Cases-Of-Particular-Interest-Currently-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Offers Non-Prosecution Agreements And No-Fines For Self-Reporting Export Control And Sanctions Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Offers-Non-Prosecution-Agreements-And-No-Fines-For-Self-Reporting-Export-Control-And-Sanctions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[ 
In a development that could significantly affect how companies deal with possible export control and sanctions violations, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) recently revised its policy regarding voluntary disclosure of trade violations.  The new policy from DOJ&apos;s National Security Division (&quot;NSD&quot;), entitled &quot;Export Control and Sanctions Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations&quot; (&quot;NSD Policy&quot;), took effect December 13, 2019.  The NSD Policy supersedes the Division&apos;s previous &quot;Guidance Regarding Voluntary Self-Disclosures, Cooperation, and Remediation in Export Control and Sanctions Investigations Involving Business Organizations&quot; (&quot;2016 Policy&quot;), implemented October 2, 2016.  The NSD Policy contains three major changes to the 2016 Policy.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 22:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Offers-Non-Prosecution-Agreements-And-No-Fines-For-Self-Reporting-Export-Control-And-Sanctions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Reverses $18.5 Million Restitution Order For Lack Of Proximate Cause
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reverses-185-Million-Restitution-Order</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 3, 2019, the Second Circuit affirmed the convictions of two defendants for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, but reversed the District of Connecticut&apos;s order that defendants pay $18.5 million in restitution to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (&quot;USDA&quot;).  United States v. Calderon, No. 17-1956, 2019 WL 6482379 (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2019). 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reverses-185-Million-Restitution-Order</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski Reviews FCPA Enforcement In 2019
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Assistant-Attorney-General-Brian-A-Benczkowski-Reviews</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 4, 2019, Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski provided a synopsis of FCPA enforcement in 2019 to the American Conference Institute&apos;s International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  Benczkowski commented on various aspects of FCPA enforcement and emphasized two key points—an increased focus on charging individuals, and Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) interpretation of agency theory under the FCPA.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Assistant-Attorney-General-Brian-A-Benczkowski-Reviews</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Korean Engineering Company Fined $75 Million Over Alleged Foreign Bribery Scheme In Brazil
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Korean-Engineering-Company-Fined-75-Million-Over-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 22, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that it had entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) with a Korean engineering company (&quot;SHI&quot;) to settle allegations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) violations in Brazil.  Brazilian prosecutors entered a simultaneous resolution with the company, thus providing another example of U.S. and foreign prosecutors working together and coordinating on these types of cross-border prosecutions.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 18:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Korean-Engineering-Company-Fined-75-Million-Over-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Issuer And CEO Charged By The SEC With Fraud And Whistleblower Protection Law Violations For Allegedly Impeding Investor Complaints
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Issuer-And-CEO-Charged-By-The-SEC-With-Fraud-And-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 4, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed an amended complaint against Collectors Caf&amp;eacute;, a Nevada-based company purportedly providing online auctions for collectibles (the &quot;Company&quot;), and its CEO, for making false and misleading statements to investors in connection with a $23 million securities offering.  SEC v. Collector&apos;s Coffee, Inc. &amp; Kontilai, No. 10-CV-04355 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019).  The amended complaint added charges against defendants for alleged violations of whistleblower protection laws by conditioning the return of investor money on investors signing agreements that included provisions prohibiting them from communicating with regulatory agencies, including the SEC, about anything related to the Company.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Issuer-And-CEO-Charged-By-The-SEC-With-Fraud-And-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Settlement In Kraft  Unwound Due To Ineffectuality Of Confidentiality Provisions, Setting Up Possible Key Legal Rulings On Market Manipulation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Settlement-In-Kraft-Unwound-Due-To-Ineffectu</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 23, 2019, Judge John Robert Blakey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois vacated the $16 million settlement consent order between the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) and Kraft Foods Group Inc. (&quot;Kraft&quot;) that would have resolved allegations that Kraft improperly traded wheat futures and manipulated the commodity&apos;s market price.  The Court reasoned that a prior Seventh Circuit ruling on the same case rendered certain confidentiality provisions within the settlement agreement &quot;ineffectual,&quot; and further concluded that these provisions, which were highly unusual within a regulatory settlement, were a material aspect of the parties&apos; decision to settle.  The decision reopens a closely watched case that, if it continues to dispositive motions or trial, could have significant implications for the CFTC&apos;s interpretation of what constitutes market manipulation.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 19:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Settlement-In-Kraft-Unwound-Due-To-Ineffectu</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Introduces Guidance Over Inability-to-Pay Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Introduces-Guidance-Over-Inability-to-Pay-Cla</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 8, 2019, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) issued a memorandum (&quot;Memorandum&quot;) providing guidance on how the DOJ&apos;s prosecutors will handle inability-to-pay claims from companies, intending to provide companies—and prosecutors—with a better understanding of how to evaluate and address these claims.  Memorandum to All Criminal Division Personnel from Brian A. Benczkowski regarding Evaluating a Business Organization&apos;s Inability to Pay a Criminal Fine or Criminal Monetary Penalty (Oct. 8, 2019).  Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski announced the Memorandum, stating that it does not provide any new methodology, but rather merely &quot;puts a lot more meat on the bones&quot; of how these claims are analyzed.  Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski Delivers Remarks at the Global Investigations Review Live New York (Oct. 8, 2019).

 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Introduces-Guidance-Over-Inability-to-Pay-Cla</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Charges Three Traders Under RICO In Alleged Spoofing Scheme
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Charges-Three-Traders-Under-RICO-In-Alleged-Spoofing-Scheme</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 16, 2019, an indictment was unsealed revealing that the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) has charged three traders at a global banking and financial services company with conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (&quot;RICO&quot;), and other federal crimes, by allegedly engaging in a scheme to manipulate prices for precious metals futures contracts over an eight-year period.  Indictment, Case No. 19-cr-669 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2019).  The same day, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) brought a parallel civil suit against two of the traders.  See Complaint, Case No. 19-cv-6163 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 16, 2019).  According to the DOJ and the CFTC, the traders engaged in the unlawful practice of &quot;spoofing&quot; by placing orders to buy or sell futures contracts with the intent to cancel the orders before execution and influence the prices of those futures contracts.  While the DOJ and CFTC have brought a number of spoofing charges in recent years, it is unclear why the DOJ saw fit to bring this set of charges under RICO—an aggressive move that the DOJ may use to try to paint with a broader brush in introducing evidence at trial. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Charges-Three-Traders-Under-RICO-In-Alleged-Spoofing-Scheme</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Reargument Sought On Whether Shareholders Can Be Victims Of FCPA Violation For Purposes Of Criminal Restitution
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Reargument-Sought-On-Whether-Shareholders-Can-Be-Victims-Of-FCPA-Violation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 28, 2019, Judge Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that investors in a mining company, Africo Resources Ltd. (&quot;Africo&quot;), could seek restitution from a defendant under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (&quot;MVRA&quot;) for harm caused by the corporation&apos;s bribery scheme.The defendant is a subsidiary operating in Africa (&quot;African Subsidiary&quot;) of an asset manager.The African Subsidiary recently moved for reargument of the Order.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Reargument-Sought-On-Whether-Shareholders-Can-Be-Victims-Of-FCPA-Violation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Options Clearing Corporation Enters Into Settlements With SEC And CFTC Over Risk Management Policies
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Options-Clearing-Corporation-Enters-Into-Settlements-With-SEC-And-CFTC</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 4, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) announced they had entered into settlements with Options Clearing Corporation (&quot;OCC&quot;) regarding its alleged failure to maintain adequate policies to manage its financial risk, operational requirements, and information-systems security.  The case represents the first time the CFTC has brought an enforcement action for violations of the Core Principles applicable to Derivatives Clearing Organizations (&quot;DCO&quot;) and the SEC&apos;s first charges relating to violations of its clearing agency standards.  Pursuant to the orders, OCC agreed to pay a combined penalty of $20 million to the CFTC and the SEC.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Options-Clearing-Corporation-Enters-Into-Settlements-With-SEC-And-CFTC</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Limits The Application Of McDonnell v. United States And Declines To Extend The Potential Scope Of Liability In FCPA Cases
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Limits-The-Application-Of-McDonnel</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the appeal by a Chinese real estate developer of his 2017 conviction arising from the alleged bribery of United Nations (&quot;UN&quot;) officials.  U.S. v. Ng Lap Seng, No. 18-1725 (2d Cir. 2019).  In affirming the conviction, the Second Circuit ruled that the holding in McDonnell v. United States—in which the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must prove that a bribe is paid in exchange for an &quot;official act&quot; in cases involving the federal anti-bribery statute (18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 201)—does not apply to prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  The Second Circuit clarified in its ruling that the FCPA and the anti-corruption law aimed at protecting federal funding, known as Section 666, are written differently and target a broader set of bribery goals than the federal anti-bribery statute that was at issue in McDonnell.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Limits-The-Application-Of-McDonnel</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Technology Company Resolves DOJ And SEC FCPA Allegations, With Hungary Subsidiary Entering Three-Year, Monitor-Free NPA
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Technology-Company-Resolves-DOJ-And-SEC-FCPA-Alle</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 22, 2019, the United States Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that they had resolved allegations of Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) violations against Microsoft Corporation and one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, Microsoft Magyarorsz&amp;aacute;g Sz&amp;aacute;m&amp;iacute;t&amp;aacute;stechnikai Szolg&amp;aacute;ltat&amp;oacute; &amp;eacute;s Kereskedelmi Kft. (&quot;MS Hungary&quot; and, together with Microsoft Corporation, &quot;Microsoft&quot;).  As part of the settlement, Microsoft agreed to pay a total of approximately $25 million to the DOJ and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;), and MS Hungary entered into a three-year non-prosecution agreement (&quot;NPA&quot;).  See Non-Prosecution Agreement, Microsoft Magyarorsz&amp;aacute;g Sz&amp;aacute;m&amp;iacute;t&amp;aacute;stechnikai Szolg&amp;aacute;ltat&amp;oacute; &amp;eacute;s Kereskedelmi Kft. (July 22, 2019); DOJ Press Release, Hungary Subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation Agrees to Pay $8.7 Million in Criminal Penalties to Resolve Foreign Bribery Case (July 22, 2019); In the Matter of Microsoft Corporation, Exchange Act Release No. 86421 (July 22, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Technology-Company-Resolves-DOJ-And-SEC-FCPA-Alle</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Releases New Guidance On Extraordinary Cooperation Credit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Releases-New-Guidance-On-Extraordinary-Coop</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[​
On July 11, 2019, FINRA provided additional guidance on obtaining extraordinary cooperation credit to supplement its prior enforcement guidance.  FINRA Regulatory Notice 19-23, FINRA Investigations: FINRA Supplements Prior Guidance on Credit for Extraordinary Cooperation (July 11, 2019).  The new guidance does not represent a significant expansion or material change from previous guidance, but rather seeks to clarify areas of potential uncertainty. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Releases-New-Guidance-On-Extraordinary-Coop</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In Significant Shift, SEC Will Consider Offers Of Settlement And Collateral Waiver Applications Together
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Significant-Shift-SEC-Will-Consider-Offers-Of-Settlement-And-Collateral-Waiver-Applications-Toget</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 3, 2019, Chairman Jay Clayton of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) issued a Statement Regarding Offers of Settlement (the &quot;Public Statement&quot;) to announce a significant shift in the SEC&apos;s process of considering settlement offers and requests to waive collateral consequences of such settlements.  SEC Public Statement, Statement Regarding Offers of Settlement (2019).  Chairman Clayton stated that he recognized &quot;that a segregated process for considering contemporaneous settlement offers and waiver requests may not produce the best outcome for investors in all circumstances,&quot; and thus announced &quot;that a settling entity can request that the Commission consider an offer of settlement that simultaneously addresses both the underlying enforcement action and any related collateral disqualifications.&quot;  Id.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Significant-Shift-SEC-Will-Consider-Offers-Of-Settlement-And-Collateral-Waiver-Applications-Toget</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>French Oil And Gas Company And U.S. Subsidiary Fined $296 Million Over Alleged Foreign Bribery Schemes Involving Brazil And Iraq
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/French-Oil-And-Gas-Company-And-US-Subsidiary-Fined</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 25, 2019, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that it had entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) with TechnipFMC PLC to settle allegations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) violations in Brazil and Iraq, while requiring TechnipFMC&apos;s U.S. subsidiary, Technip USA, to enter a guilty plea.  United States v. TechnipFMC plc, 19 Cr. 278 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019); United States v. Technip USA, Inc., 19 Cr. 279 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019).  The resolution is yet another example of U.S. prosecutors cooperating with foreign prosecutors, as Brazilian prosecutors entered into a simultaneous resolution with the company.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 16:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/French-Oil-And-Gas-Company-And-US-Subsidiary-Fined</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Files Contested Complaint Over Unregistered $100 Million Initial Coin Offering, In Case That Could Clarify Application Of Registration Requirements To Cryptocurrency
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Contested-Complaint-Over-Unregistered-100-Million-Initial-Coin-Offering</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 4, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) sued Kik Interactive Inc. (&quot;Kik&quot;) for conducting an unregistered offering of $100 million of digital tokens.  See U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kik Interactive Inc., No. 19-cv-5244 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2019).  The case has already generated substantial publicity, as Kik previously published a Wells submission it had lodged with the SEC urging against an enforcement action.  Kik has argued that the digital tokens it offered were currency, not securities, and that in any event proceeding through enforcement is improper in the face of uncertainty as to how the securities laws apply to initial coin offerings (&quot;ICOs&quot;).  The SEC has taken increasingly forceful positions that ICOs require registration, and this case may test the limits of its arguments.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Contested-Complaint-Over-Unregistered-100-Million-Initial-Coin-Offering</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Awards $3 Million To Two Whistleblowers Who First Made Internal Reports, Even Though Reporting To SEC Was Not &quot;Voluntary&quot;
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Awards-3-Million-To-Two-Whistleblowers-Who-First-Made-Internal-Reports</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a joint award of $3 million to two whistleblowers who the SEC stated provided information that led to a successful enforcement action aimed at protecting retail investors.  SEC Press Release, SEC Awards $3 Million to Joint Whistleblowers, No. 2019-81 (June 3, 2019).  According to the SEC, both whistleblowers reported the alleged violations internally before reporting to the SEC.  Interestingly, the Commission found that neither whistleblower was legally entitled to the award because their submissions were not &quot;voluntary,&quot; but the SEC relied on its discretion to issue the award regardless in an apparently conscious effort to further incentivize whistleblowing.  SEC Whistleblower Award Proceeding, File No. 2019-7 (June 3, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Awards-3-Million-To-Two-Whistleblowers-Who-First-Made-Internal-Reports</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Clarifies &quot;Willfulness&quot; Requirement For Investment Advisers Act Violations, In Decision With Possible Ramifications For SEC Sanction Authority
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Clarifies-ldquoWillfulnessrdquo-Requir</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an aggregate $150,000 in fines that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) had levied against an investment advisory firm (the &quot;Firm&quot;) and its three owners.  The fines were brought over alleged failures to disclose conflicts of interest to Firm clients related to its fee arrangements.  Although the D.C. Circuit agreed with the SEC that the Firm acted negligently in failing to properly disclose certain fee arrangements, it held that such negligent conduct could not as a matter of law constitute &quot;willful&quot; conduct within the meaning of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (&quot;Advisers Act&quot;).  See The Robare Group, Ltd., et al. v. SEC, No. 16-1453, (D.C. Cir. April 30, 2019).  Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case for reconsideration of the appropriate sanctions in a decision that could prompt the SEC to alter charging language for certain cases given that so much of its sanction authority requires a finding of &quot;willful&quot; conduct.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 00:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Clarifies-ldquoWillfulnessrdquo-Requir</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Criminal Division Announces Updated Corporate Compliance Program Guidance
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Criminal-Division-Announces-Updated-Corporate</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 30, 2019, the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division (&quot;DOJ&quot;), released an updated version of its guidance on &quot;Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs&quot; (&quot;Compliance Program Guidance&quot;).  This replaces the first version of this guidance, which was issued in February 2017 by the Fraud Section of the DOJ.  In keeping with the prior version, the latest updates still contain a list of general questions for prosecutors to ask when assessing a company&apos;s ethics and compliance program, rather than a formal rubric or checklist for compliance.  The newly released version, however, goes further by providing more detail and concrete explanations for what prosecutors expect effective compliance programs to entail.  U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Apr. 30, 2019).
 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2019 00:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Criminal-Division-Announces-Updated-Corporate</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC Announce Resolution Of FCPA Investigation That Spanned Over Fifteen Countries With NPA, Monitor, And Over $231 Million In Disgorgement And Fines
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Announce-Resolution-Of-FCPA-Investigation-That-Spanned-Over-Fifteen-Countries</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 29, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that they had reached resolution with a German-based major worldwide provider of medical equipment and services (the &quot;Company&quot;), in connection with alleged bribery payments and books and records violations in more than fifteen different countries.  See In the Matter of Fresenius Medical Care AG &amp; Co. KGaA, Admin. Proc. No. 3-19126 (Mar. 29, 2019); Press Release, SEC Charges Medical Device Company with FCPA Violations, No. 2019-48 (Mar. 29, 2019).  In aggregate, the Company agreed to pay in excess of $231 million in disgorgement and penalties, and also agreed to the imposition of a compliance monitor for two years.  And as part of a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ, the Company admitted responsibility for willfully violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) and agreed that the facts described by the DOJ were true and accurate.  See Non-Prosecution Agreement, Fresenius Medical Care AG &amp; Co. KGaA (Feb. 25, 2019); Press Release, Fresenius Medical Care Agrees to Pay $231 Million in Criminal Penalties and Disgorgement to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges (Mar. 29, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 18:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Announce-Resolution-Of-FCPA-Investigation-That-Spanned-Over-Fifteen-Countries</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Awards Total Of $50 Million To Two Whistleblowers In A Single Action, While Denying Five Other Claimants
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Awards-Total-Of-50-Million-To-Two-Whistleblowers-In-A-Single-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 26, 2019, the SEC announced two multi-million dollar awards to whistleblowers who made reports of misconduct that led to a successful enforcement action after denying claims of five other whistleblowers in the same case (only two appealed the preliminary determination denying their application).  SEC Press Release, SEC Awards $50 Million to Two Whistleblowers, No. 2019-42 (Mar. 26, 2019).  One whistleblower received $37 million, which represents the third-largest SEC whistleblower award in history, while the other whistleblower received a $13 million award, a difference apparently based on the speed with which each reported the misconduct to the SEC and the relative value of their information.  These significant awards continue a trend of rising awards by the SEC, and the number of whistleblowers in the action highlights the degree to which the SEC has successfully incentivized whistleblowers. Since 2012, the SEC has now awarded approximately $376 million to 61 whistleblowers, with an average award of over $6 million.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 18:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Awards-Total-Of-50-Million-To-Two-Whistleblowers-In-A-Single-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Settles Charges Against Investment Advisers And Returns $125 Million To Investors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-Charges-Against-Investment-Advisers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 11, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that it had settled charges against 79 investment advisers as part of its Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative (the &quot;Initiative&quot;), which was created to incentivize investment advisers to self-report possible securities law violations to the Commission.  As a result of the settlements, more than $125 million will be returned to clients, a substantial majority of which is going to retail investors. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-Charges-Against-Investment-Advisers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Revises FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Revises-FCPA-Corporate-Enforcement-Policy</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 8, 2019, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) released a revised version of its FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (the &quot;Policy&quot;), which provides enforcement and practice guidance to DOJ prosecutors and was formally incorporated into the U.S. Attorneys&apos; Manual in November 2017.  United States Attorneys&apos; Manual, FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy Section 9-47.120 (as of Mar. 15, 2019).  Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski announced the revisions to the Policy in a speech at the American Bar Association&apos;s National White Collar Crime Institute in which he highlighted the DOJ&apos;s commitment to transparency and the need to ensure its &quot;ongoing process of refinement and reassessment.&quot;  DOJ Press Release, Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski Delivers Remarks at the 33rd Annual ABA National Institute on White Collar Crime Conference (Mar. 8, 2019).  Important changes to the Policy include expansion of the Policy in the context of mergers and acquisitions, as well as softening the DOJ&apos;s approach to software that does not retain communications.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Revises-FCPA-Corporate-Enforcement-Policy</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Announces Further Incentives For Self-Reporting, Cooperation For Unregistered Individuals And Entities, While Highlighting Focus On Foreign Corruption
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Announces-Further-Incentives-For-Self-Reporting</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 6, 2019, the head of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission&apos;s (&quot;CFTC&apos;s&quot;) Enforcement Division, James McDonald, announced a new policy related to the benefits of self-reporting foreign corrupt practices-related violations of the Commodity Exchange Act by market participants who are not registered with the agency.  McDonald announced that, absent aggravating circumstances, the enforcement division will recommend a deal without civil financial penalties for companies and individuals who self-report misconduct, cooperate with the agency, and reform the bad behavior at issue (including payment of disgorgement and restitution).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Announces-Further-Incentives-For-Self-Reporting</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Telecommunications Provider &amp; Subsidiary Enter Into Settlement, Deferred Prosecution Agreement And Plea Agreement With SEC And DOJ For FCPA Violations In Third Recent Enforcement Proceeding Involving Uzbek Telecommunications Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Telecommunications-Provider-amp-Subsidiary-Enter-Into-Settlement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 6, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that it was settling allegations that Russian telecommunications company Mobile Telesystems Pjsc (&quot;MTS&quot;) violated anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) in order to increase its business in Uzbekistan.  Without admitting or denying the SEC&apos;s allegations, MTS agreed to pay a civil penalty of $100 million to the SEC and retain an independent compliance monitor for at least three years.  Mobile Telesystems PJSC, Exchange Act Release No. 85261 (Mar. 6, 2019).  The same day, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced it had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) with MTS pursuant to the Department&apos;s FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy and a plea agreement with MTS&apos;s subsidiary, Kolorit Dizayn Ink LLC (&quot;Kolorit&quot;), for one count of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA.  Deferred Prosecution Agreement, United States v. Mobile TeleSystems PJSC (S.D.N.Y. 2019); Plea Agreement, United States v. KOLORIT DIZAYN INK Limited Liability Company (SDNY 2019).  Pursuant to the DPA, MTS agreed to a fine and restitution of $850 million.  The DOJ has agreed to credit MTS&apos;s $100 million civil penalty to the SEC towards this amount.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Telecommunications-Provider-amp-Subsidiary-Enter-Into-Settlement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Judge Acquits Former FX Trader on Charges Related to Alleged Front-Running and Price Manipulation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Acquits-Former-FX-Trader-on-Charges</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California acquitted a former sell-side foreign exchange trader on all counts brought against him arising from his alleged misuse of confidential client information in connection with a large foreign currency exchange trade.  After the completion the government&apos;s case, the trader moved for acquittal as a matter of law.  The Court ruled that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the jury could not reasonably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and granted the motion.  The essence of the Court&apos;s decision was that the government had not established that the defendant, who was engaged in arm&apos;s-length transaction with a customer, owed the customer the duties the government&apos;s case assumed.  USA v. Bogucki, No. 18-00021, slip op. at 12 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019).  As discussed further below, the Court&apos;s treatment of the concept of a sell-side trader &quot;pre-positioning&quot; (often referred to as &quot;pre-hedging&quot;) ahead of a customer&apos;s trade is notable.  The line between front-running/misuse of confidential information and appropriate pre-hedging, while always inherently case and situation specific, has been at the forefront of multiple criminal and civil regulatory investigations and cases in recent years.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 17:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Acquits-Former-FX-Trader-on-Charges</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Settles Spoofing Charges Against Trader Without Monetary Penalty
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Settles-Spoofing-Charges-Against-Trader-Without-monetary</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 25, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) settled spoofing charges brought against a former trader who pleaded guilty to similar criminal charges last year brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. In the Matter of Krishna Mohan, Admin. Proc. No. 19-06 (Feb. 25, 2019). The CFTC alleged that the trader participated in a years-long spoofing scheme in which he placed buy or sell orders he intended to cancel in a variety of futures with the purpose of stimulating supply or demand and personally profiting from the resulting price swings. The CFTC required the trader to admit to engaging in manipulative and deceptive schemes as part of the settlement, but the CFTC has not imposed monetary sanctions against him.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2019 01:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Settles-Spoofing-Charges-Against-Trader-Without-monetary</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Declines To Appeal Ruling That It Failed To Prove Artificiality In Market Manipulation Action</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Declines-To-Appeal-Ruling-That-It-Failed-To-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 27, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) announced that it would not appeal a November 2018 decision in U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Donald R. Wilson, et al., No. 1:13-cv-07884 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018), by Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who was sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Sullivan&apos;s decision, which came after a bench trial of claims that defendant DRW Investments LLC (&quot;DRW&quot;) had manipulated the price of a certain swap future in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;), entered judgment for DRW on all claims and found that the CFTC had failed to prove that DRW&apos;s challenged bids were at artificial prices.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2019 01:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Declines-To-Appeal-Ruling-That-It-Failed-To-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Technology Services Company Enters Into FCPA Settlement With SEC, While SEC And DOJ Charge Two Former Executives With FCPA Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Technology-Services-Company-Enters-Into-FCPA-Settlement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 15, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a settlement with a New Jersey-based technology company (the &quot;Company&quot;) over allegations that the Company violated the anti-bribery, books-and-records, and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  In the Matter of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Admin Proc. No 3-19000 (Feb. 15, 2019).  Without admitting or denying the allegations, the Company agreed to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of approximately $19 million and a civil monetary penalty of $6 million to the SEC to resolve the agency&apos;s claims.  The same day, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) issued a letter announcing that it had declined to prosecute the Company pursuant to the Department&apos;s FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.  Finally, the DOJ announced that the Company&apos;s former president and chief legal officer were indicted on criminal charges relating to their alleged involvement, and the SEC filed a civil complaint against the same two executives, in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Technology-Services-Company-Enters-Into-FCPA-Settlement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>After Second Look, Judge Grants SEC Bid for Preliminary Injunction Halting Initial Coin Offering
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/After-Second-Look-Judge-Grants-SEC-Bid-for-Preliminary</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 14, 2019, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California reversed his November 2018 decision and granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) seeking to halt a planned initial coin offering (&quot;ICO&quot;) by a San Diego based company (the &quot;Company&quot;) and its owner in December 2018. SEC v. Blockvest, LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-02287 (S.D. Cal. Feb 14. 2019) (the &quot;Order&quot;). Judge Curiel held that the Company&apos;s digital tokens, which were allegedly offered as part of a fraudulent ICO, met the definition of a &quot;security&quot; followed by courts since the Supreme Court&apos;s decision in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. This shift in outcome from the Court&apos;s November 2018 decision highlights the fact-specific nature of the inquiry used by courts to determine whether a given distribution of crypto assets constitutes an offer of a security.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/After-Second-Look-Judge-Grants-SEC-Bid-for-Preliminary</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tenth Circuit Holds That Dodd-Frank Act Granted SEC Extraterritorial Authority
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Holds-That-Dodd-Frank-Act-Granted</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 24, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Utah holding that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 grants the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) authority to enforce extraterritorially the antifraud provisions of the federal Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  SEC v. Scoville, No. 17-CV-4059 (10th Cir. 2019).  Months before the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, the Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247, 265 (2010), held that, given the general presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. laws and the lack of clear indicia of congressional intent to the contrary, the federal securities laws did not apply extraterritorially.  But the Tenth Circuit concluded in Scoville that the Dodd-Frank Act &quot;affirmatively and unmistakably&quot; evidenced Congress&apos;s intent to allow the SEC and the U.S. to enforce the federal securities laws whenever the &quot;conducts-and-effects&quot; test is met, effectively rendering Morrison inapplicable to SEC and other government enforcement actions while not disturbing its impact on private securities actions. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Holds-That-Dodd-Frank-Act-Granted</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Issues 2019 Annual Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter, Highlighting Potential Areas Of Enforcement Risk
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Issues-2019-Annual-Risk-Monitoring-and-Exam</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 22, 2019, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) issued its annual letter describing its current risk monitoring and examination priorities.  See FINRA, Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter (Jan. 2019).  Although there are no major surprises in terms of priorities, firms would be well-advised to review the letter to ensure that their own compliance policies are meeting with FINRA&apos;s expectations.  Indeed, the letter can arguably read as a roadmap to potential future enforcement activity, particularly when coupled with FINRA&apos;s recent efforts to restructure internally to increase efficiency and coordination among its enforcement teams.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Issues-2019-Annual-Risk-Monitoring-and-Exam</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Re-Affirms Insider Trading Conviction Of Rajat Gupta
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Re-Affirms-Insider-Trading-Conviction-Rajat-Gupta</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed — for the second time — the insider trading conviction of Rajat Gupta. Gupta v. United States, No. 15-2707 (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 2019). In a collateral attack to his conviction, Gupta argued that the jury instructions in his case were infirm given the Circuit&apos;s decision in United States v. Newman (since abrogated). There, the Circuit held that to the extent a personal benefit may be inferred through a personal relationship between a tipper and tippee, there must be a &quot;meaningfully close personal relationship.&quot;1 The Second Circuit denied Gupta&apos;s appeal on two grounds — that his failure to preserve his objection to the jury instructions was not excused, and that the instructions did not prejudice Gupta.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Re-Affirms-Insider-Trading-Conviction-Rajat-Gupta</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Rental Car Company Enters Into Settlement With The SEC Related To Alleged Accounting Errors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Rental-Car-Company-Enters-Into-Settlement-With-The-SEC</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 31, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that a public rental car company (the &quot;Company&quot;) had agreed to pay a $16 million civil penalty to settle allegations of inaccurate financial reporting and accounting errors.  See In the Matter of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and The Hertz Corporation, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18965 (Dec. 31, 2018).  The allegations arose out of a restatement the Company filed on July 16, 2015, which restated the Company&apos;s annual, quarterly, and periodic reports from February 2012 to March 2014, as well as certain data in filings from 2008, 2010, and 2013.  Notwithstanding the prior restatement, the Company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 17:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Rental-Car-Company-Enters-Into-Settlement-With-The-SEC</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Depositary Bank Settles SEC Allegations Of Improper Handling Of Pre-Release ADRs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Depositary-Bank-Settles-SEC-Allegations-Of-Improper</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 26, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that a fourth depositary bank (&quot;the Bank&quot;) had agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty and disgorgement totaling $135.1 million to resolve allegations that the Bank violated federal securities laws by issuing American Depositary Receipts (&quot;ADRs&quot;) on &quot;pre-release&quot; without taking reasonable steps to ensure that the broker-dealers to whom it was issuing the ADRs, or their counterparties, beneficially owned the requisite number of foreign securities underlying the ADRs.  See In the Matter of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18963 (Dec. 26, 2018).  The SEC alleged that the Bank&apos;s conduct violated Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.  As with all prior entities charged in the SEC&apos;s investigation, the Bank neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 17:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Depositary-Bank-Settles-SEC-Allegations-Of-Improper</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Following Bench Trial, Southern District Of New York Finds That CFTC Failed To Prove Artificiality And Enters Judgment For Defendants In Market Manipulation Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Following-Bench-Trial-Southern-District-Of-New-York</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 30, 2018, Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a decision following a 2016 bench trial presided over by Judge Sullivan before his elevation to the Second Circuit in an action brought by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) against DRW Investments LLC (&quot;DRW&quot;) alleging that DRW had manipulated the price of a certain swap future in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;).  U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Donald R. Wilson, et al., No. 1:13-cv-07884 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018).  The Court entered judgment for DRW on all claims, finding that the CFTC failed to prove that DRW&apos;s challenged bids were at artificial prices.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Following-Bench-Trial-Southern-District-Of-New-York</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Affirms Insider Trading Conviction And Vacates Restitution Order Of Sports Gambler Billy Walters
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Insider-Trading-Conviction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 4, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the insider trading conviction, judgment, and order of forfeiture of professional sports gambler Billy Walters, while simultaneously vacating and remanding the $8.89 million restitution order that had been entered against him in light of the Supreme Court&apos;s decision in Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018).  U.S. v. Walters, et al., No. 17-2373 (2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Insider-Trading-Conviction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Loses Bid For Preliminary Injunction Halting Initial Coin Offering After Judge Questions Whether It Involved Securities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Loses-Bid-For-Preliminary-Injunction-Halting</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 27, 2018, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) seeking to halt a planned initial coin offering (&quot;ICO&quot;) by a San Diego based company (the &quot;Company&quot;) and its owner in December 2018.  SEC v. Blockvest, LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-02287 (S.D. Cal Nov. 27, 2018) (the &quot;Order&quot;).  Judge Curiel held that, due to disputed issues of material facts, and without full discovery, he could not determine whether the tokens issued by the Company constitute a &quot;security&quot; under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Loses-Bid-For-Preliminary-Injunction-Halting</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>OFAC Identifies Digital Currency Addresses Of Iran-Based Financial Facilitators, Highlighting Its Focus On Sanctions Compliance In Crypto Space
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/OFAC-Identifies-Digital-Currency-Addresses-Of-Iran</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury&apos;s Office of Foreign Assets Control (&quot;OFAC&quot;) imposed sanctions pursuant to its cyber-related sanctions program on two Iranian individuals for their role in facilitating ransom payments made in bitcoin.  In doing so, OFAC also identified the digital currency addresses associated with both individuals, which marks the first time that OFAC has published digital currency addresses linked with specific individuals. OFAC&apos;s cyber-related sanctions program was created on April 1, 2015 and targets persons responsible for or complicit in malicious cyber-enabled activities.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/OFAC-Identifies-Digital-Currency-Addresses-Of-Iran</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Scales Back Yates Memo Policy For Corporate Cooperation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Scales-Back-Yates-Memo-Policy-For-Corporate</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 29, 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced revisions to the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) policy on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing, which was originally announced in the Yates Memo of September 2015.  U.S. DOJ, Remarks at the American Conference Institute&apos;s 35th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  In response to concerns that the policy could lead to wasted resources and impede resolutions, Mr. Rosenstein announced that the revised policy requires that companies identify all individuals who were substantially involved in a potential crime in order for companies to receive cooperation credit in criminal investigations; the policy established in the Yates Memo, on the other hand, required companies to provide information on all individuals who were involved in potential misconduct, no matter how insubstantial their role.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 19:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Scales-Back-Yates-Memo-Policy-For-Corporate</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>ICO Issuers Settle With The SEC Over Unregistered Coin Offerings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/ICO-Issuers-Settle-With-The-SEC-Over-Unregistered</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 16, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted separate settled administrative proceedings against Carrier EQ Inc., d/b/a AirFox (&quot;AirFox&quot;) and Paragon Coin Inc. (&quot;Paragon&quot;) for failing to register initial coin offerings (&quot;ICOs&quot;) they had conducted as securities offerings.  See In the Matter of CarrierEQ, Inc., D/B/A/ AirFox, Admin Proc. File No. 3-18898 (Nov. 16, 2018); In the Matter of Paragon Coin Inc., File No. 3-18897 (Nov. 16, 2018).  The actions against AirFox and Paragon mark the first time that the SEC has imposed civil penalties for standalone registration violations in connection with ICOs, and serve to reconfirm the SEC&apos;s view that many digital tokens will constitute securities.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/ICO-Issuers-Settle-With-The-SEC-Over-Unregistered</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Bank Of England Imposes Personal Fines On Two Individuals For Failure To Disclose Ongoing Enforcement Actions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bank-Of-England-Imposes-Personal-Fines-On-Two-Individuals</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 7, 2018, the Bank of England&apos;s Prudential Regulation Authority (&quot;PRA&quot;) handed down rare individual penalties when it imposed fines on two high-level former executives of a UK subsidiary of a Japanese financial institution (the &quot;UK Subsidiary&quot;) for failing to timely inform the PRA of regulatory enforcement matters in the United States.  The PRA levied a fine on the former chair (the &quot;Chair&quot;) of the UK Subsidiary and a former Non-Executive Director of the UK Subsidiary (the &quot;NED&quot;), for violating PRA Statement of Principle 4 by failing to inform the Bank of England that the Chair had been implicated in an enforcement action by the New York State Department of Financial Services (&quot;DFS&quot;) and would likely be subject to certain penalties and restrictions. The PRA concluded that the failure to disclose this information impeded its ability to assess the fitness and propriety of the Chair, and therefore warranted penalties.  The Chair and NED agreed to settle the PRA&apos;s investigation for &amp;pound;22,700 and &amp;pound;14,945, respectively.  See Akira Kamiya, Bank of England Prudential Regulation Authority 1.2 (Nov. 7, 2018) (final notice); Takami Onodera, Bank of England Prudential Regulation Authority 1.2 (Nov. 7, 2018) (final notice).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bank-Of-England-Imposes-Personal-Fines-On-Two-Individuals</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Reverses Investment Banker&apos;s Insider Trading Conviction
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Court-Of-Appeals-Reverses-Investment</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 5, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a split decision vacated the insider trading conviction of a former Wall Street analyst and remanded the case back to the district court for a new trial. United States v. Stewart, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31207 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2018). The analyst was charged with nine counts, including one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and tender offer fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of tender offer fraud, and six counts of securities fraud. The trial took place in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from July 27, 2016, to August 9, 2016, and the analyst was convicted of all nine counts on August 17, 2016. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the district court erred by excluding key impeachment evidence the defense had sought to introduce.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Court-Of-Appeals-Reverses-Investment</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Enforcement Division Releases Report On FY 2018, Highlighting Focus On Cyber And Efforts To Protect Retail Investors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enforcement-Division-Releases-Report-On-FY-2018</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 2, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) Enforcement Division issued its annual report (&quot;Annual Report&quot;) on enforcement efforts for its 2018 fiscal year.  The SEC brought 821 enforcement actions, an approximately 8.9 percent increase over FY 2017.  The Commission also collected over $3.9 billion in disgorgement and penalties and returned approximately $794 million to harmed investors.  SEC Division of Enforcement, FY 2018 Annual Report (Nov. 2, 2018).  By these metrics, the Commission&apos;s enforcement activity level surpassed FY 2017, and fell just short of its all-time record of 868 enforcement actions in FY 2016.  See Annual Report at 9.  The Report also noted a focus on matters impacting retail investors and those involving cyber-related issues (such as blockchain technology).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 16:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enforcement-Division-Releases-Report-On-FY-2018</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Updated Policy On Selection Of Corporate Monitors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Updated-Policy-On-Selection-Of-Corporate-Monitors</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 11, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) released an updated policy regarding the selection of corporate monitors. The policy—entitled &quot;Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters&quot; (&quot;Policy&quot;)—is designed to guide the DOJ&apos;s decision-making on whether to require a monitor as part of corporate criminal resolutions.  U.S. DOJ, Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters.  On the same day, Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski provided remarks about the Policy at the NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Conference on Achieving Effective Compliance.  Mr. Benczkowski explained that while the DOJ continues to adhere to the view that &quot;every case will at some stage require a deep look into the sufficiency and proper functioning of the subject company&apos;s compliance program,&quot; the Policy nonetheless recognizes that &quot;the imposition of a monitor will not be necessary in many corporate criminal resolutions, and the scope of any monitorship should be appropriately tailored to address the specific issues and concerns that created the need for the monitor.&quot;  DOJ Press Release, Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski Delivers Remarks at NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Conference on Achieving Effective Compliance.  Thus, the Policy appears to signal a potentially meaningful shift away from the use of monitors by the DOJ, at least in cases involving historical conduct where companies have made meaningful efforts to remediate and invest in corporate compliance programs.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Updated-Policy-On-Selection-Of-Corporate-Monitors</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Obtains Temporary Restraining Order Halting Initial Coin Offering
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Obtains-Temporary-Restraining-Order-Halting</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 5, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) obtained a temporary restraining order (&quot;TRO&quot;), halting a planned initial coin offering (&quot;ICO&quot;) by a San Diego based company (the &quot;Company&quot;) and its owner in December 2018.  Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, issued the Order, which also froze defendants&apos; assets, ordered an accounting, and granted expedited discovery.  SEC v. Blockvest, LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-02287 (S.D. Cal Oct. 5, 2018) (the &quot;Order&quot;).  The grounds for this Order included that defendants falsely claimed that the ICO was approved by the SEC and other regulators and that they were audited by a reputable third party firm.  A preliminary injunction hearing is set for October 18, 2018.  In addition to obtaining the Order, the SEC also filed a Complaint against defendants on October 3, 2018, alleging violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) (1-3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a-c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the securities offering registration provisions of Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act.  Complaint, SEC v. Blockvest, LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-02287 (S.D. Cal Oct. 3, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Obtains-Temporary-Restraining-Order-Halting</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of Massachusetts Denies Motion To Dismiss, Finds Virtual Currency &quot;My Big Coin&quot; Is A Commodity Under Commodity Exchange Act
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Massachusetts-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 26, 2018, Judge Rya W. Zobel of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) that alleged fraud in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;) arising out of the &quot;My Big Coin&quot; virtual currency.  See CFTC v. My Big Coin Pay, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-10077 (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2018) (Memorandum of Decision).  The motion to dismiss, filed by various individual defendants, argued principally that My Big Coin is not a &quot;commodity&quot; within the meaning of the CEA, making the CEA&apos;s prohibitions on fraud and market manipulation inapplicable.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Massachusetts-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Brings New Insider Trading Case In Conjunction With Announcing Insider Trading Task Force
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Brings-New-Insider-Trading-Case-In-Conjunction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 28, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) filed a civil enforcement action in the Southern District of New York against an introducing broker and one of its associated persons, alleging that they misused material, nonpublic information in connection with block trades of energy contracts on the ICE Futures U.S. market in violation of 7 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. &amp;sect; 180.1(a).  CFTC v. EOX Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08890 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018) (Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Monetary Penalties, and Other Equitable Relief).  In conjunction with the enforcement action, James McDonald, CFTC&apos;s Director of Enforcement, announced the creation of a new Insider Trading &amp; Information Protection Task Force.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Brings-New-Insider-Trading-Case-In-Conjunction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Medical Device Manufacturer Enters Into Second FCPA Settlement In Five Years With SEC
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Medical-Device-Manufacturer-Enters-Into-Second-FCPA</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 28, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a settlement with a Michigan-based manufacturer and distributor of medical devices, over allegations that the company had violated the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  The SEC&apos;s order instituting proceedings alleged that the company&apos;s internal accounting controls were insufficient to detect the risk of improper payments in sales of its products in India, China and Kuwait, and that the company&apos;s Indian subsidiary failed to maintain complete and accurate books and records.  See In the Matter of Stryker Corp., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18853 (September 28, 2018).  The company agreed to pay a $7.8 million penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s claims without admitting or denying wrongdoing.  This is the second time in five years that the company has settled with the SEC over alleged shortcomings in its books and records and internal accounting controls.  See In the Matter of Stryker Corp., Admin. Proc. No. 3-15587 (October 24, 2013).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Medical-Device-Manufacturer-Enters-Into-Second-FCPA</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tesla, Musk Settle Tweet-Related SEC Charges
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tesla-Musk-Settle-Tweet-Related-SEC-Charges</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 27, 2018, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) charged Elon Musk, the Chairman and CEO of Tesla, Inc., a publically-traded California-based technology company that specializes in electric vehicles, with securities fraud in connection with an August tweet, on his personal Twitter page, regarding the possibility of taking Tesla private.  Two days later, on September 29, the SEC announced that it had settled those charges, and had also settled a previously unfiled claim against Tesla itself, for failing to have required disclosure controls and procedures related to Musk&apos;s Twitter activity.  Tesla and Musk neither admitted nor denied the allegations, but each has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $20 million, and Musk has agreed to step down as chairman of the Tesla board for three years.  Musk will remain CEO during this time.  See SEC Press Release, available at https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 (Sept. 29, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tesla-Musk-Settle-Tweet-Related-SEC-Charges</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings Enforcement Action Against Broker-Dealer For Deficient Cybersecurity Procedures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Enforcement-Action-Against-Broker-Dealer-For-Deficient-Cybersecurity-Procedures</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 26, 2018, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a $1 million settlement with an Iowa-based broker-dealer over allegations that it maintained deficient cybersecurity policies and procedures, which resulted in a 2016 cyber intrusion, in violation of Regulation S-P and Regulation S-ID.  See Press Release, SEC Charges Firm With Deficient Cybersecurity Procedures, No. 2018-213 (Sept. 26, 2018); In the Matter of Voya Financial Advisors, Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18840 (Sept. 26, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-Enforcement-Action-Against-Broker-Dealer-For-Deficient-Cybersecurity-Procedures</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Significant Judicial And Enforcement Developments In The Cryptocurrency Space
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Significant-Judicial-And-Enforcement-Developments</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
This past week saw important developments in the cryptocurrency space with two new regulatory actions, and a significant and much-anticipated decision in a criminal securities fraud action relating to an initial coin offering.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Significant-Judicial-And-Enforcement-Developments</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Limits Extraterritorial Application of FCPA
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Limits-Extraterritorial-Application</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 27, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit limited the extraterritorial application of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;), holding the statute does not apply to foreign nationals who commit crimes outside the U.S. and who lack sufficient ties to U.S. entities.  U.S. v. Hoskins, No. 16-1010 (2d Cir. Aug. 24, 2018).   The panel largely upheld a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, which concluded that the government could not evade the statute&apos;s requirement that a foreign person had to act &quot;while in the United States&quot; by charging a retired British executive of a French multinational company with conspiring with persons in the United States to violate the FCPA.  The Court noted, however, that the government could still proceed on an alternative theory that the foreign person acted as an agent of those U.S. persons.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 17:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Limits-Extraterritorial-Application</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charges Rating Agency With Internal Controls Failures And Ratings Symbols Deficiencies
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Rating-Agency-With-Internal-Controls</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 28, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced two settlements with a rating agency (the &quot;Company&quot;) over allegations that it failed to maintain adequate internal controls and to clearly define and consistently apply credit rating symbols.  The SEC&apos;s order instituting proceedings over internal control alleged that the Company failed to establish and document an effective internal control structure over models that it outsourced from an affiliate and used to rate Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (&quot;RMBS&quot;) from 2010 to 2013.  See In the Matter of Moody&apos;s Investors Service, Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18688 (August 28, 2018).  The SEC&apos;s order instating proceedings relating to rating symbols alleged that the Company assigned ratings for 26 &quot;combo notes&quot; with a total notional value of approximately $2 billion in a manner that was inconsistent with other securities that use the same rating symbols.  See In the Matter of Moody&apos;s Investors Service, Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18689 (August 28, 2018).  The Company agreed to pay a $15 million civil penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s claims relating to internal controls and a $1.25 million civil money penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s claims relating to rating symbols, both without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 17:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Rating-Agency-With-Internal-Controls</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Lifts Post-Lucia Stay On Pending Administrative Proceedings And Announces Rehearings For Dozens Of Previously Heard Cases
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Lifts-Post-Lucia-Stay-On-Pending-Administrative</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 22, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that it will rehear over fifty cases pending before administrative law judges (&quot;ALJs&quot;) that were stayed following the U.S. Supreme Court&apos;s decision in Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018), which held that the SEC&apos;s process for appointing ALJs was unconstitutional.  See Order, In re: Pending Administrative Proceedings (Aug. 22, 2018) (the &quot;Order&quot;).  In Lucia, the Court held that ALJs hired by the SEC are &quot;inferior officers&quot; of the United States and are thus subject to the Constitution&apos;s Appointments Clause, which states that inferior officers may only be appointed by the President, a court, or a department head.  Since the SEC&apos;s ALJs were not appointed in such a manner, the Court held that the respondent in Lucia was entitled to a new hearing before a properly appointed official.  See Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP Need To Know Weekly, United States Supreme Court Reverses and Remands SEC Administrative Proceeding - Finding That SEC Administrative Law Judges are Subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and Were Not Properly Appointed by the SEC (June 26, 2018)]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Lifts-Post-Lucia-Stay-On-Pending-Administrative</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Fines Broker-Dealer $5.5 Million For Violations Of Regulation SHO
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Fines-Broker-Dealer-55-Million-For-Violations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 20, 2018, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) announced that it fined a FINRA-regulated broker-dealer $5.5 million over allegations that it violated Regulation SHO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, see 17 CFR 242.200-204, by, among other things, failing to properly close out short sale positions when securities were not timely delivered, accepting short sales in restricted securities and at restricted prices, and maintaining a deficient supervisory system.   Press Release, FINRA Fines Interactive Brokers $5.5 Million for Regulation SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures (Aug. 20, 2018); FINRA AWC No. 2014043143401 (Aug. 16, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Fines-Broker-Dealer-55-Million-For-Violations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Former Forex Trader Successfully Avoids Extradition From The UK Through Appeal To UK&apos;s High Court Of Justice
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Former-Forex-Trader-Successfully-Avoids-Extradition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 31, 2018, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen&apos;s Bench Division, rejected the United States (&quot;U.S.&quot;) government&apos;s request to extradite a former FX trader and the former head of a bank&apos;s foreign exchange (&quot;forex&quot;) cash trading for Europe, reversing a lower court ruling that had granted the request.  Scott v. Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 2021 (Admin).  The U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) sought to extradite the trader to face ten counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for alleged forex-rigging.  The High Court found that extradition was not in the interest of justice, because most of the harm from the alleged crimes was felt in the United Kingdom (&quot;UK&quot;) and because of the trader&apos;s strong connection with the UK. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Former-Forex-Trader-Successfully-Avoids-Extradition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Moves To Dismiss Sole Remaining Charge In Long-Running Securities Fraud Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Moves-To-Dismiss-Sole-Remaining-Change</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 30, 2018, federal prosecutors moved to dismiss the sole remaining charge of securities fraud against former bond trader Jesse Litvak, ending a five-year criminal case during which Litvak was twice convicted after trials on securities fraud charges and both convictions were later overturned on appeal.  Although the government&apos;s decision means there will not be a third trial, the government emphasized in its motion to dismiss the charges that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had not accepted Litvak&apos;s argument that the case was legally invalid.  See Government&apos;s Motion to Dismiss Count Four, United States v. Litvak, No. 3:13-cr-00019 (D. Conn. July 30, 2018). 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2018 19:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Moves-To-Dismiss-Sole-Remaining-Change</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Certifies Class In Securities Stock Drop Suit, Finding That &quot;In-and-Out&quot; Traders Should Not Be Excluded From The Class Definition
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Certifies-Class-I</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 17, 2018, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs&apos; motion to certify a class in a securities class action against Twitter, Inc. (the &quot;Company&quot;) and two of its officers. In re Twitter Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-05314 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quot;Exchange Act&quot;) by making materially false and misleading statements regarding user growth and engagement, resulting in a 15 percent stock drop when the Company later disclosed that user engagement was &quot;slowing quite dramatically.&quot; The Court previously had granted in part and denied in part defendants&apos; motion to dismiss.
 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 20:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Certifies-Class-I</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Settled Enforcement Action Over Failure To Preserve Documents
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Enforcement-Action-Over-Failure-To-Preserve-Documents</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 17, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a settlement with a New York-based broker-dealer over allegations that the broker-dealer failed to preserve records requested by the SEC and inaccurately reported certain expenses. The SEC&apos;s order instituting proceedings alleged that the broker-dealer failed to preserve records requested by the SEC staff by deleting certain audio files, and failed to maintain accurate books and records regarding certain expenses, in willful violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 thereunder. The broker-dealer agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s claims without admitting or denying wrongdoing. See In the Matter of BGC Financial, L.P., Admin Proc. No. 3-18598 (July 17, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 20:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Settled-Enforcement-Action-Over-Failure-To-Preserve-Documents</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC&apos;s FCPA Charges Against Executives Dismissed As Time-Barred
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-FCPA-Charges-Against-Executives-Dismiss</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 12, 2018, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s charges against two former executives of a hedge-fund management firm on statute of limitations grounds.  SEC v. Cohen &amp; Baros, No. 1:17-CV-00430 (E.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018).  The SEC originally filed the charges before the Supreme Court&apos;s ruling in Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017), in which the Court held that disgorgement is a penalty subject to the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 2462.  United States Supreme Court Holds SEC Disgorgement Orders Subject to Five-Year Statute of Limitations, Shearman &amp; Sterling (Jun. 6, 2017).  Relying on Kokesh, the district court held that the SEC&apos;s claims for monetary and injunctive relief were time-barred.  In so holding, the district court contributed to a circuit split regarding the applicability of Section 2462 to certain types of equitable relief.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-FCPA-Charges-Against-Executives-Dismiss</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Company Settles With The SEC For Allegedly Failing To File Required Suspicious Activity Reports
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Company-Settles-With-The-SEC-For-Allegedly-Failing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 2, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a one-count complaint in District Court for the Northern District of California against Charles Schwab Corp. (&quot;Schwab&quot; or the &quot;Company&quot;) for allegedly failing to file suspicious activity reports (&quot;SARs&quot;) on questionable transactions by its investment advisers. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles Schwab &amp; Co, Inc., No. 18-cv-3942 (July 2, 2018). The same day, without admitting or denying the SEC&apos;s findings, the Company consented to an entry of judgment through which agreed to pay the SEC a civil penalty of $2.8 million. Final Judgment, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles Schwab &amp; Co, Inc., No. 18-cv-3942 (July 2, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Company-Settles-With-The-SEC-For-Allegedly-Failing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Settles FCPA Allegations Concerning Allegedly Improper Payments By Company&apos;s Indian Subsidiary
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-FCPA-Allegations-Concerning-Allegedly</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 2, 2018, Chicago-based spirits maker Beam Suntory Inc. (&quot;Beam Suntory&quot; or the &quot;Company&quot;) agreed to pay $8.2 million to settle Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) claims brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) for allegedly improper payments by its Indian subsidiary. In the Matter of Beam Inc., N/K/A Beam Suntory Inc. Admin Proc. File No. 3-18568 (July 2, 2018). This settlement reportedly follows Beam Suntory&apos;s voluntary self-disclosure of the underlying issues to both the SEC and the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;); however, there has been no reported resolution by the DOJ.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-FCPA-Allegations-Concerning-Allegedly</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Files Settled Action Concerning Accounting Issues That Led To A Restatement In 2014
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Settled-Action-Concerning-Accounting-Issues</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 2, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) entered into a settlement with Houston-based global engineering, construction, and services company KBR, Inc. (&quot;KBR&quot; or the &quot;Company&quot;) over accounting issues that had led KBR to restate its earnings and identify a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting in 2014. In the Matter of KBR, Inc., Admin Proc. No. 3-18569 (July 2, 2018). The accounting issues centered around the Company&apos;s cost and revenue estimates and its calculation of &quot;work in backlog,&quot; a non-financial accounting metric the Company utilized.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Settled-Action-Concerning-Accounting-Issues</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Requires Law Enforcement To Obtain Search Warrants Before Accessing Certain Cell Phone Location Data
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Requires-Law-Enforcement-To-Obtain-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 22, 2018, in a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court held that the government&apos;s acquisition of certain cell-site location information (&quot;CSLI&quot;) kept by third parties constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment that is generally subject to the search warrant requirement. Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, 585 U.S. __ (2018). Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, while Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch filed separate dissents.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 01:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Requires-Law-Enforcement-To-Obtain-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Amends Martoma And Reaffirms, But Arguably Still Weakens, Newman&apos;s &quot;Meaningfully Close Personal Relationship&quot; Test In Insider Trading Cases Involving Tips
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Amends-Martoma-And-Reaffirms-But-A</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 25, 2018, a divided three-judge panel of the Second Circuit amended its decision in United States v. Martoma. We previously reported on the facts of Martoma and the panel&apos;s original decision, which held that the Supreme Court abrogated the &quot;meaningfully close personal relationship&quot; test articulated in United States v. Newman. See Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP: Government/Regulatory Enforcement, Divided Second Circuit Panel Abandons Relationship Test From Landmark Newman Decision in Upholding Insider Trading Conviction (Aug. 29, 2017). The panel&apos;s amended opinion, in contrast, holds that Newman&apos;s &quot;meaningfully close personal relationship&quot; test is still valid for determining whether an insider tipper received a personal benefit (and thus breached a fiduciary duty), but also holds that the test will be satisfied upon a showing that (1) the &quot;tipper and tippee shared a relationship suggesting a quid pro quo&quot; or (2) &quot;the tipper gifted confidential information with the intention to benefit the tippee.&quot; United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599, Dkt. No. 226 (2d Cir. June 25, 2018), at 5-6.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 01:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Amends-Martoma-And-Reaffirms-But-A</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Proposes Amendments To Its Whistleblower Program
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Proposes-Amendments-To-Its-Whistleblower-Prog</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) proposed amendments to the rules governing its whistleblower program. Press Release, SEC Proposes Whistleblower Rule Amendments, No. 2018-120 (June 28, 2018). Among other things, the proposed amendments would affect the types of whistleblower awards authorized by the SEC&apos;s rules, allow for adjustments of awards in certain cases, adopt a new definition of &quot;whistleblower,&quot; improve the SEC&apos;s ability to bar individuals from making frivolous award claims, and clarify what types of whistleblower submissions constitute &quot;original information.&quot; These proposed amendments, which on balance reflect a modest refinement of the whistleblower program and signal that the essential contours of the program continue to have the strong support of the Commission, are subject to notice and comment by the public and further modification by the SEC.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 01:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Proposes-Amendments-To-Its-Whistleblower-Prog</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Reverses And Remands SEC Administrative Proceeding - Finding That SEC Administrative Law Judges Are Subject To The Appointments Clause Of The Constitution And Were Not Properly Appointed By The SEC
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Reverses-And-Remands</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court held that Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) administrative law judges (&quot;ALJs&quot;) are &quot;inferior officers&quot; of the United States, subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. ____ (2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Reverses-And-Remands</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA And SEC Fine Two Entities For Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Deficiencies And Other Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-And-SEC-Fine-Two-Entities-For-Anti-Money-Laundering</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On May 16, 2018, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced a $5.3 million fine on a financial services company (ICBCFS) for alleged systemic anti-money laundering (AML) compliance failures, including an alleged failure to have a reasonable AML program in place to monitor and detect suspicious transactions, and alleged financial, recordkeeping, and operational violations involving penny stock shares.  FINRA Fines ICBCFS $5.3 Million for Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Deficiencies and Other Violations, May 16, 2018, https://www.finra.org/newsroom/2018/finra-fines-icbcfs-53-million-anti-money-laundering-compliance-deficiencies-and-other.  ICBCFS consented to entry of FINRA&apos;s findings without admitting or denying the charges against it.  In a separate but related matter, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settled charges against a broker-dealer (CCM)—a correspondent of ICBCFS—and ICBCFS for allegedly failing to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when CCM sold more than $12.5 billion penny stock shares between 2013 and 2014.  In the Matter of ICBCFS, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18488 (May 16, 2018).  The SEC also settled charges against ICBCF for failing to promptly produce documents missing from its productions to the Commission during its investigation, despite repeated requests for the records.  Id.  Without admitting or denying the SEC&apos;s findings, ICBCFS agreed to pay the SEC a civil penalty of $860,000, CCM agreed to pay a fine of $1 million, and CCM&apos;s anti-money laundering officer, who allegedly aided and abetted the violations, agreed to pay $15,000.  Id.; In the Matter of CCM, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18486 (May 16, 2018); In the Matter of JB, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18487 (May 16, 2018).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 16:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-And-SEC-Fine-Two-Entities-For-Anti-Money-Laundering</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Formalization Of Policy On Corporate Resolution Penalties 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Formalization-Of-Policy-On-Corporate</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 9, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) released a long-awaited policy regarding corporate enforcement and resolution.  The policy—entitled &quot;Policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties&quot; (&quot;Policy&quot;)—will be incorporated into the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Manual.  U.S. DOJ, Policy on Coordination of Corporate Resolution Penalties.  On the same day, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein provided remarks about the Policy at the New York Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and at the New York City Bar White Collar Crime Institute.  Mr. Rosenstein explained that the Policy recognizes that companies may be subject to numerous regulatory authorities—both in the U.S. and abroad—which may result in disproportionate penalties.  The Policy generally instructs DOJ attorneys &quot;to appropriately coordinate with one another and with other enforcement agencies in imposing multiple penalties on a company for the same conduct.&quot;  DOJ Press Release, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks.     

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2018 17:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Formalization-Of-Policy-On-Corporate</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Once Again Vacates Bond Trader Jesse Litvak&apos;s Conviction For Securities Fraud
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Once-Again-Vacates-Bond-Trader-Jesse</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On May 3, 2018, a three-judge panel on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (&quot;Second Circuit&quot;) vacated former bond trader Jesse Litvak&apos;s conviction on one count of securities fraud, holding that the district court erred in admitting testimony from a counterparty concerning that counterparty&apos;s mistaken understanding of Litvak&apos;s role in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (&quot;RMBS&quot;) to it.  United States v. Litvak, No. 17-1464-cr (2d. Cir. May 3, 2018).  Litvak appealed his 2017 jury trial conviction on one count of securities fraud, arguing that his misstatements to the counterparty—which concerned the price at which Litvak had purchased the RMBS he subsequently sold to the counterparty—were immaterial to a reasonable investor.  Further, Litvak contended that the district court erred in admitting portions of testimony from the counterparty&apos;s trader, who erroneously believed that Litvak was acting as the counterparty&apos;s agent in the sale of the RMBS, rather than acting as principal.  While the Second Circuit held that a reasonable jury could have found that Litvak&apos;s misstatements were material, it ruled that the district court materially erred in admitting testimony that suggested Litvak owed a fiduciary duty to his counterparty, and that the error was not harmless.  Accordingly, the panel vacated the conviction and remanded the case, yet again, to the district court. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 17:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Once-Again-Vacates-Bond-Trader-Jesse</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Issues $35 Million Fine For Alleged Failure To Disclose Data Breach
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Issues-35-Million-Fine-For-Alleged-Failure-To</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 24, 2018, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted a settled administrative proceeding against Altaba Inc., f/d/b/a Yahoo! Inc. (&quot;Yahoo!&quot;) for allegedly failing to disclose a significant data breach that affected its user accounts, in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  See In the Matter of Altaba Inc., f/d/b/a Yahoo! Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18448 (April 24, 2018).  As summarized below, the SEC principally imposed a $35 million penalty on Yahoo!, and Yahoo! neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s findings set forth in the administrative proceeding.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 15:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Issues-35-Million-Fine-For-Alleged-Failure-To</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Connecticut Jury Acquits Former Trader Of Spoofing-Related Charges
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Connecticut-Jury-Acquits-Former-Trader-Of-Spoofing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 25, 2018, a jury in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut acquitted a former trader at a major global banking and financial services company (the &quot;Trader&quot;) of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud.  United States v. Flotron, 3:17-cr-00220, Jury Verdict Form (D. Conn. April 25, 2018).  The U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) also alleged that the Trader committed commodities fraud under 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 2 and 1348, and spoofing under 7 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 6c(a)(5)(C), but those charges were dismissed before trial on grounds of improper venue.  This trial was the first of its kind for criminal spoofing charges.  A civil case against the Trader, filed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;), remains pending.  See United States v. Flotron, 3:18-cv-00158, Complaint (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2018).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 15:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Connecticut-Jury-Acquits-Former-Trader-Of-Spoofing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Supreme Court Dismisses As Moot Microsoft Case That Had Challenged The Government&apos;s Ability To Obtain Search Warrant For Electronic Data Stored Abroad
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Dismisses-As-Moot-Microsoft-Cas</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed United States v. Microsoft, No. 17-12, 548 U.S. ___ (2018) (per curiam), deciding that recently enacted federal legislation had mooted the legal dispute in the case.  The appeal raised the question whether a U.S. based e-mail service provider had to comply with a search warrant issued under Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, and disclose to the Government electronic communications that were stored abroad.  As we previously reported, see Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP, The Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in United States v. Microsoft, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, March, 6, 2018, https://www.lit-wc.shearman.com/the-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-united-v-microsoft, the Justices had appeared divided during oral argument and questioned whether they should issue a decision while Congress was considering pending legislation to clarify the issue.  On March 23, 2018, Congress passed the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115-141.  As expected, the Supreme Court thus dismissed the Microsoft appeal.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Dismisses-As-Moot-Microsoft-Cas</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC, Under New Safe Harbor, Awards More Than $2.2 Million To Whistleblower Who First Reported To Another Federal Agency
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Under-New-Safe-Harbor-Awards-More-Than-2-Million</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 5, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a whistleblower award of more than $2.2 million in connection with a report of misconduct.  The whistleblower, a former company insider, first reported information to a federal agency other than the SEC, which in turn referred the matter to the SEC, which promptly opened an enforcement investigation.  Subsequently, within 120 days of the original reporting to the other federal agency, the whistleblower reported the same information directly to the SEC.  The resulting SEC enforcement action resulted in monetary sanctions, and the whistleblower received a percentage of the sanctions as an award.  Despite initially reporting to another federal agency, the whistleblower received an award because he or she reported the same information to the SEC within 120 days and subsequently cooperated with the enforcement investigation.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Under-New-Safe-Harbor-Awards-More-Than-2-Million</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Criminal And Civil Charges Filed In Connection With Initial Coin Offering By Centra Tech
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Criminal-And-Civil-Charges-Filed-In-Connection-Wi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 2, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced criminal and civil charges against two startup co-founders for allegedly defrauding and conspiring to defraud investors through the offer and sale of unregistered securities in an initial coin offering (&quot;ICO&quot;).  In separate complaints filed in federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, both the DOJ and the SEC alleged that the company&apos;s co-founders orchestrated an elaborate marketing campaign to solicit over $25 million in investments for their digital technology company, Centra Tech.  Complaint, SEC v. Sharma et al., No. 1:18-cv-02909 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2018); Complaint, U.S. v. Sharma et al., 18-MAG-2695.  The two men each face four criminal charges of commission and conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud, as well as permanent injunctions and civil penalties for violating various anti-fraud and registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Criminal-And-Civil-Charges-Filed-In-Connection-Wi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC And FINRA Fine Broker-Dealer, CEO, And Compliance Officer For Failing To File Suspicious Activity Reports
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-FINRA-Fine-Broker-Dealer-CEO-And-Compliance</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On March 28, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted settled administrative proceedings against broker-dealer Aegis Capital Corporation (&quot;Aegis&quot;), its founder and Chief Executive Officer (&quot;CEO&quot;), and its anti-money laundering compliance officer (&quot;AML CO&quot;) for allegedly failing to file hundreds of Suspicious Activity Reports (&quot;SARs&quot;) between late 2012 and early 2014.  In the Matter of Aegis Capital Corporation, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18412 (Mar. 28, 2018); In the Matter of Kevin McKenna and Robert Eide, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18413 (Mar. 28, 2018).  The SEC also instituted a contested administrative proceeding based on the same allegations against a former Aegis compliance officer.  In the Matter of Eugene Terracciano, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18414 (Mar. 28, 2018).  Separately, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) announced it had settled claims against Aegis based on the same SAR-related allegations.  FINRA Fines Aegis Capital Corp. $550,000 for Anti-Money Laundering and Supervision Rule Violations, Mar. 28, 2018, http://www.finra.org/newsroom/2018/finra-fines-aegis-capital-corp-550000-aml-and-supervision-rule-violations.  In connection with its settlement with the SEC, Aegis admitted to willfully failing to file SARs and was fined $750,000.  In addition, the CEO agreed to pay the SEC a $40,000 fine, and the AML CO agreed to pay the SEC a $20,000 fine.  In connection with the settlement, the individuals neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s allegations. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-And-FINRA-Fine-Broker-Dealer-CEO-And-Compliance</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Record-Breaking Whistleblowing Awards Continue Incentives To Report Misconduct To The SEC
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Record-Breaking-Whistleblowing-Awards-Continue-Incentives</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 19, 2018, the SEC announced three multi-million dollar awards to whistleblowers in connection with reports of misconduct.  SEC Press Release, SEC Announces Its Largest-Ever Whistleblower Awards, No. 2018-44 (Mar. 19, 2018).  One whistleblower received $33 million, which represents the largest SEC whistleblower award in history; the two other whistleblowers will split a $50 million award.  These significant awards continue a trend of rising awards by the SEC, which continues to focus on publicly incentivizing and protecting whistleblowers.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Record-Breaking-Whistleblowing-Awards-Continue-Incentives</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FBI Director States That Companies That Suffer Data Breaches Will Be Treated As Victims For Law Enforcement Purposes
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FBI-Director-States-That-Companies-That-Suffer-Data</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
At a March 7, 2018 Conference on Cyber Security co-hosted by Boston College and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (&quot;FBI&quot;), Director of the FBI Christopher Wray spoke about the FBI&apos;s efforts to combat cyber threats.  Among other topics, Director Wray emphasized the FBI&apos;s policy to treat companies that have experienced a cyber-attack as victims, and encouraged the need for cooperation between the public and private sectors. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FBI-Director-States-That-Companies-That-Suffer-Data</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Levies $18 Million Fine On NYSE And Affiliated Exchanges For Alleged Securities Act And Exchange Act Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Levies-18-Million-Fine-On-NYSE-And-Affiliated</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 6, 2018, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted a settled administrative proceeding against the New York Stock Exchange (&quot;NYSE&quot;), and affiliated national exchanges NYSE American LLC (&quot;American&quot;) and NYSE Arca, Inc. (&quot;Arca&quot;), for allegedly misrepresenting stock prices as &quot;automated,&quot; applying price collars when there was no rule permitting them, failing to maintain sufficient disaster recovery policies, and other conduct in violation of various sections of the Securities Act of 1933 (&quot;Securities Act&quot;), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (&quot;Exchange Act&quot;), and various regulations thereunder.  This administrative proceeding arose from five separate SEC investigations and culminated in a $14 million fine against the exchanges.  See In the Matter of New York Stock Exchange LLC, et al., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18388 (Mar. 6, 2018); see also Press Release, NYSE to Pay $14 Million Penalty for Multiple Violations, Rel. No. 2018-31 (Mar. 6, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-31. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Levies-18-Million-Fine-On-NYSE-And-Affiliated</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces Intent To Apply Principles From FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy To Other White Collar Contexts 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Intent-To-Apply-Principles-From-FCPA</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
At the recent American Bar Association&apos;s National Institute on White Collar Crime, the Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) Acting Head of the Criminal Division, John Cronan, announced that the Criminal Division will use the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (&quot;the Policy&quot;) as &quot;nonbinding guidance&quot; in other areas of white-collar enforcement beyond the FCPA.  As a result of this expansion, absent aggravating factors, DOJ may more frequently decline to prosecute companies that promptly self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate with DOJ&apos;s investigation, remediate in a complete and timely fashion, and disgorge any ill-gotten gains.  Indeed, Cronan pointed to the DOJ&apos;s recent decision to decline charges against a global bank, after the bank agreed to pay back $12.9 million in profits the DOJ claimed it obtained as a result of an alleged foreign exchange front-running scheme, as an example of the effect of this new wider application of the Policy.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-Intent-To-Apply-Principles-From-FCPA</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of New York Grants Preliminary Injunction In Opinion Backing CFTC&apos;s Authority To Regulate Cryptocurrency
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-New-York-Grants-Preliminary-I</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 6, 2018, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a preliminary injunction against a virtual currency company and its owner in connection with an alleged fraudulent virtual currency scheme.  CFTC v. McDonnell, et al., No. 1:18-cv-00361 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018).  Judge Weinstein found that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) had shown a reasonable likelihood that defendants would continue to violate the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;).  In so ruling, Judge Weinstein became the latest judge to recognize the CFTC&apos;s authority to regulate cryptocurrencies as commodities.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-New-York-Grants-Preliminary-I</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In United States v. Microsoft 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Hears-Oral-Arguments-In-United-v-Microsoft</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Microsoft, No. 17-2.  The case presents the question whether a U.S.-based entity (Microsoft) must comply with a judicially-authorized search warrant that was issued under Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act by providing overseas data to the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2018 18:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Hears-Oral-Arguments-In-United-v-Microsoft</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Finds Dodd-Frank Does Not Protect Internal Whistleblowers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Finds-Dodd-Frank-Does-Not-Protect-Internal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the anti-retaliation provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (&quot;Dodd-Frank&quot;) do not cover individuals who do not report violations of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;).  Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, No. 16-1276 (Feb. 21, 2018).  Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that Dodd-Frank explicitly defined the term &quot;whistleblower&quot; to include only individuals who report to the SEC and that, when a statute explicitly defines a term, courts must follow that definition.  See 15 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 78u-6(a)(6).  Respondent Paul Somers, who had only reported within his company, was therefore ineligible for Dodd-Frank&apos;s whistleblower protections.  We previously covered the Court&apos;s skepticism of Somers&apos; position at oral argument.  See Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP:  Government/Regulatory Enforcement, Supreme Court Oral Argument Suggests Skepticism Over SEC Rule Protecting Internal Whistleblowers from Retaliation under Dodd-Frank (Dec. 5, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Finds-Dodd-Frank-Does-Not-Protect-Internal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Sentence Based In Part On Third-Party&apos;s Trading
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Vacates-Insider-Trading-Sentence-Based</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated Steven Metro&apos;s 46-month prison sentence for insider trading and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.  United States v. Metro, No. 16-3813 (3d Cir. Feb. 14, 2018).  The Third Circuit held that a sentencing court cannot attribute illicit financial gains to an insider trading defendant for purposes of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the &quot;Sentencing Guidelines&quot;) when the gains are &quot;actually attributable to someone with whom he was not acting in concert and to whom he did not provide inside information.&quot;

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Vacates-Insider-Trading-Sentence-Based</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Subsidiary Of Dutch Bank Pleads Guilty To Allegations That It Conspired To Obstruct OCC Examination Of AML Program
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Subsidiary-Of-Dutch-Bank-Pleads-Guilty-To-Allegations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 7, 2018, Dutch bank Rabobank&apos;s U.S. subsidiary pleaded guilty to conspiring to impair, impede, and obstruct a review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (&quot;OCC&quot;) of the bank&apos;s anti-money laundering (&quot;AML&quot;) program, agreeing to forfeit more than $368 million as a result.  See United States v. Rabobank, National Association, 18-cr-0614, Plea Agreement (Feb. 7, 2018); DOJ Press Release, Rababank NA Pleads Guilty, Agrees to Pay Over $360 Million, No. 18-148 (Feb. 7, 2018).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Subsidiary-Of-Dutch-Bank-Pleads-Guilty-To-Allegations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And CFTC Recent Actions Highlight Their Increased Focus On &quot;Spoofing&quot;
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-CFTC-Recent-Actions-Highlight-Their-Incre</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[​On January 29, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) announced settlements with three international financial institutions to resolve claims that traders at those institutions placed false bids to manipulate the precious metals markets, a process referred to as &quot;spoofing.&quot;  Separately, the DOJ filed criminal charges, and the CFTC filed civil complaints, against seven individual traders alleged to have engaged in spoofing, and the owner of a software company alleged to have built a program that was designed to enable the practice. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 20:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-CFTC-Recent-Actions-Highlight-Their-Incre</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>PCAOB And Accounting Firm Employees Charged With Misuse Of Confidential Data To Improve Firm&apos;s Inspection Results
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/PCAOB-And-Accounting-Firm-Employees-Charged-With-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 22, 2018, the SEC announced civil charges against six certified public accountants for their role in an alleged scheme to misappropriate confidential information from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (&quot;PCAOB&quot;) relating to the PCAOB&apos;s planned inspections of an accounting firm, so that the firm could use the confidential information to help it avoid poor inspections.  Press Release 2018-6, SEC, Six Accountants Charged with Using Leaked Confidential PCAOB Data (Jan. 22, 2018).  On the same day, the United States Attorney&apos;s Office for the Southern District of New York (&quot;USAO&quot;) announced the unsealing of an indictment charging five of the six defendants in the SEC action with conspiracy and wire fraud for their participation in the alleged scheme.  Press Release, DOJ, Five Former KPMG Executives and PCAOB Employees Charged in Manhattan Federal Court (Jan. 23, 2018).  The sixth SEC defendant had previously pleaded guilty (and had agreed to settle the SEC&apos;s claims) and is cooperating with the government&apos;s investigation.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/PCAOB-And-Accounting-Firm-Employees-Charged-With-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>HSBC Enters Into Deferred Prosecution Agreement To Settle Charges Arising From Traders&apos; Alleged FX Front-Running
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/HSBC-Enters-Into-Deferred-Prosecution-Agreement-T</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 18, 2018, HSBC Holdings Plc (&quot;HSBC&quot;) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section (&quot;DOJ&quot;) pursuant to which it will pay $101.5 million in criminal penalties and disgorgement to resolve two counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 1343.  Deferred Prosecution Agreement, United States v. HSBC Holdings Plc, No. 1:18-cr-00030 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), ECF No. 3-2.  The charges arose out of two transactions in 2011 where HSBC foreign exchange (&quot;FX&quot;) traders allegedly engaged in &quot;front-running,&quot; or trading ahead of a client&apos;s trade, to manipulate the price of currency. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/HSBC-Enters-Into-Deferred-Prosecution-Agreement-T</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Supreme Court To Review Ex-CEO&apos;s Appeal Regarding Restitution Of Legal Fees Associated With An Internal Investigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Supreme-Court-To-Review-Ex-CEOrsquos-Appeal-Re</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 12, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear an appeal from a two-judge, Fifth Circuit panel decision regarding whether federal law permits restitution orders in criminal cases to cover the costs of internal investigations that are &quot;neither required nor requested&quot; by the government.  Lagos v. United States, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, p. 8, filed June 15, 2017. Joining six other circuits, the Fifth Circuit held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (&quot;MVRA&quot;) authorizes recovery of the fees incurred during an internal investigation, if such fees were &quot;directly caused by the defendants&apos;&quot; criminal offense.  United States v. Lagos, 864 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017). This holding conflicts with a 2011 decision issued by the D.C. Circuit, holding that such costs were not recoverable, if the investigation was &quot;neither required nor requested by criminal investigators or prosecutors.&quot;  United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2011).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court&apos;s order requiring former CEO Sergio Lagos of USA Dry Van Logistics to cover $5 million in fees GE Capital incurred during its internal investigation related to USA Dry Van&apos;s bankruptcy petition.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Supreme-Court-To-Review-Ex-CEOrsquos-Appeal-Re</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Supreme Court Agrees To Review Appointment Requirements For SEC&apos;s In-House Judges  
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Agrees-To-Review-Appointment-Re</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-130, agreeing to resolve a circuit split regarding the appointment process for Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) administrative law judges (&quot;ALJs&quot;).  The case raises significant questions as to whether ALJs constitute inferior officers who must be selected and appointed by the SEC Commissioners themselves (who are politically accountable), or whether they constitute mere employees who can be hired like any other agency employee.  See Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP, D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejects Constitutional Challenge to SEC&apos;s Use of Administrative Proceedings, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, Aug. 15, 2016, http://www.lit-wc.shearman.com/dc-circuit-court-of-appeals-rejects-constitutional;  Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP, Tenth Circuit Splits With D.C. Circuit On Constitutionality Of SEC ALJs, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, Jan. 2, 2017, http://www.lit-wc.shearman.com/tenth-circuit-splits-with-dc-circuit-on-constitut; Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP, In Reversal, SEC Agrees That Its Administrative Law Judges Are Inferior Officers That Require Commission Appointment, But Still Seeks Supreme Court Review To Resolve Circuit Split, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, Dec. 12, 2017, http://www.lit-wc.shearman.com/in-reversal-sec-agrees-that-its-administrative-la.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Agrees-To-Review-Appointment-Re</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charges Advisory Firm For Breaches Of Fiduciary Duties
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Advisory-Firm-For-Breaches-Of-Fiducia</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 11, 2017, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a complaint against two investment advisers, Westport Capital Markets, LLC (&quot;Westport&quot;) and its controlling shareholder, Christopher McClure, alleging that the advisers violated various provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (&quot;Advisers Act&quot;) by failing to disclose conflicts of interest and receipt of fees and profits related to their investment decisions on behalf of clients, and by failing to seek the best execution for client transactions.  Complaint, SEC v. Westport Capital Mkts. LLC, No. 3:17-cv-02064 (D. Conn. Dec. 11, 2017), ECF No. 1.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charges-Advisory-Firm-For-Breaches-Of-Fiducia</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In Reversal, SEC Agrees That Its Administrative Law Judges Are Inferior Officers That Require Commission Appointment, But Still Seeks Supreme Court Review To Resolve Circuit Split
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Reversal-SEC-Agrees-That-Its-Administrative-La</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On November 29, 2017, the U.S. Solicitor General submitted a brief to the United States Supreme Court in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-130, urging the Court to grant certiorari and resolve a circuit split regarding the appointment process for the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s (&quot;SEC&quot;) administrative law judges (&quot;ALJs&quot;).  In a notable shift, the Solicitor General agreed with Raymond J. Lucia and his namesake investment firm that the SEC&apos;s hiring of ALJs, who preside over the initial stages of SEC enforcement hearings, was unconstitutional because ALJs serve as &quot;inferior officers&quot; who must be appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.  The following day, the SEC, in its capacity as a &quot;head of department,&quot; ratified the appointment of its five ALJs in an effort to make their prior hiring compliant with Article II&apos;s Appointments Clause.  Although the SEC&apos;s decision to ratify the hiring of its ALJs in some sense rendered the issue in Lucia moot, the Solicitor General is still seeking certiorari in order to resolve the existing circuit split.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Reversal-SEC-Agrees-That-Its-Administrative-La</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Announces DPA And Guilty Plea Involving Netherlands-Based Energy Services Firm That DOJ Claims Failed To Promptly Report Alleged FCPA Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-DPA-And-Guilty-Plea-Involving-Nethe</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On November 29, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that SBM Offshore N.V. (&quot;SBM&quot;), a Netherlands-based maker of offshore drilling equipment for the energy industry, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) to resolve criminal charges alleging that SBM violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  United States v. SBM Offshore N.V., Crim. No. 17-686 (S.D. Tex).  The DOJ alleged that SBM executives made payments in excess of $180 million to intermediaries knowing that intermediates would use some of that money to bribe foreign officials in Brazil, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan, and Iraq.  According to the DOJ, officials in those countries proceeded to award SBM contracts valued at $2.8 billion.  SBM agreed to pay a $238 million criminal penalty, including a $500,000 criminal fine and $13.2 million in criminal forfeiture, to the United States settle the charges.  Moreover, its U.S. subsidiary, SBM Offshore USA Inc. (&quot;SBM USA&quot;), agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA&apos;s anti-bribery provisions.  Three years ago, SBM settled charges with the Dutch Public Prosecutors over related conduct, and paid the Netherlands $200 million in disgorged profits and a $40 million fine.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Announces-DPA-And-Guilty-Plea-Involving-Nethe</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Cease-and-Desist Order Against Couple And Their Respective Hedge Funds Over Sharing Of Confidential Strategies From Another Fund
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Cease-and-Desist-Order-Against-Coup</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 5, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed an administrative proceeding against Paritosh Gupta (&quot;Gupta&quot;), his hedge fund, Adi Capital Management LLC (&quot;Adi Capital&quot;), his wife, Nehal Chopra (&quot;Chopra&quot;), and her hedge fund, Ratan Capital Management, LP (&quot;Ratan&quot;).  In the Matter of Paritosh Gupta, et. al., Admin. Proc. No. 3-18296 (Dec. 5, 2017).  The SEC alleged that Gupta caused violations of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act by sharing confidential information, obtained during his employment at a hedge fund described only as &quot;Adviser A,&quot; with Chopra (Gupta&apos;s eventual wife), who used that information in operating Ratan Capital.  Moreover, the SEC alleged that Gupta, Adi Capital, Chopra, and Ratan willfully violated Section 207 of the Advisers Act—and that Gupta caused Ratan and Chopra to violate Sections 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder—by failing to disclose the nature of Gupta and Chopra&apos;s communications and the role that Gupta played in advising Chopra on Ratan&apos;s investment strategy.  Without admitting or denying the findings, Gupta, Chopra, and their hedge funds agreed to settle the charges and cease and desist from committing or causing any further violations.  Additionally, Gupta agreed to pay a civil penalty of $250,000, Chopra agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000, and Ratan Capital agreed to pay a civil penalty of $200,000.  All four Respondents were censured.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Cease-and-Desist-Order-Against-Coup</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Oral Argument Suggests Skepticism Over SEC Rule Protecting Internal Whistleblowers From Retaliation Under Dodd-Frank
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Oral-Argument-Suggests-Skepticism-O</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, No. 16-1276, a case that raises the question whether an employee who reported alleged misconduct internally, but did not make a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or the &quot;Commission&quot;), is eligible for protections against retaliation afforded to whistleblowers by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 (&quot;Dodd-Frank&quot;).  In 2011, the SEC issued a rule stating that internal whistleblowers were subject to protections under Dodd-Frank, even though the text of the statute defines &quot;whistleblowers&quot; as only those who reported information to the SEC.  16 C.F.R. 240.21F-2(b)(1).  While a decision may remain months away, the questions from the Justices suggested considerable skepticism as to the SEC&apos;s statutory interpretation and rulemaking process.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Oral-Argument-Suggests-Skepticism-O</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Announces Revised FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Deputy-Attorney-General-Rod-Rosenstein-Announces-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 29, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein delivered remarks at the 34th International Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;), in which he announced a revised FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.  According to Mr. Rosenstein, the Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&apos;s&quot;) new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy—an extension of the FCPA Pilot Program rolled out eighteen months prior—is designed both to aid the DOJ&apos;s ability to identify and punish criminal conduct efficiently and also to provide &quot;guidance and increased certainty to companies struggling with the question of whether to make voluntary disclosures of wrongdoing.&quot;  Remarks at 3. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Deputy-Attorney-General-Rod-Rosenstein-Announces-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Bank Of Tokyo Mitsubishi Sues DFS And Alleges That DFS Has No Investigatory Or Enforcement Authority Over It Since It Is Now Federally Licensed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bank-Of-Tokyo-Mitsubishi-Sues-DFS-And-Alleges-Tha</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 7, 2017, in the midst of a pending examination by, and implementation of previously agreed upon consent orders with, the New York State Department of Financial Services (&quot;DFS&quot;), the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ (&quot;BTMU&quot;), Japan&apos;s largest bank, converted its New York and other U.S. branch office licenses from state to federal licenses. This prompted DFS to issue an order asserting that it still had authority to investigate and prosecute violations of New York law by BTMU.  BTMU then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to enjoin DFS from exercising any authority over BTMU.  Complaint, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. v. Maria Vullo, No. 1:17-cv-08691 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2017), ECF No. 1. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bank-Of-Tokyo-Mitsubishi-Sues-DFS-And-Alleges-Tha</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Charges Unsealed Against Five Individuals, Including Two Executives, In Foreign Bribery Scheme Involving Rolls-Royce
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Charges-Unsealed-Against-Five-Individuals-Includi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 7, 2017, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) unsealed charges against five individuals—including two executives—alleging violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) in connection with an alleged foreign bribery scheme at Rolls-Royce plc, the United Kingdom-based manufacturer and distributor of power systems for the aerospace, defense, marine, and energy sectors.  All five individuals are accused of participating in a scheme to bribe officials in Central Asia and China to win equipment supply and power services contracts, which partly formed the basis for the DOJ&apos;s enforcement action against Rolls-Royce in January 2017.  Four of the five individuals had pleaded guilty at the time of the unsealing, which represents the latest example of the DOJ&apos;s commitment to prosecute individuals for alleged FCPA violations. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Charges-Unsealed-Against-Five-Individuals-Includi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Fines Cargill $10 Million For Misreporting Swap Trades
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Fines-Cargill-10-Million-For-Misreporting-Sw</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 6, 2017, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) filed a settled enforcement action against Cargill, Inc. (&quot;Cargill&quot;), an agriculture commodities trader, for allegedly misrepresenting the mid-market marks of swaps to counterparties and in reports to its swap data repository (&quot;SDR&quot;), in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;) and commission regulations.  Cargill consented to the CFTC&apos;s order and agreed to pay a penalty of $10 million, without admitting or denying the Order&apos;s findings.  In the Matter of Cargill, Inc. CFTC No. 18-03 (Nov. 6, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Fines-Cargill-10-Million-For-Misreporting-Sw</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. District Court Compels Former Lawyer To President Trump&apos;s Campaign Manager To Answer Special Counsel&apos;s Questions Regarding Aspects Of Her Prior Representation—Finding That Scope Of Special Counsel&apos;s Inquiry Falls Within &quot;Crime-Fraud&quot; And Other Exceptions To Applicable Privileges 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-District-Court-Compels-Former-Lawyer-To-Presid</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 30, 2017, Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed an order granting the Office of the Special Counsel&apos;s (&quot;SCO&quot;) motion to compel the former counsel (&quot;Counsel&quot;) of Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (President Trump&apos;s former campaign manager) and Richard W. Gates (a former campaign adviser to President Trump) to testify before a grand jury regarding certain aspects of her prior representations of these clients.  In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. 17-ms-2336 (D.D.C. 2017).  The Court rejected Counsel&apos;s assertions of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection, finding that the information sought by the SCO fell within the &quot;crime-fraud&quot; exception to the attorney-client privilege and that any applicable privilege had been waived.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-District-Court-Compels-Former-Lawyer-To-Presid</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Forex Trader Found Guilty Of Defrauding Client
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Forex-Trader-Found-Guilty-Of-Defrauding-Clientnbs</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On October 23, 2017, following a four-week trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mark Johnson, the former head of a foreign exchange (&quot;forex&quot;) trading desk for a major financial institution, was convicted of eight counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect;1343 and one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect;1349 for manipulating the price of foreign currency for his employer&apos;s profit at the expense of his client. U.S. v. Johnson, No. 1:16-cr-00457 (E.D.N.Y. filed July 19, 2016).  This was the first individual conviction to arise out of the government&apos;s multi-year investigation into the forex market.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Forex-Trader-Found-Guilty-Of-Defrauding-Clientnbs</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>CFTC Imposes Sanctions On A Proprietary Trading Firm For Spoofing The Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Imposes-Sanctions-On-A-Proprietary-Trading-F</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 10, 2017, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (&quot;CFTC&quot;) filed and settled charges against Arab Global Commodities DMCC (&quot;AGC&quot;), a proprietary trading firm headquartered in Dubai.  Specifically, the CFTC found that one of AGC&apos;s traders had engaged in a market manipulation practice known as spoofing in violation of Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;), and that AGC had failed to &quot;implement adequate policies and procedures to monitor&quot; its employees&apos; trades for potential spoofing.  In the Matter of Arab Global Commodities DMCC, CFTC No. 18-01, 2017 WL 4511098 (Oct., 10, 2017) (&quot;Order&quot;). AGC consented to the Order and agreed to pay a penalty of $300,000 plus post-judgment interest, without admitting or denying the Order&apos;s findings.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/CFTC-Imposes-Sanctions-On-A-Proprietary-Trading-F</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Applies Janus To Set Aside SEC Sanctions Against Investment Banker
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Applies-Janus-To-Set-Aside-SEC-Sanctions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 29, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (&quot;D.C. Circuit&quot;) overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s (&quot;SEC&quot;) determination that investment banker Frank Lorenzo had violated Rule 10b-5(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (&quot;Exchange Act&quot;) by sending emails that allegedly contained material misrepresentations about a debenture offering that were drafted by his employer.  See Lorenzo v. SEC, No. 15-1202, slip op. at 2 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 29, 2017).  The panel held that, per the Supreme Court&apos;s decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135 (2011), Lorenzo was not the &quot;maker&quot; of the alleged misrepresentations in the emails because he had only cut-and-pasted content over which his employer retained &quot;ultimate authority.&quot;  After reversing the SEC&apos;s Rule 10b-5(b) determination, however, a split panel affirmed the SEC&apos;s determination that, by recklessly making use of misleading statements over which he did not have ultimate authority, Lorenzo had violated Rules 10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c), as well as Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (&quot;Securities Act&quot;).  The panel then set aside the lifetime industry bar and $15,000 civil monetary penalty that had been imposed on Lorenzo and directed the SEC to reassess the appropriate penalties in light of the panel&apos;s holding that Lorenzo had not violated Rule 10b-5(b).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Applies-Janus-To-Set-Aside-SEC-Sanctions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC&apos;s ALJ Dismisses Fraud Charges In High-Profile Lynn Tilton Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-ALJ-Dismisses-Fraud-Charges-In-High-Pro</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 27, 2017, an administrative law judge (&quot;ALJ&quot;) for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) dismissed the SEC&apos;s administrative proceeding against Lynn Tilton and four Patriarch Partners entities (&quot;Patriarch Partners&quot;) that she owned.  The Commission alleged that Tilton and Patriarch Partners willfully violated Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (&quot;Advisors Act&quot;), and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, by overvaluing the loan-assets of certain funds managed by Patriarch Partners and by issuing financial statements that did not comply with generally accepted accounting principles (&quot;GAAP&quot;).  In the Matter of Lynn Tilton, et al., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-16462, Initial Decision Rel. No. 1182 (Sept. 27, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-ALJ-Dismisses-Fraud-Charges-In-High-Pro</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Overturns Convictions Of Former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos And His Son Based On Supreme Court&apos;s McDonnell Decision
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Overturns-Convictions-Of-Former-Se</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the political corruption conviction of the former majority leader of the New York State Senate, Dean G. Skelos, and his son, Adam B. Skelos.  United States v. Skelos, et al., No. 16-1618 (2d Cir. 2017).  The Second Circuit&apos;s decision was based on the district court&apos;s erroneous jury instruction.  Though the instruction was consistent with precedent at the time of trial, the Circuit Court found that the instruction was infirm given the Supreme Court&apos;s intervening decision in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).  The latter decision limited the scope of what can be construed as an &quot;official act,&quot; and the Second Circuit concluded that the trial court&apos;s instructions were too broad.  The Court further found that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since the prosecution in Skelos had rested its argument in part on conduct now considered lawful after McDonnell, and the jury reasonably could have based its decision on that evidence.  The basis for this decision was similar to the Circuit&apos;s reversal of the conviction of Sheldon Silver (former Speaker of the New York State Assembly), as previously reported on July 18, 2017.  Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP: Government/Regulatory Enforcement, Second Circuit Overturns Watershed Conviction Of Sheldon Silver Based On Recent Supreme Court Decision (July 18, 2017).   

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 23:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Overturns-Convictions-Of-Former-Se</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC Bring Major FCPA Enforcement Actions Against Swedish Telecom Firm, Imposing One Of Largest FCPA Penalties In History
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Bring-Major-FCPA-Enforcement-Actions-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 21, 2017, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced significant enforcement actions against Telia Company AB, a Swedish telecommunications firm, for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  United States v. Telia Company AB, No. 1:17-cr-00581 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); In the Matter of Telia Company AB, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18195 (September 21, 2017) (&quot;Order&quot;).  Specifically, the DOJ charged Telia and its Uzbek subsidiary, Coscom, with conspiring to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA by offering and paying at least $330 million in bribes to a shell company in Uzbekistan under the guise of payments for lobbying and consulting services that never actually occurred, while the SEC alleged that Telia violated the anti-bribery and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA through the same conduct.  Telia&apos;s subsidiary Coscom pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; meanwhile, Telia entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;) with the DOJ, and the SEC instituted settled administrative proceedings against the company.  In aggregate, Telia agreed to pay criminal penalties of approximately $548 million to resolve the DOJ charges and related charges filed by the Public Prosecution Service of the Netherlands, and agreed to pay approximately $457 million in disgorgement to settle the SEC allegations.  Because of certain offsets, Telia&apos;s total payments to the DOJ, SEC, and foreign regulators will be approximately $965 million.  However, Telia was not required to engage a compliance monitor, in light of the company&apos;s remediation and the state of its compliance program.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 18:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-Bring-Major-FCPA-Enforcement-Actions-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Files Administrative Proceeding Against An Investment Services Firm For Improperly Recommending Higher-Fee Mutual Funds To Investment Clients
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Administrative-Proceeding-Against-An-In</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 14, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed an administrative proceeding against SunTrust Investment Services, Inc. (&quot;STIS&quot;), the investment services subsidiary of SunTrust Banks.  STIS consented to the filing of the proceedings and settled the allegations, without admitting or denying them.  STIS agreed to pay a penalty totaling $1,148,071.77, as well as disgorgement plus interest.  In addition, the STIS agreed to be censured.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Administrative-Proceeding-Against-An-In</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Divided Second Circuit Panel Abandons Relationship Test From Landmark Newman Decision In Upholding Insider Trading Conviction
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Divided-Second-Circuit-Panel-Abandons-Relationshi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 23, 2017, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the insider trading conviction of SAC Capital Advisors, LLC (&quot;SAC&quot;) portfolio manager Mathew Martoma.  United States v. Martoma, No. 14-3599 (2d Cir. Aug. 23, 2017).  The decision represented the Second Circuit&apos;s first occasion to consider its landmark decision in United States v. Newman in light of the Supreme Court&apos;s recent decision in Salman v. United States.  Over a strong dissent, the majority found that the logic underpinning the Salman decision abrogated Newman&apos;s requirement that a &quot;meaningfully close personal relationship&quot; exist between a tipper and tippee before allowing a jury to infer the personal benefit necessary to establish insider trading liability merely from a tip of inside information.  The majority held &quot;that an insider or tipper personally benefits from a disclosure of inside information whenever the information was disclosed with the expectation that the recipient would trade on it and the disclosure resembles trading by the insider followed by a gift of the profits to the recipient, whether or not there was a meaningfully close relationship between the tipper and tippee.&quot;  Martoma, slip op. at 27-28 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In so doing, it shifted the focus from the relationship between a tipper and tippee to the tipper&apos;s subjective intent in making the tip, and seemingly did away with the limiting principle that Newman had established.  However, while clearly a win for prosecutors, this new standard will still require a highly fact-intensive inquiry into the purpose of any tip, meaning that precisely how much of a shift in law it portends remains to be seen.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Divided-Second-Circuit-Panel-Abandons-Relationshi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>A Second Broker-Dealer Settles SEC Allegations Over Improper Handling Of Pre-Released ADRs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/A-Second-Broker-Dealer-Settles-SEC-Allegations-Ov</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 18, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that broker-dealer Banca IMI Securities Corp. (&quot;BISC&quot;), an indirect, wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Italian bank Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, agreed to pay more than $35 million to settle claims that it violated federal securities laws when it requested the issuance of, and received, pre-released American Depositary Receipts (&quot;ADRs&quot;) from various banks without possessing a corresponding number of underlying foreign shares or taking reasonable steps to ensure that such shares were held by the customers on whose behalf it was obtaining the pre-released ADRs, as required by its contracts with issuing banks.  In the Matter of Banca IMI Securities Corp., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18118 (Aug. 18, 2017).  The SEC alleged that this conduct violated Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and reflected a failure by BISC to supervise reasonably its securities lending desk personnel, as required under Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  This is the second such settlement the SEC has announced this year.  See In the Matter of ITG Inc., Admin Proc. File No. 3-17770 (Jan. 12, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/A-Second-Broker-Dealer-Settles-SEC-Allegations-Ov</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Audit Firm And Engagement Partner Settle SEC Allegations Stemming From 2011 Audit Of A New Client 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Audit-Firm-And-Engagement-Partner-Settle-SEC-Alle</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 15, 2017, KPMG LLP (&quot;KPMG&quot;) and one of its engagement partners settled claims brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) that they violated Section 4C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (&quot;Exchange Act&quot;) and Rule 102 of the SEC&apos;s Rules of Practice in connection with KPMG&apos;s 2011 audit of the financial statements of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. (&quot;Miller Energy&quot;).  In the Matter of KPMG LLP and John Riordan, CPA, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18110 (Aug. 15, 2017).  This is the second SEC enforcement action to grow out of the Miller Energy financial statements. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Audit-Firm-And-Engagement-Partner-Settle-SEC-Alle</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Upholds First Spoofing Conviction Against High-Frequency Trader
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Upholds-First-Spoofing-Conviction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 7, 2017, the Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction of Michael Coscia, founder of Panther Energy Trading LLC, for a market manipulation tactic known as &quot;spoofing,&quot; under Section 6c(a)(5)(C) and 13(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act.  United States v. Coscia, No. 16-cr-3017 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2017).  Coscia&apos;s conviction is the first of its kind under this statute, which was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 and prohibits &quot;bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.&quot;  The Seventh Circuit rejected Coscia&apos;s claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and found that Coscia&apos;s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Upholds-First-Spoofing-Conviction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Government Dismisses All Charges In Benjamin Wey Securities Fraud Case After U.S. District Judge Suppresses All Evidence Obtained Pursuant To Search Warrant
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Government-Dismisses-All-Charges-In-Benjamin-Wey-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 8, 2017, the Government moved to dismiss all charges against Benjamin Wey, the CEO of New York Global Group charged with securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.  United States District Court Judge Alison Nathan of the Southern District of New York accepted the government&apos;s motion the same day, and all charges against Wey were accordingly dismissed.  United States v. Wey, No. 1:15-cr-00611 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017) (nolle prosequi).  The Government&apos;s decision was expected after Judge Nathan suppressed all of the evidence obtained during the government&apos;s execution of court-ordered search warrants, United States v. Wey, No. 1:15-cr-00611 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2017) (&quot;Opinion&quot;), which is discussed in detail below.  Judge Nathan&apos;s suppression opinion is notable for its judicial findings - which could have broader ramifications in motion practice related to searches in white collar cases - and for the drastic remedy ordered by the court.  Further, the Government&apos;s decision to accept the sweeping suppression, instead of challenging the landmark decision on appeal, is strong support for the belief that Judge Nathan&apos;s opinion represents a critical shift in search warrant application requirements.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Government-Dismisses-All-Charges-In-Benjamin-Wey-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Investment Adviser Settles SEC Allegations Over Directing Clients To High-Fee Mutual Fund Share Classes 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Investment-Adviser-Settles-SEC-Allegations-Over-D</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 1, 2017, Cadaret, Grant &amp; Co., a Delaware investment adviser and broker-dealer, settled claims brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) that it violated various provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (&quot;Advisers Act&quot;) by failing, among other things, to invest its clients in lower-fee share classes of certain mutual funds and to disclose conflicts of interest regarding its incentives to invest clients in higher-fee share classes.   In the Matter of Cadaret, Grant &amp; Co., Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18087 (Aug. 1, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2017 17:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Investment-Adviser-Settles-SEC-Allegations-Over-D</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ And SEC File Parallel Criminal And Civil Insider Trading Charges Against Scientist Who Conducted Internet Searches On How To Avoid SEC Detection
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-File-Parallel-Criminal-And-Civil-Insi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 12, 2017, both the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed insider trading charges against a research scientist who allegedly traded upon confidential information obtained from his wife.  See Press Release, Manhattan U.S. Attorney And FBI Assistant Director Announce Insider Trading Charges Against Spouse Of Lawyer At International Law Firm, Rel. No. 17-213 (July 12, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-and-fbi-assistant-director-announce-insider-trading-charges-0; Press Release, SEC Files Inside Trading Charges Against Research Scientist Aiming to Avoid SEC Detection, Rel. No. 2017-125 (July 12, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-125.  The DOJ&apos;s criminal complaint includes two securities fraud charges and one wire fraud charge, see United States v. Yan, 17-mag-5156 (July 12, 2017), while the SEC&apos;s complaint charges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14e-3 thereunder.  SEC v. Yan et al., 17-cv-05257 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2017).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-And-SEC-File-Parallel-Criminal-And-Civil-Insi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Brings First Corporate FCPA Enforcement Action Under Its New Leadership
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-First-Corporate-FCPA-Enforcement-Actio</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 27, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) brought an enforcement  action against Halliburton Company, a Houston-based oilfield services corporation.  Specifically, the SEC alleged that Halliburton violated the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) by utilizing a local Angolan company to obtain business from the Angolan state oil company.  In the Matter of Halliburton Company and Jeannot Lorenz, Admin. Proc. No. 3-18080 (July 27, 2017) (&quot;Order&quot;).  Without admitting or denying the alleged conduct and charges, Halliburton agreed to pay approximately $29.2 million to settle SEC charges stemming from the long-running investigation which commenced in 2011.  As part of the Order, former Halliburton Vice-President Jeannot Lorenz, who allegedly spearheaded the conduct that formed the basis for the company&apos;s settlement, agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty for &quot;causing&quot; the company&apos;s underlying violations, circumventing internal accounting controls, and falsifying books and records.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 17:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Brings-First-Corporate-FCPA-Enforcement-Actio</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Overturns Convictions, Dismisses Indictments In LIBOR Case Due To Taint Of Testimony Compelled By Foreign Government
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Overturns-Convictions-Dismisses-In</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the convictions of Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, former traders at Co&amp;ouml;peratieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (&quot;Rabobank&quot;) who played roles in Rabobank&apos;s London Interbank Offered Rate (&quot;LIBOR&quot;) submission process.  United States v. Allen, et al., No. 16-939.  The Second Circuit held that each defendant&apos;s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated because the indictments and convictions were obtained in part based on their own testimony, which had been obtained involuntarily (though lawfully) when they were compelled to testify in a separate investigation conducted by the financial regulator in the United Kingdom.  Id. at 80.  Even though the government did not use Allen&apos;s and Conti&apos;s compelled testimony directly against them, either in the grand jury testimony or at trial, one of the government&apos;s key witnesses had seen their compelled testimony; and the Second Circuit concluded that the government could not demonstrate, under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), that his testimony was not tainted or that the use of his testimony was harmless.  The Second Circuit&apos;s decision in Allen will create numerous and wide-ranging potential pitfalls for U.S. prosecutors, who increasingly find themselves investigating potential crimes across borders and in conjunction with foreign criminal and regulatory authorities, many of whom allow for compulsory witness statements.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Overturns-Convictions-Dismisses-In</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Finds That HSBC Monitor&apos;s Reports Need Not Be Publicly Disclosed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Finds-That-HSBC-Monitorrsquos-Repo</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the district court&apos;s decision to unseal the report of a special monitor charged with supervising HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. (together, &quot;HSBC&quot;) pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement (&quot;DPA&quot;).  In so holding, the Second Circuit provided clarification in the district court&apos;s oversight of DPAs, including the scope of their supervisory authority relating to judicial documents. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Finds-That-HSBC-Monitorrsquos-Repo</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Second Circuit Overturns Watershed Conviction Of Sheldon Silver Based On Recent Supreme Court Decision
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Second-Circuit-Overturns-Watershed-Conviction</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the high-profile, political corruption conviction of one of the most powerful politicians in New York State— former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver. United States v. Silver, 2017 WL 2978386, at *17 (2d Cir. July 13, 2017).  The Second Circuit grounded its decision on erroneous jury instructions, which it believed tainted all counts of conviction.  Though the instructions were consistent with Second Circuit law at the time they were provided to the jury, the Second Circuit held that they did not comport with the Supreme Court&apos;s recent interpretation of what constitutes an &quot;official act&quot; for purposes of the &quot;honest services fraud&quot; and extortion statutes, as set forth in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016).  The Court further held that this error was not harmless, and vacated all counts of Silver&apos;s conviction. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Second-Circuit-Overturns-Watershed-Conviction</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Declination With Disgorgement Announced Under FCPA Pilot Program
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Declination-With-Disgorgement-Announced-Un</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On June 30, 2017, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that it had declined to bring charges against and was closing its investigation into CDM Smith Inc. (&quot;CDM&quot;), a Boston-based engineering and construction group, for alleged FCPA offenses in India in light of CDM&apos;s cooperation and agreement to disgorge the more than $4 million in profits that the DOJ asserted had been made from illegal conduct.  Letter from Nicola J. Mrazek, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Dep&apos;t of Justice, Criminal Div., Fraud Section to Nathaniel B. Edmonds, Paul Hastings LLP (counsel to CDM), dated June 21, 2017.  CDM had self-reported to the DOJ that certain employees in India had paid $1.2 million in bribes to officials at the National Highways Authority of India (&quot;NHAI&quot;) to win contracts for highway construction and design work and a water project.  The declination with disgorgement was the seventh declination and the fourth declination with disgorgement reached as part of the government&apos;s FCPA Pilot Program, which it unveiled in 2016 to encourage companies to self-report overseas corruption schemes.  Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP, Recent Trends and Patterns in the Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (July 5, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Declination-With-Disgorgement-Announced-Un</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eighth Circuit Vacates Disgorgement Order As Time-Barred Under Kokesh But Leaves Injunction Undisturbed 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eighth-Circuit-Vacates-Disgorgement-Order-As-Time</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 29, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a disgorgement order against Crawford Capital Corporation, a venture capital firm, and its owner, Paul D. Crawford, citing the U.S. Supreme Court&apos;s recent ruling in Kokesh v. SEC, which held that disgorgement collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) is subject to a five-year statute of limitations.  United States Sec. &amp; Exch. Comm&apos;n v. Collyard, No. 16-1405 (8th Cir. June 29, 2017).  At the same time, however, the court ruled that Kokesh does not preclude the SEC from obtaining injunctive relief for five-year-old conduct.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2017 20:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eighth-Circuit-Vacates-Disgorgement-Order-As-Time</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Bond Traders Beat Most Charges In RMBS Fraud Case 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bond-Traders-Beat-Most-Charges-In-RMBS-Fraud-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Thursday, June 15, 2017, a Connecticut federal jury delivered a mostly defendant-friendly verdict in the criminal trial of three residential mortgage-backed securities (&quot;RMBS&quot;) traders charged with conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud.  United States v. Shapiro et al., 3:15-cr-00155, Verdict Form (D. Conn. June 15, 2017).  This case is one of a slew of recent actions brought by the DOJ and SEC as part of a federal crackdown on allegedly deceptive bond trading practices, on which this newsletter has previously reported.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 17:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bond-Traders-Beat-Most-Charges-In-RMBS-Fraud-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Holds SEC Disgorgement Orders Subject To Five-Year Statute Of Limitations
 
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Holds-SEC-Disgorgemen</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 5, 2017, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) to seek disgorgement in connection with a violation of federal securities law is subject to a five-year statute of limitations, reversing a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and rejecting the SEC&apos;s argument that disgorgement is an equitable remedy not subject to any statute of limitations.  Kokesh v. SEC, No. 16-529 (June 5, 2017).  Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor analyzed the function of SEC disgorgement, concluding that it &quot;bears all the hallmarks of a penalty&quot; and was therefore subject to the five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 2462 (&quot;Section 2462&quot;).  In so doing, the Supreme Court resolved an outstanding circuit split as to whether the statute of limitations applies to disgorgement, answering that question with a definitive &quot;yes.&quot;

Read more
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Holds-SEC-Disgorgemen</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Of The United States Finds Criminal Forfeiture Statute Does Not Provide For Joint And Several Liability
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Of-The-United-States-Finds-Criminal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reversed a forfeiture judgment under Section 303 of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, 21 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 853(a)(1) (&quot;Section 853(a)&quot;), holding that forfeiture under Section 853(a) is limited to specific property that has been derived from, or used in, criminal activity by a given defendant.  Honeycutt v. United States, No. 16-142 (June 5, 2017).  This holding resolved a circuit split on the issue and rejected the prevailing majority approach, which had applied joint and several liability to forfeiture under Section 853(a), regardless of whether a party had personally benefited from the subject of the forfeiture.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Of-The-United-States-Finds-Criminal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>More Bond Traders Sued By The SEC For Alleged Fraudulent Misrepresentations Relating To MBS Prices
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/More-Bond-Traders-Sued-By-The-SEC-For-Alleged-Fra</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 15, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission sued two commercial mortgage backed securities (&quot;CMBS&quot;) traders for securities fraud allegedly committed while buying and selling CMBS on behalf of a large broker-dealer during the course of their employment at the firm.  SEC v. Chan, S.D.N.Y, 1:17-cv-3605; SEC v Im, S.D.N.Y, 1:17-cv-3613.  These are the latest in a slew of recent lawsuits that have been brought by the SEC and DOJ as part of a federal crackdown on allegedly deceptive bond trading practices, but the DOJ is notably absent from this latest case.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 16:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/More-Bond-Traders-Sued-By-The-SEC-For-Alleged-Fra</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Administration Unveils New Department Of Justice Charging And Sentencing Policies For Federal Prosecutors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Administration-Unveils-New-Department-Of-Justice-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 12, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors, entitled &quot;Department Charging and Sentencing Policy,&quot; which dramatically changes existing policies and procedures for federal prosecutors.  Department Charging and Sentencing Policy (May 10, 2017) (&quot;Sessions Memorandum&quot;).  The Sessions Memorandum requires prosecutors to (1) charge the &quot;most serious, readily provable offense&quot; available; and (2) disclose all facts impacting sentencing to the sentencing court and to advocate for a sentence falling within the range in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the &quot;Guidelines&quot;) in most cases.  The memorandum also rescinds all inconsistent policies, including two memorandums issued by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which provided wider latitude to prosecutors in their charging and sentencing decisions.  The Sessions Memorandum cites fairness and consistency as the objectives of the new policies, seeking to &quot;achiev[e] just and consistent results in federal cases.&quot;   

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2017 18:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Administration-Unveils-New-Department-Of-Justice-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Former Bond Trader Jesse Litvak Sentenced To Two Years&apos; Imprisonment After High-Profile Re-Trial In Securities Fraud Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Former-Bond-Trader-Jesse-Litvak-Sentenced-To-Two-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 26, 2017, Judge Janet C. Hall of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut sentenced Jesse Litvak, a former bond trader, to two years&apos; imprisonment, a $2 million fine, and three years&apos; probation after he was convicted in January 2017 of one count of securities fraud.  United States v. Litvak, D. Conn., 3:13-Cr-19, Sentencing Minutes (Apr. 26, 2017).  This sentence is the latest chapter in a multi-year saga for Jesse Litvak.  (See Shearman &amp; Sterling LLP, Bond Trader Acquitted Of All But One Securities Fraud Charges In Retrial, Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly, January 1, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2017 21:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Former-Bond-Trader-Jesse-Litvak-Sentenced-To-Two-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Administrative Law Judge Rules Against SEC In Insider Trading Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Administrative-Law-Judge-Rules-Against-SEC-In-Ins</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 18, 2017, Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;Commission&quot;) Administrative Law Judge (&quot;ALJ&quot;) James Grimes dismissed an administrative proceeding instituted by the Commission against Georgia real estate developer Charles Hill, Jr. alleging that Hill engaged in insider trading.  In the Matter of Charles L. Hill, Jr., Admin. Proc. No. 3-16383 (Apr. 18, 2017).  In the course of the administrative proceeding, the SEC&apos;s Enforcement Division argued that Hill had traded on material, nonpublic information about a tender offer while having reason to know that the information came from an officer of the target company.  After a full hearing on the merits, however, ALJ Grimes dismissed the administrative proceeding, concluding that the Enforcement Division had not met its burden of proof because its arguments rested too heavily on speculation.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Administrative-Law-Judge-Rules-Against-SEC-In-Ins</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Files Enforcement Actions Against Multiple Defendants In &quot;Trolling-Type&quot; Scheme To Generate False Publicity For Certain Issuers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Enforcement-Actions-Against-Multiple-De</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced fourteen enforcement actions, charging 28 businesses and individuals in connection with alleged schemes to pay writers to generate &quot;bullish&quot; articles relating to certain public companies, while concealing these promotion payments.  See Press Release, SEC: Payments for Bullish Articles on Stocks Must Be Disclosed to Investors, Rel. No. 2017-79 (Apr. 10, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/201779.  Although the SEC did not allege that the articles contained any misstatements about the public companies, the SEC claimed that the failure to disclose the promotion payments violated the anti-fraud and anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws, including Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Enforcement-Actions-Against-Multiple-De</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Utah District Court Limits Reach Of Morrison By Holding That Section 10(b) Of The Exchange Act And Section 17(a) Of The Securities Act Can Be Applied Extraterritorially In Actions Brought By The SEC And The United States  
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Utah-District-Court-Limits-Reach-Of-Morrison-By-H</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 28, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s (&quot;SEC&quot;) motion for a preliminary injunction in a securities fraud case against Traffic Monsoon, LLC, an advertising services company which allegedly ran a Ponzi scheme involving a pay-per-click advertisement program.  SEC v. Traffic Monsoon, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00832-JNP, (D. Utah Mar. 28, 2017) (order granting preliminary injunction) (&quot;Order&quot;).  The injunction hinged, in part, on the district court&apos;s conclusion that the SEC can bring securities fraud enforcement actions under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 (&quot;Exchange Act&quot;) and Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (&quot;Securities Act&quot;) in connection with foreign transactions.  In so ruling, the District Court limited the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court&apos;s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), in which the Supreme Court held that Section 10(b) applied only to transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and domestic transactions in other securities. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Utah-District-Court-Limits-Reach-Of-Morrison-By-H</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Court Rules That Trader Can Be Liable For Insider Trading On Misappropriation Grounds Even When Information Was Not Shared In Confidence If A Duty Of Trust And Confidence Later Emerged
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Rules-That-Trader-Can-Be-Liable-Fo</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 20, 2017, Judge Juan Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant Leon Cooperman&apos;s motion to dismiss an insider trading claim brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;).  Memorandum, SEC v. Cooperman, No. 16-cv-05043 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2017).  Judge Sanchez&apos;s opinion may be the first time a court has squarely considered whether, to be liable under the &quot;misappropriation theory&quot; of insider trading, the trader must have a duty of trust and confidence to the source of the &quot;misappropriated&quot; confidential information at the time the source discloses the confidential information to the trader—and not just sometime prior to executing the challenged trade.  The Court ruled that as long as the SEC alleged that there was a duty of trust and confidence prior to the challenged trade, using the information in breach of that duty could be an actionable misappropriation.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Rules-That-Trader-Can-Be-Liable-Fo</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Dismisses Insider Trading Charges
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Dismisses-Insider-Trading-Charges</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 13, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority&apos;s (&quot;FINRA&quot;) National Adjudicatory Council (the &quot;NAC&quot;) affirmed a hearing panel&apos;s finding that Matthew Joseph Sheerin, a trader formerly with investment firm Angelo Gordon &amp; Co., did not engage in insider trading.  Decision, Dep&apos;t of Mkt. Regulation v. Sheerin, Compl. No. 2011027926301 (Mar. 13, 2017).

Read more
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Dismisses-Insider-Trading-Charges</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC&apos;s Securities Fraud Lawsuit Against Texas Attorney General Dismissed For Second Time Over Lack Of Duty To Investors 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-Securities-Fraud-Lawsuit-Against-Texas-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 2, 2017, Judge Amos Mazzant III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed an amended complaint filed by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) against the Attorney General of Texas, Warren Paxton, Jr., for alleged securities fraud.  The SEC alleged that Paxton defrauded investors in Servergy, Inc., by touting the company in the absence of any disclosure that Paxton would earn commissions from the investments he solicited.  But the SEC&apos;s amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that, among other things, the SEC did not plead facts sufficient to establish that Paxton had any duty to disclose his commissions to the investors in Servergy.  SEC v. William E. Mapp, III, et al., No. 4:16-cv-00246 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2017), ECF No. 96.  The SEC&apos;s original complaint had been dismissed on October 7, 2016 for substantially the same reasons, and the Court found that the SEC&apos;s attempted cures were insufficient.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SECrsquos-Securities-Fraud-Lawsuit-Against-Texas-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Finds That Government Leaks Do Not Warrant Dismissal Of Insider Trading Charges Against Billy Walters
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Finds-That-Governme</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 1, 2017, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied professional gambler William &quot;Billy&quot; Walters&apos; motion to dismiss his indictment on charges of insider trading.  Walters&apos; motion came after the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office for the Southern District of New York (&quot;USAO&quot;) disclosed that one of the lead case agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (&quot;FBI&quot;) had leaked sensitive information to the press during the course of the investigation.  Walters claimed that those leaks were part of a calculated effort to prejudice his case by jumpstarting a dormant investigation and that they were part of a broader pattern of outrageous government conduct by the USAO and the FBI playing &quot;fast and loose&quot; with obligations of grand jury secrecy in an effort to prejudice defendants.  While being highly critical of the FBI agent who leaked the information in question, Judge Castel nevertheless ruled that Walters could not demonstrate substantial prejudice, or that the government&apos;s conduct reached a &quot;demonstrable level of outrageousness&quot; that warranted dismissal of the indictment.  Accordingly, Walters must now face trial.  United States v. Walters, No. 16-cr-00338-PKC, slip op. at 18 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Finds-That-Governme</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Department Of Justice Issues Guidance On Corporate Compliance Programs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Department-Of-Justice-Issues-Guidance-On-Corpo</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 8, 2017, the United States Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;), Fraud Section, issued guidance on its evaluation of corporate compliance programs in the context of criminal investigations of corporate entities.  By way of background, the United States Attorneys&apos; Manual outlines various principles federal prosecutors need to consider in deciding whether criminal charges against corporate entities should be pursued and how such charges should be resolved.  These principles include &quot;the existence and effectiveness of the corporation&apos;s pre-existing compliance program&quot; and the corporation&apos;s remedial efforts &quot;to implement an effective corporate compliance program or to improve an existing one.&quot;  United States Attorney&apos;s Office, United States Attorneys&apos; Manual &amp;sect; 9-28.300 (1997).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Department-Of-Justice-Issues-Guidance-On-Corpo</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Announces Enforcement Actions Arising Out Of Corporate Governance Disputes
 
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Enforcement-Actions-Arising-Out-Of-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 14, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted settled administrative proceedings in two different matters where the SEC alleged disclosure violations in connection with battles for corporate control.  CVR Energy (&quot;CVR&quot;), a Texas-based oil refinery company, agreed to settle claims that it failed to adequately disclose the material terms of its fee arrangements during an attempted hostile takeover, In the Matter of CVR Energy, Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-17846 (Feb. 14, 2017), and a group of investors agreed to settle claims that they failed to adequately disclose their ownership stakes during a series of campaigns to influence and exert control over microcap companies.  In the Matter of Jeffrey E. Eberwein, et al., Admin. Proc. No. 3-17847 (Feb. 14, 2017).  CVR was not assessed a penalty (which the SEC attributed to the company&apos;s extensive cooperation with the SEC investigation) while the respondents in Eberwein agreed to pay $420,000.  Neither party agreed to admit the allegations.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Announces-Enforcement-Actions-Arising-Out-Of-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California Jury Finds That Bio-Rad Violated The Whistleblower Protections Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act By Terminating Its General Counsel
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/California-Jury-Finds-That-Bio-Rad-Violated-The-W</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 6, 2017, a federal jury in San Francisco, California found that Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., a life sciences and clinical diagnostics company, violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act&apos;s whistleblower protections.  The violation stemmed from Bio-Rad&apos;s decision to terminate its former General Counsel, Sanford Wadler, after he internally reported potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) violations to the company&apos;s audit committee.  See Wadler v. BioRad Laboratories, Inc. et al., No 3:15-cv-2356 Final Verdict Form. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/California-Jury-Finds-That-Bio-Rad-Violated-The-W</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Settles Revenue Recognition Allegations And Charges Two Executives
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-Revenue-Recognition-Allegations-And-C</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 3, 2017, California-based technology company Ixia and its former CEO, Victor Alston, settled claims brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;SEC&quot;) for failing to properly defer recognition of certain revenue in violation of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quot;Exchange Act&quot;).  In the settlement document, Ixia and Alston neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s findings.  In the Matter of Ixia and Victor Alston, Admin. Proc. No. 3-17825 (Feb. 3, 2017).  The Commission also filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against two other former Ixia employees in connection with these same claims, and this suit is still pending.  Complaint, SEC v. Miller, et al., 17-cv-00897 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2017), ECF No. 1.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Settles-Revenue-Recognition-Allegations-And-C</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Limits SEC&apos;s Disgorgement Reach Under SOX 304
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Limits-SECrsquos-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 8, 2017, United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part defendant Erik Bardman&apos;s motion to dismiss the Securities and Exchange Commission&apos;s claim for disgorgement of certain compensation pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 304 (&quot;SOX 304&quot;).  Order, SEC v. Bardman, No. 3:16-cv-02023 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017).  Mr. Bardman is a former Chief Financial Officer of Logitech International SA.  The Court held that neither an earnings release nor a Form 8-K announcing and attaching an earnings release can be the basis of a SOX 304 disgorgement claim because any purported material noncompliance with a financial reporting requirement in those documents does not cause or require a company to issue an accounting restatement.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Limits-SECrsquos-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Charged New York Brokerage Firm And Former Compliance Officer With Gatekeeping And AML Failures Related To Penny Stock Sales
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charged-New-York-Brokerage-Firm-And-Former-Co</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 25, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed contested administrative proceedings against Windsor Street Capital (&quot;WSC&quot;), a NY-based brokerage firm, and its former chief compliance officer (&quot;CCO&quot;) and anti-money laundering officer, John David Telfer, for gate-keeping and AML failures related to sales of penny stocks that WSC facilitated.  In the Matter of Windsor Street Capital, L.P. (f/k/a Meyers Associates L.P.) and John David Telfer, Admin. Proc. No. 3-17813 (Jan. 25, 2017) (&quot;Order&quot;).  The SEC alleged that on numerous occasions between 2013 and the date of the Order, WSC facilitated the unregistered sale of hundreds of millions of penny stock shares without performing adequate due diligence, in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and failed to file suspicious activity reports (&quot;SARs&quot;) for transactions totaling at least $24.8 million with the United States Treasury Department&apos;s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (&quot;FinCEN&quot;), as required under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and in violation of the Exchange Act of 1934.  Tefler, according to the SEC, was personally responsible for monitoring customer transactions for suspicious activity and thus aided and abetted WSC&apos;s violations of the Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Charged-New-York-Brokerage-Firm-And-Former-Co</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Bond Trader Acquitted Of All But One Securities Fraud Charges In Retrial
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bond-Trader-Acquitted-Of-All-But-One-Securities-F</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 27, 2017, a federal jury in New Haven, Connecticut found former bond trader Jesse Litvak not guilty on all but one of ten charged securities fraud counts.  United States v. Litvak, D. Conn., 3:13-Cr-19, Jury Verdict (Jan. 27, 2017).  This case was a re-trial, after a jury&apos;s earlier verdict—finding Litvak guilty of all counts—was reversed and vacated.  United States v. Litvak, 30 F. Supp. 3d 143 (D. Conn. 2014), rev&apos;d in part, vacated in part, 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015).  As discussed below, the verdict was a sound defeat for the Government&apos;s particular theory of fraud in the retail bond markets, which the defense vigorously challenged at both trials.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Bond-Trader-Acquitted-Of-All-But-One-Securities-F</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Shipping Conglomerate OSG And Former CFO Agree To Settle SEC Claims Over Failure To Recognize Tax Liabilities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Shipping-Conglomerate-OSG-And-Former-CFO-Agree-To</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 23, 2017, Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (&quot;OSG&quot;), an international shipping conglomerate, and its former chief financial officer Myles R. Itkin, reached an agreement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) that brought to a close an SEC investigation into OSG&apos;s failure to record certain federal income tax liabilities of approximately $264 million that, when recognized in the second quarter of 2012, drove the company into bankruptcy.  In the Matter of Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. and Myles Robert Itkin, Admin. Proc. No. 3-17807 (Jan. 23, 2017) (&quot;Order&quot;).  Without admitting or denying the allegations, OSG and Itkin each consented to the entry of an order instituting settled cease-and-desist proceedings, which found that both violated or caused the violation of the negligence-based antifraud provisions as well as reporting, books-and-records, and internal controls provisions of federal securities laws.  OSG agreed to pay a $5 million penalty, which is subject to bankruptcy court approval, and Itkin agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty.    

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Shipping-Conglomerate-OSG-And-Former-CFO-Agree-To</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Orthofix Settles SEC&apos;s Accounting And FCPA Claims With Admissions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Orthofix-Settles-SECrsquos-Accounting-And-FCPA-Cl</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 18, 2017, Orthofix International N.V. (&quot;Orthofix&quot;), a Texas-based medical device company, agreed to a civil money penalty of $8,250,000 to settle claims brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) for artificially inflating the company&apos;s financial condition through faulty accounting, and separately agreed to disgorge $2,928,000, plus interest, and pay a civil money penalty of $2,928,000 for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;), by providing improper payments to doctors at government-owned hospitals in Brazil.  Orthofix admitted to facts set forth in the SEC&apos;s two Orders Instituting Proceedings, and acknowledged that the conduct violated the federal securities laws.  In the Matter of Orthofix International N.V., Admin. Proc. No. 3-17791 (Jan. 18, 2017).  In the Matter of Orthofix International N.V., Admin. Proc. No. 3-17800 (Jan. 18, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Orthofix-Settles-SECrsquos-Accounting-And-FCPA-Cl</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>BlackRock Settles SEC Charges Relating To Its Alleged Practice Of Requiring Employees To Waive Rights To Whistleblower Incentive Payments 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/BlackRock-Settles-SEC-Charges-Relating-To-Its-All</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 17, 2017, BlackRock, Inc. (&quot;BlackRock&quot;), a New York-based asset management company, settled charges by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) relating to BlackRock&apos;s separation agreements with employees.  According to the SEC, BlackRock required employees to sign separation agreements in which the employees waived their rights to collect any whistleblower awards as a precondition to receiving their separation payments.  BlackRock neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s allegations, but agreed to pay a $340,000 penalty to settle them.  Martin O&apos;Sullivan, SEC Settles with BlackRock over Whistleblower Waivers, Law360 (Jan. 17, 2017).  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/BlackRock-Settles-SEC-Charges-Relating-To-Its-All</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Grants Certiorari To Resolve Circuit Split Relating To Timing Of SEC Disgorgement Actions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Grants-Certiorari-To-Resolve-Circui</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 13, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case Kokesh v. SEC, 834 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2016), cert. granted sub nom. Kokesh v. SEC (U.S. Jan. 13, 2017) (Kokesh II), to resolve a circuit split relating to the time in which the SEC must file disgorgement actions. Kokesh, No. 16-529, 2017 WL 125673 (U.S. Jan. 13, 2017).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Grants-Certiorari-To-Resolve-Circui</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Partially Overturns Administrative Law Judge&apos;s Fraud Findings In Harding Advisory Case, But Increases Disgorgement For Others
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Partially-Overturns-Administrative-Law-Judger</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 6, 2017, the Commissioners of the United States Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) partially overturned an administrative law judge&apos;s (&quot;ALJ&quot;) initial decision finding that Harding Advisory LLC (&quot;Harding&quot;), and its principal, Wing F. Chau, committed fraud in connection with selecting assets for certain collateralized debt obligations (&quot;CDOs&quot;) in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (&quot;Securities Act&quot;) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (&quot;Advisers Act&quot;).  In the Matter of Harding Advisory LLC and Wing F. Chau, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-15574 (Jan. 6, 2017) (opinion of the commission).  Specifically, the Commissioners overturned the ALJ&apos;s determination that Harding failed to follow its standard of care in selecting certain collateral, while agreeing with the ALJ&apos;s determinations that Harding had an undisclosed conflict of interest and violated its fiduciary duties in connection with the selection of other collateral.  In addition, the Commissioners increased the amount of disgorgement ordered, finding that Harding had engaged in &quot;extreme recklessness&quot; by favoring certain clients over others.

Read More
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Partially-Overturns-Administrative-Law-Judger</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Mondelēz Agrees To Pay $13 Million To Resolve SEC&apos;s FCPA Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Mondelz-Agrees-To-Pay-13-Million-To-Resolve-SECrs</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 7, 2016, Mondelēz International, Inc. (&quot;Mondelēz&quot;), formerly known as Kraft Foods, Inc., settled claims brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) against Mondelēz and Cadbury Limited (&quot;Cadbury&quot;) for violations of the books and records and internal control provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) by a Cadbury subsidiary in India (&quot;Cadbury India&quot;).  Mondelēz, which neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s findings, agreed to pay a $13 million civil monetary penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s claims.  In the Matter of Cadbury Limited and Mondelēz International, Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-17759 (Jan. 6, 2017).  The settlement highlights the importance of thorough post-acquisition diligence, as Mondelēz&apos;s failure to identify potential FCPA violations in the diligence it conducted after its $19 billion acquisition of Cadbury appeared to contribute to the SEC&apos;s decision to bring an enforcement action.

Read More
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Mondelz-Agrees-To-Pay-13-Million-To-Resolve-SECrs</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Reaches Final Resolutions On Swiss Bank Program
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Reaches-Final-Resolutions-On-Swiss-Bank-Progr</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 29, 2016, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced that it had reached final resolutions with banks that have met the requirements of the Department&apos;s Swiss Bank Program (the &quot;Program&quot;).  Announced in August 2013, the Program provided a path for Swiss banks to resolve potential criminal liabilities in the United States and to participate in the Department&apos;s ongoing investigations of tax evasion by U.S. taxpayers.  Press Release, DOJ, Justice Department Reaches Final Resolutions Under Swiss Bank Program, Dec. 29, 2016 (&quot;DOJ Press Release&quot;). 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Reaches-Final-Resolutions-On-Swiss-Bank-Progr</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The SEC Charges Three Chinese Nationals With Insider Trading Related To Information That Was Hacked From Two New York Law Firms
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-SEC-Charges-Three-Chinese-Nationals-With-Insi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On December 27, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a complaint against three Chinese nationals, alleging that they hacked two New York-based law firms, stole material nonpublic information relating to upcoming mergers and acquisitions, and traded on that stolen information, earning approximately $3 million in illegal profits.  Complaint at 2, SEC v. Iat Hong, No. 16-Civ __ (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2016) (&quot;Complaint&quot;).  Stephanie Avakian, Acting Director of the Enforcement Division at the SEC, explained that investigators used recently developed &quot;enhanced trading surveillance and analysis capabilities&quot; to identify the scheme.  Press Release, SEC, Chinese Traders Charged with Trading on Hacked Nonpublic Information Stolen from Two Law Firms, Dec. 27, 2016, (&quot;SEC Press Release&quot;).      

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2017 22:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-SEC-Charges-Three-Chinese-Nationals-With-Insi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SandRidge Energy Settles Claims Of Whistleblower Retaliation And Overly Restrictive Settlement Agreements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SandRidge-Energy-Settles-Claims-Of-Whistleblower-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 20, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a settled administrative proceeding against SandRidge Energy, Inc. (&quot;SandRidge&quot;) for allegedly using inappropriately restrictive language in employee separation agreements and for retaliating against a whistleblower, the fifth such claim the SEC brought in 2016.  SandRidge, without admitting or denying the SEC&apos;s findings, agreed to pay a $1.4 million penalty, subject to the company&apos;s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, to resolve the SEC&apos;s claims.  In the Matter of SandRidge Energy, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-17739 (Dec. 20, 2016).  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SandRidge-Energy-Settles-Claims-Of-Whistleblower-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tenth Circuit Splits With D.C. Circuit On Constitutionality Of SEC ALJs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Splits-With-DC-Circuit-On-Constitut</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 27, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in a two-to-one decision, created a split in the U.S. Courts of Appeals concerning the constitutionality of the appointments of SEC Administrative Law Judges (&quot;ALJs&quot;).  In granting a petition for review from an SEC opinion upholding the findings of an ALJ, the Tenth Circuit held that the SEC&apos;s ALJs are inferior officers of the United States, and thus subject to the Appointments Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that inferior officers be appointed directly by the President, a federal court, or a department head.  Bandimere v. SEC, — F.3d —, 2016 WL 7439007 (10th Cir. 2016).  The SEC conceded that the process for hiring its ALJs—through the SEC&apos;s Office of Human Resources—did not satisfy the Appointments Clause.  The Tenth Circuit therefore set aside the SEC&apos;s order, which had found David Bandimere, a Colorado businessman and investor accused of promoting Ponzi schemes, liable for, among other things, securities fraud under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The resulting conflict among Courts of Appeal may lead to Supreme Court consideration of the issue.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Splits-With-DC-Circuit-On-Constitut</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Odebrecht And Braskem Shatter FCPA Settlement Records By Agreeing To Resolve Enforcement Action For $3.5 Billion For Role In Petrobras Scandal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Odebrecht-And-Braskem-Shatter-FCPA-Settlement-Rec</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 21, 2016, Odebrecht S.A. (&quot;Odebrecht&quot;), a global construction conglomerate based in Brazil, and its affiliate Braskem S.A. (&quot;Braskem&quot;), a Brazilian petrochemical company, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  The resolution of the actions shattered records for corruption settlements, as the companies agreed to pay a combined total penalty of $3.5 billion to resolve bribery charges in the United States, Brazil, and Switzerland arising out of schemes to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to government officials around the world, including Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company.  Plea Agreement, United States v. Odebrecht S.A., No. 1:16-cr-643 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2016); Plea Agreement, United States v. Braskem S.A., No. 16-cr-644 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2016).  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Odebrecht-And-Braskem-Shatter-FCPA-Settlement-Rec</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Teva Pharmaceuticals Enters Into Fourth-Largest FCPA Settlement 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Teva-Pharmaceuticals-Enters-Into-Fourth-Largest-F</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 22, 2016, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (&quot;Teva&quot;) settled parallel civil and criminal actions brought by the United States Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;).  Press Release, DOJ, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Agrees to Pay More Than $283 Million to Resolve Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Charges, Dec. 22, 2016.  The DOJ and SEC alleged that Teva violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;) and reaped $214 million in profits by making illicit payments to government officials in Russia, Ukraine, and Mexico to increase its market share, receive regulatory and formulary approvals, and obtain favorable drug purchase and prescription decisions.  Complaint, SEC v. Teva Pharmaceutical Indus. Ltd., No. 1:16-cv-25298 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016), ECF No. 1.  Under the terms of the settlement, which was the fourth largest FCPA settlement ever, Teva agreed to pay a $283 million criminal fine to the DOJ and $236 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to the SEC, for a total of $519 million.  Teva also entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ that requires the company to retain an independent monitor, and Teva&apos;s Russian subsidiary, Teva LLC, entered a guilty plea to a one-count criminal information. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 18:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Teva-Pharmaceuticals-Enters-Into-Fourth-Largest-F</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Supreme Court Affirms Expansive Reading Of The Bank Fraud Act
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Affirms-Expansive-Reading-Of-Th</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 12, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed the conviction of Lawrence Shaw under Section 1 of the Bank Fraud Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 1344(1), holding that a defendant can be guilty of bank fraud even where the defendant intends only to defraud a bank&apos;s customer, and not the bank itself.  Shaw v. United States, No. 15-5991, 580 U.S. __ (Dec. 12, 2016).  While the holding was an entirely unsurprising result, it reaffirmed that the bank fraud statute (like the mail and wire fraud statutes) is interpreted broadly — a position also supported by the Ninth Circuit&apos;s previous decision in Shaw&apos;s case.  United States v. Shaw, 781 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 1711, 194 L. Ed. 2d 809 (2016), and vacated, No. 15-5991, 2016 WL 7182235 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2016).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 15:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Affirms-Expansive-Reading-Of-Th</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Approves SEC Settlement With Broker-Dealer And Top Executive Regarding Marketing Of CDOs To School Districts
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Court-Approves-SEC-Settlement-With-Broker-Dealer-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 6, the district court approved the SEC&apos;s settlement with broker-dealer Stifel Nicolaus &amp; Co. and one of its former executives, David Noack.  The settlement ended a long-running SEC investigation and lawsuit against the defendants, which alleged that they had induced several Wisconsin school districts to invest in complex financial instruments through a series of falsehoods and misrepresentations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Under the terms of the settlement, Stifel and Noack agreed to pay penalties totaling $24.6 million, and were enjoined from violating Section 17(a)(2) and Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Court-Approves-SEC-Settlement-With-Broker-Dealer-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Affirms Pecuniary Benefit Not Required For Family Member Tips, Declines To Address What Constitutes A Benefit In Other Contexts
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Affirms-Pecuniary-Benefit-Not-Requi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous, but narrow, ruling in Salman v. United States, No. 15-628, 578 U.S. ___ (Dec. 6, 2016), regarding criminal tipper/tippee liability for insider trading, which the Supreme Court had not significantly addressed since its decision in Dirks v. S.E.C., 463 U.S. 646 (1983), in 1983. Following Dirks&apos; holding that a tippee cannot be held liable for insider trading unless the tipper receives a &quot;personal benefit,&quot; the Supreme Court ruled in Salman that a jury can infer that an insider receives an inherent personal benefit when making a gift of confidential information to a relative who trades on that information. The Court declined to adopt the Government&apos;s argument that &quot;a gift of confidential information to anyone, not just a &apos;trading relative or friend,&apos; is enough&quot; to establish liability, Salman, slip op. at 7, and noted that ultimately the question of whether a benefit was received will be a factual one for the jury. The Court also expressly left intact the Second Circuit&apos;s crucial ruling in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d. Cir. 2014), that a remote tippee who receives information second or third hand must know of the personal benefit received by the insider in order to be liable.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Affirms-Pecuniary-Benefit-Not-Requi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Outbound SEC Chair Mary Jo White Urges Continued Expansion Of Tools For SEC Enforcement 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Outbound-SEC-Chair-Mary-Jo-White-Urges-Continued-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 18, 2016, four days after announcing that she would step down at the end of the Obama administration, Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) Chair Mary Jo White recapped changes in SEC enforcement during her tenure and recommended enhancing the Commission&apos;s ability to combat white collar crime by creating new options for enforcement against senior executives and increasing the penalties that the Commission can assess.  SEC Chair Mary Jo White, &quot;A New Model for SEC Enforcement,&quot; Nov. 18, 2016, https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/chair-white-speech-new-york-university-111816.html. Although Chair White made no mention of the recent presidential election, it looms large.  Indeed, while there is a populist aspect to her calls for greater enforcement, her recommendations also stand in tension with the new administration&apos;s stated goal of downscaling regulation. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Outbound-SEC-Chair-Mary-Jo-White-Urges-Continued-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Levies Half-Million Dollar Fine For Self-Reported Accounting Errors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Levies-Half-Million-Dollar-Fine-For-Self-Reporting</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 7, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted a settled administrative proceeding against PowerSecure International (&quot;PowerSecure&quot;) that alleged that the company violated the financial reporting, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to accurately identify and disclose segment-level operating results from 2012 to 2014, as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (&quot;GAAP&quot;).  PowerSecure, which neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s findings, agreed to pay a $470,000 civil monetary penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s claims, which did not include any allegation of scienter or fraud.  In the Matter of PowerSecure, Int&apos;l, Admin. Proc. No. 3-17670 (Nov. 7, 2016).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Levies-Half-Million-Dollar-Fine-For-Self-Reporting</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Files Settled Accounting Case Against FMC Technologies And Two FMC Officers For Books And Records Violations, Without Alleging Fraud
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Settled-Accounting-Case-Against-FMC-Tech</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 20, 2016, the Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) filed a settled civil injunctive action against FMC Technologies, Inc. (&quot;FMC&quot;) that alleged that the company and two of its executives had engaged in books and records violations in connection with an FMC subsidiary&apos;s accruals for employee paid time off (&quot;PTO&quot;).  SEC, Company and Former Executives Paying Penalties for Accounting Violations, Rel. No. 2016-221 (Oct. 20, 2016).  To settle the SEC&apos;s claims, which did not include allegations of fraud, FMC, its energy infrastructure segment controller, Jeffrey Favret (&quot;Favret&quot;), and one of its business unit controllers, Steven Croft (&quot;Croft&quot;), agreed to pay civil monetary penalties of $2.5 million, $30,000 and $10,000, respectively, without admitting or denying wrongdoing.  Favret and Croft each also agreed to be barred from practicing as accountants before the SEC for at least two years.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Files-Settled-Accounting-Case-Against-FMC-Tech</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Deceptive Advertising Settlement Between Online Gambling Sites And NYAG Serves As Reminder Of NYAG&apos;s Broad Mandate For Consumer Protection 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Deceptive-Advertising-Settlement-Between-Online-Gambling</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 25, 2016, New York Attorney General (&quot;NYAG&quot;) Eric Schneiderman announced settlements with daily fantasy sports providers DraftKings, Inc. (&quot;DraftKings&quot;) and FanDuel Inc. (&quot;FanDuel&quot;) that resolved claims that the companies had violated New York&apos;s deceptive advertising laws by, among other things, failing to disclose the significant technological advantages enjoyed by more sophisticated players and overstating the likelihood of winning large cash prizes.  Settlement Agreement, In the Matter of DraftKings, Inc. (Oct. 25, 2016); Settlement Agreement, In the Matter of FanDuel Inc. (Oct. 25, 2016).  Under the terms of the settlements, DraftKings and FanDuel each agreed to pay $6 million in penalties and costs and reform their marketing efforts to align with a series of highly specific demands for disclosure by the NYAG.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Deceptive-Advertising-Settlement-Between-Online-Gambling</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Denies Motion To Dismiss Indictment In High-Profile Sanctions Prosecution
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Monday, October 17, 2016, Judge Richard M. Berman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss criminal charges against a Turkish businessman, who allegedly violated U.S. sanctions against Iran by directing foreign companies to conduct U.S. dollar transactions on behalf of, and for the benefit of, Iranian entities and individuals.  United States v. Zarrab, Case No. 1:15-cr-00867 (S.D.N.Y. October 17, 2016).  Judicial decisions interpreting the scope of criminal violations of U.S. sanctions laws are rare, as corporate defendants have recently opted to settle allegations.  This decision offers valuable insight into the application of U.S. sanctions laws to foreign actors, operating on foreign soil.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC FY2016 Featured A Record-Breaking Numbers Of Enforcement Actions And Whistleblower Awards 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-FY2016-Featured-A-Record-Breaking-Numbers-Of-Enforcement-Actions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 11, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;Commission&quot;) announced its enforcement results for its 2016 fiscal year.  The SEC brought an all-time record 868 enforcement actions in FY 2016, the third consecutive year in which the SEC has set a new record for enforcement activity.  The 868 enforcement actions were an approximately 7.5 percent increase over 2015 and nearly 15 percent over 2014, and resulted in the Commission collecting over $4 billion in disgorgement and penalties in FY 2016.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-FY2016-Featured-A-Record-Breaking-Numbers-Of-Enforcement-Actions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Finds CFPB Structure Unconstitutional
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Finds-CFPB-Structure-Unconstitutional</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 11, 2016, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, vacated an administrative enforcement order brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (&quot;CFPB&quot;) against PHH Corp. (&quot;PHH&quot;) for violations of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (&quot;RESPA&quot;).  PHH Corp. v. CFPB, No. 15-1177 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016).  The Court held, in relevant part, that the structure of the CFPB—an independent agency with power concentrated in a single director who is unaccountable to the President of the United States—represented an unconstitutional delegation of unchecked executive authority.  As a remedy, the Court held that the President must have the power to remove, direct, and supervise CFPB&apos;s director, but otherwise permitted the CFPB to continue its work.  Accordingly, the immediate practical impact of the decision will be limited, but over the long term the CFPB may begin to answer more directly to the political leanings of the Executive Branch, rather than Congress.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Finds-CFPB-Structure-Unconstitutional</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Fines Accountants $50,000 For Violating Auditor Independence Rules
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Fines-Accountants-50000-For-Violating-Auditor-Independence-Rules</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 30, 2016, Florida accountants Joseph D&apos;Arelli and Mitchell Pruzansky, together with the firm D&apos;Arelli Pruzansky P.A., agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty to settle the SEC&apos;s investigation into alleged violations of auditor independence rules, which occurred when D&apos;Arelli and Pruzansky each failed to rotate off certain audit engagements after five consecutive years.  The respondents neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s allegations, which were included in a settled cease and desist order that cited violations of Section 10A(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &quot;Exchange Act&quot;) and Rule 10A-2 thereunder.  In the Matter of D&apos;Arelli Pruzansky, P.A., et al., File No. 3-17605 (Sept. 30, 2016).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Fines-Accountants-50000-For-Violating-Auditor-Independence-Rules</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Weatherford Settles SEC&apos;s Allegations Of Accounting And Reporting Fraud For $140 Million
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Weatherford-Settles-SECrsquos-Allegations-Of-Accounting-and-Reporting-Fraud</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On September 27, 2016, Weatherford International Ltd. (&quot;Weatherford&quot;), the world&apos;s seventh-largest oilfield services company, agreed to pay $140 million to settle accounting and reporting fraud claims brought by the Securities Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;).  In the Matter of Weatherford International PLC, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-17582 (Sept. 27, 2016).  In a settled order instituting administrative proceedings, the SEC alleged that Weatherford used deceptive accounting practices to inflate its earnings by over $900 million between 2007 and 2012, and accused Weatherford&apos;s former vice president of tax, James Hudgins, and former tax manager, Darryl Kitay, as bearing personal responsibility.  Neither Weatherford nor the two individuals acknowledged wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Weatherford-Settles-SECrsquos-Allegations-Of-Accounting-and-Reporting-Fraud</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Receives $9.3 Million Settlement In Auditor Independence Actions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Receives-93-Million-Settlement-In-Auditor-Independence</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[​
On Monday, September 19, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that public accounting firm Ernst &amp; Young (&quot;EY&quot;) agreed to pay a total of $9.3 million to settle separate charges that two of the firm&apos;s audit partners, Gregory Bednar and Pamela Hartford, violated auditor independence rules after overseeing allegedly independent audits while allegedly engaging in personal relationships with senior executives of the EY issuer clients that were being audited.
 
Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Receives-93-Million-Settlement-In-Auditor-Independence</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Portugal Telecom Settles Financial Reporting Allegations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Portugal-Telecom-Settles-Financial-Reporting-Allegations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 13, 2016, Pharol SGPS, S.A., formerly known as Portugal Telecom SGPS, S.A. (&quot;Portugal Telecom&quot;), agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil penalty to resolve the SEC&apos;s investigation into its alleged accounting and controls failures.  In the Matter of Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A., File No. 3-17534 (Sept. 13, 2016).  The alleged accounting and control failures related to Portugal Telecom&apos;s 2013 disclosure of its short-term investments in debt securities.  Portugal Telecom neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s allegations, which were made as a part of a settled cease and desist order alleging violations of Section 13 of the Exchange Act.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Portugal-Telecom-Settles-Financial-Reporting-Allegations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Supports Expansive Interpretation Of SOX 304
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Supports-Expansive-Interpretation-Of-SOX-304</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 31, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a judgment in favor of Peter Jensen and Thomas Tekulve, Jr., former officers of Basin Water, Inc., and remanded for a jury trial.  SEC v. Jensen, No. 14-55221 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016).  The Court held, in relevant part, that the officers could be subject to the disgorgement provisions of Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (&quot;SOX 304&quot;) following the company&apos;s accounting restatements as long as the restatements were issued due to misconduct, even if that misconduct was not on the part of the defendants.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Supports-Expansive-Interpretation-Of-SOX-304</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Banking Agencies Issue Joint Fact Sheet To Help Assuage Banks&apos; Concerns Regarding Anti-Money Laundering Enforcement 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Banking-Agencies-Issue-Joint-Fact-Sheet-To-Help-Assuage-Banks-Concerns</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 30, 2016, the United States Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Association, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (together &quot;Federal Banking Agencies&quot; or &quot;FBAs&quot;), released a four-page fact sheet outlining their expectations for domestic banks evaluating the regulatory risks posed by foreign financial institutions.  U.S. Department of the Treasury and Federal Banking Agencies Joint Fact Sheet on Foreign Correspondent Banking: Approach to BSA/AML and OFAC Sanctions Supervision and Enforcement (the &quot;Fact Sheet&quot;).  The Fact Sheet addresses the obligations of domestic banks to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)—including the BSA&apos;s anti-money laundering (AML) and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) requirements—as well as with U.S. sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC).  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 14:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Federal-Banking-Agencies-Issue-Joint-Fact-Sheet-To-Help-Assuage-Banks-Concerns</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tenth Circuit Holds That Disgorgement Is Not Subject to A Five-Year Limitations Period  
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Holds-That-Disgorgement-Is-Not-Subject-to-a-five-year-limitations-period</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected an appeal by Charles Kokesh that contested, among other things, an order that he pay $34.9 million in disgorgement on statute of limitations grounds.  S.E.C. v. Kokesh, No. 15-2087, slip op. at 2 (10th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016).  Kokesh had claimed that the disgorgement order should have been barred by the five-year limitations period in 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 2462, citing the recent Eleventh Circuit decision S.E.C. v. Graham, 823 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2016), which held that &amp;sect; 2462 applied to disgorgement.  The Tenth Circuit, however, rejected the Eleventh Circuit&apos;s analysis and held that the disgorgement order was not subject to &amp;sect; 2462 because it was neither a penalty nor forfeiture.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 14:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Holds-That-Disgorgement-Is-Not-Subject-to-a-five-year-limitations-period</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Private Equity Advisers Settle SEC Charges, Highlighting The SEC&apos;s Continued Scrutiny Of Private Equity Firms
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Private-Equity-Advisers-Settle-SEC-Charges-Highlighting-SEC-Scrutiny</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 23, 2016, four Apollo Global Management advisers, each organized as a Delaware limited partnership, agreed to pay a total of roughly $52.7 million (including $37.527 million in disgorgement and a $12.5 million civil penalty) to settle the SEC&apos;s investigation of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty stemming from, among other things, a failure to disclose accelerated fees paid by Apollo funds&apos; portfolio companies and alleged misrepresentations about which entity would ultimately be allocated the interest that accrued on a loan.  SEC Press Release, Apollo Charged With Disclosure and Supervisory Failures, Rel. No. 2016-165 (Aug. 23, 2016).  The advisers neither admitted nor denied the SEC&apos;s allegations, which were made as a part of a settled cease and desist order alleging violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Private-Equity-Advisers-Settle-SEC-Charges-Highlighting-SEC-Scrutiny</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>
SEC Enters Into First Settlement Agreements Penalizing Companies for Attempting to Block Employees from Receiving Whistleblower Reward Payments
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enters-Into-First-Settlement-Agreements-Penalizing-Companies</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 10, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) instituted a settled administrative proceeding against a building products distributor.  The allegations focused on the distributor&apos;s use of severance agreements that required outgoing employees to forego their ability to recover monetary rewards under various whistleblower statutes.  In the Matter of BlueLinx Holdings, Inc., Admin. Proc. File no. 3-17371 (Aug. 10, 2016).  Six days later, the SEC instituted another settled administrative proceeding that raised similar allegations regarding the use of such severance agreements; this time, involving a health insurance provider.  In the Matter of Health Net, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-17396 (Aug. 16, 2016).  The details of both settlements are set forth below:

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enters-Into-First-Settlement-Agreements-Penalizing-Companies</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>
In Reinstating Conviction, Second Circuit Expands Federal Prosecutors&apos; Ability to Prosecute Fraud Claims in New York
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Reinstating-Conviction-Second-Circuit-Expands-Federal-Prosecutors-Ability</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court&apos;s judgment of acquittal for Kristofor Lange on venue grounds.  See U.S. v. Lange, No. 14-2442-cr, slip op. at 2 (2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2016).  Lange had been convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud after a jury trial.  The Court held that venue was in fact proper in the Eastern District of New York because individuals targeted by Lange&apos;s scheme had received phone calls in the district and because it was foreseeable to Lange that calls would be made to individuals located there.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Reinstating-Conviction-Second-Circuit-Expands-Federal-Prosecutors-Ability</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Rejects Constitutional Challenge to SEC&apos;s Use of Administrative Proceedings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Court-Of-Appeals-Rejects-Constitutional</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 9, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the use of administrative law judges (&quot;ALJs&quot;) by the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;Commission&quot;) to be constitutionally sound, holding that the SEC&apos;s use of ALJs does not violate the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because, rather than acting as officers of the United States, these ALJs, who lack the authority to issue final decisions, act as employees.  Raymond J. Lucia Cos. Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 15-1345 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016).  With at least one similar case pending before the Tenth Circuit, and a number of contested actions still pending in front of the Commission itself, the Lucia decision has the potential to be an important precedent-setting decision.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Court-Of-Appeals-Rejects-Constitutional</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Levies Harsh Sanctions Against Former KPMG Auditors In ALJ Appeal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Levies-Harsh-Sanctions-Against-Former-KPMG-Auditors</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Friday, August 5, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;Commission&quot;) issued an opinion barring John J. Aesoph and Darren M. Bennett (&quot;Respondents&quot;), both former CPAs for KPMG, from practicing or appearing before the SEC, with a right to apply for reinstatement in three and two years, respectively, on the grounds that they had negligently engaged in improper professional conduct within the meaning of SEC Rule 102(e).  In re John J Aesoph and Darren M. Bennett, Admin Proc. File No. 3-15168 (August 5, 2016),  In so doing, a divided Commission levied harsher sanctions than had been imposed by the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the matter or requested by the Division of Enforcement.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Levies-Harsh-Sanctions-Against-Former-KPMG-Auditors</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Defendant Settles Long-Running Insider Trading Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Defendant-Settles-Long-Running-Insider-Trading-Litigation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 25, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that on July 20, 2016, the Honorable Charles Pannell of the Northern District of Georgia entered a final judgment against Michael Sean Cain.  Pursuant to the judgment, Cain consented to a permanent injunction and to pay a civil penalty of $36,991.20, a sum that exceeds his own alleged insider trading profits by less than $350, despite allegations that persons to whom he provided the insider information earned profits that exceeded $380,000.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 14:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Defendant-Settles-Long-Running-Insider-Trading-Litigation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In Significant Electronic Privacy Decision, Second Circuit Rules That Search Warrant Provisions in SCA Do Not Apply Extraterritorially
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Significant-Electronic-Privacy-Decision-Second-Circuit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On Thursday, July 14, 2016, the Second Circuit effectively quashed a judicially authorized search warrant by which the U.S. Government had sought to obtain customer data that Microsoft stored overseas.  Microsoft Corp. v. United States, No. 14-2985, slip op. (2d Cir. July 14, 2016).  In doing so, the Second Circuit held that the Government cannot obtain a search warrant under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) to obtain electronic customer data located exclusively on foreign servers, even where a U.S. corporation has custody and control of that data.   

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-Significant-Electronic-Privacy-Decision-Second-Circuit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In the Matter of Microsoft: Why It Matters
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-the-Matter-of-Microsoft-Why-It-Matters</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 14, 2016, the Second Circuit released its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. United States, No. 14‐2985, slip op. (2d Cir. July 14, 2016). The Second Circuit rejected the Government&apos;s efforts to require Microsoft to turn over emails held overseas in its data center in Dublin, Ireland pursuant to a judicially-authorized search warrant.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/In-the-Matter-of-Microsoft-Why-It-Matters</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Does the SEC&apos;s Adoption of Amendments to Rules of Practice Mean It Will Resume Litigating Enforcement Actions as Administrative Proceedings?
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Does-the-SECrsquos-Adoption-of-Amendments-to-Rule</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 13, 2016, the SEC adopted amendments to the Rules of Practice that govern administrative proceedings to, among other things, expand discovery and extend the timelines for conducting administrative proceedings.  Press Release, SEC Adopts Amendments to Rules of Practice for Administrative Proceedings (July 13, 2016), www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-142.html.  The adopted amendments are little changed from those that were initially proposed in September 2015.  At the time, SEC Chair Mary Jo White defended the amendments as &quot;provid[ing] parties with additional opportunities to conduct depositions and add[ing] flexibility to the timelines . . . while continuing to promote the fair and timely resolution of the proceedings.&quot;

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Does-the-SECrsquos-Adoption-of-Amendments-to-Rule</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Johnson Controls, Inc.&apos;s FCPA Settlement Is a Reminder That Extensive Cooperation Is Not a Free Pass 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Johnson-Controls-Incrsquos-FCPA-Settlement-Is-a-Reminder</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 11, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced that Johnson Controls, Inc. (&quot;Johnson Controls&quot;), a Wisconsin-headquartered global provider of automatic temperature control systems, had agreed to pay $14.3 million to settle alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (&quot;FCPA&quot;).  In the Matter of Johnson Controls, Inc., Admin. Proc. No. 3-17337 (July 11, 2016) (order instituting proceedings).  Although Johnson Controls reportedly self-disclosed the violations, cooperated extensively with the SEC and Department of Justice (DOJ), identified individuals associated with the misconduct, and engaged in robust remediation, the company nevertheless was required to pay a civil money penalty in addition to disgorging the profits it reaped as a result of the scheme.  The DOJ agreed to issue a declination, but the SEC took a harder line.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Johnson-Controls-Incrsquos-FCPA-Settlement-Is-a-Reminder</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>German Financial Regulator&apos;s Decision To Open Whistleblower Office Highlights International Focus On Protecting Whistleblowers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/German-Financial-Regulatorrsquos-Decision-To-Open</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 1, 2016, Germany&apos;s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (&quot;BaFin&quot;) announced the creation of a centralized office for whistleblowers to report regulatory violations. BaFin also noted in its announcement that it believed that protecting whistleblowers was a top priority.  Numerous regulators throughout the world have now created dedicated whistleblower offices, and BaFin&apos;s efforts seem fully in line with this growing and impactful trend.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/German-Financial-Regulatorrsquos-Decision-To-Open</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Allows Joint Petition For Rehearing Of Appeals Challenging Constitutionality Of SEC Proceedings Before Administrative Law Judges
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Allows-Joint-Petition-for-Rehearing-of-Appeals</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 27, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a motion to allow former ratings agency and private equity executives to jointly file a petition for rehearing of their appeals challenging the constitutional validity of SEC proceedings before administrative law judges.  Barbara Duka v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 15-2732, slip op. at *1 (2nd Cir. June 27, 2016); Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 15-2103.  In a two-sentence ruling, the Second Circuit granted the motion to permit the petitioners, Barbara Duka and Lynn Tilton, to proceed jointly in their attempts to overturn the Second Circuit&apos;s holding that underlying SEC proceedings must conclude before the constitutionality of those proceedings may be challenged in federal court.  Duka and Tilton had filed separate lawsuits seeking to halt administrative proceedings brought against them by the SEC, claiming that SEC administrative law judges&apos; appointments and insulation from removal are unconstitutional.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Allows-Joint-Petition-for-Rehearing-of-Appeals</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Securities Enforcement: 2016 Mid-Year Review
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Securities-Enforcement-2016-Mid-Year-Review-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) brought over 400 enforcement actions in the first half of fiscal year (FY) 2016, and is on pace to surpass its record of 807 enforcement actions in a single fiscal year, set in FY 2015.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Securities-Enforcement-2016-Mid-Year-Review-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of What Constitutes An &quot;Official Act&quot; And Overturns The Conviction Of Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Supreme-Court-Limits-The-Scope-Of-What-Constit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the 2014 conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell.  McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474, 2016 WL 3461561 (June 27, 2016).  A jury had convicted McDonnell on charges related to accepting things of value in exchange for performing &quot;official acts,&quot; but the Court defined &quot;official act&quot; narrowly and required that such an act &quot;involve a formal exercise of governmental power.&quot;  Since the district court&apos;s jury instruction appeared to define an official act more broadly, the Court held that the jury may have convicted McDonnell without finding that he had committed an official act, and vacated McDonnell&apos;s conviction. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/US-Supreme-Court-Limits-The-Scope-Of-What-Constit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Securities Enforcement: 2016 Mid-Year Review
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Securities-Enforcement-2016-Mid-Year-Review</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) brought over 400 enforcement actions in the first half of fiscal year (FY) 2016, and is on pace to surpass its record of 807 enforcement actions in a single fiscal year, set in FY 2015.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2016 14:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Securities-Enforcement-2016-Mid-Year-Review</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FCPA Digest: Recent Trends &amp; Patterns
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FCPA-Digest-Recent-Trends-and-Patterns</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
We are now halfway into 2016. After a few relatively slow years, it appears that 2016 may reflect a return to more active FCPA enforcement as, in the last six months, the two U.S. enforcement agencies, the DOJ and the SEC, have collectively brought as many cases as they did in the entire year of 2015 and more than in the two preceding years. What is interesting, however, is that, although some of the cases involved household corporate names, the penalties were relatively low—with the exception of the VimpelCom case— and the patterns of corruption, albeit with some exceptions, fairly mundane. More controversial have been some of the policy changes announced by the DOJ, placing a premium on voluntary disclosure and cooperation, including overtly and mandatorily &quot;throwing employees under the bus&quot; in exchange for allegedly deeper discounts on penalties and other forms of leniency. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2016 14:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FCPA-Digest-Recent-Trends-and-Patterns</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Limits Extraterritorial Application of Civil RICO
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Limits-Extraterritorial-Application</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court held that, to maintain a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (&quot;RICO&quot;) Act, a private plaintiff &quot;must allege and prove a domestic injury to its business or property.&quot;  RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., No. 15-138, 2016 WL 3369423 (June 20, 2016).  And while the Court also separately held that a plaintiff may base a civil RICO claim on predicate acts that were committed abroad, those acts must violate underlying statutes that Congress unmistakably intended to apply extraterritorially.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Limits-Extraterritorial-Application</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fund Administrator Settles Charges that it Failed its Gatekeeper Responsibilities
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fund-Administrator-Settles-Charges-that-it-Failed</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 16, 2016, the SEC settled civil claims with fund administrator Apex Fund Services (US) Inc. (&quot;Apex&quot;), relating to allegations that Apex failed to heed red flags and correct faulty accounting for two of its clients.  SEC Press Release, Private Fund Administrator Charged with Gatekeeper Failures, Rel. No. 2016-120 (June 16, 2016).  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Fund-Administrator-Settles-Charges-that-it-Failed</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Upholds The Securities And Exchange Commission&apos;s Newly Promulgated Regulation A-Plus
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Upholds-The-Securities-And-Exchange-Commission</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 14, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied consolidated petitions brought by the chief securities regulators for Massachusetts and Montana seeking to vacate a recently-enacted Securities and Exchange Commission (the &quot;Commission&quot;) registration exemption known as Regulation A-Plus. —F.3d—, 2016 WL 3254610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The Court held that Regulation A-Plus withstood scrutiny under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984), and that the Commission had provided a satisfactory basis for the regulation.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Upholds-The-Securities-And-Exchange-Commission</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss the &quot;Bridgegate&quot; Indictment and Permits Novel Application of Anti-Bribery Statute
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Judge-Denies-Motion-to-Dismiss-the-ldquoBridgegat</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 13, 2016, United States District Judge Susan D. Wigenton denied the defense&apos;s motions to dismiss charges arising out of the so-called &quot;Bridgegate&quot; scandal.  United States v. Baroni, No. 15-cr-193, slip op. at 1 (D.N.J. June 13, 2016).  

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Judge-Denies-Motion-to-Dismiss-the-ldquoBridgegat</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Recent SEC Administrative Proceedings Highlight Agency&apos;s Renewed Focus on Addressing Accounting Fraud
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Recent-SEC-Administrative-Proceedings-Highlight-A</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 6, 2016, and June 7, 2016, the SEC filed settled administrative proceedings against accounting and audit firms for allegedly deficient auditing procedures. These enforcement actions, along with recent press statements and general trends in SEC enforcement, reflect the SEC&apos;s renewed focus on addressing accounting fraud.

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Recent-SEC-Administrative-Proceedings-Highlight-A</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eleventh Circuit Rules Disgorgement Subject to Five-Year Limitations Period, Ruling Against SEC
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Rules-Disgorgement-Subject-to-Five-Year-Limit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 26, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued SEC v. Graham, 1 a significant decision that, at least in the Eleventh Circuit, limits the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot; or &quot;Commission&quot;) to obtain disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in civil injunctive actions filed more than five years after the allegedly violative conduct. In so doing, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 2462—the federal catch-all five-year statute of limitations—applies to the equitable remedy of disgorgement, because disgorgement is nothing other than &quot;forfeiture,&quot; which is expressly covered by Section 2462. Graham comes after the Supreme Court&apos;s 2013 decision in Gabelli v. SEC where the Court declined to consider whether claims for disgorgement were subject to Section 2462 but signaled that it was generally in favor of limiting the government&apos;s ability to obtain relief for conduct long in the past, noting that &quot;even wrongdoers are entitled to assume that their sins may be forgotten.&quot;

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Rules-Disgorgement-Subject-to-Five-Year-Limit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Holds Federal Courts Cannot Hear Constitutional Challenges to SEC ALJs until Administrative Proceedings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Holds-Federal-Courts-Cannot-Hear-C</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 1, 2016, in Tilton v. SEC,  a divided Second Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the SEC&apos;s use of administrative proceedings on the grounds that the claim could only be brought in an appeal following the issuance of a final order by the SEC after the proceedings have concluded.  The panel&apos;s decision to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, and not reach the merits, may nevertheless result in a circuit split that could trigger Supreme Court review with implications for future SEC enforcement actions, depending on how the D.C. Circuit rules in the pending case of In the matter of Timbervest. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Holds-Federal-Courts-Cannot-Hear-C</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eleventh Circuit Decision in Graham Bars SEC from Seeking Disgorgement or Declaratory Relief for Conduct Outside Statute of Limitations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Decision-in-Graham-Bars-SEC-from</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 26, 2016, in SEC v. Graham, the Eleventh Circuit became the first circuit to hold that claims brought by a government agency for disgorgement and declaratory relief are subject to the five-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 2462.  The panel held that the disgorgement and declaratory relief the SEC sought were functionally identical to &quot;forfeiture&quot; and &quot;penalties,&quot; respectively, as defined by Section 2462, but that the injunctive relief sought by the SEC was not time-barred.  Graham appears to create a circuit split that would prompt Supreme Court review, as prior courts have found that disgorgement was not subject to the limitations period in Section 2462.

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Decision-in-Graham-Bars-SEC-from</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The SEC Enters into Two FCPA Non-Prosecution Agreements in Light of Company Cooperation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-SEC-Enters-into-Two-FCPA-Non-Prosecution-Agre</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 7, 2016, for only the second time in SEC history, the Commission announced non-prosecution agreements in a settlement of FCPA enforcement actions. As a result of the settlements, Akamai Technologies (Akamai) and Nortek Inc. (Nortek) will forfeit ill-gotten gains connected to bribes paid to Chinese officials by foreign subsidiaries. As a part of the settlements, Akamai will pay $652,452 in disgorgement plus $19,433 in interest and Nortek will pay $291,403 in disgorgement plus $30,655 in interest. Neither company, however, will pay monetary penalties because of the cooperation extended to the Commission in connection with the settlements.

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 14:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/The-SEC-Enters-into-Two-FCPA-Non-Prosecution-Agre</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Holds Federal Courts Cannot Hear Constitutional Challenges to SEC ALJs until Administrative Proceedings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Holds-Federal-Courts-Cannot-Hear-Constitutional</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 1, 2016, in Tilton v. SEC, a divided Second Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the SEC&apos;s use of administrative proceedings on the grounds that the claim could only be brought in an appeal following the issuance of a final order by the SEC after the proceedings have concluded.  No. 15-2103, ---F.3d---, 2016 WL ______ (2d Cir. June 1, 2016).  The panel&apos;s decision to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, and not reach the merits, may nevertheless result in a circuit split that could trigger Supreme Court review with implications for future SEC enforcement actions, depending on how the D.C. Circuit rules in the pending case of In the matter of Timbervest. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Holds-Federal-Courts-Cannot-Hear-Constitutional</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eleventh Circuit Holds That SEC Cannot Seek Disgorgement or Declaratory Relief for Conduct Outside Statute of Limitations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Holds-That-SEC-Cannot-Seek-Disgo</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 26, 2016, in SEC v. Graham, the Eleventh Circuit became the first circuit to hold that claims brought by a government agency for disgorgement and declaratory relief are subject to the five-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 2462.  The panel held that disgorgement and declaratory relief the SEC sought were functionally identical to &quot;forfeiture&quot; and &quot;penalties,&quot; respectively, as defined by Section 2462, but that the injunctive relief sought by the SEC was not time-barred.  Graham appears to create a circuit split that would prompt Supreme Court review, as prior courts have found that disgorgement was not subject to the limitations period in Section 2462. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Holds-That-SEC-Cannot-Seek-Disgo</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Guidance May Preview Enforcement Actions Regarding the Use of Non-GAAP Measures
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Guidance-May-Preview-Enforcement-Actions-Rega</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Beginning with the creation of its Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force in July 2013, accounting fraud has been a renewed priority for the SEC.  SEC Announces Enforcement Initiatives to Combat Fin. Reporting and Microcap Fraud and Enhance Risk Analysis, Lit. Rel. No. 2013-121, July 2, 2013. The SEC has brought numerous accounting cases of late regarding earnings management and other alleged fraud; recent activity suggests that its next focus may be the use of non-GAAP measures.  

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2016 14:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Guidance-May-Preview-Enforcement-Actions-Rega</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Decision to Charge Golfer Phil Mickelson as a &quot;Relief Defendant&quot; in Recent Insider Trading Action Highlights the Impact of United States v. Newman on Insider Trading Enforcement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Decision-to-Charge-Golfer-Phil-Mickelson-as-a-Relief-Defendant</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
When a Second Circuit panel in December 2014 reversed the convictions of two portfolio managers in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), many believed that the decision, which held that to be liable for insider trading a tippee must know that a tipper made a gift of inside information or disclosed it in exchange for a personal benefit, would make it more difficult to convict &quot;remote tippees,&quot; or tippees multiple steps removed from the source of the tip, of insider trading.  Criminal and civil actions brought last week against former Dean Foods CEO Thomas Davis and gambler William Walters, which included a civil claim against golfer Phil Mickelson as a &quot;relief defendant,&quot; suggest that the DOJ and SEC are reluctant to charge a remote tippee absent concrete evidence that the tippee knew the circumstances of the tip, but that the SEC may be pursuing a new enforcement strategy that nevertheless aims to force remote tippees to disgorge their profits. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2016 14:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Decision-to-Charge-Golfer-Phil-Mickelson-as-a-Relief-Defendant</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA&apos;s Settlement with a Compliance Officer for Alleged AML Violations May Not Signal a New Normal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRAs-Settlement-with-a-Compliance-Officer-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 24, 2016, Bradley Bennett, the executive vice president of enforcement of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;), reportedly commented on FINRA&apos;s future focus on individuals in anti-money laundering (&quot;AML&quot;) enforcement at a panel during FINRA&apos;s 2016 Annual Conference.  Bennett&apos;s speech came just days after FINRA announced a $17 million settlement of AML claims against Raymond James Financial Services Inc. and Raymond James &amp; Associates Inc., which included a three month suspension and $25,000 fine for Raymond James compliance officer Linda L. Busby for her alleged failure to supervise and screen suspicious activity.  In his remarks, Bennett stressed that the decision to suspend the compliance officer will be a rare one, for example, in instances where compliance officers (1) knew they lacked sufficient resources to properly supervise their firms, but (2) failed to elevate the issue to management.  

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2016 14:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRAs-Settlement-with-a-Compliance-Officer-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC and DOJ Officials Comment on Expectations of Compliance Professionals
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-and-DOJ-Officials-Comment-on-Expectations-of-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
The SEC&apos;s pursuit of enforcement actions against compliance professionals was one of the most divisive issues of 2015.  Last week, high-ranking officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) and Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) made public comments providing further insight on how they evaluate corporate compliance programs and individuals responsible for those programs, which gave something of a roadmap for how compliance professionals should prepare for investigations. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2016 14:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-and-DOJ-Officials-Comment-on-Expectations-of-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Reaffirms Its View That Extender Statutes Supersede Statutes of Repose
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reaffirms-Its-View-That-Extender-Statues-Supersede</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (&quot;FIRREA&quot;) includes a so-called Extender Statute prescribing the limitations period for actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (&quot;FDIC&quot;) as conservator or receiver for a failed bank. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (&quot;HERA&quot;) includes a materially identical provision governing the limitations period for actions brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (&quot;FHFA&quot;) as conservator or receiver for government-sponsored entities within its regulatory purview, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These Extender Statutes have been utilized by the FDIC and FHFA to pursue residential mortgage-backed securities (&quot;RMBS&quot;) claims that otherwise would have been barred by various statutes of repose, and in 2013, in FHFA v. UBS, the Second Circuit held that the FHFA Extender Statute displaced the 1 Securities Act&apos;s three-year statute of repose.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 14:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reaffirms-Its-View-That-Extender-Statues-Supersede</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FINRA Imposes $17 million in Fines on Raymond James for Anti-Money Laundering Failures 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Imposes-17-million-in-Fines-on-Raymond-Jame</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 18, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (&quot;FINRA&quot;) announced that two Raymond James affiliates agreed to pay $17 million in fines for alleged failures of the firms&apos; anti-money laundering (&quot;AML&quot;) programs, in violation of FINRA Rule 3310, which requires FINRA members to maintain effective AML programs.  This case is especially noteworthy because affiliate Raymond James &amp; Associates Inc.&apos;s (&quot;RJA&quot;) AML Compliance Officer also agreed to a fine of $25,000 and a three-month suspension due to her alleged personal violations of FINRA Rule 3310.  These violations were based on her failure to establish written procedures, investigate red flag activity, or ensure that periodic reviews were conducted. Aruna Viswanatha, Raymond James to Pay $17 Million Fine for Anti-Money-Laundering Lapses, Wall St. J., May 18, 2016;  News Release, Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., FINRA Fines Raymond James $17 Million for Systemic Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Failures (May 18, 2016).

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 14:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/FINRA-Imposes-17-million-in-Fines-on-Raymond-Jame</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Recent Data Suggests that the SEC May Be Curbing Its Use of Administrative Proceedings as Forums For Enforcement Actions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Recent-Data-Suggests-that-the-SEC-May-Be-Curbing-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
After experiencing criticism and receiving unfavorable judicial rulings in 2015, recent data suggests that the SEC may be bringing fewer contested actions as administrative proceedings. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 14:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Recent-Data-Suggests-that-the-SEC-May-Be-Curbing-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Recent $3.5 million and $5 million Awards Suggest that the SEC&apos;s Whistleblower Program is Expanding
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Recent-35-million-and-5-million-Awards-Suggest-th</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) announced a $3.5 million whistleblower award.   This award is significant because it represents the first time that the SEC rewarded a whistleblower for providing a tip that &quot;bolstered&quot;—rather than initiated—an investigation.  In its order approving the award, the Commission explained that the tip caused the SEC to focus on specific conduct of which it was already generally aware.  The order further noted that the tip &quot;significantly contributed&quot; to the success of the action by increasing the Enforcement staff&apos;s leverage during settlement negotiations. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 14:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Recent-35-million-and-5-million-Awards-Suggest-th</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Significant Judicial Opinions - Robert McDonnell
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Significant-Judicial-Opinions-Robert-McDonnell</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 27, the Supreme Court held oral argument on former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell&apos;s appeal of his bribery conviction under the federal bribery statute, Hobbs Act, and honest-services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 201, 1346, 1951.  McDonnell contends that the statutes are unconstitutionally vague to the extent they criminalize agreeing to take an &quot;official act&quot; in exchange for a thing of value, without further defining what an &quot;official act&quot; is.  The questioning from certain justices suggested they were sympathetic to McDonnell&apos;s arguments.  While it is always difficult to predict an outcome based on an oral argument, the judges&apos; expressed concerns about the danger of unclear laws could result in a significant opinion clarifying the definition of honest services fraud.  Indeed, depending on how any such opinion is written, it is conceivable that it could also impact how courts interpret a far broader range of statutes, including the FCPA and other statutes that defendants have long argued require clear limiting principles.

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 14:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Significant-Judicial-Opinions-Robert-McDonnell</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SEC Enforcement Director Ceresney Signals Continued Focus on Private Equity Enforcement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enforcement-Director-Ceresney-Signals-ContinuSEC-Enforcement-Director-Ceresney-Signals-Continued</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 12, 2016, Securities and Exchange Commission (&quot;SEC&quot;) Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney gave the keynote address at the Securities Enforcement Forum West 2016 in San Francisco. Remarks at the Securities Enforcement Forum West 2016 (May 12, 2016).  In his remarks, Ceresney defended the need for enforcement activity in private equity, reviewed recent prominent actions, addressed common arguments made by subjects of investigations, and argued that recent enforcement activity in the private equity industry had led developments that protected investors. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 14:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/SEC-Enforcement-Director-Ceresney-Signals-ContinuSEC-Enforcement-Director-Ceresney-Signals-Continued</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sally Yates Defends the &quot;Yates Memo&quot; Against Legal Commentary
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sally-Yates-Defends-the-ldquoYates-Memordquo-Agai</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 10, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates spoke out in defense of the so-called &quot;Yates Memo,&quot; a policy statement she issued in September 2015 that announced new policies intended to enhance the Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) ability to identify and prosecute culpable individuals at all levels in corporate cases. In remarks at the New York City Bar Association White Collar Crime Conference, Yates defended these policies, which largely direct civil and criminal government attorneys to focus on collecting evidence in corporate cases that will lead to the prosecution of individuals, against what she described as predictions of many legal commentators that the policies will cause a &quot;cascading cavalcade of terribles.&quot;

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 14:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Sally-Yates-Defends-the-ldquoYates-Memordquo-Agai</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Opening Supreme Court Brief in Salman Highlights the Debate Over the Personal Benefit Standard for Insider Trading 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Salman-Highlights-the-Debate-Over-the-Personal-Benefit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 6, 2016, Appellant Bassam Salman filed his opening brief with the Supreme Court in Salman v. United States, a closely-watched appeal of an insider trading conviction that has the potential to resolve ongoing ambiguity in insider trading law, especially prevalent since the Second Circuit&apos;s December 2014 decision in United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438, over when a remote tippee can be convicted of insider trading. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 14:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Salman-Highlights-the-Debate-Over-the-Personal-Benefit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Government Regulators Reiterate Benefits of Voluntary Self-Reporting of Violations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Government-Regulators-Reiterate-Benefits-of-Volun</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Perhaps in response to growing skepticism of the purported benefits of self-disclosure, multiple high-level United States government officials have recently reiterated what they contend are the benefits for corporate defendants of self-reporting legal and regulatory violations.  The officials emphasized that voluntary self-disclosure can result in reduced criminal penalties and, among other things, less onerous monitoring requirements.  The officials also took pains to note that failing to self-report could result in higher fines and penalties, though they did not point to specific empirical evidence to back up their assertions. 

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 14:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Government-Regulators-Reiterate-Benefits-of-Volun</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Holds that Investment Advisers Can Commit Fraud without Any Intent to Harm Clients
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Holds-that-Investment-Advisers-Can</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 4, in United States v. Tagliaferri, No. 15-536, ---F.3d---, 2016 WL 2342677 (2d Cir. May 4, 2016), a Second Circuit panel affirmed the conviction of an investment advisor for violating Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, holding that Section 206 requires proof only that an adviser intended to deceive a client, and not necessarily that the adviser intended to harm the client.  Much like the Second Circuit did earlier this year in United States v. Litvak, 808 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015), the Court focused on the nature of the defendant&apos;s deception and not its outcome.  In so holding, the panel clarified that prosecutors have a relatively low bar for obtaining convictions under Section 206.

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 14:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Holds-that-Investment-Advisers-Can</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New Criminal Charges or Enforcement Actions Logitech and Ener 1
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-Criminal-Charges-or-Enforcement-Actions-Logit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 19, the SEC announced significant enforcement actions against two separate companies - Logitech and Ener 1 - and certain of their officers.  The cases are unrelated, but both include allegations of accounting fraud.  The Logitech matter primarily involves section 10(b) claims that Logitech inflated its earnings by failing to write down excess inventory in a timely fashion.  The SEC settled its case against Logitech in an administrative proceeding, and filed a complaint in federal court against two company officers - the former CFO and Controller - who are contesting the allegations.  Shearman &amp; Sterling is representing the former CFO in this matter.  The Ener1 matter primarily involves section 10(b) claims that Ener1 failed to impair investments and receivables timely.   The SEC filed two separate settled administrative proceedings relating to these allegations - one against the company and certain executives, and one against the former audit partner from PwC.  While each case involves different claims, and none of the defendants admitted the allegations, the SEC&apos;s decision to announce the actions jointly highlights its continued aggressive focus on possible accounting fraud and earnings management.

Read More]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2016 14:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-wc.aoshearman.com/New-Criminal-Charges-or-Enforcement-Actions-Logit</guid>
				    </item>
			
		</channel>
	</rss>
