Category Archives: Investor Protection

Cyber Experts React to Court Decision in the SEC’s SolarWinds Enforcement Action

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been watching the developments in the SEC’s enforcement action against SolarWinds and its CISO over allegedly misleading disclosures and controls failures related to the compromise of its Orion product by putative Russian hackers. In this post, cybersecurity experts and lawyers discuss the recent decision by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer to dismiss most of the SEC’s claims in the case.

Top left to right: Randal Milch, Judy Titera, James Haldin, and Alan Wilson. Bottom left to right: Matthew Beville, Elizabeth Roper, and Jerome Tomas. (Photos courtesy of authors)

Continue reading →

Biden Administration Releases Proposed Rule on Outbound Investments in China

by Paul D. Marquardt and Kendall Howell

From left to right: Paul D. Marquardt and Kendall Howell (Photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)

The Biden administration released its proposed rule that would establish a regulatory framework for outbound investments in China, following its advanced notice of proposed rulemaking released last August.

On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) released its long-awaited notice of proposed rulemaking that would impose controls on outbound investments in China (the Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule follows Treasury’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (the ANPRM) released in August 2023 (discussed in this client update) and implements the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14105 (the Executive Order), which proposed a high-level framework to mitigate the risks to U.S. national security interests stemming from U.S. outbound investments in “countries of concern” (currently only China). Like the Executive Order and ANPRM, the Proposed Rule reflects an effort by the Biden administration to adopt a “narrow and targeted” program and is in large part directed at the “intangible benefits” of U.S. investment (e.g., management expertise, prestige, and know-how), rather than capital alone.[1]

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Punches SEC APs Right in the Seventh Amendment

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Arian M. June, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Jonathan R. Tuttle

Top left to right: Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Arian M. June, and Robert B. Kaplan. Bottom left to right: Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Jonathan R. Tuttle. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

Recently, in a long-awaited ruling with significant implications for the securities industry and administrative agencies more generally, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, holding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial precluded the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) from pursuing monetary penalties for securities fraud violations through in-house administrative adjudications. The key takeaways are:

The Court’s ruling was limited to securities fraud claims, but other SEC claims seeking legal remedies may be impacted, as well as claims by other federal agencies that may have been adjudicated in-house previously.
We expect that the SEC will continue its practice of bringing new enforcement actions in district court, except when a claim only is available in the administrative forum.
Because of the majority decision’s focus on fraud’s common-law roots, the decision raises questions about whether the SEC may bring negligence-based or strict liability claims seeking penalties administratively.
The Court did not resolve other constitutional questions concerning the SEC’s administrative law judges, including whether the SEC’s use of administrative proceedings violates the non-delegation doctrine and whether the SEC’s administrative law judges are unconstitutionally protected from removal in violation of Article III.
We anticipate additional litigation regarding these unresolved issues.

Continue reading →

SEC Staff Provides Guidance on Cyber Form 8-K Reporting

by Scott Kimpel

Photo courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

On May 21, 2024, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published additional interpretive guidance on reporting material cybersecurity incidents under Form 8-K.

Since December 18, 2023, when the SEC’s rules for reporting material cybersecurity incidents under Item 1.05 on Form 8-K took effect, we have identified 17 separate companies that have made disclosures under the new rules. Since that date, several other companies also have made disclosures regarding cybersecurity incidents under other Form 8-K items. A large majority of those companies reporting under Item 1.05 have either not yet determined that the triggering incident was material, or determined that the event was in fact immaterial.

Continue reading →

Crypto Experts React to Recent SDNY Ethereum Fraud Indictment

The NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is following the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York’s recent indictment of two individuals for allegedly attacking and stealing $25 million from the Ethereum blockchain. The indictment in the case, United States v. Peraire-Bueno, 24 Cr. 293 (SDNY), is available here. Below, several crypto experts and former prosecutors provide their reactions to the case.

Left to right: Maria Vullo, Daniel Payne, Elizabeth Roper, Usman Sheikh, Justin Herring, and Robertson Park (photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

Cross-Border Implications of the FCA’s Consultation Paper on Publishing Information About the Opening and Progress of Investigations

by Michael A. Asaro, James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Ezra Zahabi, and Joe Hewton

From left to right: Michael A. Asaro, James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Ezra Zahabi, and Joe Hewton. (Photos courtesy of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP).

Last month, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it is considering new procedures under which it would publicly identify firms that are under investigation as soon as the investigation has been opened.[1] The consultation period closes on April 30, 2024. (See our recent client alert here). The proposed new approach—which, if adopted, would be a dramatic break from historical practice—would result in public disclosure before any charges have been filed and before the FCA has determined whether the firm actually did anything wrong. In this article, we draw comparisons between the investigation disclosure regimes in the U.K. and the United States. We also provide commentary on the FCA’s proposals.

Continue reading →

AI in the 2024 Proxy Season: Managing Investor and Regulatory Scrutiny

by William Savitt, Mark F. Veblen, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Carmen X. W. Lu, and Courtney D. Hauck

Top from left to right: William Savitt, Mark F. Veblen, and Kevin S. Schwartz.
Bottom left to right: Noah B. Yavitz, Carmen X. W. Lu, and Courtney D. Hauck. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

Corporate disclosures concerning artificial intelligence have increased dramatically in the past year, with Bloomberg reporting that nearly half of S&P 500 companies referenced AI in their most recent annual reports. And some investors are clamoring for even more, using shareholder proposals to press public companies for detailed disclosures concerning AI initiatives, policies, and practices — including, most recently, an Apple shareholder proposal that attracted significant support at a meeting last week. Regulators, meanwhile, have signaled increasing scrutiny of AI-related corporate disclosures, including in a February speech by SEC Chair Gensler cautioning against “AI washing” — the practice of overstating or misstating corporate AI activity. For the 2024 proxy season and beyond, public companies will need to balance the competing demands of regulators and investors, in order to craft effective, responsive strategies for engaging with their stockholders on AI topics.

Continue reading →

FinCEN Proposes Highly Anticipated Investment Adviser AML/CFT Rule

by David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Stephanie Brown-Cripps, Nathaniel Balk, Nathalie Kupfer, and Rosie Jiang

Top (left to right): David Sewell, Timothy Clark, and Stephanie Brown-Cripps
Bottom (left to right): Nathaniel Balk, Nathalie Kupfer, and Rosie Jiang
(Photos courtesy of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)

On February 13, 2024, the U.S Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a proposed rule to extend anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance obligations to certain types of investment advisers operating in the United States (Proposed Rule).[1] The agency simultaneously released a “2024 Investment Adviser Risk Assessment” (Risk Assessment), its first comprehensive effort to describe and measure “illicit finance threats involving investment advisers.”[2]

FinCEN’s release marks the latest development in a decades-old debate about whether investment advisers should be subject to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the attendant AML/CFT requirements that have long been applied to banks, broker-dealers, and other financial institutions. If adopted in the current (or a similar) form, the Proposed Rule would bring this long-running debate to a close once and for all.

Below, we briefly summarize the Proposed Rule, including its scope, requirements and potential implications, and highlight open questions and next steps.

Continue reading →

Facts About Fraud from the FTC – and What it Means for Your Business

by Lesley Fair

Lesley Fair (photo courtesy of author)

The FTC just issued its 2023 Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book jam-packed with facts about the kind of scams consumers have reported to us. Has the reported dollar amount lost to fraud gone up or down this year? And what are the most frequently reported scams? At this point you may ask, “I run a lawful business. Why should it matter to me?” Two reasons. First, scammers have you, your company, and your community in their sights and the Data Book can help you defend against emerging fraud trends. Second, scammers often try to mask their illegal intent by hiding behind legitimate businesses. For companies that work hard to maintain their good reputation, it’s not enough not to be a scammer. You also don’t want to be “scam-adjacent.”

Continue reading →

Crypto Experts Discuss the SEC’s Approval of Bitcoin ETFs

On January 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved, for the first time, Bitcoin exchange traded funds for spot markets. A link to SEC Chair Gary Gensler‘s announcement is available here. In this post, two crypto experts discuss the SEC’s decision.

Daniel Payne and Ijeoma Okoli (photos courtesy of authors)

Continue reading →