Category Archives: Securities Regulation

SEC Enforcement Year-End Overview

by Joel Cohen, Ladan Stewart, Tami Stark, Marietou Diouf, Gabriella Klein, and Robert DeNault

Top (Left to Right): Joel M. Cohen, Ladan Stewart and Tami Stark. Bottom (Left to Right): Marietou Diouf, Gabriella Klein, and Robert DeNault. (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

Introduction

2024 marks the final year of Gary Gensler’s term as Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The Gensler SEC has been aggressive on both the enforcement and rulemaking fronts. In response, the financial industry has fought back in sometimes unprecedented ways, including through legal challenges to the SEC’s rulemaking and enforcement programs. While questions remain about what the SEC will prioritize under the leadership of presumptive incoming Chair Paul Atkins, it seems likely that many of Chair Gensler’s enforcement priorities will be rolled back in the coming years. We can expect, for example, to have neared the end of the SEC’s years-long off-channel communications sweep. And the Gensler SEC’s intense focus on the crypto industry will very likely shift significantly under Chair Atkins.

We provide here an overview of the SEC’s enforcement program in 2024 and end with additional thoughts on how the agency’s enforcement priorities will likely change in 2025 and beyond.

Continue reading →

Samuels v. Lido DAO: a Potential New Frontier for Liability in the Cryptocurrency Space

by Stephen Gannon, James Goldfarb, and Alexandra Coyle

Stephen Gannon, James Goldfarb, and Alexandra Coyle (photos courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)

In denying motions to dismiss, court potentially expands liability for venture capital firms investing in cryptocurrency enterprises

A recent order handed down by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California could be a new source of concern for digital asset entrepreneurs and the venture capital firms which invest in and support them. In Samuels v. Lido DAO the court denied the motion to dismiss filed by an entity called Lido DAO (“Lido”) and a group of its institutional investors regarding what was alleged to be a sale of unregistered tokens on an exchange. Lido was and is the operator of a successful “Staking as a Service” business conducted through a decentralized autonomous organization, or a “DAO.” Founded in 2020, Lido provides a service in which it gathers ETH from individual holders, which it then pools and “stakes” to provide validation for transactions on the Ethereum blockchain. It also selects validators and provides an “oracle” to ensure that (i) the validators, (ii) the owners who pooled their ETH, and (iii) Lido itself receive the correct ETH rewards for performing the validation work.[1]

In largely denying defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court’s order potentially greatly expands the liability venture capital firms based in California might face, particularly in the context of investing in cryptocurrency enterprises, and may raise more questions than it answers for parties involved in such disputes.

Continue reading →

Cryptoasset Developments: Prospects for Legal Clarity

by Kevin S. Schwartz, David M. Adlerstein, Samantha M. Altschuler, and Sabina M. Beleuz Neagu

Left to Right: Kevin S. Schwartz, David M. Adlerstein, Samantha M. Altschuler, and Sabina M. Beleuz Neagu (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

A resilient cryptoasset industry is emerging from weathering years of headwinds — from edicts prohibiting the banking of the industry, to an SEC leadership bent on aggressive regulation-by-enforcement in lieu of transparent rulemaking. Looking ahead, tailwinds abound: Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded products, approved just this year, already have over $150 billion in assets under management. Leading financial institutions have announced plans to tokenize substantial new funds on public blockchains. And tens of millions of Americans own cryptoassets, as use cases continue to proliferate — from payments for goods and services, both on- and off-blockchain; to decentralized financial (DeFi) platforms; to the authentication of content provenance (an essential need amidst AI’s rapid development). With a new Administration and Congress in the offing, there are at last prospects for regulatory clarity in an arena long clouded by uncertainty.

Continue reading →

SEED Findings on the SEC Enforcement Actions against Public Companies and their Subsidiaries in Fiscal Year 2024

by Anat Carmy-Wiechman and Giovanni Patti

Left to right: Anat Carmy-Wiechman and Giovanni Patti (Photos courtesy of authors)

In a new report, the NYU Pollack Center for Law & Business, in collaboration with Cornerstone Research, investigated recent trends in enforcement via the Securities Enforcement Empirical Database (SEED). Below, we highlight some of the key findings.

Continue reading →

U.S. Authorities Charge Adani Defendants with Integrity Washing

by Kevin E. Davis

Photo courtesy of NYU

Gautam Adani is the founder of one of India’s largest conglomerates and ranks among the country’s prominent business people. He and his nephew Sagar Adani are learning the hard way that, in the U.S. legal system, the coverup can be treated just about as severely as the crime.

The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have accused the Adani defendants of collaborating with executives of a U.S.-listed Mauritian company called Azure Power Global Ltd. in a massive bribery scheme. The conspirators allegedly paid over USD 250 million in bribes to officials in the governments of several Indian states. The bribes were to induce the officials to purchase power that would be supplied by Adani Green Energy Ltd., an Indian company controlled by the Adani defendants, as well Azure.

Continue reading →

SEC Acting Director of Enforcement Delivers Remarks at PCCE’s Fall Conference

On November 22, 2024, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted a conference titled “New Directions in Corporate and Individual Enforcement.” At the conference, Sanjay Wadhwa, Acting Director of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), delivered remarks on the SEC’s enforcement priorities and enforcement policy, which are reprinted below and available on the SEC’s website here. After his remarks, Wadhwa participated in a fireside chat with PCCE’s Executive Director, Joseph Facciponti.

Sanjay Wadhwa (©Hollenshead: Courtesy of NYU Photo Bureau)

Good afternoon. Thank you to the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement for the opportunity to speak to you all.

Continue reading →

SEC Continues Focus on AI and Cyber-Risk Related Enforcement Cases

by Brendan F. Quigley and Matthew R. Baker

Left to right: Brendan F. Quigley and Matthew R. Baker. (Photos courtesy of Baker Botts)

The SEC kicked off its fiscal year by bringing enforcement actions focused on AI and cyber disclosures. As discussed in more detail below:

These actions again show SEC Enforcement prioritizing “hot button” issues like AI and cyber, highlighting, for example, a company’s statements about its use of AI in what otherwise appeared to be a fairly garden-variety securities fraud case.
The actions largely involve well-worn principles of securities law applied in the context of emerging technologies, including (i) while there may be no obligation to speak on a particular issue (such as AI), if a company does speak, its statements must be full, complete, and not misleading and (ii) companies’ obligation to consider whether existing disclosures need to be updated in light of recent events (such as a cyberattack).
The cyber-disclosure actions prompted a lengthy, two-commissioner dissent, accusing the commission of playing “Monday morning quarterback” by bringing the case, highlighting the potential for the upcoming election (and the appointment of commissioners under a new administration) to impact the SEC’s enforcement posture.
The dissent in the cyber cases also undertook a lengthy analysis, comparing the allegations in the settled cases to allegations against another company, arising out of the same series of cyberattacks, in an action the SEC litigated in federal district court. As we discussed here and as pointed out by the dissent, the federal district court dismissed many of those allegations. While deciding to settle with the SEC (or any government agency) is always a complicated, multi-faceted decision, the dissent’s comparison of the litigated case and the settled actions shows the need for parties under investigation to seriously consider the merits of potentially litigating cases when appropriate.

Continue reading →

SEC Disbands ESG Enforcement Task Force

by John F. Savarese, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, and Carmen X. W. Lu

Left to right: John F. Savarese, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders and Carmen X. W. Lu. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has disbanded its Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. The Task Force was established in March 2021 with the purpose of identifying ESG-related misconduct, including material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks, and assessing disclosure and compliance issues relating to investment advisers’ and funds’ ESG strategies. According to the SEC, the “expertise developed by the task force now resides across the Division” signaling that the SEC will continue to pursue ESG-related matters as part of its broader enforcement strategy.

Continue reading →

SEC Order Provides Warning to Fund Managers with Access to CLO-Related MNPI

by Matthew E. Kaplan, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Benjamin R. Pedersen, and Anna Moody

Left to Right: Matthew E. Kaplan, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Benjamin R. Pedersen and Anna Moody (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

Introduction

On August 26, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced settled charges against registered investment adviser Sound Point Capital Management, LP (“Sound Point”) for violating Sections 204A and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder. According to the order, Sound Point failed to establish, maintain or enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material non-public information (“MNPI”) concerning its trading of collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) that contained loans for which Sound Point was a lender.[1] Andrew Dean, Co-Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit, issued a statement on the same day reminding fund managers that they “must evaluate how their roles as lenders could expose them to MNPI that may relate to their CLO trading positions.”[2] These issues could also arise in contexts where the firm otherwise has access to MNPI.

Continue reading →

Takeaways from the Dismissal of Most of the Government’s Case Against the SolarWinds CISO

by Ilona Cohen

Photo courtesy of the author

Last year, the government filed a landmark lawsuit alleging that SolarWinds and its Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) misled the public about the company’s cybersecurity practices before and after a major cyberattack. The charges surprised leaders in the industry and forced many companies to reevaluate their own security programs. In a recent development, however, a judge in New York dismissed most of the charges against the company and SolarWinds’ CISO, leaving many to wonder what these developments mean for them.

The case against SolarWinds was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a government agency that has interpreted its authority broadly to regulate publicly traded companies. The court did not agree with the SEC’s use of that authority in key respects and dismissed allegations that the statements in SolarWinds’ press releases, blog posts, podcasts, and certain SEC filings, misrepresented the company’s cybersecurity risks and controls.

Continue reading →