Tag Archives: Fiona Moran

Crypto Experts React to the SEC v. Ripple Decision

Editor’s Note: The NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement is following the recent decision in SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., in which the district court decided competing summary judgment motions for both the SEC and Ripple by holding that contractual sales of XRP, Ripple’s native token, to institutional investors were securities while the XRP token itself was not.  In this post, former SEC attorneys and federal prosecutors and current securities regulatory and white collar attorneys react to the decision.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Joseph Hall, Robert Cohen, Fiona Moran, and Zachary Zweihorn, and David Miller.
Bottom left to right: Daniel Payne, Avi Weitzman, Nicolas Morgan, and Ijeoma Okoli.
(Photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading →

Carlin Speech Signals DOJ White Collar Enforcement Priorities

by Greg Andres, Uzo Asonye, Martine Beamon, Robert Cohen, Daniel Kahn, Tatiana Martins, Paul Marquardt, Fiona Moran, Paul Nathanson, and Daniel Stipano

Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General John Carlin previewed the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) refocused corporate enforcement efforts during a speech on October 5, 2021 at GIR Connect: New York.  Carlin’s speech underscored the primary levers a new administration can pull to quickly and meaningfully impact the white collar enforcement space: messaging increased white collar enforcement to relevant stakeholders, instituting new and revising existing policies, creating dedicated taskforces, and increasing resources for white collar enforcement.  Carlin addressed each of these categories by outlining key DOJ priorities, including increased enforcement related to sanctions, export controls, and cryptocurrency; continued expansion of international cooperation and coordination; a “surge” in resources, exemplified by a new dedicated FBI squad for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), market integrity, and health care fraud investigations; an upcoming review and revision of corporate enforcement policies; continued and increased use of data-driven enforcement techniques; enhanced and expanded international cooperation; and a warning regarding companies’ compliance with subpoenas and the terms of resolution agreements.

Continue reading →