Tag Archives: Joel M. Cohen

FinCEN and SEC Move Closer to New AML Requirements for Investment Advisers & ERAs

by Joel M. Cohen, Claudette Druehl, Marietou Diouf, Tami Stark, Prat Vallabhaneni, and Robert DeNault

Photos of the authors

Top: Joel M. Cohen, Claudette Druehl, and Marietou Diouf
Bottom: Tami Stark, Prat Vallabhaneni, and Robert DeNault
(Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On May 13, 2024, FinCEN and the SEC jointly proposed a new rule that would require SEC-registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers to maintain written customer identification programs (CIPs).  The new rule supplements a proposal in February to impose requirements on investment advisers similar to those that have existed for broker-dealers since 2001, as a means to address illicit finance and national security threats in the asset management industry.

For investment advisers who do not currently have an AML/CFT program, this compliance obligation will create a large shift in the way they operate.  This will require significant legal time and attention, but it will be time well spent considering potential regulatory exposure and likely indemnification obligations which flow through commercial agreements in favor of counterparties.

Continue reading →

Recent Regulatory Announcements Confirm Increased Scrutiny of “AI-Washing”

by Tami Stark, Courtney Hague Andrews, Maria Beguiristain, Joel M. Cohen, Daniel Levin, Darryl Lew, and Marietou Diouf

Photos of authors

Top (left to right): Tami Stark, Courtney Hague Andrews, Maria Beguiristain, and Joel M. Cohen
Bottom (left to right): Daniel Levin, Darryl Lew, and Marietou Diouf (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

In December 2023, we published an alert concerning US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Chair Gary Gensler’s warning to public companies against “AI washing” – that is, making unfounded claims regarding artificial intelligence (“AI”) capabilities.[1] It is no surprise that since then regulators and the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have repeated this threat and the SEC publicized an AI related enforcement action that typically would not get such emphasis.

In January 2024, the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued a joint alert with the North American Securities Administrators Association and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority warning investors of an increase in investment frauds involving the purported use of AI and other emerging technologies.[2] Similarly, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Office of Customer Education and Outreach issued a customer advisory warning the public against investing in schemes touting “AI-created algorithms” that promise guaranteed or unreasonably high returns.[3]

Continue reading →

How to Avoid Risk of SEC Whistleblower Rule Violations in Connection with Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Provisions

by Tami Stark and Joel M. Cohen

Photos of authors

Tami Stark and Joel M. Cohen (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

The SEC levied charges against a registered broker-dealer and investment adviser that expand the enforcement of the whistleblower protection rule to encompass settlement agreements with clients.[1] This article should be instructive for other registered entities seeking to avoid rule violations when drafting such agreements.

As of the end of the 2023 fiscal year, the SEC has brought twenty-one enforcement actions involving violations of Rule 21F-17 since the Dodd-Frank Act empowered the SEC with the ability to bring actions against persons, including companies, for impeding reports to the SEC.[2] Last year, these actions arose primarily from employment-related agreements that violated the Rule.[3] For example, in September of 2023, the SEC levied a $10 million civil penalty against an investment adviser for using employee agreements that prohibited the disclosure of “confidential information” unless authorized by the company or required by law or an order of a court or other regulatory or governmental body.[4]

Continue reading →

A View from Abroad: Unpacking DOJ’s M&A Safe Harbor Policy, Part II

by Joel M. Cohen, Marietou Diouf, James Hsiao, Francisco Málaga Diéguez, Aleksandra Oziemska, Jean-Pierre Picca, Anneka Randhawa, Jean-Lou Salha, Dr. Daniel Zapf, Dr. Nicolas Rossbrey, and Dr. Tine Schauenburg

Photos of the authors.

Top left to right: Joel M. Cohen, Marietou Diouf, James Hsiao, Francisco Malaga, Aleksandra Oziemska, and Jean-Pierre Picca. Bottom left to right: Anneka Randhawa, Jean-Lou Salha, Daniel Zapf, Dr. Nicolas Rossbrey, and Dr. Tine Schauenburg (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On October 4, 2023, United States Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco announced a new Department of Justice (DOJ) Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy that encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company.  Under the policy, the acquiring party will receive a presumption of criminal declination if it promptly and voluntarily discloses criminal misconduct, cooperates with any ensuing investigation, and engages in appropriate remediation, restitution and disgorgement. While the DOJ has offered little guidance as to what it might expect from a company that self-discloses under the policy, many jurisdictions outside the United States offer corporate self-disclosure and cooperation incentives. This alert analyzes several of those practices in Europe and Asia, and what can be learned from their application. Continue reading →

Questions about the “Carrot” and “Stick” Remain: Unpacking DOJ’s New M&A Safe Harbor Policy, Part I

by Joel M. Cohen and Marietou Diouf

Photos of the authors

From right to left: Joel M. Cohen and Marietou Diouf (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On October 4, 2023, United States Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco announced a new Department of Justice (DOJ) Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy that encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company.  Under the policy, the acquiring party will receive a presumption of criminal declination if it promptly and voluntarily discloses criminal misconduct, cooperates with any ensuing investigation, and engages in appropriate remediation, restitution and disgorgement.

The Safe Harbor policy is a clear continuation of the DOJ’s push for corporate voluntary self-disclosure (VSD).  But as with many DOJ policy pronouncements, the devil is in the details.  It remains unclear what it will take for an acquiring company to obtain the “carrot” DOJ is dangling and poses questions as to the “stick” the DOJ might wield if a self-disclosure does not achieve safe harbor, or more broadly, if an acquirer fails to identify criminal misconduct in the acquisition process. Continue reading →

China Constricts Sharing of In-Country Corporate and Personal Data Through New Legislation

by Patrick F. Stokes, Oliver Welch, Nicole Lee, Ning Ning, Kelly S. Austin, Judith Alison Lee, Adam M. Smith, John D.W. Partridge, F. Joseph Warin, Joel M. Cohen, Ryan T. Bergsieker, Stephanie Brooker, John W.F. Chesley, Connell O’Neill, Richard Roeder, Michael Scanlon, Benno Schwarz, Alexander H. Southwell, and Michael Walther

The People’s Republic of China is clamping down on the extraction of litigation- and investigation-related corporate and personal data from China—and this may squeeze litigants and investigation subjects in the future.  Under a new data security law enacted late last week and an impending personal information protection law, China is set to constrict sharing broad swaths of personal and corporate data outside its borders.  Both statutes would require companies to obtain the approval of a yet-to-be-identified branch of the Chinese government before providing data to non-Chinese judicial or law enforcement entities.  As detailed below, these laws could have far-reaching implications for companies and individuals seeking to provide data to foreign courts or enforcement agencies in the context of government investigations or litigation, and appear to expand the data transfer restrictions set forth in other recent Chinese laws.[1]

Continue reading →

What the CFTC’s Settlement with Vitol Inc. Portends about Enforcement Trends

by Joel M. Cohen, Jeffrey L. Steiner, Patrick F. Stokes, Lawrence J. Zweifach, Emily A. Cross, and Darcy C. Harris

On December 3, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or the “Commission”) Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) announced a settlement with Vitol Inc. (“Vitol”), an energy and commodities trading firm in Houston, Texas. This is the first public action coming out of the CFTC’s initiative to pursue violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) involving foreign corruption. The CFTC’s action rests on an aggressive theory that seeks to approach allegations of corruption through its historic ability to pursue fraud and manipulation, which has not yet faced a serious legal challenge. Continue reading →