On January 16, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released version 1.0 of its Privacy Framework: A Tool for Privacy Through Enterprise Risk Management. The product of a two-year consultation process with private- and public-sector stakeholders, the Privacy Framework sets out a group of voluntary standards and methods to help companies of all sizes in (i) “[t]aking privacy into account as they design and deploy systems, products, and services that affect individuals”; (ii) “[c]ommunicating about their privacy practices”; and (iii) “[e]ncouraging cross-organizational workforce collaboration—for example, among executives, legal, and information technology (IT)” personnel in the “achievement of [privacy] outcomes.” The Framework is thus intended to assist companies in “[b]uilding customers’ trust by supporting ethical decision-making in product and service design or deployment that optimizes beneficial uses of data while minimizing adverse consequences for individuals’ privacy and society as a whole”; “[f]ulfilling current compliance obligations, as well as future-proofing products and services to meet these obligations in a changing technological and policy environment”; and “[f]acilitating communication about privacy practices with individuals, business partners, assessors, and regulators.” Continue reading
Tag Archives: Jonathan G. Cedarbaum
Energy Market Manipulation Remains a Hot Issue at FERC
by Jonathan G. Cedarbaum, H. David Gold, and Nathaniel B. Custer
Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, fraud and market manipulation have been top enforcement priorities of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission). FERC’s most recent annual report on enforcement (PDF: 2.72 MB) shows that, in fiscal year 2018, FERC opened some 16 investigations into market manipulation (out of 24 total) and recovered almost $150 million in civil penalties and disgorgement of profits, much of which was from market manipulation cases.
Recent case law, meanwhile, indicates that courts interpret FERC’s authority in this sphere permissively. The courts, for example, have sided with FERC in allowing considerable time to bring enforcement actions in market manipulation cases, notwithstanding statute of limitations defenses raised by the regulated entities subject to enforcement.
Energy companies and other businesses subject to FERC’s enforcement authority should continue to monitor developments in this area and make sure that their compliance programs are up to date. Continue reading