Tag Archives: Jonathan R. Tuttle

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

Photos of the authors

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 →

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

Photos of the authors

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 →

Supreme Court Holds That “Pure Omissions” Are Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5(b)

by Elliot Greenfield, Matthew E. Kaplan, Maeve O’Connor, Benjamin R. Pedersen, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Anna Moody, Brandon Fetzer, and Mark D. Flinn

Top left to right: Elliot Greenfield, Matthew E. Kaplan, Maeve O’Connor, and Benjamin R. Pedersen.
Bottom left to right: Jonathan R. Tuttle, Anna Moody, Brandon Fetzer, and Mark D. Flinn. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP).

On April 12, 2024, in a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.[1] that pure omissions are not actionable in private litigation under Rule 10b-5(b). Resolving a circuit split, the Court held that Rule 10b-5(b) does not support a “pure omissions” theory based on an alleged failure to disclose material information required by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K (Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations, or MD&A). Instead, a “failure to disclose information required by [MD&A] can support a Rule 10b-5(b) claim only if the omission renders affirmative statements made misleading.”[2] While the decision arose in the context of Item 303, which requires disclosure of “known trends and uncertainties” that have had or are “reasonably likely” to have a material impact on net sales, revenues or income from continuing operations,[3] the decision stands for the broader principle that Rule 10b-5(b) does not support pure omissions theories based on alleged violation of any disclosure requirement. Such claims remain viable, however, under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. This ruling provides welcome clarity to issuers and eliminates the risk of pure-omission claims under Rule 10b-5(b) based on the judgment-based requirements of MD&A.

Continue reading →

Hackers Turned Whistleblowers: SEC Cybersecurity Rules Weaponized Over Ransom Threat

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Luke Dembosky, Avi Gesser, Matthew E. Kaplan, Erez Liebermann, Benjamin R. Pedersen, Steven J. Slutzky, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Matt Kelly, and Kelly Donoghue

Top left to right: Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Luke Dembosky, Avi Gesser, Matthew E. Kaplan, and Erez Liebermann
Bottom left to right: Benjamin R. Pedersen, Steven J. Slutzky, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Matt Kelly, and Kelly Donoghue (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On November 7, 2023, the profilic ransomware group AlphV (a/k/a “BlackCat”) reportedly breached software company MeridianLink’s information systems, exfiltrated data and demanded payment in exchange for not publicly releasing the stolen data. While this type of cybersecurity incident has become increasingly common, the threat actor’s next move was less predictable. AlphV filed a whistleblower tip with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) against its victim for failing to publicly disclose the cybersecurity incident. AlphV wrote in its complaint[1]:

We want to bring to your attention a concerning issue regarding MeridianLink’s compliance with the recently adopted cybersecurity incident disclosure rules. It has come to our attention that MeridianLink, in light of a significant breach compromising customer data and operational information, has failed to file the requisite disclosure under Item 1.05 of Form 8-K within the stipulated four business days, as mandated by the new SEC rules.

As we have previously reported, the SEC adopted final rules mandating disclosure of cybersecurity risk, strategy and governance, as well as material cybersecurity incidents. This includes new Item 1.05 of Form 8-K, which, beginning December 18,­ will require registrants to disclose certain information about a material cybersecurity incident within four business days of determining that a cybersecurity incident it has experienced is material. Though AlphV jumped the gun on the applicability of new Item 1.05, its familiarity with, and exploitation of their target’s public disclosure obligations is a further escalation in a steadily increasing trend of pressure tactics by leading ransom groups.

Continue reading →

SEC Adopts Share Repurchase Disclosure Rules

by Eric T. Juergens, Matthew E. Kaplan, Nicholas P. Pellicani, Paul M. Rodel, Steven J. Slutzky, Jonathan R. Tuttle, and Charu A. Chandrasekhar

Photos of the authors

Top row from left to right: Eric T. Juergens, Matthew E. Kaplan, Nicholas P. Pellicani, and Paul M. Rodel.
Bottom row from left to right: Steven J. Slutzky, Jonathan R. Tuttle, and Charu A. Chandrasekhar. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton)

On May 3, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted rules requiring additional disclosures by issuers of repurchases of equity securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act made by or on behalf of the issuer or by any “affiliated purchaser” of the issuer.[1] Most significantly, the rules require:

  • most issuers to disclose their daily share repurchase activity on a quarterly basis;
  • additional disclosures in periodic reports regarding the objective and structure of an issuer’s repurchase program, including Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements, and policies relating to trading activity by officers and directors during repurchase programs; and
  • issuer periodic reports to identify trading activity by officers and directors in close proximity to an announcement of a share repurchase program.

Continue reading →

The SEC’s New Risk Alert Warns about the Use of Alternative Data

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Avi Gesser, Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, and Mengyi Xu

On April 26, 2022, the Division of Examinations (“EXAMS”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued a Risk Alert titled “Investment Adviser MNPI Compliance Issues” (“Risk Alert”) on the use of alternative data.  The Risk Alert outlines EXAMS’ recent observations on compliance deficiencies related to Section 204A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940—including deficiencies relating to policies and procedures for alternative data—and Rule 204A-1 (the “Code of Ethics Rule”).  Based on the Risk Alert, and the recent SEC enforcement action in this area, we offer three takeaways for investment advisers to reduce their risk when purchasing and using alternative data.

Continue reading →

SEC Brings Enforcement Action Against Investment Adviser for Section 13 Beneficial Ownership Reporting Failures

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Matthew E. Kaplan, Nicholas P. Pellicani, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, and Jonathan R. Tuttle 

On September 17, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced the institution of a settled cease and desist proceeding against WCAS Management Corporation (“WCAS”), an SEC-registered investment adviser to five private funds operating under the name Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (the “WC Funds”), for failures to satisfy reporting obligations under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Specifically, the SEC’s Cease and Desist Order (the “SEC’s Order”), which WCAS consented to without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, found that WCAS caused the WC Funds to violate Section 13(d)(2) and Rule 13d-2 of the Exchange Act by failing to timely update its Schedule 13D to reflect (i) the investment intent to liquidate its reported position in a public company and (ii) the subsequent sales disposing of such position. The SEC’s Order required WCAS to pay a civil penalty of $100,000 and to cease and desist from future violations of the applicable provisions of the Exchange Act. This latest action serves as another reminder of the SEC’s continued focus on beneficial ownership disclosures by institutional investors and the need to implement and adhere to robust controls and procedures to ensure compliance. Continue reading →

DOJ Updates Guidance on Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs

by Matthew L. Biben, Kara Brockmeyer, Helen V. Cantwell, Andrew J. Ceresney, Andrew M. Levine, David A. O’Neil, David Sarratt, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Mary Jo White, Bruce E. Yannett, Lisa Zornberg, Ryan M. Kusmin, and Jil Simon

On April 30, 2019, Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski announced an updated version of the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (the “Updated Guidance”).[1] This Updated Guidance supersedes a document of the same name that the Fraud Section of DOJ’s Criminal Division published online in February 2017 without any formal announcement (the “2017 Guidance”). Although not breaking much new ground, we believe the Updated Guidance can serve as a valuable resource for those grappling with how best to design, implement, and monitor an effective corporate compliance program.

In contrast to the 2017 Guidance—which listed dozens of questions to consider in evaluating a compliance program without providing much context—the Updated Guidance employs a more holistic approach. It focuses on three fundamental questions drawn from the Justice Manual:

  • Is the corporation’s compliance program well designed?
  • Is the program implemented effectively?
  • Does the program work in practice?[2]

Continue reading →

Tenth Circuit Affirms SEC’s Extraterritorial Reach

by Mary Jo White, Kara Brockmeyer, Andrew J. Ceresney, Matthew E. Kaplan, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Jonathan R. Tuttle, and Ada Fernandez Johnson

Last week, in a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held in SEC v. Scoville et al. that Congress “clearly intended” Section 929P(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act to grant the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)  authority to enforce the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws abroad where there is sufficient conduct or effect in the United States.[1] In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Tenth Circuit undertook a thorough analysis of the legislative history of Section 929P(b) and concluded that Congress “affirmatively and unmistakably” intended to grant extraterritorial authority to the SEC where either “significant steps” are taken in the U.S. to further a violation of the anti-fraud provisions, or conduct outside the U.S. has a “foreseeable substantial effect” within the U.S.

The Scoville decision thus provides judicial affirmation of the SEC’s ability to bring enforcement actions under what is essentially the same “conduct-and-effects” test that the Supreme Court rejected for private securities litigation in Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The Tenth Circuit’s decision, though not entirely unexpected, is significant in that it represents the first Circuit Court decision to directly address the SEC’s authority to enforce the federal securities laws extraterritorially after the Supreme Court’s rejection of the “conduct-and-effects” test in Morrison. Continue reading →

Oral Downloads of Interview Memoranda to Government Regulators Waive Work Product Protection

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Bruce E. Yannett, Kara N. Brockmeyer, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Colby A. Smith, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Ada Fernandez Johnson, and Ajani B. Husbands

In a decision that makes clear the importance for counsel conducting internal investigations to think carefully about the consequences of providing oral summaries of witness interviews to government investigators, a federal Magistrate Judge recently held that a law firm waived work product protection for its interview memoranda when counsel provided oral downloads of those interviews to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).[1] Noting that “very few decisions are consequence free events,” the Court held that there was “little to no substantive distinction” for purposes of work product waiver between providing the actual notes and memoranda and reading or orally summarizing the notes. The Court, however, rejected the notion that a waiver of work product protection extends to information the law firm shared with its client’s accounting firm, holding that the accounting firm and the company shared a “common interest.” Continue reading →