Tag Archives: Robert B. Kaplan

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 →

AI Enforcement Starts with Washing: The SEC Charges its First AI Fraud Cases

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Arian M. June, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Jeff Robins, and Kristin A. Snyder

Photos of authors

Top (left to right): Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, and Arian M. June
Bottom (left to right): Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Jeff Robins, and Kristin A. Snyder (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On March 18, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced settled charges against two investment advisers, Delphia (USA) Inc. (“Delphia”) and Global Predictions Inc. (“Global Predictions”) for making false and misleading statements about their alleged use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in connection with providing investment advice. These settlements are the SEC’s first-ever cases charging violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with AI disclosures, and also include the first settled charges involving AI in connection with the Marketing and Compliance Rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The matters reflect Chair Gensler’s determination to target “AI washing”—securities fraud in connection with AI disclosures under existing provisions of the federal securities laws—and underscore that public companies, investment advisers and broker-dealers will face rapidly increasing scrutiny from the SEC in connection with their AI disclosures, policies and procedures. We have previously discussed Chair Gensler’s scrutiny of AI washing and AI disclosure risk in Form ADV Part 2A filings. In this client alert, we discuss the charges and AI disclosure and compliance takeaways.

Continue reading →

SEC Proposes Rule to Eliminate or Neutralize Conflicts in the Use of “Predictive Data Analytics” Technologies

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Jeff Robins, Matt Kelly, Gary E. Murphy, Jarrett Lewis, Robert B. Kaplan, Marc Ponchione, Sheena Paul, Catherine Morrison, Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Mengyi Xu

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Avi Gesser, Jeff Robins, Matt Kelly, Gary E. Murphy, and Jarrett Lewis.
Bottom left to right: Robert B. Kaplan, Marc Ponchione, Sheena Paul, Catherine Morrison, Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Mengyi Xu.
(Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On July 26, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued proposed rules (the “Proposed Rules”) that would require broker-dealers and investment advisers (collectively, “firms”) to evaluate their use of predictive data analytics (“PDA”) and other covered technologies in connection with investor interactions and to eliminate or neutralize certain conflicts of interest associated with such use. The Proposed Rules also contain amendments to rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[1] (“Exchange Act”) and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940[2] (“Advisers Act”) that would require firms to have policies and procedures to achieve compliance with the rules and to make and maintain related records.

In this memorandum, we first discuss the scope of the Proposed Rules and provide a summary of key provisions. We also discuss some key implications regarding the scope and application of the rules if adopted as proposed. The full text of the proposal is available here.

Continue reading →

Despite Unprecedented Challenges, SEC’s Division of Enforcement’s 2020 Annual Report Presents Healthy Enforcement Results

by Kara Brockmeyer, Andrew Ceresney, Arian June, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Mary Jo White, Ada Fernandez Johnson, and Mark D. Flinn

On November 2, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the “SEC” or “Commission”) Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) released its 2020 Annual Report (the “Report”), which details the Division’s activities and results for the period October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. The Report highlights the substantial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Division’s activities, including the challenges of moving investigations forward while working remotely and the need to divert significant resources to protecting retail investors by investigating potential pandemic-related misconduct. 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 →

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 →

SEC Leadership Discusses Continuing Priorities

by Mary Jo White, Andrew J. Ceresney, Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Jonathan R. Tuttle and Arian M. June

SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, Co-Directors of Enforcement Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin, and Acting Director of the Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) Peter Driscoll participated in a panel discussion on Tuesday, September 5, at NYU Law School. The moderated discussion, followed by questions from the audience, was titled “The Securities and Exchange Commission: Priorities Going Forward.”

In sum, the SEC officials emphasized that investors should expect no major shift from the SEC in terms of enforcement or examinations. While there has been some discussion in recent months of frauds victimizing retail investors, there will not be a major paradigm shift in the kinds of cases the Commission will focus on. The panelists also spent a significant amount of time discussing cybersecurity and cyber-related enforcement actions, as well as the SEC’s increased use of big data in investigations and examinations. Continue reading →