Photo of Nowell D. Bamberger

Nowell D. Bamberger’s practice focuses on cross-border contentious disputes matters, including litigation and criminal and regulatory investigations.

On May 15, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced that they entered into an Enhanced Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and the Exchange of Information (“Enhanced MMoU”) under the auspices of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”), along with nine other international financial regulators.[1]  Both the SEC and CFTC are already signatories to IOSCO’s predecessor memorandum of understanding with 121 other signatories.  However, the Enhanced MMoU provides for significant enhancements in cross-border enforcement cooperation—including the ability to compel testimony outside of the United States—that, if widely adopted, could increase the signatory regulators’ abilities to undertake (and coordinate) multilateral cross-border investigations.
Continue Reading

On May 8, 2019, the Division of Enforcement of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission released an Enforcement Manual – the first public document of its kind from the Division.

Though the Manual does not reveal any significant shifts in policy, it will undoubtedly serve as an important resource for individuals and entities dealing with CFTC

On May 2, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an important decision delineating the boundaries between conducting a proper internal investigation and acting as an arm of the government.

For the government, the consequences of “outsourcing” an investigation to a company and its counsel could be exclusion

On March 6, 2019, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Enforcement Division released an advisory (the “Advisory”) on self-reporting and cooperation for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) that involve foreign corrupt practices.[1]  The Advisory lays out guidelines for companies or individuals “not registered (or required to be registered) with the CFTC” to receive significant cooperation credit for voluntarily and timely disclosing CEA violations involving foreign corrupt practices.[2]  Indeed, where such disclosure is followed by “full cooperation and appropriate remediation” and other measures, the Division of Enforcement will extend a presumption that no civil monetary penalties be imposed.[3]  Moreover, while registrants—which are subject to “independent reporting obligations”—will not benefit from such a presumption, cooperation may still garner “substantial reduction in the civil monetary penalty.”[4]

The Advisory is the latest signal of the CFTC’s efforts over the last two years to more clearly define the benefits of voluntary cooperation with the Agency.[5]  This may indicate that the CFTC is taking an increased interest in corruption cases related to the commodities or swaps markets.
Continue Reading

On March 4, 2019, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced a whistleblower award of over $2 million to an individual—unaffiliated with the company the CFTC charged—for providing expert analysis in conjunction with a related action instituted by another federal regulator.  While the Securities and Exchange Commission, which possesses a similar whistleblower award regime,[1] has previously issued awards to multiple claimants for both related actions[2] and to company outsiders,[3] this is the first such award to be granted by the CFTC in either respect.

The award demonstrates the CFTC’s continued commitment to the Whistleblower Program, and to using all available means in conducting enforcement actions.  This award also reflects both the CFTC’s willingness to collaborate with other federal regulators and to rely on external sources of expert data analysis and likely reflects the CFTC’s continued expansion of its Whistleblower Program, both in terms of sources of information and awards granted. 
Continue Reading

On 12 February 2019, the English High Court issued a judgment in proceedings related to the takeover of Autonomy Corporation Limited (now ACL Netherlands BV) by the Hewlett-Packard group in 2011. The question before the Court was whether a U.S. grand jury subpoena served on Hewlett Packard Enterprise (the U.S. parent company of the claimants)

On January 10, 2019, a Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California issued an order denying an application for a search warrant that would have compelled any individual present at the premises to be searched to unlock their digital devices using biometric features, such as thumb prints and facial scans.  The order is notable in that the search warrant was not rejected on Fourth Amendment grounds, but rather on the grounds that requiring a person to unlock his or her digital device ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination.[1]  Providing a thumb or facial scan, the court reasoned, constituted testimony protected by the Fifth Amendment, analogizing biometrics to passwords that similarly protect information stored on devices.  This decision highlights the current tension in the courts on the accessibility of information stored on digital devices, and the courts’ continuing efforts to develop rules governing this rapidly-evolving area of law.
Continue Reading

On December 19, 2018, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “USAO”) announced criminal charges against and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (the “DPA”) with Central States Capital Markets, LLC (“CSCM”), a Kansas-based broker-dealer, under the Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA”).[1]  The charge was for a felony violation of the BSA, which consisted of CSCM’s willful failure to file a suspicious activity report (“SAR”) regarding the illegal activities of one of its customers.  According to the USAO, this represents the first ever criminal BSA charge brought against a United States broker-dealer.  This case is another milestone in the recent trend towards stricter enforcement of the anti-money laundering (“AML”) regulatory requirements applicable to broker-dealers.
Continue Reading

On November 15, 2018, the Division of Enforcement (the “Division”) of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) released its Annual Report on the Division of Enforcement (the “Report”), highlighting the enforcement division’s recent initiatives and reinforcing its focus on cooperation and self-reporting.  The Report provides a succinct overview of the Division’s enforcement priorities over the last year, discusses its overall enforcement philosophy, sets out key metrics about the cases brought in the last year, and highlights its key initiatives for the coming year.  While the Division’s priorities—preserving market integrity, protecting customers, promoting individual accountability, and increasing coordination with other regulators and criminal authorities—do not mark a departure from prior guidance, the Report does highlight the Division’s particular focus on individual accountability and a few target areas of enforcement. 
Continue Reading

On Monday, following two reversals of convictions, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut moved to dismiss the sole securities fraud claim remaining against former Jefferies bond trader, Jesse Litvak, bringing an end to the 5 1/2-year long case against him.[1]  During the case’s winding procedural path, the Government twice secured convictions against Litvak by jury trial—on the theory that Litvak’s alleged misstatements about his own costs and profit margins for residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trades would have been material to the decision-making of a reasonable (and often sophisticated) investor-buyer.  And twice the Second Circuit overturned the convictions on narrow and technical grounds.  Notably, even while seeking to dismiss the remaining charge, the Government maintains in its filing that the Second Circuit’s decisions left undisturbed the soundness of its legal theories—namely that a broker-dealer’s misstatements relating to his own profits to sophisticated counterparties could satisfy the materiality requirement for securities fraud as a matter of law.[2]  Thus, notwithstanding the additional hurdles presented by the Second Circuit’s decisions, the Government’s decision not to pursue yet another trial against Litvak does not signal a death knell for all similar charges in the future, particularly those that are currently pending and arose as part of the Government’s RMBS probe.  But the somewhat torturous history of the Litvak case does highlight the difficulty for the Government in establishing the materiality of alleged misstatements made to sophisticated securities professionals who undertake their own analysis of trades.  Indeed, in many of these RMBS cases, the Government faced an uphill battle from the start, evidenced by its inability to secure convictions in many of them.
Continue Reading