Enforcement

Subscribe to Enforcement via RSS

Legal and regulatory scrutiny regarding the use of non-disclosure agreements by companies to resolve allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct continues to increase in the wake of the #MeToo movement.  Such scrutiny featured prominently this month in two high-profile sexual harassment matters: the Wynn Resorts investigation and the various legal proceedings following the allegations against Harvey Weinstein.  Both in-house and outside counsel for companies with senior executives facing such allegations should take note of these developments, as they call into question whether the use of NDAs could in certain circumstances amount to investigatory obstruction or a violation of ethical obligations.
Continue Reading New Scrutiny for NDAs in Sexual Harassment Matters

In the much-awaited Judgment No. 63, filed on March 21, 2019 and published on March 27, 2019 on Issue No. 13 of the Italian Official Gazette, the Italian Constitutional Court found that the principle of retroactive application of the most favorable law applies to the administrative penalties set forth under Legislative Decree No. 58 of…

On March 25, 2019, partners Lev Dassin and Arthur Kohn participated in a webcast hosted by The Conference Board, entitled “Corporate Prosecutions: What Companies, Boards and Executives Need to Know.”  Daniel Gitner, a partner at Lankler Siffert & Wohl, also participated on the panel.

The panelists and moderator Doug Chia, executive director of The Conference Board, began by discussing corporate prosecutions generally, including the history of corporate prosecutions and how DOJ attitudes regarding corporate prosecutions have changed over time.  Dassin explained that the DOJ has more recently refocused its attention on prosecuting individuals engaged in corporate misconduct.
Continue Reading Cleary Partners Participate in Panel Discussion on Corporate Prosecutions

On April 3, 2019, staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission released (1) a framework providing principles for analyzing whether a digital asset constitutes an investment contract, and thus a security, as defined in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. and (2) a no-action letter permitting TurnKey Jet, Inc., without satisfying registration requirements under the Securities…

On March 27, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 6-to-2 decision in Lorenzo v. SEC focusing on the distinction between “making” a false statement under Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b) and engaging in deceptive conduct—so-called “scheme liability”—under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c).

The Court upheld a D.C. Circuit majority decision concluding that the SEC could hold an…

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 CFTC Enforcement Division Issues New Advisory on Self-Reporting and Cooperation

On 12 February 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”)[1] adopted its first opinion on an “administrative arrangement,” which provides a new mechanism for the transfer of personal data between European Union (“EU”) financial supervisory authorities and securities agencies and their non-EU counterparts.

Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“GDPR”), personal data cannot be transferred from the European Economic Area (“EEA”) to a third country unless the European Commission has decided that such third country is “adequate” from a data protection laws perspective, or “appropriate safeguards” are in place to ensure that the treatment of personal data in the hands of the recipient reflects the GDPR’s high standards. Article 46 of the GDPR provides for various safeguarding options, including the possibility of “provisions to be inserted into administrative arrangements between public authorities or bodies which include enforceable and effective data subject rights.”[2] No such “administrative arrangements” have been approved by the EDPB until now.
Continue Reading EDPB Issues First Opinion on Administrative Arrangements Under the GDPR for Cross-Border Data Flows Between EU and Non-EU Securities Agencies

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)…

Last week, in SEC v. Scoville, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Dodd-Frank allows the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring fraud claims based on sales of securities to foreign buyers where defendants engage in fraudulent conduct within the United States.

In so holding, the Court concluded that Dodd-Frank…

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 Court Holds That 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Privilege Precludes Compelling Fingerprint or Facial Recognition Access to Digital Devices