Enforcement

Subscribe to Enforcement via RSS

On March 14, 2018, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo gave a speech at the Futures Industry Association (“FIA”) annual meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, in which he reviewed the CFTC’s activities during the past year and provided a preview of CFTC priorities for the coming year.[1]  Among the issues addressed in Chairman Giancarlo’s speech were the CFTC’s successes and priorities in enforcement, including in particular initiatives in the area of anti-spoofing and virtual currencies.
Continue Reading Recent CFTC Enforcement Actions: Spoofing and Virtual Currency Task Forces

Earlier this month, partners Jennifer Kennedy Park and Kimberly Spoerri participated in a panel co-hosted by The Conference Board and Cleary Gottlieb to discuss the board’s oversight role in issues related to sexual harassment.

Moderator Doug Chia, executive director of The Conference Board, Jen and Kim discussed relevant legal regulations and frameworks and the risks of non-compliance, as well as the policies, procedures and best practices boards and senior management can employ to mitigate risks.  They discussed the responsibility the board has in setting company culture through tone at the top, and how the failure by the board and senior management to be proactive in this area can affect compliance and oversight throughout a company.  The discussion also included ways the board can tangibly address these issues. 
Continue Reading Cleary Partners Participate in Panel Discussion on Board Oversight of Sexual Harassment

Within the past few months, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) has released a series of memos that indicate a shift in its policy related to the treatment of agency guidance documents.  This memorandum seeks to explain this policy shift and analyze its potential impact in the area of False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement.
Continue Reading Shift in Policy on Guidance Documents Suggests Change in DOJ Attitude Towards FCA Enforcement

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) released its 2018 National Exam Program Examination Priorities.  The 2018 priorities highlight areas of emphasis for OCIE, including cryptocurrencies, cybersecurity, anti-money laundering, and issues affecting retail investors (especially seniors and those saving for retirement).  While the core areas of focus and many of the priorities for 2018 are similar to those from 2017, there is a clear shift in emphasis that we attribute to the change in leadership at the SEC.  Some specific changes also likely stem from OCIE’s 2017 examination findings, recent market developments, and trends in enforcement. 
Continue Reading Lessons for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers from the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations 2018 Priorities

On January 31, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a federal statute curbing the President’s power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), a financial regulator with the mandate to enforce federal consumer protection laws.[1]  In a 7-3 en banc decision, the Court held that it is constitutional for the CFPB director to be appointed to a five-year term, removable by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”[2]  At the same time, however, the Court affirmed the vacature of a $109 million sanction levied by former CFPB director Richard Cordray against PHH Corporation (“PHH”), a large mortgage lender.[3]

As a result of the Court’s decision, the enforcement action will be remanded back to the CFPB, now under the leadership of Trump Administration-appointee Mick Mulvaney.  The remand comes at a time of substantial uncertainty as to the CFPB’s enforcement prerogatives.  In a leaked email to the entire CFPB staff on January 23, 2018, Mulvaney indicated that the CFPB would no longer “push the envelope” when it comes to enforcing consumer protection laws, and would instead be reviewing “everything that [it] do[es], from investigations to lawsuits and everything in between.”[4]  Indeed, the CFPB has since issued several Requests for Information to encourage public comment as it reviews its policies and processes related to enforcement and civil investigative demands.[5] 
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Rules CFPB’s Structure Constitutional but Vacates $109 Million Enforcement Award

In recent months, sexual harassment allegations against well-known figures across a growing number of industries have become a common feature in news headlines.  In the wake of these allegations, many companies have concluded that their current policies and procedures related to sexual harassment and discrimination are inadequate.  Against the backdrop of this rapidly evolving landscape,…

2017 brought marked challenges to the SEC’s ability to aggressively enforce the securities laws, including the Supreme Court limiting the SEC’s ability to seek disgorgement and court action endangering the validity of its oft-used administrative proceedings.  2017 also saw a decrease in the SEC’s total enforcement statistics.[1]  However, there is reason to believe that 2018 will see an uptick in enforcement actions and perhaps some clarity on the use of administrative proceedings.  The SEC enters 2018 with a full complement of Commissioners and most senior Enforcement leadership positions filled, and it now has clearly articulated areas of focus, including protecting retail investors and prosecuting cyber cases.  A recent Supreme Court cert grant should also help move to closure questions surrounding the use of administrative proceedings, historically an important enforcement mechanism.  Below are a few observations from the past year, as well as key enforcement areas to keep an eye on in 2018.
Continue Reading SEC Year-in-Review and a Look Ahead

As the Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Enforcement signaled in its recent annual report, policing the asset management industry will be a key priority in its continuing focus on protecting retail investors.[1]  This renewed emphasis reaffirms the view that if a significant error or misconduct is detected, firms generally should not wait for SEC scrutiny to take corrective steps and mitigate investor harm.  Voluntary remediation must be considered as part of any strategy for managing regulatory exposure as well as reputational and litigation risk.  Where a firm does decide to remediate, it must proceed carefully to avoid pitfalls that could lead to fresh scrutiny from regulators or even private civil litigation.

This post provides guidance to regulated firms on managing risks once they determine to voluntarily remediate – as distinct from the fact-specific issue of whether to “self-report” errors or misconduct – in the SEC context.  It begins with an overview of the benefits and risks of voluntary remediation and common types of remedial measures.  It then identifies potential issues that can arise when undertaking remediation.  Finally, it advises on structuring and implementing remedial measures to minimize risks of regulatory or litigation exposure.
Continue Reading Voluntary Remediation in the SEC Context: Avoiding Common Pitfalls

On January 15, 2018, Singapore’s Law Minister, Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam SC, announced during an event held by the Law Society of Singapore a proposal for up to 50 different amendments to the city’s Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, to include a procedure for Deferred Prosecution Agreements (“DPA”).  The proposed legislation, if introduced, would make a significant change in the enforcement tools available to Singaporean prosecutors, and comes against a backdrop of an increasingly high-profile focus on corruption and anti-money laundering prosecutions.
Continue Reading What To Look For In Proposed Singapore Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) Legislation

In February 2018, the Supreme Court will hear argument in United States v. Microsoft Corporation on the issue of whether a U.S. email provider must comply with a warrant issued pursuant to Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications stored exclusively on servers at datacenters abroad.[1]  Recently the parties submitted briefing on the merits to the Court, and a number of amici weighed in to support Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”). [2]   Through more than twenty amicus briefs, major tech giants like Google, Apple, and Amazon, along with members of Congress, European lawmakers, European legal groups, and foreign sovereigns, expressed concern about the Government’s interpretation of the SCA. [3] As this interest demonstrates, the Court’s decision is expected to have far reaching implications for the treatment of foreign data protection laws in U.S. courts.
Continue Reading Accessing Servers Abroad: The Global Comity and Data Privacy Implications of United States v. Microsoft