Financial Institutions

Subscribe to Financial Institutions via RSS

On August 21, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, together with the federal banking agencies, released a statement to clarify banks’ customer due diligence obligations for politically exposed persons. The Statement affirms that (i) there is no regulatory requirement, and no supervisory expectation, for banks’ Bank Secrecy Act / anti-money laundering programs to include “unique, additional…

Partially overturning a decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal held on 18 February 2020 that a company is able to withhold privileged material when responding to a notice from the Financial Reporting Council (the “FRC”) requiring the production of documents in connection with an FRC investigation[1]. The decision has broad implications for the ambit of privilege during regulatory investigations.

The FRC (the UK regulator for auditors, accountants and actuaries) is currently conducting an investigation into Grant Thornton and one of its employees, in relation to its audit of Sports Direct International Plc (“Sports Direct”) for the year ending April 2016. In April 2017, the FRC (pursuant to its powers under the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016 (“SATCAR”)) notified Sports Direct that it was required to disclose emails and their attachments which: (i) relate to the audit, (ii) are held by one or more of five identified custodians, (iii) are dated within certain specified date ranges, and (iv) are responsive to one or more of 27 different specified search terms. Sports Direct provided approximately 2,000 documents to the FRC in response, but withheld 40 documents on the grounds of privilege (these documents were emails and attachments sent to or by Sports Direct’s legal advisers, either internal or external). The FRC applied to Court to force disclosure of the withheld documents.
Continue Reading UK Court of Appeal Finds That Privilege Affords Protection Against Regulators’ Requests for Documents Unless Overriden by Statute

Insider trading law has remained a subject of significant debate and attention, including with a recent Second Circuit decision addressing the use of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 (wire fraud) and 1348 (securities fraud) in insider trading cases[1] and a new insider trading bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in December by an overwhelming majority.  Yesterday, a blue ribbon task force headed by Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, published a report studying the history and current state of insider trading law and proposing reforms that would bring greater clarity and certainty to the law.
Continue Reading Task Force Led By Preet Bharara and Cleary Gottlieb’s Joon H. Kim Issues Report Recommending Reforms to Insider Trading Law

On May 6, 2019, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) issued Regulatory Notice 19-18, addressing members’[1] anti-money laundering (“AML”) compliance programs.  This notice focused extensively on members’ monitoring for suspicious activities and subsequent suspicious activity report (“SAR”) filing obligations, providing 97 examples of “money laundering red flags” to securities industry market participants.  Where applicable to a members’ business operations, FINRA encouraged broker-dealers to take a “risk-based approach” to AML compliance and incorporate these red flags into their AML programs, even though the organization noted that merely doing so will not satisfy all obligations.  Where any red flags are detected, FINRA encouraged firms to consider whether “additional investigation, customer due diligence measures or a SAR filing may be warranted.”
Continue Reading FINRA Publishes AML Red Flags to Help Broker-Dealers Satisfy Suspicious Activity Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

On May 2, 2019, FINRA proposed new rules to designate “high-risk” firms and strengthen its ability to impose additional obligations on those firms.[1]

  • Proposed Rule 4111 would authorize FINRA to designate “Restricted Firms” based on the number of event disclosures made by the firm and its registered persons. Restricted Firms would be subject to limitations on their operations and could be required to maintain restricted deposits that could only be withdrawn with FINRA’s consent.
  • Proposed Rule 9559 would create an expedited appeals process, including a process for challenging a designation as a Restricted Firm and any obligations imposed.

FINRA expects that only a small number of large firms (500 or more registered representatives) would be affected by the proposed rules, and that only zero to two would have been impacted in any given year had the rules been effective from 2013-2018.[2]

Early signals from FINRA about this rulemaking generated concern that the standards would be overly subjective, leading to uncertainty in application.  We believe, however, that the proposed rules on balance reflect a reasonable, and largely objective, approach given FINRA’s stated goal to “impose tailored obligations” on those firms that “present heightened risk of harm to investors.”[3]
Continue Reading FINRA Proposes Rules Targeting Firms With History of Misconduct

In recent weeks two enforcement actions by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) against regulated firms have highlighted the regulator’s continued scrutiny of transaction reporting.  In the decisions, the FCA has reiterated the importance of complete, accurate and timely transaction reporting to assist in its objective of protecting and enhancing the integrity of the UK’s financial system.  The significant penalties imposed in each case, £27.6 million and £34.3 million respectively, demonstrate the serious consequences for firms that fail to meet their transaction reporting requirements.
Continue Reading FCA Continues Focus on Transaction Reporting Breaches

On April 3, 2019, Senator (and Democratic Presidential contender) Elizabeth Warren announced proposed legislation—dubbed the “Corporate Executive Accountability Act”—that would effect a dramatic change in white collar criminal law by permitting prosecution of corporate executives for negligent conduct.  Under traditional criminal law principles, defendants must typically have at least knowledge with respect to the conduct that constitutes the crime.  However, under Senator Warren’s proposed law, executives of large companies could be criminally prosecuted (and fined and/or jailed if convicted) if they are found to have acted negligently in failing to prevent criminal acts committed by the companies they supervise.  The bill is unlikely to be enacted, but it nonetheless represents a significant policy indication from a Presidential candidate.
Continue Reading Senator Warren Proposes Bill to Hold Corporate Executives Criminally Accountable for Negligent Conduct

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 December 20, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) released its 2019 Examination Priorities.  The six themes for this year’s priorities are:  retail investors (including seniors and those saving for retirement), compliance and risk in registrants responsible for critical market infrastructure (clearing agencies, transfer agents, national securities exchanges and Regulation SCI entities), oversight of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, digital assets, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering.  The only new theme for 2019 compared to 2018 is digital assets, which we take to imply a plan to more closely—and substantively—regulate investment advisers and broker-dealers involved with this asset class.  The 2019 priorities also more explicitly than the 2018 priorities describe specific practices that OCIE found concerning in examinations of those entities, many of which involved failure to adequately safeguard client assets and the adequacy of disclosures of conflicts of interest.  We expect to see a corresponding focus in Enforcement Division investigations and cases on these issues as a result.
Continue Reading Lessons from the SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations’ 2019 Priorities

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018, Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the Eastern District of New York issued a decision holding that Initial Coin Offerings (“ICO”) may qualify as securities offerings and therefore be subject to the criminal federal securities laws.  This ruling came as two U.S. regulators—the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”)—announced separate actions under securities laws against companies engaged in the cryptocurrency marketplace, including the sale of digital tokens.  As the popularity of cryptocurrencies grows and businesses and entrepreneurs increasingly turn to ICOs to raise capital, these developments may serve as guideposts for how cryptocurrencies and ICOs will be viewed by courts and federal regulators in cases to follow.
Continue Reading Federal Court, SEC, and FINRA Scrutinize Cryptocurrencies and ICOs