COVID-19 considerations for SEC cybersecurity guidance, disclosure, enforcement, and parallel proceedings: navigating the new normal

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2/3) ◽  
pp. 111-126
Author(s):  
Aldo M. Leiva ◽  
Michel E. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Effective Vaccine ◽  
Resource Reallocation ◽  
Securities Litigation ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Business Operations ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Securities Industry ◽  
Remote Operations

Purpose To examine the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on regulated entities within the context of cybersecurity, US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) compliance, and parallel proceedings. Design/methodology/approach Describes the SEC’s ability to conduct its operations within the telework environment, its commitment and ability to monitor the securities market, its enhanced monitoring of the adverse effects of SEC-regulated companies from COVID-19, its guidance to public companies of disclosure obligations related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, the SEC Office of Compliance and Examinations’s (OCIE’s) focus on broker-dealers’ and investment advisories’ cybersecurity preparedness, the role and activities of the SEC Division of Enforcement’s Cyber Unit, and parallel proceedings on cyberbreaches and incidents by different agencies, branches of government or private litigants. Findings SEC-regulated entities face many challenges in trying to maintain their ongoing business operations and infrastructure due to severe financial pressures, the threat of infection to employees and customers, and cybersecurity risks posed by remote operations from hackers and fraudsters. The SEC has reemphasized that its long-standing focus on cybersecurity and resiliency within the securities industry will continue, including ongoing vigilance over companies’ efforts to identify, assess, and address the inherent, heightened cybersecurity risks of teleworking and the resource reallocation that business need to sustain their operations until a safe and effective vaccine is developed for COVID-19. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced lawyers with expertise in securities, litigation, government enforcement, information technology, data protection, privacy and cybersecurity.

SEC approves Nasdaq rule change to permit direct listings without an IPO

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-27
Author(s):  
Helene R. Banks ◽  
Bradley J. Bondi ◽  
Charles A. Gilman ◽  
Elai Katz ◽  
Geoffrey E. Liebmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Initial Public Offering ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Securities Litigation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Rule Change ◽  
Rule Changes ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Public Offering

Purpose To explain the rule changes in Nasdaq’s new Listing Rule IM-5315-1, approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on February 15, 2019, that permit direct listings on Nasdaq without an initial public offering, similar to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rule changes approved in 2018. Design/methodology/approach Explains the legislative and regulatory background, historic limitations on direct Nasdaq listings, and de-tailed provisions of Nasdaq’s new Listing Rule IM-5315-1. Findings The direct listing alternative to an IPO may appeal to cash-rich companies that do not need the publicity or new capital associated with a traditional IPO. Originality/value Expert analysis from experienced securities litigation and corporate governance lawyers.

SEC reporting obligations for insiders and large traders under Section 13 and Section 16 of the Exchange Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-53
Author(s):  
Arthur L. Zwickel ◽  
Keith D. Pisani ◽  
Alicia M. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Individual Investors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
Beneficial Ownership ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Trading Restrictions ◽  
A Current

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide investment advisers, broker dealers, individual investors and other securities firms with a current and detailed summary of the reporting regime under Sections 13 and 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and guidance on how to comply with the disclosure requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 13F, Form 13H and Forms 3, 4 and 5. Design/methodology/approach The approach of this paper discusses the transactions or beneficial ownership interests in securities that trigger a reporting requirement under Section 13 and/or Section 16 of the Exchange Act, identifies the person or persons that have the obligation to file reports with the SEC, details the information required to be disclosed in the publicly available reports, and explains certain trading restrictions imposed on reporting persons as well as the potential adverse consequences of filing late or failing to make the requisite disclosures to the SEC. Findings The SEC continues to provide updated guidance on the disclosure requirements under Sections 13 and 16 of the Exchange Act, which individual investors and securities firms – largely insiders – must take into account when filing any new or amended reports on Schedule 13D, Schedule 13G, Form 13F, Form 13H and Forms 3, 4 and 5. Originality/value This article provides expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

SEC credits self-reporting and cooperation in not imposing penalty on ICO sponsor

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Hawke
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Securities Laws ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Civil Penalty ◽  
Do So

Purpose To explain a February 20, 2019 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settled enforcement action against Gladius Network LLC for failing to register an initial coin offering (ICO) under the federal securities laws, in which Gladius was able to avoid a civil penalty by self-reporting the violation and cooperating with the SEC enforcement staff. Design/methodology/approach Explains Gladius’ self-reporting, cooperation and remedial steps; why the SEC imposed no civil penalty on Gladius; and two similar cases the SEC instituted in July 2018 against companies that conducted unregistered ICOs, did not self-report, and were penalized. Provides analysis and conclusions. Findings The Gladius case offers important insight into how the SEC and its staff think about cooperation credit in resolving SEC enforcement actions and sends a clear message that self-reporting to the SEC can result in meaningful cooperation credit. In three recent cases, the Commission has made clear that once it put the industry on notice that ICOs could be securities that must be registered under the federal securities laws, a party risks enforcement action by failing to do so. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from an experienced securities lawyer who counsels clients on all manner of SEC enforcement, examination and regulatory policy matters.

SEC chief accountant shines spotlight on audit committees

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Stroup
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Corporate Boards ◽  
Securities Litigation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
Market Risks ◽  
Baruch College

Purpose To explain and analyze remarks concerning the importance and responsibility of corporate audit committees made by US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chief Accountant Wesley Bricker before the Baruch College Financial Reporting Conference on May 3, 2018. Design/methodology/approach Discusses Mr Bricker’s remarks in three principal areas: the role of audit committees in clearly understanding non-GAAP measures presented to the public, the attentiveness of audit committees to disclosures regarding changes in market risks, and the importance of independent, diverse thinking on corporate boards, and particularly, audit committee, brought by independent directors as an element of strong corporate governance. Findings The coming months may offer a better indication whether Mr Bricker’s speech is simply a specific point of emphasis from the Office of the Chief Accountant or is perhaps intended to foreshadow a contemplated or ongoing enforcement initiative. Originality/value Expert guidance from experienced lawyer with specialties in SEC investigative and enforcement actions, securities litigation, accountants’ defense, white collar criminal defense and corporate investigations

SEC charges broker-dealer for failure to protect against insider trading by employees

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Nathan ◽  
Tiffany Rowe
Keyword(s):  
Insider Trading ◽  
Private Equity ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Confidential Information ◽  
Securities Litigation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Improper Use ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
Securities Laws

Purpose – To alert broker-dealers to Securities and Exchange Commission charges brought against a broker-dealer for ineffective controls over employee use of confidential information and to provide guidance regarding development and implementation of controls to protect against improper use of material non-public information by employees. Design/methodology/approach – Reviews Securities and Exchange Commission settlement order with broker-dealer for violations of securities laws for failure to adequately prevent insider trading by employees and provides guidance for implementing control to prevent insider trading. Findings – The Securities and Exchange Commission’s charges are the first to be brought against a broker-dealer for failure to adequately protect against insider trading. A broker used a customer’s confidential information regarding an impending acquisition by a private equity firm to purchase stock in the target company. The broker-dealer settled charges of violations of the federal securities laws for failing to adequately establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures to protect against insider trading by employees with access to confidential client information. Originality/value – Practical guidance regarding internal controls at broker-dealers from experienced securities litigation and regulation lawyers.

SEC proposes new compensation clawback rules

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 43-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Brady ◽  
Rolf Zaiss ◽  
Nyron Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Stock Exchanges ◽  
Wall Street ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
New Public ◽  
Expert Analysis

Purpose – To examine the proposed rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which, if adopted, would require national stock exchanges to establish listing standards that would require listed issuers to adopt so-called clawback policies for the recovery of excess incentive-based compensation in the event that an issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement resulting from material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement. Design/methodology/approach – The article discusses the SEC’s proposed rules, including the circumstances that would require recovery of excess incentive-based compensation, the types of compensation that, and the individuals whose compensation, would be subject to recovery, and certain new disclosure requirements for listed issuers. Findings – The SEC’s proposed rules will, if adopted, impose additional burdens on listed issuers to adopt and comply with recovery policies for excess incentive-based compensation and adhere to new public disclosure requirements. Originality/value – Expert analysis from experienced securities and executive compensation lawyers.

2020 SEC risk alert provides guidance for private fund advisers

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Kenneth Breen ◽  
Phara Guberman
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To analyze the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) June 2020 Risk Alert, which identified three categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of advisers to private funds, in order to understand its guidance and recommend best practices. Design/methodology/approach The study discusses the categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of private fund advisers, current SEC enforcement trends, and recommendations for disclosures, internal controls, policies and procedures. Findings The SEC will expect private funds to identify and remedy regular deficiencies in three primary categories: gaps in client and investor disclosures regarding conflicts of interest; deficiencies in disclosures related to fees and expenses; and issues with policies and procedures regarding the treatment of material nonpublic information. Practical implications Private fund advisers should expect increased scrutiny during examinations on the identified deficiencies and use this opportunity to be proactive in addressing these issues. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities enforcement attorneys.

A failure to supervise: the SEC casts a shadow over internal investigations

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-12
Author(s):  
John P. Nowak ◽  
Thomas A. Zaccaro ◽  
Katherine K. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Content Type ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Internal Procedures

Purpose The purpose of this article is to highlight a recent settlement by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in which it alleged that a regulated entity failed to supervise a representative principally because the entity did not establish clear guidance as to how its personnel should investigate red flags of a representative’s potential misconduct (e.g., how to follow up on the red flags and define the scope of any inquiry). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of failure-to-supervise liability for broker-dealers and investment advisers, and highlights key takeaways from the SEC’s recent enforcement resolution that may be applied in establishing compliance procedures relating to internal investigations going forward. Findings The article concludes that the SEC appears to expect regulated entities to implement procedures guiding employees on “how to investigate” suspicious activity. Companies, however, should define such procedures in general terms to allow for flexibility in investigations, which can present unique or unforeseen situations. Internal procedures must also account for and preserve attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections. Originality/value This article provides expert analysis and practical guidance from experienced lawyers in the Investigations and White Collar Defense and Securities Enforcement practices

SEC staff issues guidance on Rule 14a-8 calling for board involvement in evaluating shareholder proposals

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino ◽  
Alan Dye ◽  
Alex Bahn
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Shareholder Proposals ◽  
Business Operations ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Board Level ◽  
Directors And Officers

Purpose This paper examines a legal bulletin issued by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in November 2017 that provides significant new guidance to SEC-reporting companies on the application of the “ordinary business” and “economic relevance” exceptions in Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Rule 14a-8 governs an SEC-reporting company’s obligation to include shareholder proposals in its proxy materials for a shareholder meeting. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides in-depth analysis of the new interpretive guidance against the background of continuing controversy between companies and shareholder-proponents over the bases on which companies should be permitted to exclude from their proxy materials proposals that proponents believe raise social, ethical or other policy issues that are appropriate for shareholder action. Findings In acting on a company’s request to exclude a proposal, the SEC staff must make difficult judgments regarding the connection between policy issues reflected in the proposal and the company’s business operations, which the company’s directors and officers seek to conduct free of inappropriate shareholder oversight. In the new guidance, the staff calls for assistance in making these judgments by soliciting greater board-level involvement in the exclusion determination and encouraging the company in its no-action submission to discuss the board’s analysis and decision-making process. Greater board participation should encourage a more probing assessment of the considerations weighed in these determinations. Originality/value This paper provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure requirement from experienced securities lawyers.

FINRA revises and restructures registration and exam requirements

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Edward J. Johnsen ◽  
John H. Grady
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Securities Industry ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Limited Period

Purpose To explain a new set of rules, detailed in FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-30, proposed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and approved by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that revise and streamline the number and types of proficiency exams broker-dealer personnel must take in order to become registered, as well as the categories of registration. Design/methodology/approach Discusses the background, including FINRA’s consolidation of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) rules; the new registration regime; conditions for waivers; criteria for “permissive” registration; firms’ requirement to designate “Principal Financial Officers” and “Principal Operations Officers”; new categories of principal registration; FINRA’s elimination of certain registration categories; research analyst, research principal and supervisory analyst exam requirements; the ability of a registered representative to function as a principal for a limited period; the prohibition of unregistered persons to accept orders from customers; and the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) Examination Content Outline. Findings The new structure is intended to bring greater consistency and uniformity to the qualification process. Among other changes, it eliminates several registration categories that either have become outdated or have limited utility, permits persons not yet associated with a broker-dealer or employed in the securities industry to take a preliminary registration exam prior to entering the securities industry, and makes other changes intended to modernize the registration and examination regime for broker-dealer personnel. Originality/value Practical guidance from lawyers with broad stock brokerage, investment management and related financial services experience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document