U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brings regulation FD enforcement action against AT&T Inc.

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee T. Barnum ◽  
Karl A. Groskaufmanis ◽  
Nicole R. Love
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
District Court ◽  
Investor Relations ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Fair Disclosure ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Regulation Fd ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To explain and analyze the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission’s complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AT&T Inc. alleging repeated violations of Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), and against three of AT&T’s Investor Relations executives for aiding and abetting those violations. Design/Methodology/Approach Describes the SEC’s allegations and AT&T’s response and recommends practice points that issuers and their legal counsel can draw from the enforcement action. Findings The SEC’s suit against AT&T and its three IR executives serves as an important reminder that the SEC remains committed to ensuring the full and fair disclosure of information by issuers and is willing to litigate Regulation FD-based enforcement actions when it deems necessary. Practical Implications Every public company must develop systems to manage selective disclosure risks in its investor relations program. Originality/Value Practical guidance from experienced corporate governance, litigation, capital markets, securities enforcement and regulation lawyers.

scholarly journals The Jury Selection in the Mitchell-Stans Conspiracy Trial

1976 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Zeisel ◽  
Shari Seidman Diamond
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Jury Selection ◽  
District Court ◽  
Voir Dire ◽  
Southern District ◽  
The U.S

This is a study of the voir dire proceedings in the trial of the United States v. John Mitchell and Maurice Stans in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the spring of 1974 (docket no. 73 Cr. 439). The major charge was conspiracy to impede a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of Robert L. Vesco, a financier, a fugitive at the time of the trial, in return for a $200,000 cash contribution to President Nixon's reelection campaign.

U.S. Federal Court of Appeals Upholds United Nations' Immunity in Case Related to Cholera in Haiti

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 162-170
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Health Screenings ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

On October 9, 2013, a group of Haitian cholera victims and their survivors sued the United Nations, along with two UN officials and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that the United Nations had negligently and recklessly allowed peacekeepers from Nepal carrying cholera to enter Haiti in the wake of the 2010 earthquake without reasonable health screenings. The suit further alleged that the United Nations had negligently maintained inadequate sanitation facilities. Finally, the petitioners alleged that the United Nations’ refusal to accept responsibility for the outbreak had exacerbated the epidemic. According to the United Nations, by August 2016, nearly 800,000 people had become infected with cholera, and more than 9,000 had died of cholera.

SEC guidance on broker-dealer custody of digital asset securities

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Smith
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Regulatory Uncertainty ◽  
Digital Asset ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To explain how the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in its Digital Asset Securities Release, issued on December 23, 2020, laid out its vision for how broker-dealers can comply with the custody requirements of Rule 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act (the Customer Protection Rule) for investments in digital asset securities. Design/Methodology/Approach Explains the current regulatory uncertainty for broker-dealers doing a business in digital asset securities and developing systems and procedures that result in compliance with the custody requirements of the Customer Protection Rule; seven minimum steps that broker-dealers can take and nine terms and conditions with which they can comply to protect against SEC enforcement action; and the SEC’s request for comment in response to its position statement. Findings A broker-dealer operating pursuant to the terms and conditions of the position statement articulated in the Release will not be subject to SEC enforcement action on the basis that the broker-dealer deems itself to have obtained and maintained physical possession or control of customer fully paid and excess margin digital asset securities for the purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of the Customer Protection Rule. Originality/Value Practical guidance from experienced financial services, broker-dealer and securities lawyer.

Telegram: deconstructing one of the biggest blockchain cases of 2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-253
Author(s):  
Robert A. Jr. Musiala ◽  
John J. Harrington ◽  
Teresa Goody Guillén ◽  
Jonathan A. Forman ◽  
Adam D. Gale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Emerging Market ◽  
District Court ◽  
Extensive Experience ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Restraining Order ◽  
Southern District

Purpose To discuss and analyze the facts and circumstances of the October 11, 2019 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York temporary restraining order halting the distribution of cryptocurrency tokens in SEC v. Telegram Group Inc. Design/methodology/approach Provides an overview of the case, an analysis of the Court’s ruling, details on the final resolutions, and some key takeaways. Findings Given the lack of judicial precedent in this area, as well as the size and profile of the Telegram project, the Telegram case was closely watched by blockchain industry participants and represents a significant development for this emerging market. The Telegram court’s approach, if broadly adopted, could prove very challenging for those attempting to launch decentralized networks involving blockchain-based tokens. Practical implications The Telegram case represents just one court’s view and is based on a very fact-specific inquiry. However, given the Court’s apparent deference to the SEC’s positions on the facts at hand, and the lack of judicial precedent in this area, the blockchain industry should pay close attention to this decision. Originality/value Expert guidance from lawyers with extensive experience in blockchain technologies, digital currencies, securities offerings and litigation, investment funds and financial services.

Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization (U.S. Ct. App. Second Circuit)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-512
Author(s):  
William Slomanson
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
District Court ◽  
Palestinian Authority ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Yasser Arafat ◽  
The U.S

The 2000–2005 al Aqsa Intifada spawned a horrific wave of violence in and near Jerusalem. Numerous individuals and entities were sued in U.S. courts, by both foreign and American victims, relying on a variety of liability theories and statutes. The seminal Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) case was filed in 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization. It also named the Palestinian Authority (PA) and individuals including Yasser Arafat.

National Petrochemical Co. of Iran v. the M/T Stolt Sheaf

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-371
Author(s):  
Jerome M. Marcus
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

In an action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiff, the National Petrochemical Co. of Iran (NPC), sought damages against Monnris Enterprises of Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, Rotexchemie Brunst & Co. of Hamburg (Rotex), and Rotex’s Geneva affiliate, Formula S.A., for breach of an agreement to sell chemicals to NPC. Asserting that NPC is a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Co., which is in turn owned wholly by the Government of Iran, defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the United States does not recognize the Khomeini Government of Iran and, hence, that neither Iran nor its instrumentality NPC has standing to sue in U.S. courts. The district court granted the motion, NPC appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held: (1) that a foreign state may have standing to sue in U.S. courts even if the United States does not recognize its government or have diplomatic relations with it; (2) that an unrecognized government will have standing to sue if the U.S. executive branch has evinced a willingness to permit the plaintiff to litigate its claims in U.S. courts; and (3) that the level of intercourse between the United States and Iran, and a Statement of Interest filed in this case by the United States as amicuš curiae, show that the executive branch is willing to permit NPC to litigate its claims in U.S. courts.

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-568
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs and respondents, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and United Carriers, Inc., were respectively the charterer and owner of the Hercules, a crude oil tanker that was bombed in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. The ship was severely damaged and had to be scuttled off the coast of Brazil. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in Argentina, the companies filed suit against defendant and appellant, the Argentine Republic, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350 (1982)), which confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) is by its terms the sole basis of federal jurisdiction over cases against foreign states. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (per Rehnquist, C.J.) unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and held that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis of federal jurisdiction over suits against foreign states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document