DOCSLIB.ORG

The E-Newsletter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The E-Newsletter THE E-NEWSLETTER Vol. XI | July 2020 – September 2020 Welcome to this issue of CLD NUALS Securities Law e-Newsletter In this issue, as the lead article, we have a Any feedback or suggestions would be special interview with Mr. Abhinav valuable in our constant pursuit to improve Kumar, Partner, Cyril Amarchand the e-newsletter and ensure its continued Mangaldas, in which he shares his insights success among the readers. on varied topics and contemporary matters Please feel free to send any feedback, of importance. suggestions or comments to us at Accompanying the aforementioned we [email protected]. have literary contributions from other Regards professionals and students. In this edition, we have also captured the key regulations Editorial Team and circulars issued by the SEBI for the Securities Law e-Newsletter period under review. SECURITIES LAW The e-Newsletter Securities Laws: Vol. XI, October 2020 All views expressed are those of the authors. The newsletter is for private circulation and not for sale. Index THE INTERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 2 THE PROBLEM OF MICROCAP STOCK FRAUD IN INDIA..................................................................... 5 OBLIGATIONS OF CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE: ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL TREND & LESSONS FOR THE INDIAN SECURITIES MARKET .................................................................................................. 8 MYSTERY BEHIND SEBI ORDER: WHATSAPP LEAK CASE ............................................................... 11 SEBI REGULATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 14 SEBI CIRCULARS ............................................................................................................................................ 18 1 SECURITIES LAW E-NEWSLETTER THE INTERVIEW Abhinav Kumar, Partner, CAM has over 10 years of experience and focuses on a variety of capital markets transactions, including initial public offerings, follow-on offerings, rights issues, QIPs and preferential issues. Chambers and Partners 2018 has recognized Abhinav as an “up and coming” capital markets lawyer and noted that he is “extremely responsive and gives nuanced advice”. Indian Business Law Journal (2017-18) has recognized Abhinav for his “constant and careful explanation, and strong Mr. Abhinav Kumar advice on negotiations and legal requirements”. He is also recognized as a notable practitioner by IFLR 1000. 1. What changes do you expect in the Indian capital markets ecosystem from investment perspective in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the policies of Government? I think SEBI has taken a proactive and holistic approach in assisting Indian corporates and business trusts in raising capital during challenging times of Covid-19. Further, SEBI has actively engaged with market players including intermediaries in addressing challenges faced by them in meeting regulatory compliances and requirements and has promptly provided relaxations. Going forward, we expect SEBI to continue to be active in easing accessing capital markets and extending relaxations in meeting regulatory compliances and requirements. Some of the exciting developments like framework for foreign listing, further easing of ITP framework are also expected to happen in the near future which would broaden the contours of the Indian capital markets. 2. What is your take on recent amendments by SEBI to Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements Regulations 2018 in respect of the Preferential Issues and Rights Issues? As discussed earlier, SEBI has taken a proactive and holistic approach in assisting Indian corporates and business trusts in raising capital during challenging times of Covid-19. I have set out below quick summary of amendments and my thoughts: a) Rights issue related relaxations: In April itself, SEBI had provided certain significant relaxations with respect to fast track and minimum subscription related requirement to enable companies to undertake rights issue in a timely manner in the most equitable manner. Subsequently, in May, SEBI also relaxed requirements to allow participation by non-ASBA applicants and participation by shareholders holding shares in physical form in addition to certain procedural requirements. Due to such relaxations, 8 companies have raised INR 592,920 million from April 1, 2020 and September 1, 2020. Further, recently, SEBI has overhauled disclosure requirements for rights issues and has also relaxed various substantive requirements minimum subscription which I think will encourage listed companies to raise capital through rights issue. 2 SECURITIES LAW E-NEWSLETTER b) QIP related relaxations: In June, SEBI reduced the time period gap required between two consecutive QIPs by listed entities from 6 months to 2 weeks. Unlike other relaxations, this is not a temporary relaxation and we are certain that some of the companies which have already accessed QIP route during the period between April and September 2020 would avail of this relaxation to meet their additional funding requirements and in the long term, large number of companies would avail of this relaxation as QIP is the fastest mode to access large number of sophisticated investors. c) Preferential issue related relaxations: Due to resultant depressed valuation and stock price consequent to Covid-19 and challenges faced by companies having stressed assets, in June, SEBI relaxed the pricing requirements for companies having stressed assets and allowed such companies to price shares on the basis of volume weighted average price during 2 weeks (and not considering 26 weeks) preceding the relevant date subject to certain conditions. Further, in July, SEBI provided an option to companies with frequently traded shares to choose volume weighted average price during 12 weeks preceding the relevant date (instead of 26 weeks preceding the relevant date) for determination of floor price for preferential issues. Both of the aforesaid relaxations are subject to lock-in of 3 years. These relaxations have enabled 3 listed companies to raise INR 74,540 million between July 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020. The aforesaid relaxations have allowed listed companies to explore preferential issue as a viable option on the basis of realistic floor price. d) Public issue related relaxations: In June, SEBI extended some of the rights issue related relaxations for fast track requirements to FPOs as well. Due to these relaxations, Yes Bank Limited raised INR 15,000 crore through the further public offering in July 2020. Prior to the FPO by Yes Bank, the FPO route has been used by very few companies with a majority of FPOs being undertaken by public sector companies. 3. In August 2020, SEBI released a consultation paper which proposed to recalibrate thresholds for minimum public shareholding in companies which undergo Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). What are your views on the SEBI's proposals in the consultation paper? I partially agree with option 2 proposed in the consultation paper which is that the company, relisting after CIRP or on a continuous basis, should have minimum 5% public holding on the day of listing and on a continuous basis, it should have minimum public shareholding of 5%. However, the current Regulation 19A(5) of the SCRR should continue to apply which will require meeting 10% requirement in 18 months and 25% in 36 months. I also agree with the proposal in consultation paper to relax the one year post listing lock-up on the acquirer as it would also help in meeting 10% and 25% requirement. The rationale for the above is that the companies under CIRP are already treated differently from other listed companies and accordingly, there are already extensive carve outs for such companies under SEBI and other laws. 3 SECURITIES LAW E-NEWSLETTER In relation to minimum public shareholding requirements, Regulation 19A(5) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (“SCRR”) introduced in July 2018 already provides a relaxation for companies under CIRP to bring back public shareholding to 10% in 18 months (no such provision for other listed companies) and 25% in three years (one year for other listed companies) which was introduced keeping in mind the peculiar challenges of CIRP. I believe that SEBI’s concerns highlighted in the consultation paper is fair as one of the companies under CIRP, post relisting, has seen significant volatility which could potentially be due to very low public holding. Whilst this may not necessarily be a norm for all such companies in the future, however, a suitably low public shareholding threshold may still be required for such companies given the background of such companies and to protect existing public shareholders of such companies. Two of the options proposed under the consultation paper for companies under the CIRP entail achieving or maintaining 10% public shareholding on the date of relisting and within 6 months of relisting/date of falling below 10% respectively. We believe that the companies under CIRP will genuinely struggle to have 10% public shareholding from the date of relisting or in a short period post relisting especially in cases where a single acquirer acquires majority of shares under the CIRP including large number of shares held by public under the delisting offer. Also, new public investors may not have confidence to invest in companies under CIRP and they
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ketan Parekh
    Stock Market Scams in India INTRODUCTION Introduction Financial scams have a habit of cropping up with an alarming regularity in the Indian financial system. We have reconciled to financial irregularities to such an extent that we simply do not pay heed to smaller scams that take place around us on a daily basis. I am, or rather was, a part of the financial machinery for a few years, and trust me even the private sector is not entirely free of the machinations of unscrupulous and enterprising scamsters. The scope of the money involved multiplies manifold in the public sector, with a corresponding drop in accountability. India has seen some of the most high-profile scandals where investors have lost billions of rupees just because a few people in high places could not control their greed. The Satyam Computer Services fraud is neither the first nor will it be the last corporate scam to have hit India, so investors must be on guard and ask for more information before making any investment decision, says former Sebi chairman M Damodaran. But with corporates, brokers, banks, politicians, regulators colluding at times, many a multi- crore scam has hit India. And the saga is likely to go on. India has seen some of the most high-profile scandals where investors have lost billions of rupees just because a few people in high places could not control their greed. Over the Years there have been numerous fraud and scandals in the Indian Stock Market. These scams have had a very major impact on the stock markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Penny Stock - Wikipedia, the Visitedfree Encyclopedia on 7/28/2015 Page 1 of 4
    Penny stock - Wikipedia, the visitedfree encyclopedia on 7/28/2015 Page 1 of 4 Penny stock From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Penny stocks, also known as cent stocks in some countries, are common shares of small public companies that trade at low prices per share. In the United States, the SEC defines a penny stock as a security that trades below $5 per share, is not listed on a national exchange, and fails to meet other specific criteria.[1] In the United Kingdom, stocks priced under £1 are called penny shares. In the case of many penny stocks, low market price inevitably leads to low market capitalization. Such stocks can be highly volatile and subject to manipulation by stock promoters and pump and dump schemes. Such stocks present a high risk for investors, who are often lured by the hope of large and quick profits. Penny stocks in the USA are often traded over-the-counter on the OTC Bulletin Board, or Pink Sheets.[2] In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have specific rules to define and regulate the sale of penny stocks. Contents ◾ 1 Concerns for investors ◾ 1.1 Notable cases ◾ 2 Regulation ◾ 3 References ◾ 4 External links Concerns for investors Many penny stocks, particularly those that trade for fractions of a cent, are thinly traded. They can become the target of stock promoters and manipulators.[3] These manipulators first purchase large quantities of stock, then artificially inflate the share price through false and misleading positive statements. This is referred to as a "pump and dump"[4] scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Sr001-Xxx.Ps
    1 107th Congress "!S. RPT. 1st Session SENATE 107–1 ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE AND ITS SUBCOMMITTEES FOR THE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS JANUARY 29, 2001.—Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2001 VerDate 29-JAN-2001 04:09 Jan 30, 2001 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 E:\HR\OC\SR001.XXX pfrm02 PsN: SR001 congress.#13 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire MAX CLELAND, Georgia ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel ELLEN B. BROWN, Senior Counsel JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Democratic Staff Director and Counsel DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk (II) VerDate 29-JAN-2001 04:09 Jan 30, 2001 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 7633 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\SR001.XXX pfrm02 PsN: SR001 III 105TH CONGRESS FRED THOMPSON, TENNESSEE, Chairman WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., DELAWARE 1 JOHN GLENN, Ohio TED STEVENS, Alaska 1 CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey DON NICKLES, Oklahoma MAX CLELAND, Georgia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania BOB SMITH, New Hampshire 2 ROBERT F.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Fund Administrators As a Solution for Hedge Fund Fraud
    Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 8 2010 Independent Fund Administrators As A Solution for Hedge Fund Fraud Kent Oz Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl Recommended Citation Kent Oz, Independent Fund Administrators As A Solution for Hedge Fund Fraud, 15 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 329 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl/vol15/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Independent Fund Administrators As A Solution for Hedge Fund Fraud Cover Page Footnote J.D. Candidate 2010, Fordham University School of Law; M.B.A., Wharton School of Business, 1995; M.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1993; B.S. United States Merchant Marine Academy, 1985. Derivatives structurer and marketer (1995 - 2008). I would like to thank Professor Squire for guiding me through the writing process and helping me consider alternatives to my arguments. I would also like to thank and acknowledge Professor James Jalil, Scott Dubowsky Esq., Steve Nelson Esq., Ric Fouad Esq., and John Liu Ph.D for listening to my ideas and offering their comments and insights. This note is available in Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/jcfl/vol15/iss1/ 8 INDEPENDENT FUND ADMINISTRATORS AS A SOLUTION FOR HEDGE FUND FRAUD Kent Oz* INTRODUCTION There is approximately $1.33 trillion invested in hedge funds worldwide.' Most of this money is invested in legitimate hedge funds,2 * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-14-213R, Financial Audit
    On December 23, 2013, the enclosure was replaced to reflect SEC’s correction of certain unaudited information in its agency financial report, as discussed on page 1 of the enclosure. 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 December 16, 2013 The Honorable Mary Jo White Chair United States Securities and Exchange Commission Financial Audit: Securities and Exchange Commission’s Fiscal Years 2013 and 2012 Financial Statements Dear Ms. White: This report transmits the GAO auditor’s report on the results of our audits of the fiscal years 2013 and 2012 financial statements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its Investor Protection Fund (IPF),1 which is incorporated in the enclosed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Fiscal Year 2013 Agency Financial Report. As discussed more fully in the auditor’s report that begins on page 54 of the enclosed agency financial report, we found • the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; • SEC maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2013, although internal control deficiencies regarding information security exist that merit attention by those charged with governance; and • no reportable noncompliance in fiscal year 2013 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements we tested. The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 requires that SEC annually prepare and submit audited financial statements to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.2 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended in 2010 by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), requires SEC to annually prepare and submit a complete set of audited financial statements for IPF to Congress.3 We agreed, under our audit authority, to audit SEC’s and IPF’s financial statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Crime on Wall Street Hearing Committee on Commerce House of Representatives
    ORGANIZED CRIME ON WALL STREET HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 Serial No. 106–156 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 67–115CC WASHINGTON : 2000 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:08 Jan 04, 2001 Jkt 068011 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\67115 pfrm02 PsN: 67115 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi VITO FOSSELLA, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri ED BRYANT, Tennessee ROBERT L.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Year in Review: Select SEC and FINRA Developments and Enforcement Cases
    2018 YEAR IN REVIEW SELECT SEC AND FINRA DEVELOPMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT CASES www.morganlewis.com Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. I-IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 5-8 The SEC ................................................................................................... 5-6 FINRA ...................................................................................................... 6-8 US SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ........................................................ 9-95 Personnel Changes…. ...............................................................................9-15 Enforcement Statistics ............................................................................ 15-16 Categories of Cases ................................................................................ 16-17 Civil Penalties and Disgorgement Orders .................................................. 17-18 Additional Statistics ................................................................................ 18-20 Office of the Whistleblower ..................................................................... 20-23 Key SEC Enforcement Developments ....................................................... 23-25 Litigation Matters Affecting the Enforcement Division ................................ 26-28 Additional Areas of Focus for the Enforcement Division ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence of the Nevada Effect: SEC, DOJ, FBI, and IRS Regulatory Enforcement Actions
    Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting Vol. 7, Issue 2, July - December, 2015 More Evidence of the Nevada Effect: SEC, DOJ, FBI, and IRS Regulatory Enforcement Actions A.J. Cataldo II Lori Fuller Thomas Miller* INTRODUCTION The Nevada effect was introduced by Cataldo, Fuller and Miller (2014; CFM hereafter) upon further examination of the data in Messier, Kozloski and Kochetova-Kozloski’s (2010) published work as well as the entire population of 2012 SEC trading suspensions. The Nevada Effect is characterized as the over representation of firms who chose to incorporate in Nevada with respect to the number of SEC trading suspensions and underrepresentation of audits on those Nevada corporations by the Big 4 audit firms (who audit nearly 58% of all U.S. publicly traded companies). The current research extends the investigations of the Nevada Effect. A study and examination of the relevant literature stream produces compelling evidence that there is a market for corporate law; where states compete for the fees associated with incorporation. The market share leaders and focus of the present study remain Delaware and Nevada. Academic studies have investigated and forensically examined the impact of Delaware and Nevada corporate law (Cary 1974; Winter 1977; Romano 1993; Daines 2001; Abramowicz 2003; Bebchuk and Cohen 2003; Easmunt 2004; Barzuza 2011; and Barzuza and Smith 2012) and Nevada’s increased share of the market. In this article, we extend our body of knowledge on the Nevada Effect by examining 17 SEC suspensions made in June 2011 as well as 14 arrests made through a combined Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) _________________________ *The authors are, respectively, Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor at West Chester University.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Year in Review: SEC and FINRA Selected Enforcement Cases and Developments Regarding Broker-Dealers
    review 2011 Year in Review: SEC and FINRA Selected Enforcement Cases and Developments Regarding Broker-Dealers www.morganlewis.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 The SEC.............................................................................................................. 1 FINRA.................................................................................................................. 3 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission .............................................................. 6 Personnel Changes............................................................................................. 6 Enforcement Statistics......................................................................................... 8 Focus on Individuals.......................................................................................... 12 Judicial Criticism of SEC Settlement Practices.................................................. 13 Insider Trading and Parallel Proceedings.......................................................... 17 The Rajaratnam Criminal Conviction and SEC Judgment................................. 17 SEC Efforts to Enhance its Penalty Authority.................................................... 18 The Commission’s Use of Negligence Rather Than Scienter-Based Fraud Charges .............................................................. 19 Cooperation Initiatives ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • USSC Symposium on Federal Sentencing Policy for Economic
    Appendix A Speaker Biographies A-1 Speaker Biographies NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE Chair, Executive Committee, Lockheed Martin Corporation Norman R. Augustine attended Princeton University where he graduated with a B.S.E. in Aeronautical Engineering magna cum laude, an M.S.E., and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi and Sigma Xi. In 1958, he joined the Douglas Aircraft Company where he held titles of program manager and chief engineer. Beginning in 1965, he served in the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as an assistant director of defense research and engineering. Joining the LTV Missiles and Space Company in 1970, he served as vice president, advanced programs and marketing. In 1973 he returned to government as Assistant Secretary of the Army and in 1975 as Under Secretary of the Army. Joining Martin Marietta Corporation in 1977, he served as chairman and CEO from 1988 and 1987, respectively, to 1995, having previously been president and chief operating officer. He served as president of Lockheed Martin Corporation upon the formation of that company in 1995, and became its chief executive officer on January 1, 1996, and later vice chairman and chairman. He currently serves as chairman of the executive committee of Lockheed Martin, having retired as an employee on August 1, 1997. After his retirement, Mr. Augustine became a lecturer with the rank of professor on the faculty of the Princeton University School of Engineering and Applied Science where he served until July of 1999. Mr. Augustine is in his ninth year as chairman and principal officer of the American Red Cross and is a former chairman of the National Academy of Engineering and a former president of the Boy Scouts of America.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Mid-Year Securities Enforcement Update
    July 30, 2018 2018 MID-YEAR SECURITIES ENFORCEMENT UPDATE To Our Clients and Friends: I. Significant Developments A. Introduction For a brief moment in time, after several years with as many as 3 of the 5 commissioner seats vacant, the SEC was operating at full force, with the January 2018 swearing in of newest commissioners Hester Peirce and Robert Jackson. This situation was short-lived, as Commissioner Piwowar, a Republican appointee with a deregulatory bent who had pulled back on certain enforcement powers, stepped down at the beginning of July. While the president has named a potential replacement, the Senate has not yet held confirmation hearings; with Democratic Commissioner Kara Stein also set to leave the agency sometime later this year, the Senate may defer consideration until both the Republican and Democratic nominees have been named. The vacancy could cause the Commission, which has already split on several key rulemakings, to defer some more controversial regulatory initiatives and even some enforcement actions which pose thornier policy questions. Meanwhile, the most noteworthy Enforcement-related event came with the Supreme Court's Lucia decision, in which the Court held that the agency's administrative law judges have been unconstitutionally appointed, resolving a technical but significant legal issue which has dogged the SEC's administrative proceedings for several years. As discussed further below, the decision throws a wrench in the works for the Enforcement Division, which until the past couple years had been litigating a growing number of enforcement actions in its administrative forum rather than in federal court. In terms of enforcement priorities, the SEC has continued to pursue a relatively small number of significant public company cases; despite a push in recent years to increase its focus on accounting fraud, few new actions were filed in the first half of 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Download James Jeremy Barbera Complaint (20-Mag-13097)
    Approved: ________________________________ JOSHUA A. NAFTALIS Assistant United States Attorney Before: HON. SARAH NETBURN United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : SEALED20 COMPLAINTMAG 13097 - v. - : Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; 17 C.F.R. JAMES JEREMY BARBERA, : § 240.10b-5; and 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, and 2. Defendant. : COUNTY OF OFFENSES: NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss.: JONATHAN H. POLONITZA, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and charges as follows: COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud and Wire Fraud) 1. From at least in or about 2013 through in or about 2020, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, JAMES JEREMY BARBERA, the defendant, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) and 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5, and wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that JAMES JEREMY BARBERA, the defendant, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and of the mails, and
    [Show full text]