Securities Law and Regulations

Top Financial Regulators Speak Out Against Bill They Claim Gives the White House Authority Over Rulemaking

Published on: November 6, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The heads of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have sent a letter to Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) about bill S. 3468: Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act of 2012. Lieberman is the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the committee to which S. 3467 has been referred.

The regulators believe that, if approved, the legislation would give the White House “unprecedented authority” over independent agencies’ rulemaking and policy functions. For example, would let the president of the United States mandate that independent agencies turn in proposed rules to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. It also would require the agencies to analyze the benefits and costs of new regulations, which is a process that they have up to now been exempt from.

The letter reminds Lieberman and Collins, who is a ranking committee member and a cosponsor of the proposal, that Congress set up the independent regulatory agencies to exercise policymaking functions separate from any administration’s control. By requiring that the agencies give their rulemakings to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, say the regulators, the president would gain power to affect the rulemaking and policy functions of these agencies, taking away that independence. They also believe that the bill gets in the way of their ability to make needed rules in a timely way, which would likely lead to litigation.

SEC Practice of Settling Enforcement Actions Without Requiring Defendants to Deny or Admit to Allegations Gets Support from Federal Judges and Democrats

Published on: May 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

At a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 17, a number of Democratic lawmakers spoke out against the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of settling securities enforcement actions without making defendants deny or admit to the allegations. There is concern that companies might see this solution as a mere business expense.

The hearing was spurred by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed Rakoff’s rejection of the SEC’s $285 million securities settlement with Citigroup (C) over its alleged misrepresentation of its role in a collateralized debt obligation that it marketed and structured in 2007. Citigroup had agreed to settle without denying or admitting to the allegations.

Rakoff, however, refused to approve the deal. In addition to calling for more facts before the court could accurately judge whether or not to approve the agreement, he spoke out against the SEC’s policy of letting defendants off the hook in terms of not having to deny or admit to allegations when settling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later went on to stay Rakoff’s ruling that SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. go to trial.

Senate Democrats Want Volcker Rule’s “JP Morgan Loophole” Allowing Portfolio Hedging Blocked

Published on: May 22, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In a letter to the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) spoke out against what they are calling the current draft of the Volcker rule’s “JPMorgan loophole,” which they say allows for the kinds of trading activities that resulted in the investment bank’s recent massive trading loss. Merkley and Levin want the regulators to make sure that the language in October’s draft version is more stringent so that “clear bright lines” exist between legitimate activities and proprietary trading activities that should be banned (including risk-mitigating hedging and market-making).

According to Levin and Merkley, who are both principal co-sponsors of the Volcker rule and its restrictions on proprietary trading, the regulation’s latest draft disregarded “clear legislative language and clear statement of Congressional intent” and left room for “portfolio hedging.” Under the law, risk-mitigating hedge activities are allowed as long as they aim to lower the “specific risks” to a financial firm’s holdings, including contracts or positions. This is supposed to let banks lower their risks by letting them to take part in actual, specific hedges. However, the senators are contending that because the language that was necessary to enforce wasn’t included in the last draft, hence the “JPMorgan loophole” (among others) that will allow proprietary trading to occur even after the law goes into effect. They blame pressure from Wall Street lobbyists for these gaps.

The senators are pressing the regulators to get rid of such loopholes and put into effect a solid Volcker Rule, with stricter language, and without further delays. They noted that despite getting trillions of dollars in public bailout money, a lot of large financial firms continue to fight against the “most basic… reforms,” which is what they believe that Wall Street has been doing with its resistance to the Volcker rule. (Also in their letter, Levin and Merkley reminded the regulators that it was proprietary trading positions that resulted in billions of dollars lost during the recent economic crisis.)

SSEK Talking to Investors About JPMorgan Trading Losses
JPMorgan Chase‘s (JPM) over $2 billion loss was on a series of complex derivative trades that it claims were made to hedge economic risks. Now, according to a number of people who work at trading desks that specialize in the kind of derivatives that the financial firm used when making its trades, the financial firm’s loss has likely grown to closer than $6 billion to $7 billion.

Volcker Rule Resource Center, SIFMA

More Blog Posts:

JPMorgan Chase Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits Over $2B Trading Loss, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 17, 2012

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro Stands By Agency’s 2011 Enforcement Record https://www.investorlawyers.com/our-staff.html, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, March 15, 2012

SEC to Make Sure Rule Writing Process Incorporates Better Cost-Benefit Analysis

Published on: April 26, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In the wake of criticism that the Securities and Exchange Commission has not done enough to assess its rules’ economic impact, its Office of the General Counsel and Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation Division is providing staff with guidance that it needs to conduct a more thorough economic analysis during the entire rule writing process. One of the requirements is that there must be a cost-benefit evaluation when rules that are congressionally mandated or discretionary are involved. This guidance is now binding.

However, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro was quick to point out to the House Oversight Subcommittee on TARP and Financial Services that many of the rules that are written already follow this guidance. Now, staff will assess the cost-benefits of 28 rules that the Commission is proposing in the wake of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The guidance comes following a report that was issued in January. In it, the Office of the Inspector General blamed the SEC for not conducting cost-benefit analysis when writing Dodd-Frank mandated rules. In addition to providing more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, the SEC must also note the justification for the proposed rule, identify reasonable options to the rule, evaluate any economic repercussions, and find a baseline point for beginning the analysis. The SEC will be hiring more than three dozen economists to join its staff. If the Commission ends up being able to properly implement this guidance, then Congress may have to legislate.

SEC Chairman Schapiro Says Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act Needs Better Investor Protections

Published on: March 21, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Earlier this month, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote a letter to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) over her concerns that modifications needed to be made to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act to make sure that investor protections are enhanced. The US Senate is heading toward a final vote on the Start-Up Focused JOBS Act. The Republican-introduced bundle of bills is geared toward helping along capital growth by loosening reporting requirements and securities law registration. The US House passed its version of the legislation on March 8.

Today, the Senate’s version passed by a 76-22 vote through a procedural process to end debating over the Act. However, before the final vote can be made, the senators must first vote on two amendments, including one that would toughen the limits on how much money a very small investor may place in a crowd-funding offering.

The SEC is also working on a number of capital formation initiatives. In her letter, Schapiro wrote about what she considered were problems with HR 3606, including what she considered its too broad of a definition an “emerging growth company,” which are firms with under $700 million in public float and less than $1 billion in yearly gross revenue. She believes that this very expansiveness could get rid of important investor protections in even very big companies. Schapiro also thinks that the JOBS Act would “weaken” key protections by getting rid of safeguard that were implemented after the dot-com era-related research scandals, while reversing SRO-established rules that put into place “mandatory quiet periods” for stopping banks from using conflicted research as a reward to insiders that chose a particular bank as an underwriter.

US Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling May Compel SEC to File More Aiding, Abetting, and Control Person Liability Securities Claims

Published on: March 7, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division’s Chief Counsel Joseph Brennan, the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders is impacting the types of violations the federal regulator is now filing against defendants. Brennan says to look out for more possible control person liability and aiding and abetting claims. Speaking at the SEC Speaks conference by the Practising Law Institute in Washington, Brenner said the views he was expressing are his own.

In the high court’s 2011 ruling, the decision honored, under Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, a narrow perspective of primary liability in a private lawsuit. The majority held that an investment adviser who was a legally separate entity from the mutual fund that submitted an allegedly prospectus couldn’t be held primarily liable in a private action even if that adviser had played a key role in developing the statement. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the statement’s maker is the entity or person with final authority over the statement (including its content and how it should be communicated).

The Exchange Act’s SEC Rule 10-b5(b) makes it illegal to either issue any statement of material fact that is untrue or leave out a key fact. The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes an even higher pleading bar in private securities fraud cases where the plaintiff wants to hold defendants liable for other’s misstatements.

The ruling, however, has not had a big impact on who the SEC can charge. It also hasn’t had a big influence on SEC enforcement decisions involving other statutes and provisions.

Also discussing Janus at the same gathering was SEC Deputy Solicitor John Avery. He noted while that the decision signified a significant “change” and the “narrowing” of how primary liability for issuing false or misleading statements is defined, it remains unclear whether SEC actions are covered under the ruling. While some district courts have found that Janus applies to SEC actions, federal appellate courts have not issued any decisions related to this matter.

Avery said that the ruling has, however, changed the way the SEC files charges. The federal agency, which is authorized to pursue aiders and abbettors accused of violative conduct, might now charge those that played a role in creating the statement as abbettors and aiders even though they wouldn’t be liable per Janus. However, in certain cases, this authority won’t work too well.

Meantime, federal courts are starting to deal with whether Janus is applicable beyond the context of Rule 10b-5. In four out of five SEC cases, the courts have ruled against applying Janus outside the rule.

Contact our securities fraud law firm to request your free case evaluation.

Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders and the Law of Unintended Consequences, Forbes, September 21, 2011

Read the Supreme Court’s Opinion (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
Securities Fraud: Mutual Funds Investment Adviser Cannot Be Sued Over Misstatement in Prospectuses, Says US Supreme Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 16, 2011

Janus Avoids Responsibility to Mutual Fund Shareholders for Alleged Role in Widespread Market Timing Scandal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 11, 2007

House To Vote On GOP Legislation Related to Small Business’ Access to Capital

Published on: March 5, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

This week, the House is slated to vote on a Republican legislative package to make it easier for small businesses to access capital. On February 28, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) presented his Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act’s final version, which is comprised of six bills that would revise securities laws to make this capital flow happen. Included in this package is a bill calling for more shareholder reporting triggers for community banks. Meantime, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) has said he plans to push forward a similar package in the US Senate.

As both the House and Senate move forward with their legislative packages, Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass) is asking the Senate to push forward his bill, which would allow for a crowdfunding-related securities registration exemption. His bill (S. 1971) and Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-Ore.) S. 1970 similarly are pressing for letting issuers raise up to $1 million yearly through crowdfunding. However, Merkley’s bill establishes a part for states to play in regulating crowdfunding securities, while Brown’s bill does not. The Senator from Massachusetts believes a national framework is necessary, rather than making entrepreneurs comply with each state’s securities law mandate. Also, while Merkeley’s bill calls for giving investors a private right of action to file a civil suit against fraud issuers, Brown doesn’t believe this is necessary and sees current fraud laws as “solid” and merely in need of enforcement. He did, however, say that he and Merkeley share the same desire for investor protection.

Regarding the issue of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s capital formation efforts on small businesses, SEC Division of Corporation Finance Director Meredith Cross said it is hard right now for the regulator to evaluate their impact. Cross, who was part of a panel at the Practising Law Institute’s SEC Speaks conference on February 24, said her views are her own.

Democrats Want to Volcker Rule to Be Clear About Banks Being Allowed to Invest in Venture Capital Funds

Published on: February 28, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

With regulators tasked with finalizing the Volcker rule, Democratic lawmakers want them to make sure that the rule makes clear that banks are allowed to invest in venture capital funds. The proposed rule is geared toward lowering financial system risk by not letting banks to take part in proprietary trading, while limiting how much they can invest in private equity and hedge funds.

The lawmakers, 26 of whom have written to the federal agencies working on the rule, noted that venture capital firms are not as high risk as private equity and hedge funds. The Volcker rule would be an implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 619. Once finalized, it will go into effect on July 21.

Meantime, European Union Council of Ministers President Margrethe Vestager wants to make sure that the Volcker rule treats non-U.S. sovereign debt and US government securities the same. Vestager wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke making her case that the federal agencies need to make sure the extraterritorial application of the Volcker rule doesn’t happen. Vestager is concerned that otherwise the competition for non-US banks would be impeded.

FINRA May Put Forward Another Proposal About Possible SEC Rule Regarding Fiduciary Duty

Published on: November 28, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to FINRA CEO and Chairman Richard G. Ketchum, the SRO may put out a second concept proposal about its stance regarding disclosure obligations related to a possible Securities and Exchange Commission rulemaking about formalizing a uniform fiduciary duty standard between broker-dealers and investment advisers. Currently, the 1940 Investment Advisers Act defines the investment advisers’ fiduciary obligation to their clients, while broker-dealers are upheld to suitability rules that will be superseded next August by two FINRA rules regarding broker-dealer suitability standards.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s Section 913, however, said that it is SEC’s responsibility to determine whether these current regulatory and legal standards s are still effective and if any regulatory shortcomings that exist need to be filled. In July 2010, the SEC asked stakeholders for feedback about this mandates. After receiving over 3,000 public comments, it issued a study recommending that there be a uniform fiduciary standard for both types of representatives when giving advice to retail clients. The SEC could put out its proposed rule by the end of this year.

FINRA is working with the Commission on this and plans to stay involved in the process. It was just last year that the SRO put out a concept proposal seeking public comment about the idea that broker-dealers should have to provide retail investors with certain disclosures at the start of a business relationship. These clients would be required to give a written statement detailing the kids of services and accounts they provide, any conflicts of interests, and limits on duties that they are entitled to expect. FINRA said that regardless of what a unified fiduciary standard would look like, retail investors would benefit from getting this disclosure document at the start and that such a mandate is an “outright necessity.

Banco Espirito Santo S.A. Settles for $7M SEC Charges Alleging Violations of Investment Adviser, Broker-Dealer, and Securities Transaction Registration Requirements

Published on: November 5, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Without denying or admitting to wrongdoing, Banco Espirito Santo S.A. a banking conglomerate based in Portugal, has consented to pay nearly $7M in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties to settle Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that it violated securities transaction, investment adviser, and broker-dealer registration requirements. The bank has also agreed to a bar from future violations, as well as an undertaking that it pay a minimum interest rate to US clients on securities bought through BES.

According to the SEC, between 2004 and 2009 and while not registered as an investment adviser or broker-dealer in the US, BES offered investment advice and brokerage services to about 3,800 US resident clients and customers. Most of them were immigrants from Portugal. Also, allegedly the securities transactions were not registered even though they did not qualify for a registration exemption.

The SEC says that by acting as an unregistered investment adviser and broker-dealer BES violated sections of the Exchange Act and the Advisers Act. The bank violated the Securities Act when it allegedly sold and offered securities in this country without registration or the exemption.

The SEC says BES used its Department of Marketing, Communications, and Customer Research in Portugal to send out marketing materials to clients outside the country. Customers in the US ended up getting materials not specifically designed for US residents. BES also worked with a customer service call center to service its US customers. Via phone, these clients were offered securities and other financial products. The representatives were not registered as SEC broker-dealers and had no US securities licenses even though they serviced US clients. US Customers were also offered brokerage services through ESCLINC, which is a money transmitter service in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey. ESCLINC acted as a contact point for the investment and banking activities of BES’s US clients.

Registration Provisions
The SEC has set registration provisions in place to help preserve the securities markets’ integrity as well as that of the financial institutions that serve as “gatekeepers,” said SEC New York regional office director George S. Canellos. He accused BES of “brazenly” disregarding these provisions.

State securities laws and US mandate that investment advisers, brokers, and their financial firms be registered or licensed. You should definitely check to make sure that whoever you are investing with or seeking investment advice from his properly registered. It is also important for you to know that doing business with a financial firm or a securities broker that is not registered can make it hard for you to recover your losses if that entity were to go out of business and even if the case is decided in your favor (whether in arbitration or through the courts.)

More Blog Posts:

EagleEye Asset Management LLC Sued by SEC and CFTC for Alleged Forex Trading Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 28, 2011