Recent Posts
Follow Us
twittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube
The Legal Stuff
Government Enforcement Exposed - "The GEE"
0 0

07 Dec 2016 U.S. Supreme Court Decides Salman, Reaffirms Broader View of Insider Trading

  Just like that, the Newman/Salman insider trading saga has come to a close. For now, at least. These cases have generated a good bit of ink on this blog. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided United States v. Salman, affirming Salman’s conviction for insider trading, just two months after oral argument. The opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, was not much of a surprise in what it decided, but was somewhat more interesting in what it did not address.   The Court concluded that Salman lay in the “heartland” of its prior prohibition in Dirks v. SEC. In Dirks, the Court said that a tipper breaches his or her fiduciary duty (and therefore commits insider trading) when the tipper either receives something of…

READ MORE
0 0

18 Oct 2016 Ceresney Warning: Expect Continued SEC Enforcement Activity Regarding Municipal Securities

  In the keynote address at the 2016 Securities Enforcement Forum last week, Andrew J. Ceresney, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, made clear that the SEC will continue and even expand its focus on the public finance market, particularly in the municipal securities area.   Ceresney noted that enforcement activity in the municipal securities arena has increased substantially. In the 10 years from 2002 to 2012, the SEC filed enforcement action against 6 government entities, 6 obligated persons and 12 public officials. In contrast, the Commission has filed enforcement actions against 76 government entities, 13 obligated persons and 16 public officials in the last 3 1/2 years.   The SEC has been conducting well-publicized enforcement sweeps in the area. Perhaps the most well-known…

READ MORE
CurrentsSupremeCourtimage
0 1

06 Oct 2016 U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Insider Trading in Salman

  At long last, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in United States v. Salman. As readers of this blog know from prior posts, Salman is the first insider trading case the Supreme Court has taken in about 20 years and the most important one since Dirks in 1983. In the last two years, a split has developed in the circuit courts with regard to how to define insider trading – a task made more difficult because Congress has never defined what insider trading is, let alone expressly criminalized it.   The Supreme Court said in Dirks that, to have insider trading, the corporate insider must breach his or her fiduciary duty, which often means that the insider sought to, and did, receive…

READ MORE
0 0

07 Sep 2016 SEC Changes Some of Its Procedural Rules After Constitutional Challenges

  In our last post, we discussed some of the constitutional challenges to the Securities and Exchange Commssion’s (SEC) in-house tribunal. Though these challenges have thus far been unsuccessful, they appear to have prompted the SEC to amend some of its rules of practice to address at least some of the criticisms leveled against its administrative proceedings.   One persistent criticism has been that the length of time from initiation of administrative proceedings through hearing is substantially too short. Previously, an ALJ’s initial decision had to be filed no more than 300 days from the service of the order instituting proceedings. However, the SEC has now increased the time between its initial filing in an enforcement action and the hearing (at least in “appropriate” cases)….

READ MORE
shoot in the Parliament Building of Ontario, Toronto
0 0

02 Sep 2016 D.C. Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of SEC’s In-House Tribunals

  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently became the first appellate court to conclude that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) in-house administrative tribunals are constitutional and do not violate the Appointments Clause.   The constitutionality of the SEC’s in-house administrative courts has been questioned repeatedly since the Dodd-Frank Act dramatically expanded the kinds of cases the SEC could litigate on its home turf and the kinds of remedies it could obtain there, including against entities the SEC does not traditionally regulate. Since Dodd-Frank, the SEC has made no bones about its increased attraction to litigating cases in-house that it previously brought in federal district court. The SEC benefits from a shorter timeframe from initiating the action to its conclusion,…

READ MORE
0 0

29 Jul 2016 Second Circuit Confirms Privacy Rights and Territorial Limits of Search Warrants Under the Stored Communications Act

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed Microsoft and privacy advocates a landmark win limiting the “long arm of justice” to within the United States’ own borders.  In a highly anticipated ruling, the Second Circuit, In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, unequivocally stated that the federal government cannot use a search warrant to compel a U.S. corporation to provide the email contents of its customers which are stored outside the U.S.   Historically, the Department of Justice (DOJ) interpreted its jurisdictional reach to have little or no boundaries.  For decades, companies have been required to produce documents and witnesses from overseas for ongoing criminal investigations simply by service of…

READ MORE
0 0

19 Jul 2016 Did the Supreme Court Pave the Way for Court-Sanctioned Mass Hacking?

  In late April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b) that would allow judges to issue warrants permitting the FBI to access computers located outside the court’s jurisdiction. As many technology and privacy groups point out, this proposed change could have a remarkable effect on a judge’s ability to issue warrants, not to mention the severe impact on data privacy rights.   Deadline Looms for Congress to Act   Currently, Rule 41(b) only allows a court to issue search and seizure warrants for property located within the issuing court’s district. As proposed, the amendment would allow courts to issue warrants authorizing the FBI to remotely access and seize electronic media stored outside its district if:…

READ MORE
Crates of eggs at farmers market.
0 0

12 Jul 2016 Prison Sentence for Responsible Corporate Actors Upheld

  On July 6, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, held that corporate executives Austin “Jack” DeCoster, 81, and his son Peter DeCoster, 51, could be sentenced to terms of imprisonment for their failure to prevent or remedy violations of the federal food-safety laws pursuant to the Responsible Corporate Officer or “Park” Doctrine. The DeCosters were each sentenced to three months in prison and $100,000 fines following their guilty pleas to misdemeanor violations of 21 U.S.C. § 331(a) as “responsible corporate officers” of Quality Egg, LLC, under the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In their appeal of the District Court’s sentencing order, the DeCosters argued their prison sentences were unconstitutional and, alternatively, that their sentences were…

READ MORE
Court_Cropped
0 0

30 Jun 2016 What Happens in Europe, Stays in Europe? Applying RICO to Foreign Injury, Conduct

  Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, et. al., clarifying—in part—the extent to which injuries sustained outside the United States and racketeering acts committed abroad give rise to civil claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1964. The group most definitively affected as a result of the opinion is private RICO plaintiffs who have not suffered an injury inside the United States. For them, the decision forecloses the possibility of civil RICO recovery.   The case is also certain to be cited in forthcoming criminal RICO cases, since the Supreme Court analyzed the extraterritoriality of RICO’s substantive criminal conduct provisions using the same analysis as when it separately…

READ MORE
0 0

28 Jun 2016 McDonnell Decision Indicates Supreme Court’s Desire to Limit Application of the Honest Services Fraud Statute

  On June 28, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in McDonnell v. United States, one of the most anticipated opinions of the October 2015 term for white collar practitioners. In the unanimous ruling in favor of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the Court again limited application of the “honest services fraud” statute (18 U.S.C. § 1346), as applied through the federal bribery statute (18 U.S.C. § 201), making it harder to prosecute public officials on corruption charges. The decision holds that an “official act” sufficient for a bribery conviction requires more than “setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or calling an official.” At trial and on appeal, prosecutors had successfully argued that an “official act” included “nearly any activity by a public official.”…

READ MORE