Since 2015, the SEC has brought nearly two dozen enforcement actions for violations of the whistleblower protection rules under Rule 21F-17(a) against employers for actions taken to impede reporting to the SEC. The bulk of these actions have focused on language in employee-facing agreements that allegedly discouraged such reporting. The SEC shows no sign of slowing down; indeed, the Commission has brought five enforcement actions in this past fiscal year alone, and the penalties imposed for these violations appear to be increasing. The settlements – and the risk they represent – serve as a reminder for companies to review their existing employment documents and internal policies, including confidentiality policies, to ensure that restrictive language is removed and that appropriate whistleblower carveout language is included. Conducting this review, and making any appropriate changes, will help ensure compliance with Rule 21F-17(a).
The Ripple Effect: Implications of the SEC’s Partial Loss in SEC v. Ripple Labs Inc.
The SEC suffered a significant loss last week in its ongoing legal battle with Ripple over the XRP digital token. While the District Court held that Ripple’s initial sales of XRP to institutional investors constituted the sale of unregistered securities, it was a Pyrrhic victory as the court held
The Crypto Wars Escalate
The gloves are off. The SEC’s recent enforcement actions against leading crypto exchanges suggest that the SEC has decided that time’s up for the crypto industry as it currently exists in the United States.
After spending years urging industry participants to come in and register, the SEC has made clear, by
SEC to Hire More Staff in Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit and Ratchet Up Scrutiny of Industry
The SEC is expanding its team policing the crypto space by adding enforcement staff to its Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit. We previously noted that regulatory focus on new technologies in the decentralized finance space and further developments on the application of securities laws to digital assets were two of
Regulatory Shake-Out on Digital Assets: An Industry Waits for Additional Guidance
A thr
eshold question in many cryptocurrency inquiries is whether the digital assets qualify as securities under the federal securities laws. If so, then they are subject to a full suite of federal securities regulations. If not, they still may be subject to AML and other DOJ regulations regarding currencies, as well as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) authority to prosecute manipulation in the spot market for commodities. Without uniform legislation providing guidance on this question, regulators and courts have generally applied the Howey test to determine whether the digital assets at issue are investment contracts and therefore securities. Rulings in litigated matters this year may serve as catalysts to drive legislative action providing further guidance to the industry.
California District Court Upholds SEC’s Novel “Shadow Trading” Theory
The SEC prevailed on a motion to dismiss a closely watched lawsuit alleging that a company employee had engaged in insider trading based on news about a not-yet-public corporate acquisition when he purchased securities of a third-party company that was not involved in the deal. The January 14, 2022 decision in SEC v. Panuwat (N.D. Cal.) marks the first time a court has considered the theory of “shadow trading,” which involves trading the securities of a public company that is not the direct subject of the material, nonpublic information (“MNPI”) at issue.
The Panuwat ruling does not appear to break new ground under the misappropriation theory of insider trading under the particular facts alleged. But the “shadow trading” theory warrants attention because it can have wide-ranging ramifications for traders, including hedge funds.
MNPI Update – SEC Pursues “Shadow Trading” Insider Trading Case
The SEC recently charged a former employee of a biopharmaceutical company with insider trading in advance of an acquisition but with a unique twist: Trading the securities of a company unrelated to the merger. The employee, Matthew Panuwat, did not trade his own company’s or the acquiring company’s securities, but
SEC Revises Marketing Rule for Registered Investment Advisers
The SEC recently finalized a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to govern advertisements by registered investment advisers and payments to solicitors. The amendments create a single marketing rule that (i) revises the definition of an “advertisement,” (ii) sets forth seven general principles governing the use of