In a series of parallel actions announced on July 21, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated criminal and civil charges against three defendants in the first cryptocurrency insider trading case.

According to the criminal indictment, DOJ alleges that a former employee of a prominent cryptocurrency exchange used his position at the exchange to obtain confidential information about at least 25 future cryptocurrency listings, then tipped his brother and a friend who traded the digital assets in advance of the listing announcements, realizing gains of approximately $1.5 million. The indictment further alleges that the trio used various means to conceal their trading, and that one defendant attempted to flee the United States when their trading was discovered. The Government charged the three with wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy. Notably, and like the Government’s recently announced case involving insider trading in nonfungible tokens, criminal prosecutors did not charge the defendants with securities or commodities fraud.

In its press release announcing the charges, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams said: “Today’s charges are a further reminder that Web3 is not a law-free zone. Just last month, I announced the first ever insider trading case involving NFTs, and today I announce the first ever insider trading case involving cryptocurrency markets. Our message with these charges is clear: fraud is fraud is fraud, whether it occurs on the blockchain or on Wall Street. And the Southern District of New York will continue to be relentless in bringing fraudsters to justice, wherever we may find them.”

Based on these facts, the SEC also announced charges against the three men in a civil complaint alleging securities fraud. In order to assert jurisdiction over the matter, the SEC alleges that at least nine of the cryptocurrencies involved in the alleged insider trading were securities, and the compliant traces through the Howey analysis for each. The SEC has not announced charges against the exchange itself, though in the past it has charged at least one cryptocurrency exchange that listed securities tokens for failure to register as a securities exchange. Perhaps coincidentally, on July 21 the exchange involved in the latest DOJ and SEC cases filed a rulemaking petition with the SEC urging it to “propose and adopt rules to govern the regulation of securities that are offered and traded via digitally native methods, including potential rules to identify which digital assets are securities.”

In an unusual move, Commissioner Caroline Pham of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) released a public statement criticizing the charges. Citing the Federalist Papers, Commissioner Pham described the cases as “a striking example of ‘regulation by enforcement.’” She noted that “the SEC’s allegations could have broad implications beyond this single case, underscoring how critical and urgent it is that regulators work together.” Commissioner Pham continued, “Major questions are best addressed through a transparent process that engages the public to develop appropriate policy with expert input—through notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.” She concluded by stating that, “Regulatory clarity comes from being out in the open, not in the dark.” The CFTC is not directly involved in either case, and it is atypical for a regulator to chide a sister agency on an enforcement matter in this fashion. On the same day, another CFTC Commissioner, Kristin Johnson, issued her own carefully-worded statement that seemed to support the Government’s actions.

The post Government Brings First Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Charges appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Los Angeles—The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) publicly disclosed a combined 81 accounting and auditing enforcement actions during 2019, down slightly from the previous year, according to a Cornerstone Research report released today. Monetary settlements totaled approximately $628 million, $626 million of which was imposed by the SEC.

Cornerstone Research’s report, Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Activity—2019 Review and Analysis, examines publicly disclosed SEC and PCAOB enforcement actions that involve accounting and auditing. The most common allegations in 2019 SEC actions involved financial reporting issues, with revenue recognition violations comprising the largest share. The percentage of PCAOB actions involving revenue recognition increased in 2019.

The SEC and PCAOB have highlighted revenue recognition as one of the areas that may present challenges as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19.

Enforcement actions involving announcements of restatements or internal control weaknesses increased by 65%. The percentage of 2019 SEC actions involving announced restatements and/or material weaknesses in internal controls (42%) was nearly double the 2018 percentage (23%).

Highlights

• In 2019, the SEC initiated 57 enforcement actions involving accounting and auditing allegations, an 11% decline from the 64 actions in 2018, but near the 2014–2018 average. The SEC brought only 5% of accounting and auditing actions as civil actions, the lowest percentage since 2016.

• The PCAOB publicly disclosed 24 auditing-related enforcement actions in 2019, up 26% compared to 2018, the year in which the PCAOB disclosed its lowest number of actions since 2014.

• The percentage of SEC and PCAOB actions involving non-U.S. respondents declined, but remained above the 2014–2018 average.

• At 115, the total number of respondents in 2019 SEC and PCAOB actions was 23% below the 2014–2018 average.

• The SEC and PCAOB imposed monetary penalties against 84% of firms and 63% of individual respondents. The median penalty the SEC imposed on firms in 2019 was $4.1 million, nearly three times greater than the 2018 median.

 Read Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Activity—2019 Review and Analysis.

The post Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Activity Declines Slightly in 2019 appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Yes. In many circumstances, culpable whistleblowers are eligible to receive SEC whistleblowers awards (see limitations below). The final rules of the SEC Whistleblower Program recognize that culpable whistleblowers enhance the SEC’s ability to detect violations of the federal securities laws, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the SEC’s investigations, and provide critical evidence for the SEC’s enforcement actions. In fact, a speech by the former Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement highlighted the importance of culpable whistleblowers to the agency’s enforcement efforts:

Finally, I want to say a word about participants in wrongdoing and their ability to be whistleblowers. It is important for participants in misconduct to understand that, in many circumstances, they are eligible for awards and we would like to hear from them. Obviously, culpable insiders with first-hand knowledge of misconduct can provide valuable information and assistance in identifying participants in, transactions relating to, and proceeds of, fraudulent schemes. And, while there are safeguards built into the program to ensure that whistleblowers do not profit from their own misconduct…culpable whistleblowers can still get paid for eligible information they report that falls outside of these limitations.

SEC Whistleblower Awards to Culpable Whistleblowers

The SEC Whistleblower Program’s decision to work with, and award, culpable whistleblowers has proven to be effective in enabling the SEC to discover fraud and protect investors. To date, the SEC has issued several awards to whistleblowers who had some culpability in the violations, including:

• On August 30, 2016, the SEC announced a $22 million award to a whistleblower who helped the agency “halt a well-hidden fraud” at the company where the whistleblower worked. The accompanying order states that the Commission considered several factors mitigating the whistleblower’s culpability in determining the appropriate percentage, but the whistleblower did not financially benefit from the misconduct.
• On July 27, 2017, the SEC announced a $1.7 million award to a whistleblower who helped the Commission stop a “serious, multi-year fraud that would have otherwise been difficult to detect.” There were a few mitigating factors in the Commission’s determination of the whistleblower’s final award, including the fact that the whistleblower did not comply with one of the SEC’s rules, an omission which normally requires an award denial. The order stated that “certain unusual circumstances” governed this case, thus the Commission decided to waive that requirement. In determining the award amount, the Commission considered, too, the fact that the whistleblower unreasonably delayed in reporting and ultimately bore “some, albeit limited, culpability” in the fraud.
• On September 14, 2018, the SEC announced it had reduced a whistleblower’s award to $1.5 million because the Commission found that the whistleblower unreasonably delayed in reporting the fraud, the whistleblower “received a significant and direct financial benefit,” and was culpable in the scheme. The order further details these determining factors, and explains that the whistleblower waited more than a year after learning of the facts to report the fraud and reported to the Commission only after learning of the ongoing investigation.

See additional SEC whistleblower cases that have resulted in multi-million dollar awards.

Limitations on SEC Whistleblower Awards to Culpable Whistleblowers

While the SEC has been clear that it welcomes information from culpable whistleblowers, the SEC Whistleblower Program has specific rules that could disqualify certain whistleblowers from receiving SEC whistleblower awards. In addition, the program has rules that could limit the size of a culpable whistleblower’s future SEC whistleblower award. Importantly, whistleblowers who are concerned about potential liability should consult with experienced SEC whistleblower attorneys before reporting information to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower. Once information is submitted to the SEC, it cannot be withdrawn.

Whistleblowers Cannot Be Convicted of a Criminal Violation

The SEC Office of the Whistleblower will not issue awards to whistleblowers who are convicted of a criminal violation in relation to an action for which they would otherwise be eligible for an award. Moreover, the SEC Whistleblower Program does not provide amnesty to whistleblowers who provide information to the SEC. The fact that a whistleblower reports information to the SEC and assists in an SEC investigation and enforcement action does not preclude the SEC from bringing an action against the whistleblower based upon their own conduct in connection with violations of the federal securities laws. If such an action is determined to be appropriate, however, the SEC will take the whistleblower’s cooperation into consideration. As noted in the speech of the former Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement: “There are also other potential benefits for culpable whistleblowers — in appropriate circumstances, we will take their cooperation under the whistleblower program and in our investigation into consideration in deciding what remedies, if any, are appropriate in any action we determine should be brought against the whistleblowers for their role in the scheme.”

Culpable Whistleblowers Cannot Benefit from Their Own Misconduct

Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, the SEC will issue awards to whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to enforcement actions with total monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million. A whistleblower may receive an award of between 10-30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected. Since 2011, the SEC Whistleblower Office has issued nearly $400 million in awards to whistleblowers. The largest SEC whistleblower awards to date are a $50 million award, a $39 million award, and a $37 million award.

While the SEC is permitted to issue awards to culpable whistleblowers, the rules of the SEC Whistleblower Program do not allow whistleblowers to benefit from their own misconduct. Specifically, for purposes of determining whether the $1 million threshold has been satisfied or calculating the amount of an award, the SEC will not count any monetary sanctions that the whistleblower is ordered to pay or that are ordered to be paid against any entity whose liability is based substantially on conduct that the whistleblower directed, planned, or initiated.

Culpability May Decrease the Size of an Award

In determining the percentage of monetary sanctions to award a whistleblower, the SEC considers various factors that may increase or decrease the size of a whistleblower’s award. One of the factors that may decrease the size of an award is the whistleblower’s culpability in the securities law violation. When making this determination, the SEC may consider the following factors:

• the whistleblower’s position or responsibility at the time the violations occurred;
• if the whistleblower acted with scienter, both generally and in relation to others who participated in the violations;
• if the whistleblower is a recidivist;
• the egregiousness of the fraud committed by the whistleblower;
• whether the whistleblower financially benefitted from the scheme; and
• whether the whistleblower knowingly interfered with the SEC’s investigation.

Notably, while culpability may reduce a whistleblower’s award percentage, any whistleblower who qualifies for an award under the SEC Whistleblower Program – including culpable whistleblowers – will receive at least 10% of the monetary sanctions collected in the enforcement action.

The post Are Culpable Whistleblowers Eligible to Receive SEC Whistleblower Awards? appeared first on The National Law Forum.

The Criminal Division of the IRS arrested Swedish businessman Roger Nils-Jonas Karlsson, for allegedly operating a fraudulent pension plan using cryptocurrency. Karlsson allegedly used fake websites “registered to a fictitious person” to advertise shares of a “Pre-Funded Reversed Pension Plan” (PFRPP). The criminal complaint states that Karlsson allegedly invited potential investors to buy shares of this plan at $98 per share. In exchange, Karlsson promised to eventually return 1.15 kilograms of gold per share to the shareholder as return on investment. In early 2019, 1.15 kilograms of gold was worth $45,000, making investors in the plan a 460 percent return for each share owned. The plan’s investors made payments using virtual currencies, also known as cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin prominent cryptocurrencies and were allegedly used to pay Karlsson. With the assistance of his company, Eastern Metal Securities, Karlsson allegedly defrauded victims into losing more than $11 million.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not regulate cryptocurrencies, which are considered risky. The lack of regulation makes it sometimes impossible to get cryptocurrency refunded from fraudulent transactions because banks or government organizations do not guarantee these currencies. In cases where a company or individual commits securities or commodities fraud against the government, private citizens often play an essential role by acting as whistleblowers.

The post Cryptocurrency is At The Center of Multi-Million Dollar Investment Security and Commodities Fraud appeared first on The National Law Forum.

In connection with a federal criminal investigation, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York authorized a wiretap of Mr. Drimal’s cell phone, but stressed that monitoring must “immediately terminate when it is determined that the conversation is unrelated [to criminal matters].” FBI agents also were instructed to “discontinue monitoring if you discover that you are intercepting a personal communication solely between husband and wife.” Despite these instructions, agents allegedly monitored approximately 180 private marital calls between the Drimals that were unrelated to the investigation. Although the district court denied Mr. Drimal’s suppression motion in his criminal matter, it identified 18 calls that were “potentially violative” and observed that the agents’ failure to minimize monitoring of private calls was “inexcusable and disturbing.” Ms. Drimal brought her separate civil lawsuit following the conclusion of her husband’s criminal case with his entry of a guilty plea and subsequent sentencing.

At the district court level, the FBI agents unsuccessfully moved to dismiss Ms. Drimal’s complaint for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The Second Circuit reversed that decision, holding that Ms. Drimal’s complaint was insufficient because it merely stated, in a conclusory fashion, that the interception of marital calls violated Title III, without reference to a duty to minimize. The Second Circuit noted that Title III does not prohibit outright the monitoring of privileged calls. With respect to the agents’ qualified immunity defense, the court of appeals held that the district court should have evaluated each agent’s minimization efforts under an “objective reasonableness” standard based on the particular circumstances, rather than as a group. The Second Circuit vacated the lower court decision and directed dismissal of the complaint with leave to replead, stating that amending the complaint would not be futile.

Drimal v. Makol, Nos. 13-2963 and 13-2965 (2d Cir. 2015)

The post Second Circuit Dismisses Suit Over FBI’s Wiretapping of Marital Conversations in Securities Fraud Investigation appeared first on The National Law Forum.

On March 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina had erred in dismissing a class action lawsuit filed under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) because the lower court had inappropriately relied on regulatory filings provided to the Securities and Exchange Commission and had incorrectly applied case law precedent. The plaintiff class contended that the defendants, Chelsea International, Ltd. and several of its corporate officers, materially misled investors over the risk associated with securing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a blood pressure medication that Chelsea was developing. Notably, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants had misled investors to believe that the FDA would approve the drug at issue based on the results of only one successful efficacy study, even though the FDA repeatedly had warned Chelsea that two successful studies and evidence of “duration of effect” would be necessary for approval of the new drug. The Fourth Circuit first held that the District Court erred in finding that Chelsea had failed to demonstrate the scienter necessary to sustain a securities fraud claim under the Exchange Act. The Fourth Circuit found that the District Court erred in its scienter analysis by considering SEC documents submitted by the defendants that were not integral to the complaint. The documents purportedly showed that the defendants did not sell any Chelsea stock during the class period. However, stock sales were never a part of the plaintiffs’ complaint and thus, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that the lower court should not have considered these SEC documents as evidence of the defendants’ intentions. Further, the Fourth Circuit held that material, non-public information known to the defendants about the status of the drug application conflicted with the defendants’ public statements on those subjects, which was an inconsistency the Fourth Circuit deemed sufficient to establish the severe reckless conduct necessary to establish an inference of scienter in securities fraud cases.

Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics No. 13-2370 (4th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015)

The post Fourth Circuit Sustains Securities Fraud Claim Against Drug Manufacturer appeared first on The National Law Forum.

When

Thursday November 13 – Friday November 14, 2014

Where

The Westing New Orleans

Each year this National Institute draws elite officials from both the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an exclusive educational and professional forum to examine current legal and ethical issues relating to securities fraud.

• Program highlights include:
• Creative Discovery Tactics in Defending Securities Fraud Allegations
• Compliance Chiefs: The Role of the Internal Watchdog
• Future of Private Plan Securities (including the recent Stanford Supreme Court decision)
• Too Big to Fail: If All Else Fails, Do Guilty Pleas Matter?
• Sez Who? SEC Targeting Attorneys Who Allegedly Obstruct Enforcement Investigations (ETHICS)

The post Join the ABA for their Securities Fraud Conference in New Orleans – November 13-14 appeared first on The National Law Forum.

On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II).^[1] Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined.

The Halliburton II case generated significant publicity because it presented the Supreme Court with the opportunity to reexamine the fraud-on-the-market presumption created in Basic v. Levinson.^[2] The Court in Basic held that, in a securities fraud class action, the plaintiff is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance and, therefore, does not have to prove that each investor in the class relied on any alleged material misrepresentation. The foundation for the fraud-on-the market theory is the efficient-market theory, which presumes that, in an efficient market, all material, public information about a company is absorbed by the marketplace and reflected in the price of the security. The efficient-market theory has been under increasing attack in recent years, leading many to believe that the time may have come to overturn Basic.

In Halliburton II, the Supreme Court addressed whether to continue the fraud-on-the-market presumption unchanged, to cease the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption altogether, or to alter the presumption. In the Court’s opinion, the majority declined to overrule or modify Basic’s presumption of classwide reliance, but it did hold that defendants may rebut the presumption at the class certification stage by introducing evidence that the alleged misrepresentation did not impact the market price. The majority determined that Halliburton had not demonstrated the “special justification” necessary to overturn “a long-settled precedent.”^[3] The majority also rejected Halliburton’s request that the plaintiffs be required to show a price impact to invoke the presumption because “this proposal would radically alter the required showing for the reliance element.”^[4] The majority did hold that defendants can rebut the presumption by showing lack of price impact at the class certification stage because “[t]his restriction makes no sense, and can readily lead to bizarre results.”^[5] The majority therefore vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, noted that, although the decision would “broaden the scope of discovery available at certification,” the increased burden would be on defendants to show the absence of price impact, not on plaintiffs whose burden to raise the presumption of reliance had not changed.^[6]

In a separate opinion concurring only in the judgment, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, argued that Basic should be overturned for three reasons. First, the fraud-on-the–market theory has “lost its luster”^[7] in light of recent developments in economic theory.^[8] Second, the presumption permits plaintiffs to bypass the requirement—as set forth in some of the Court’s most recent decisions on class certification—that plaintiffs affirmatively demonstrate compliance with Rule 23. Third, the Basic presumption of reliance is “largely irrebuttable” because “[a]fter class certification, courts have refused to allow defendants to challenge any plaintiff’s reliance on the integrity of the market price prior to a determination on classwide liability,”^[9] therefore effectively eliminating the reliance requirement.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for securities fraud litigation, particularly at the class certification stage. Although plaintiffs need not prove direct price impact and may instead still raise the presumption of reliance by showing an efficient market and that the information was material and public, defendants may now rebut this presumption before class certification by showing a lack of price impact. We believe that defendants’ ability to rebut the presumption by showing no price impact effectively swallows the rule that plaintiffs need not prove a price impact. This will undoubtedly lead to a battle of the experts at the class certification stage. Although the Court’s decision does not explicitly affect other proceedings, such as a motion to dismiss, the scope of the decision will certainly be tested in the coming months and years.

^[1]. No. 13-317 (U.S. June 23, 2014), available here.

^[2]. 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

^[3]. Halliburton II, No. 13-317, slip op. at 4; see generally id. at 4–16.

^[4]. Id. at 17.

^[5]. Id. at 19.

^[6]. Id. at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).

^[7]. Id. at 7 (Thomas, J., concurring).

^[8]. Id. at 8–9.

^[9]. Id. at 13.

The post Halliburton II: Supreme Court Upholds Basic Presumption appeared first on The National Law Forum.