Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part One of this article examines key actions brought by U.S. regulators against compliance officers in 2017 based on their failures to ensure that their firms maintain effective compliance and AML programs.
In May 2014, Andrew Ceresney, then-Director of Enforcement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in his keynote address at Compliance Week 2014, stated, “ …. legal and compliance officers who perform their responsibilities diligently, in good faith, and in compliance with the law are our partners and need not fear enforcement action.” Andrew Ceresney, Director of Division of Enforcement, SEC, Keynote Address at Compliance Week 2014 (May 20, 2014). In the same speech, however, Ceresney articulated the circumstances under which the SEC would bring actions against compliance officers, personally: “[W]hen the [SEC] believes … compliance personnel have affirmatively participated in the misconduct, when they have helped mislead regulators, or when they have clear responsibility to implement compliance programs or policies and wholly failed to carry out that responsibility.” Id.
By Jonathan S. Feld, Eric Klein and Andrew VanEgmond
The FCA is not a model of clarity. In a certiorari petition in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, the U.S. Supreme Court will address an area of uncertainty that has led to a three-way circuit split regarding the FCA’s statute of limitations. Depending on the outcome, FCA defendants could end up facing even more claims up to a decade old or, alternatively, have a new limitation on FCA actions upon which to rely.
By Michael L. Cook
In Stoebner v. Opportunity Finance, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that “… Ponzi scheme payments to satisfy legitimate antecedent debts to defendant banks could not be avoided” by a bankruptcy trustee “absent transaction-specific proof of actual intent to defraud or the statutory elements of constructive fraud — transfer by an insolvent debtor who did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange.”
By Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge and Amanda W. Newton
Rare Supreme Court holiday activity and ongoing news coverage about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has drawn much attention to the enigmatic case of In Re Grand Jury Subpoena. The matter is unremarkable, presenting familiar issues of international litigation. Upon further examination, however, the case may have the potential to expand the authority of United States courts over foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities.
By Colleen Snow
New Charges in Insurance Corporation of Barbados Limited Bribery Case