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 Stephen Cole
Information governance and the protection of corporate data are top concerns for law firms. To ensure standards are met, some clients are now tying payment to compliance with Outside Counsel Guidelines (OCG).
By Daniel Mayo
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that explains some of the requirements for deducting litigation expenses. The facts of the case are bizarre, but the controlling legal principles are not.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
Although increased reliance on technology such as emails and texts has provided greater opportunity to gather evidence of criminal activity, law enforcement agencies around the world complain that encryption technologies make it difficult to catch criminals and terrorists and therefore should be restricted.
By Frank Ready
A new report from the law firm of Pinsent Masons shows that there has been a high level of GDPR "over-reporting" at the U.K.'s Information Commissioner's Office, but organizations who may think they are playing it safe may actually be opening themselves up to further regulatory scrutiny.