Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This article analyzes the confusion faced by commodity futures traders in assessing whether their trading strategies constitute illegal spoofing and examines whether the CFTC and Seventh Circuit have provided sufficient guidance on the distinction between spoofing and legitimate trading activity.
In 2010, Congress expressly criminalized a type of trading activity on the commodity futures exchanges referred to as “spoofing.” This new anti-spoofing statute greatly increased a prosecutor’s power to crack down on traders who place and cancel orders at extremely high speeds through the use of powerful computer programs, supposedly in order to manipulate commodity futures prices and harm innocent investors. However, following the government’s first criminal conviction for spoofing in United States v. Coscia, questions remain about what makes a commodity futures trader’s conduct illegal instead of a legitimate trading strategy. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently have brought a substantial number of new cases against traders for violations of the anti-spoofing statute.
By Jonathan S. Feld and Katie J. Welch
Despite the historical trend of reduced government involvement in qui tam actions, the government is sending “mixed messages” regarding its view of FCA relators.
By Johanna Fricano
Following the Delaware Chancery Court’s ruling in In re Trulia, Inc. that effectively closed the door to 14(a) disclosure-based settlements in Delaware state court, federal courts saw an influx of 14(a) “merger objection” litigation. More often than not, these suits are quickly dismissed following the company’s issuance of a supplemental proxy with additional disclosures and the parties negotiate a mootness fee. The transaction closes and all parties move on — or so we thought. An emerging trend suggests that exposure to 14(a) claims may coming back from the near dead.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
The significance of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which is intended to guarantee crime victims a role in federal criminal proceedings, has been highlighted in the case of Jeffrey E. Epstein, the financier accused of sexually trafficking underage girls. Because the government’s noncompliance with the CVRA in negotiating Epstein’s plea deal in 2008 led to Alexander R. Acosta losing his cabinet position as Secretary of Labor, practitioners can expect prosecutors and judges to be more focused on the CVRA going forward.
By Juliet Gunev
Microsoft and Hungarian Subsidiary Agree to Pay $25 Million to Resolve FCPA Investigations in Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Thailand