Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In June 2018, we published an article discussing the government’s efforts to prosecute defendants who engage in a form of trading activity on commodity futures exchanges known as “spoofing,” which the law defines as “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.” See, Jodi Misher Peikin & Brent M. Tunis, “When Is a Bid or Offer a ‘Spoof’?,” Business Crimes Bulletin (June 2018). In that article, we observed that the failure of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to define what specific conduct qualifies as spoofing has left market participants uncertain about when cancellation of a bid or offer crosses the line from an acceptable trading strategy to an illegal “spoof.” This ambiguity is compounded by the fact that rapid cancellation of orders is prevalent in the commodities markets. See, Richard Haynes & John S. Roberts, CFTC, “Automated Trading in Futures Markets” at 9 (2015) (“[J]ust over 50 percent of market orders are cancelled within half a second, approximately the speed of human reaction.”).
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.