White Collar Crime

Some markets allow for the sale of a future contract for tickets that have not gone on sale as yet (i.e., "speculative ticketing"). The future contract, like an option or a commodities future, allows someone to purchase the right to buy a ticket once the tickets are offered for sale. This seems to implicate securities law issues, broker-dealer regulations and potentially the general solicitation rule.

Part Three of a Three-Part Article The first two installments exposited Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders and Lorenzo v. S.E.C., both essential to understanding S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto, the Second Circuit's most recent holding regarding Rule 10b-5 "scheme" liability. Now we examine how the "Mother Court" of federal securities law has tended to that branch of the mighty judicial oak rooted in that venerable regulation.

Should resale royalties be paid to artists and venues when tickets are resold? Such a resale royalty might encourage artists or sports teams to permit transferability for some or all their tickets. It would also help to value that property right. So how would that work?

It has been common knowledge to criminal practitioners for years that a criminal defendant's sentence for a crime which they have been convicted can be increased based on consideration of conduct that the jury acquitted. This outcome can make a partial acquittal in federal court into a pyrrhic victory.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." The Supreme Court has applied this maxim to the securities laws, holding in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council , that while statements of opinion generally are not actionable, there are some narrow circumstances in which such statements entail or imply false or misleading assertions of fact.

Part Two of a Three-Part Article This three-part series discusses the Second Circuit's recent Securities law landmark case, S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto. However, in order to discuss Rio Tinto, it is important to first understand the Supreme Court landmark cases upon which Rio Tinto is based: Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Trader, discussed in the first installment, and S.E.C v. Lorenzo, discussed here.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) have become a significant part of white-collar criminal practice. But DPAs are not without controversy. These agreements have been attacked as too lenient, not forcing companies to be held accountable for illegal conduct. They are also seen as a way for prosecutors to appear tough on white-collar crime while not bringing charges against individuals.

In February 2023, in a significant update to its corporate criminal enforcement policies and procedures, the DOJ announced a voluntary self-disclosure policy applicable in all U.S. Attorney's Offices nationwide. This article discusses the DOJ's recent pronouncements and recent cases with an eye toward identifying trends that companies should keep in mind when preparing for the next enforcement era.