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.
Part One 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 and S.E.C v. Lorenzo. Janus is discussed here in the first installment.
Newer trends — such as environmental, social, and governance (ESG), cybersecurity-related disclosure violations, and cryptocurrency regulation — are likely to provide further fuel for securities litigation and enforcement.
Since the DOJ announced a new policy under which companies that voluntarily disclosed violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has attempted to encourage companies to voluntarily disclose all manner of criminal misconduct beyond violations of just the FCPA, while general counsels worldwide have been wrestling with the question of whether and when it is in the company's best interest to so disclose.
The Division of Enforcement will likely continue to use "every tool in its toolkit" and expect that public companies and other market participants will think rigorously about their business and appropriately tailor compliance practices and internal controls and policies to match.
Historically, federal courts generally agreed that scheme liability under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) requires something more than a misstatement or omission — with misstatements and omissions typically being litigated under Rule 10b-5(b) instead. However, the SCOTUS in Lorenzo v. SEC held that an individual who disseminates a misstatement, without other fraudulent conduct, is potentially liable under the scheme liability provisions of Rule 10b-5. Subsequently, a circuit split has emerged over the scope of Lorenzo's holding.
