Chicago partner, Jim Lundy, co-leader of the firm’s White Collar Defense and Investigations team and the firm’s SEC & Regulatory Enforcement Defense practice, provides a end of year update on Reg BI. In this blog post, Jim discusses the events that have taken place since SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s last statements on Reg BI early in 2021 including the recent speech from SEC Commissioner and former Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee and deficiency letters across the brokerage industry.
Cryptocurrencies are one of the fastest growing asset types worldwide. Cryptocurrencies, as an asset class, total over $1.5 trillion in market capitalization. With the rapid growth of this asset type, SEC Chair Gary Gensler shared his views for the SEC in this area. At a recent conference, Chair Gensler continued to broadly characterize most digital assets as “investment contracts,” placing cryptocurrencies within the scope of the SEC’s enforcement powers. During his remarks at the Aspen Security Forum on August 3, Chair Gensler stated, “many of these tokens are offered and sold as securities” because they meet the definition of an “investment contract.” As established by the U.S. Supreme Court under the “Howey Test”, investment contracts are defined as agreements in which a person invests money in a common enterprise, expecting profits based on the efforts of others. Investment vehicles that satisfy the “Howey Test” definition for investment contracts are securities that fall within the jurisdiction of the SEC.
Chair Gensler further stated that the cryptocurrency area currently “lacks the typical investor protection guardrails” and that he has asked Congress for additional authority to “prevent transactions, products and platforms from falling between regulatory cracks.” Chair Gensler’s views appear supported by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement having brought 75 enforcement actions over the last decade. However, others are not convinced that the SEC has clearly defined jurisdiction.
Partners Peter Baldwin and Bob Mancuso published “Cybersecurity Enforcement Trends: A Fraught New Reality for ‘Victims’ of Cyberattacks.” This article in the New York Law Journal discusses how regulators have shifted their focus from data breach notifications to overall cybersecurity preparedness.
In the spirit of our previous Holiday film blogs, we present for your viewing pleasure (and background research) the following Independence Day films for your (re)viewing pleasure. Both deserve renewed attention in light of:
- The SEC’s recent Solar Winds-Cybersecurity-related events, regarding disclosure of material weaknesses or material cyber security risks related to the Solar Winds compromise;
- The re-opening of offices and recent announcements of certain businesses explaining employees should be back in the office or else.
We offer the following Independence Day Weekend themed film streaming recommendations that relate to each of the above and therefore count as background research.
Upcoming Changes to Rule 10b5-1:
The SEC is seeking to propose four key changes to executive stock trading plans under Rule 10b5-1 in October. Its Chairman, Gary Gensler, reported that the SEC is considering “freshen[ing] up Rule 10b5-1 after twenty years” to address insider trading concerns on June 7, 2021. Gensler’s comments come after a year of heightened insider trading reporting and the release of new research conducted by Stanford University and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania finding that 10b5-1 plans have been used by executives to engage in “opportunistic, large-scale” sales of company stock. Gensler remarked the current plans under Rule 10b5-1 have led to a “real crack in our insider trading regime,” which he seeks to address in the upcoming months.
In Faegre Drinker’s “Enforcement Highlights” third podcast, Jim Lundy moderates a panel with Investment Management Group partner Jillian Bosmann and fellow SEC and Regulatory Enforcement partner David Porteous discussing what the plans may be for the SEC’s Divisions of Investment Management, Examinations, and Enforcement and the investment management industry under the leadership of new SEC Chair Gary Gensler. Topics also include the Division of Examination’s 2021 Annual Report, the SEC’s ESG Risk Alert, and FINRA’s anticipated relationship with the SEC under Chair Gensler.
Alex Oh, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler’s pick for the agency’s Director of the Division of Enforcement, unexpectedly resigned on Wednesday amid growing criticism for her decades-long work as a private corporate defense lawyer. Ms. Oh’s hiring was announced on April 22, 2021, less than a week before her resignation.
Ms. Oh’s resignation followed a ruling on Monday from Judge Royce C. Lambeth of the Federal District of Columbia reprimanding ExxonMobile’s legal team, which included Ms. Oh, for their conduct in a class action lawsuit brought by Indonesia villagers against Exxon alleging human rights abuses. According to the ruling, Exxon’s defense team characterized the lawyers for the villagers as “agitated, disrespectful and unhinged” during a deposition. Judge Lambeth ordered Exxon’s lawyers to show why penalties were not warranted for those comments.
As we await the impact of the Biden Administration on the direction of the SEC, we have been given a glimpse of what is to come in a speech last month by the newly confirmed commissioner, Caroline Crenshaw. Specifically, Commissioner Crenshaw’s speech focused on “individual culpability” and penalties in the SEC’s enforcement program. Strikingly, the Commissioner decried the SEC’s past stance on penalties: “It is clear to me that the Commission has historically placed too much emphasis on factors beyond the actual misconduct when imposing corporate penalties – including whether the corporation’s shareholders benefited from the misconduct, or whether they will be harmed by the assessment of a penalty. This approach is fundamentally flawed.” Commissioner Crenshaw then stated that she thinks the SEC should revisit its approach to corporate penalties. It remains to be seen how Crenshaw’s remarks will be observed at Enforcement with respect to corporate penalties, let alone the application of her observations about the focus on “factors beyond the actual misconduct” could also be extended to individuals who are similarly facing substantial penalties for factors beyond their misconduct.