SEC Charges Senior Executive of Brazilian Company with Fraud

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Fernando Passos, the former executive vice president of finance and investor relations of Brazilian reinsurance company IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., for allegedly planting a false…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

Former Domino’s Pizza Accountant to Pay Nearly $2 Million Penalty for Insider Trading

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a court-approved settlement requiring a Michigan-based former accountant at Domino’s Pizza Inc. to pay a penalty of nearly $2 million for insider trading in the company’s stock. The SEC’s complaint…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

UBS Pays $14.1 Million Defamation Award to Compliance Officer

After years of appealing the arbitrators’ decision, UBS finally pays. The appeals of the original arbitration award increased the amount UBS had to pay by a reported $3 million.

According to AdvisorHub, in his arbitration complaint filed in June 2018, the compliance officer alleged UBS defamed him on his U5 termination filing, which accused him of failing to supervise employees executing uncovered options strategy in accounts and of giving “varied responses” during the firm’s review of his activities.

Termination for “varied responses” is apparently the new UBS excuse for an unwarranted termination. They “interview” the target on multiple occasions, and when the responses aren’t identical, they terminate the target for giving “varied responses.”
Not a good look for a major brokerage firm.
Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC is a national securities law firm which represents advisors in their employent disputes with their brokerage firms. To learn more, call them at 212-509-6544.

Twitter Board Fears Losing Their Job?

Musk’s offer to buy Twitter is obviously creating a stir, and the conspiracy theorists are at it again. It is so bad, my office is getting calls about it.

Just today we received a call from a shareholder who wants to sue the Twitter Board of Directors for not accepting the $54 a share offer. He told me that they are not taking the offer because “they do not want to lose their jobs.”

This is the level of sophistication that is underlying this “controversy.” The Board is not approving the transaction because they don’t want to lose their jobs. 

Twitter Board of Directors

Really? Let’s take a look at who is on that board:

  • Bret Taylor Co-CEO, Salesforce
  • Parag Agrawal CEO, Twitter
  • Mimi Alemayehou Senior Vice President Mastercard
  • Jack Dorsey Co-Founder, Twitter; CEO and Co-Founder, Square
  • Egon Durban Co-CEO, Silver Lake
  • Martha Lane FoxFounder and Chairperson, Lucky Voice Group; Former Co-Founder and Managing Director of lastminute.com; Crossbench Peer, House of Lords
  • Omid Kordestani Former Executive Chairman, TwitterDr. Fei-Fei Li Professor at Stanford
  • Patrick Pichette General Partner, Inovia Capital; Former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Google
  • David Rosenblatt CEO, 1stdibs.com, Inc.
  • Robert Zoellick Former Chairman of the Board of Directors of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.

Of course, each of them could “lose their job” by not being re-elected to the Board, but this list looks like a bunch of millionaires to me, and a group that is not living on the compensation from the Twitter Board of Directors.

Next Conspiracy Theory?

Next up, the Board is not approving the buyout because they are worried about all of the information Musk will find when he takes over. 

That of course assumes there is dirt to find, that Musk could find such dirt and that Musk and a new Board would reveal that “dirt” and trash the stock price.

Sort of like the comments that Musk’s attempted take over is not “hostile” because he is being very polite about it. 

SEC Charges Stericycle with Bribery Schemes in Latin America

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Stericycle, Inc. for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) arising out of bribery schemes that took place in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. The company has agreed to…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

Atlanta-Based Pest Control Company, Former CFO Charged with Improper Earnings Management

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that Rollins Inc. agreed to pay $8 million to settle charges that it engaged in improper accounting practices in order to boost its publicly-reported quarterly earnings per share (EPS) to meet…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

SEC Obtains TRO and Asset Freeze against Alleged Perpetrators of nearly $450 Million Ponzi Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges and an asset freeze against several Las Vegas-area individuals and companies allegedly behind a nearly half-billion dollar Ponzi scheme involving purported personal injury settlements. The…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

Fee Rate Advisory #1 for Fiscal Year 2022

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that starting on May 14, 2022, the fee rates applicable to most securities transactions will be set at $22.90 per $1 million.  Consequently, each SRO will continue to pay the Commission a rate…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

SEC Proposes Amendments to Remove References to Credit Ratings from Regulation M

The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted to propose changes that would remove the references to credit rating agencies from existing exceptions provided in Rule 101 and Rule 102 of Regulation M, a set of rules designed to preserve market…

Read the Full Press Release


Have a securities law question? Call New York Securities Lawyers at 212-509-6544.

SEC Examing Crypto as Securities

The SEC is attempting to gain regulatory oversight of cryptocurrency products and platforms that may be engaging in the sale and offering of securities. Securities are strictly regulated and require detailed disclosures to inform investors of potential risks. Since the first cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) launched in 2009, the question of how exactly to fit the components of this new, decentralized financial ecosystem into traditional categories has been widely debated.

Are Cryptocurrencies Securities?

The SEC has long held that an “investment contract” is the basic definition of a security. But tokens are not investment contracts.

The difficulty in answering the question is the fact that not all cryptocurrencies are the same. But since terms like “coin,” “token,” “currency,” and “asset” are regularly used interchangeably to describe the thousands of products under the “cryptocurrency” umbrella, we can’t categorize them based on nomenclature alone. Instead, one must look at function.

We discussed the various definitions of a “security” in our What is a Security article. The basic definition is “an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others; and, if that test be satisfied, it is immaterial whether the enterprise is speculative or non-speculative, or whether there is a sale of property with or without intrinsic value”. SEC v. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)

The SEC has stated that cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are not securities. This includes cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ether, and Litecoin.

However, the SEC Chair Gary Gensler said, in August 2021, that the SEC considers many cryptocurrency coins and tokens to be securities under the Howey Test, saying, “If somebody is raising money selling a token and the buyer is anticipating profits based on the efforts of that group to sponsor the seller, that fits into something that’s a security.”

Of course, now we are mixing the concept of the actual token as a security with the manner in which the token is marketed, but this will all shake out.

Unfortunately, we will get clarity in the worst possible way. Rather than propose regulations, the SEC has decided to create regulation by litigation, exposing market participants to lawsuits, and the expense of time and money for conduct which was not a violation when conducted.

Reuters has an article which contains an overview of the SEC’s recent litigation attempts to regulate crypto.