Alyssa Barcheers’ Post

💸 A whopping $390 million more fines for 26 broker-dealers who failed to monitor their electronic communications! Yesterday, the SEC announced that they have fined 26 broker-dealers and investment advisers for failing to preserve and monitor their electronic communications. The firms admitted that their personnel sent and received messages on 'off-channel' communications which were not monitored, which violates certain recordkeeping provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, the Investment Advisers Act, or both. This involved personnel at multiple levels of authority, including supervisors and senior managers. Stay ahead of the curve—financial regulators worldwide specify that regulated firms must monitor all electronic communications, both internally and externally, used to conduct business! Get in touch if you'd like to sort your communications compliance now ✅ https://lnkd.in/eaMbBG26 #ComplianceMatters #RegulatoryCompliance #SEC #CommunicationsMonitoring #CommunicationsCompliance

Here is more on this off-channel communications saga and I think there is more to come. If you have discovered this issue in your firm, maybe self reporting will reduce fines. With this latest settlement SEC has collected over $2 billion in fines. WOW

The SEC has announced charges against 12 firms, including broker-dealers, investment advisers and one dually-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser, for widespread and longstanding failures by the firms and their personnel to maintain and preserve electronic communications in violation of recordkeeping provisions of the federal securities laws. Read the complete article from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission here: https://lnkd.in/g6TpvXUE #SEC #recordkeeping #compliance #compliancenews

🚨 Breaking News in Financial Compliance 🚨 The SEC charges 26 firms with recordkeeping failures, resulting in $390 million in penalties. This emphasizes the need for a robust compliance framework to evade severe consequences. Regulatory scrutiny is escalating, making firm compliance more crucial than ever. 💡 Stay informed: https://lnkd.in/eWXPCrcp Is your firm prepared? Contact me today to explore how Smarsh can assist you in maintaining compliance and avoiding costly penalties. #Compliance #SEC #FinancialRegulation #Smarsh

SEC is charging 26 firms for widespread recordkeeping failures. The firms admitted the facts, acknowledged that their conduct violated recordkeeping provisions, agreed to pay combined civil penalties of $392.75 million and have begun implementing improvements to their compliance policies. Learn how LSEG solutions can holistically support your record-keeping compliance or address specific areas of need. #LSEG #LSEGComplianceArchive https://lnkd.in/dXBcgMdP

Can an alleged failure to meet the disclosure requirements under Item 303 of Regulation S-K constitute a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b)? That’s the key question the U.S. Supreme Court will consider in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, which will be argued and decided this year. One way or the other, the Court’s decision will resolve a circuit court split, and either expand or restrict the scope for Rule 10(b) to be used as a tool for private securities plaintiffs. To learn more about this case and its implications, visit the Alto Litigation blog for our analysis.

Navigating the Complexities of the Bad-Boy Provision in Securities Offerings In the nuanced domain of securities law, the Bad-Boy Provision plays a crucial role in maintaining market integrity and protecting investors. This provision, a key element of Regulation D's Rule 506, stipulates that certain individuals and entities with a history of legal or regulatory issues are ineligible for exemptions from securities registration requirements. Understanding the nuances of the Bad-Boy Provision is vital for companies and legal professionals involved in securities offerings. Understanding the Bad-Boy Provision The Bad-Boy Provision, also known as the "disqualifying event" clause, was introduced to prevent individuals and entities with a dubious history in financial dealings from participating in securities offerings. This includes those with prior criminal convictions, court injunctions, restraining orders related to securities fraud, and SEC disciplinary orders, among other disqualifying events. The purpose of this provision is to bolster the confidence of investors in the securities market b... #BadBoyProvision #ComplianceStrategies #DueDiligence #FinancialMarketIntegrity #InvestorSecurity #LegalAdvisory #MarketTransparency #RegulatoryFramework #SecuritiesFraud #SecuritiesMarket

Can an alleged failure to meet the disclosure requirements under Item 303 of Regulation S-K constitute a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b)? That’s the key question the U.S. Supreme Court will consider in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. Moab Partners, which will be argued and decided this year. One way or the other, the Court’s decision will resolve a circuit court split, and either expand or restrict the scope for Rule 10(b) to be used as a tool for private securities plaintiffs. To learn more about this case and its implications, visit the Alto Litigation blog for our analysis. https://lnkd.in/dc5HjEm9

J.P. Morgan Securities has been fined $18 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for obstructing clients from reporting potential securities law violations by requiring them to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) during settlements from March 2020 to June 2023. The agreements, affecting 362 clients, barred reporting to the SEC voluntarily, violating SEC Rule 21F-17. In addition to the fine, J.P. Morgan Securities must cease such practices, remove offending language from settlement documents, and inform affected clients that they are free to report wrongdoing to the SEC. Counsels writing NDAs take note. https://lnkd.in/dPce3hep

Information about a Federal Whistleblower Case: MURRAY v. UBS SECURITIES, LLC about a whistleblower who does not to need to not prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”  Acts and U.S.C. references in case includes the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOA), 18 U. S. C. §1514A, 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B), Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), and 5 U. S. C. §1221(e). https://lnkd.in/d4Vtpu4F I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS POSTING SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU THAT I AM PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE TO YOU WHATSOEVER FOR  YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES. At best, the information contained in this post is a purely academic discussion on a legal topic by a layperson providing his opinion. Nothing herein should be construed by implication that an attorney-client relationship is intended to be created between ourselves. Each legal case is unique and requires a detailed and personalized analysis from a licensed legal practitioner. This posting doesn't allow for a complete understanding of all the nuances of a person's specific situation. Therefore, it's important to remind you that the information provided is not legal advice given to you; it is general information and personal opinions. The information or opinion is not to be construed or considered by the reader to have been tailored to your specific circumstances. While general information can be helpful, nothing, as discussed here, should ever replace opinions from a qualified legal professional practicing in the field of your issue need. NOTICE: YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT WITH A LICENSED LAWYER TO GET ADVICE SPECIFIC TO YOUR CASE AND CIRCUMSTANCES.