Sanofi settles FCPA charges with SEC for $25.2 million

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-30
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kennedy Park ◽  
Abena Mainoo
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Healthcare Industry ◽  
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Compliance Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To explain a recent enforcement action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) highlighting risk factors for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes the basis of the SEC’s enforcement action against Sanofi for violating the FCPA’s books and records and internal controls provisions, reviews the terms of the SEC’s resolution with Sanofi, explains Sanofi’s remedial efforts and cooperation with the SEC’s investigation, and discusses factors contributing to corruption risks in the healthcare industry. Findings The SEC’s enforcement action against Sanofi, and other recent enforcement actions, underscore the importance of comprehensive anti-corruption compliance programs and strong internal controls across large multinationals and their subsidiaries. Practical implications Companies operating in high-risk industries and markets should regularly assess and address corruption risks. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced enforcement lawyers.

SEC touts whistleblower award to a compliance professional – use care in responding to reports of potential violations

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-78
Author(s):  
Mark Srere ◽  
Mary Beth Buchanan ◽  
Elaine Koch ◽  
Jennifer Mammen ◽  
Tyson A. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Compliance Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Compliance Audit ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Credible Information ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To highlight the first award granted under the US Securities and Exchange Commission Whistleblower Program to a compliance professional. Design/methodology/approach – Explains the first award issued to a compliance professional under the SEC’s Whistleblower program and the rules for issuing such an award. Findings – The SEC has emphasized this award to a compliance professional, noting that individuals performing compliance, audit, and legal functions are on the front lines against fraud and corruption and are often privy to the very kinds of specific, timely, and credible information that can prevent an imminent fraud or stop an ongoing fraud. The SEC’s specific courting of compliance and audit personnel makes it even more important for companies to pay particular attention to complaints raised by those individuals. Practical implications – Companies should continue to take steps to ensure that they have vigorous compliance programs in place to detect potential issues and to respond immediately and effectively to internally reported information. Originality/value – Practical guidance from experienced regulatory and employment lawyers.

Cybersecurity enforcement actions: is the SEC bringing strict liability cases?

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-116
Author(s):  
Brian Rubin ◽  
Amy Xu
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To analyze how the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has sanctioned broker-dealers (BDs) and registered investment advisers (RIAs) when cybersecurity breaches have occurred and to discuss whether the SEC is imposing a strict liability approach. Design/methodology/approach Describes the cyber-attack of a small RIA, the remedial steps the RIA took after the attack, the SEC’s enforcement action, why this particular case is noteworthy, and the case’s implications for RIAs and BDs. Findings RIAs and perhaps BDs may face strict liability from the SEC if they are victims of cybersecurity attacks. Practical implications Firms may want to address the likelihood of an SEC enforcement action if a breach occurs by reviewing recent enforcement actions, SEC reports and statements, and FINRA reports and statements. Originality/value Discusses the possible future of SEC enforcement actions regarding cybersecurity breaches.

US Securities and Exchange Commission’s announcement of chief of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act unit signals possible anti-bribery enforcement focus on non-United States issuers

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-34
Author(s):  
James L. Sanders ◽  
Kyle Bahr ◽  
Calvin Chan ◽  
Charles Hewetson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Additional Pressure ◽  
The Us

Purpose This paper explains how recent statements by the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) leadership – including the new Chief of the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Unit – signal the American regulator’s intent to “level the playing field” by stepping up its investigations and enforcement of companies worldwide and what non-US issuers can do to prepare. Design/methodology/approach Uses information included in the announcement naming Charles E. Cain as Chief of the SEC’s specialized FCPA Unit to lay out an argument that the Unit’s priorities may focus more on non-US companies than US companies. Findings Based on past statements and written accounts made by Mr Cain, and with the tacit support of other senior SEC officials, it can be assumed that non-US companies will experience additional scrutiny from the SEC, in the name of leveling the playing field. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the SEC will place additional pressure on anti-corruption regimes in other international jurisdictions to do their part in combatting corruption. Originality/value This paper is of value to personnel within non-US issuers who are responsible for creating and enforcing their organization’s anti-bribery or anti-corruption policies and internal controls. It is also of value to legal counsel interested in developing an understanding of the current priorities of the SEC as far as the FCPA is concerned.

Bringing order to non-GAAP financial measures: SEC sues to enforce “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Richard J. Parrino
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Accounting Principles ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Us ◽  
Earnings Releases

Purpose This article examines the first action by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce the “equal-or-greater-prominence” requirement of its rules governing the presentation by SEC-reporting companies, in their SEC filings and earnings releases, of financial measures not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the equal-or-greater-prominence rule and the SEC’s enforcement posture in the context of the SEC’s concern that some companies present non-GAAP financial measures in a manner that inappropriately gives the non-GAAP measures greater authority than the comparable GAAP financial measures. Findings Although the appropriate use of non-GAAP financial measures can enhance investor understanding of a company’s business and operating results, investors could be misled about the company’s GAAP results by disclosures that unduly highlight non-GAAP measures. The SEC’s enforcement action signals a focus on the manner in which companies present non-GAAP financial measures as well as on how they calculate the measures. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major SEC disclosure requirement from an experienced securities lawyer.

Parties push to enforce statutory time limits on SEC enforcement actions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 30-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Neaderland ◽  
Jared Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To alert companies and individuals subject to regulation and investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of potential arguments to enforce time limits on enforcement actions that have heretofore commonly been ignored. Design/methodology/approach – Analyzes two cases - one recently decided and one pending - in US Courts of Appeals, explains significance of issues at stake. Findings – The Courts of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit has recently reviewed, and the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will soon decide whether statutory timing provisions effectively remove SEC power to bring enforcement actions past their deadlines, at least in some circumstances. Practical implications – Depending on the outcomes of the cases, companies and individuals may gain a new procedural defense or two against SEC enforcement actions. They may also expect the SEC to respond by more actively seeking tolling agreements, and/or being more cautious in issuing Wells notices. Originality/value – Guidance based on pending decisions interpreting US securities law, may bring regulatory adjustments to agency practice and procedure.

Heightened supervision of branch offices

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Nathan ◽  
Lauren Navarro ◽  
Kevin Matta
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Authority ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Industry ◽  
Content Type ◽  
National Examination ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Branch Office ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – To explain expectations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) as to what constitutes successful branch inspection programs for broker-dealers. Design/methodology/approach – Summarizes FINRA’s rules requiring firms to implement branch inspection programs; examines the SEC’s and FINRA’s joint 2011 National Examination Risk Alert, which expanded upon FINRA’s rules, requiring firms to conduct risk-based analyses on each branch office to determine the appropriate frequency, intensity, and focus of inspections; discusses FINRA’s expectation that firms examine their registered representatives’ financial circumstances to reduce the risk of fraud; explains how FINRA’s Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System may impact branch inspections; and recommends several sources that firms should review when implementing a successful branch inspection program. Findings – Regulators have heightened their expectations as to what constitutes successful branch inspection programs for broker-dealers. Practical implications – To avoid regulatory intervention and discipline, firms should continue to review their policies and procedures to ensure that their programs are sufficiently comprehensive. Originality/value – This article will encourage firms with branch offices to review their branch inspection programs, and assist those firms in implementing sufficiently comprehensive policies and procedures.

2020 SEC risk alert provides guidance for private fund advisers

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
Kenneth Breen ◽  
Phara Guberman
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Expert Analysis ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
The U.S

Purpose To analyze the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) June 2020 Risk Alert, which identified three categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of advisers to private funds, in order to understand its guidance and recommend best practices. Design/methodology/approach The study discusses the categories of deficiencies that the SEC regularly finds in its reviews of private fund advisers, current SEC enforcement trends, and recommendations for disclosures, internal controls, policies and procedures. Findings The SEC will expect private funds to identify and remedy regular deficiencies in three primary categories: gaps in client and investor disclosures regarding conflicts of interest; deficiencies in disclosures related to fees and expenses; and issues with policies and procedures regarding the treatment of material nonpublic information. Practical implications Private fund advisers should expect increased scrutiny during examinations on the identified deficiencies and use this opportunity to be proactive in addressing these issues. Originality/value Expert analysis and guidance from experienced securities enforcement attorneys.

The SEC brings its first enforcement action under the identity theft red flags rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Vincente L. Martinez ◽  
Julia B. Jacobson ◽  
Nancy C. Iheanacho
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Identity Theft ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the significance of the first enforcement action under the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was announced on September 26, 2018. Design/methodology/approach Explains how the SEC’s order not only cites violations of the Safeguards Rule under Regulation S-P (a staple of SEC cybersecurity enforcement actions against broker-dealers and investment advisers) but also is the SEC’s first enforcement action for a violation of the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule under Regulation S-ID, which requires certain SEC registrants to create and implement policies to detect, prevent and mitigate identity theft. Findings Cybersecurity policies and procedures must match business risks and change as business risks change. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced cybersecurity and privacy lawyers.

Expense allocation: the SEC brings down the hammer

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-68
Author(s):  
Kenneth Berman ◽  
Gregory Larkin ◽  
Phil V. Giglio ◽  
Erica Berthou ◽  
Michael P. Harrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Private Equity ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Equity Funds ◽  
Private Equity Funds ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Private Equity Sponsors ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose – Describe an important recent enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding expense allocations by private equity funds. Design/methodology/approach – Discusses a recent enforcement action by the SEC regarding a registered investment adviser’s handling of expense allocation with respect to two private fund clients and certain of their underlying portfolio companies. Findings – The settlement and sanctions are noteworthy because: (i) there was no suggestion that the misallocations of expenses were designed to systematically favor one private fund client over the other, that the manager benefited from such misallocations, or that the failure to allocate expenses in accordance with the policy had been deliberate and (ii) while not stated explicitly, it appears likely that a significant portion of the disgorgement related to misallocations that occurred before the manager was a registered investment adviser. Practical implications – Registered investment advisers should ensure that they and their portfolio companies have written policies in place designed to fairly allocate all expenses among all entities that benefit from the activities driving such expenses and that none of the sponsor’s clients are directly or indirectly benefited or harmed from allocation policies at the portfolio company level. Originality/value – Description of a noteworthy SEC enforcement action regarding expense allocation and practical guidance from investment management lawyers to remind private equity sponsors to ensure that they have adopted and implemented expense allocation policies.

SEC adopts rules to modernize and simplify disclosure

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Laura D. Richman ◽  
David S. Bakst ◽  
Robert F. Gray ◽  
Michael L. Hermsen ◽  
Anna T. Pinedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Confidential Information ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Disclosure Requirements ◽  
The Us ◽  
Rule Changes ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Material Information ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To describe the modernization and simplification amendments of certain disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K and related rules and forms recently adopted by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of the amendments, their effective dates and related practical considerations for companies. Findings The amendments cover many provisions within Regulation S-K and affect various forms that rely on the integrated disclosure requirements of Regulation S-K. The amendments are designed to enhance the readability and navigability of SEC filings, to discourage repetition and disclosure of immaterial information and to reduce the burdens on registrants, all while still providing material information to investors. The amendments contain several changes relating to confidential information contained in exhibits. For consistency, parallel amendments have been adopted to rules other than Regulation S-K, as well as to forms for registration statements and reports. Practical implications Most of the amendments are effective May 2, 2019. The amendments relating to the redaction of confidential information in certain exhibits became effective April 2, 2019. Given these dates, companies should review the rule changes implemented by the amendment now and consider how they will impact their disclosure in upcoming SEC filings. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced lawyers in the Corporate & Securities practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document