US SEC report calls for better internal accounting controls for cyber-related threats

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
David Martin ◽  
David Engvall ◽  
Kerry Burke ◽  
Gerald Hodgkins ◽  
Matthew Franker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Internal Accounting ◽  
Corporate Disclosures

Purpose To summarize and explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (Commission) recent report of investigation cautioning public companies to consider cyber-related threats when designing and implementing internal accounting controls. Design/methodology/approach Explains that the Commission’s report arose out of a Commission enforcement investigation into the internal accounting controls of nine unidentified public companies that were victims of email scams, explains that the Commission issued the report to emphasize that cybersecurity remains a high priority for the Commission and the report should serve as a reminder that all public companies need to consider cyber-related threats when devising and maintaining internal accounting controls and provides practical considerations for public companies to consider in light of the Commission’s report. Findings Public companies should assume that the Commission is actively monitoring all areas related to cybersecurity, including corporate disclosures of cyber-related incidents and also whether companies have established policies, procedures, and internal controls in place to ensure cyber-related incidents are prevented. Given that assumption, public companies should take prompt steps to assess and, if appropriate, improve internal accounting controls, disclosure controls, and cyber-related policies and procedures to address the risk of cyber-related incidents. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

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.

OCIE issues risk alert on the most frequently identified advisory fee and expense compliance issues

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert Van Grover
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Investment Management ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Informed Decisions ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Investment Advisers ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To summarize and interpret a Risk Alert issued on April 12, 2018 by the US SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on the most frequent advisory fee and expense compliance issues identified in recent examinations of investment advisers. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes deficiencies identified by the OCIE staff pertaining to advisory fees and expenses in the following categories: fee billing based on incorrect account valuations, billing fees in advance or with improper frequency, applying incorrect fee rates, omitting rebates and applying discounts incorrectly, disclosure issues involving advisory fees, and adviser expense misallocations. Findings In the Risk Alert, OCIE staff emphasized the importance of disclosures regarding advisory fees and expenses to the ability of clients to make informed decisions, including whether or not to engage or retain an adviser. Practical implications In light of the issues identified in the Risk Alert, advisers should assess the accuracy of disclosures and adequacy of policies and procedures regarding advisory fee billing and expenses. As a matter of best practice, advisers should implement periodic forensic reviews of billing practices to identify and correct issues relating to fee billing and expenses. Originality/value Expert guidance from experienced investment management lawyer.

SEC permits all issuers to submit confidential draft registration statements

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-21
Author(s):  
Andrew Brady ◽  
Brian Breheny ◽  
Michelle Gasaway ◽  
Stacy Kanter ◽  
Michael Zeidel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Finance ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Going Public ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Submission Process ◽  
The Us ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Jobs Act ◽  
A Company

Purpose To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) June 29, 2017 announcement (as updated August 17, 2017) that the staff of its Division of Corporation Finance will accept draft registration statement submissions from all companies for nonpublic review, thereby expanding a popular benefit previously available only to emerging growth companies (ECGs) under the JOBS Act and, in limited circumstances, to certain foreign private issuers under historical Staff practices. Design/methodology/approach Explains the rationale and limitations of the new policy, the existing confidential submission process, the expanded class of issuers and transactions that now qualifies for the nonpublic review process, and content and staff processing details. Findings Recognizing that the confidential submission process for EGCs proved highly popular and quickly became standard practice for eligible companies seeking to conduct an IPO, the SEC has made the nonpublic review process available to an expanded class of issuers and transactions. The expanded confidential submission process for IPOs addresses some of the typical concerns associated with engaging in the IPO process by giving a company more time and flexibility to determine whether it actually will be able to achieve the benefits of going public before it incurs the burdens and expenses of doing so. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and corporate finance lawyers.

Are your customer accounts in order? – SEC announces sweep of broker-dealers and implementation of the customer protection rule initiative

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Melissa Beck Mitchum ◽  
Bob Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Current Account ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Reporting Mechanism

Purpose To explain the Customer Protection Rule Initiative announced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and offer practical guidance for complying with Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Design/methodology/approach This article discusses Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, related interpretative guidance, and the Customer Protection Rule Initiative announced in June 2016 by the SEC. Findings This article concludes that broker-dealers should take advantage of the Customer Protection Rule Initiative’s self-reporting mechanism and use this time to review their current account arrangements with banks, existing internal policies and procedures, and account documentation. Originality/value This article contains valuable information about the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule Initiative and practical compliance guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

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.

SEC flexes its muscle on accounting fraud and targets more individuals

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-53
Author(s):  
David Woodcock ◽  
Joan McKown
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Accounting Fraud ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
A Priority

Purpose To note the increase in accounting and financial reporting matters at the Securities and Exchange Commission by highlighting a number of recent cases filed by the agency. Design/methodology/approach The SEC recently announced the settlement or filing of a number of significant accounting fraud cases. Coupled with recent statements by the SEC and the Department of Justice, it is clear that accounting fraud is a priority and that individuals are in the cross-hairs. This article discusses a few of the recent cases and the trend toward more financial reporting and issuer disclosure cases. Findings The number of financial reporting and issuer disclosure cases will likely continue to increase. Individuals will be targeted in more of those cases, internal controls will be a focus, whistleblowers will continue to be important in this area, and SOX 304 clawbacks will continue to be a weapon for the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

SEC releases enforcement division FY 2017 annual report: shift in tone and likely approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Solomon ◽  
Robin M. Bergen ◽  
Alexis Collins
Keyword(s):  
Asset Management ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Risk Profile ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
The Us ◽  
Retail Investors ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose To discuss and analyze the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) FY 2017 Annual Report, which details its priorities for the coming year and evaluates enforcement actions that occurred during FY2017. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes key shifts from FY 2016, outlines the Enforcement Division’s current priorities, and, in view of its stated focus on the conduct of investment professionals and protection of retail investors, provides guidance to the investment management industry as it gears up for the coming year. Findings The Report provides insight into changes in the SEC’s approach to enforcement actions, including a general shift in tone suggesting a more measured approach to enforcement and remedies and a move away from a statistics-oriented approach, and a glimpse into its priorities for the coming year, including five core principles guiding the Division’s enforcement decisions. Practical implications As those in the asset management industry consider revisions to their policies and procedures for FY 2018, as well as their risk profile more generally, they should keep in mind key insights into the Commission’s enforcement strategy offered by the Report. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities enforcement, litigation, compliance and anti-corruption lawyers.

SEC approves long-anticipated FINRA research rules

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Natterson Kroll ◽  
John Ayanian
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Equity Research ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Research Analysts ◽  
Required Disclosures ◽  
Insight Into

Purpose To analyze the changes to the FINRA equity research rules and evaluate concerns that may be important to and have an impact on equity research activities following the effective date. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an overview of the changes reflected in FINRA Rule 2241 pertaining to equity research analysts and research reports, as well as changes to licensing requirements for equity research analysts. It highlights potential issues for firms and provides some commentary on how these issues should be considered in light of FINRA’s articulated position and assurances FINRA has given to the SEC. Findings This article concludes that firms should anticipate these changes and begin a comprehensive review of research policies and procedures, the personnel who prepare research reports and the scope of their research products so as to be compliant with Rule 2241 from its effective date. Firms should also begin an investigation of technologies used to gather, produce and disseminate research and required disclosures to ensure they meet the new requirements when they are effective. Originality/value This article provides insight into the new FINRA Rule 2241 and practical guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

A review of the SEC Participating Affiliate No-Action Letters’ relief from Investment Advisers Act of 1940 registration for foreign investment advisers

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy E. Cohen ◽  
David Y. Dickstein ◽  
Christian B. Hennion ◽  
Richard D. Marshall ◽  
Allison C. Yacker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Investment Advisers

Purpose To explain the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) staff’s (the “Staff”) participating affiliate exemption from investment adviser registration for foreign advisers set forth in a line of Staff no-action letters issued between 1992 and 2005 (the “Participating Affiliate Letters”) and to discuss recent guidance issued by the Staff in an information update published in March 2017 (the “Information Update”) with respect to complying with requirements of the Participating Affiliate Letters. Design/methodology/approach Reviews the development of the Staff’s approach regarding the non-registration of foreign advisers that rely on the Participating Affiliate Letters from prior to the issuance of those letters through the Information Update and sets forth recommendations for registered investment advisers and their participating affiliates. Findings While there are arguments that the Information Update goes beyond restating established standards and does not clearly explain whether submission of all listed documentation is required, the Information Update will likely standardize the information submitted to the SEC. Originality/value Practical guidance for advisers relying on the Participating Affiliate Letters from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

MSRB publishes its first compliance advisory for broker-dealers

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 49-51
Author(s):  
Scott R. Anderson ◽  
Kate S. Poorbaugh
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Compliance Programs ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Effective Compliance ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose To summarize the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s 2016 Compliance Advisory for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. Design/methodology/approach Summarizes several Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules that the Compliance Advisory highlights as presenting key compliance risks for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. Discusses the factors included in the Compliance Advisory that dealers should consider when evaluating compliance procedures and controls. Findings By highlighting some key compliance risks and providing considerations tailored to those risks, the Compliance Advisory can be used as a tool to aid dealers in developing and assessing effective compliance programs. Practical implications Dealers should consider reviewing their firms’ existing compliance policies and procedures in light of the considerations discussed in the Compliance Advisory. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services regulatory lawyers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document