by John J. Tollefsen | Apr 17, 2018 | Fraud, Fraud, Fraud WA, SEC, Securities US
Regulating ICOs The regulators of money and securities are facing a new challenge with the emergence of crypto-currencies like Bitcoin. Not only do crypto-currencies live in cyberland computers usually outside the jurisdiction of the regulators, their mere existence is a challenge to the modern notion that only nation-states have the right to issue fiat currencies. Recently the Securities and Exchange Commission has entered the fray. It used to be said the securities regulators could be divided between the philosophy of the states and the philosophy of feds. The states were adherents to the central government control view (called “merit review”) believing that the staff of the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) in Olympia knew what was good for investors and would be the appropriate gate-keepers for the investing public. For example, when Apple Computer went public, DFI would not approve its IPO stock for sale in Washington (it was too risky) so Washington investors had to purchase post-IPO stock at a substantial premium on the national public markets. The SEC was said to hold to a view that anything could be sold if there was full disclosure. Over time, the positions modified. The SEC is now known to make it difficult or impossible to register an offering its employees do not like. Recently the SEC insisted on applying traditional stock trading and Investment Company Act of 1940 rules to registration of crypto-currency ETF-like funds which were designed to allow investor speculation in a basket of crypto-currencies1Staff Letter: Engaging on Fund Innovation and Cryptocurrency-related Holdings, January 18, 2018. In a typical government “catch-22”, now that the SEC had held...
by John J. Tollefsen | Apr 10, 2017 | Blog, SEC, Whistleblowing US
U.K. Begins to Advance Protection of Whistleblowers Jes Staley, the American CEO of Barclays went after whistleblowers the American way – “get that rat!” This time the U.K.’s Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct did something about it. They called it an ethical breach and put pressure on Barclays to do something. Barclays issued a statement stating it reprimanded Mr. Staley and will make a “significant” cut to his bonus. How does this balance out? The whistleblower loses his or her career and the executive who cause that damage may lose some part of their future bonus. In the U.S., the SEC insists on revealing the name of the whistleblower if there is a settlement. The SEC justifies its policy by claiming it is merely trying to buttress internal reporting. In my experience, corporations circle the wagons when there is credible whistleblowing. Corporate counsel interrogates and human resources attempts to find legal grounds to terminate. Investigators comb the whistleblower’s computer and office looking for something negative. Usually whistleblowing is a career ending exercise in the U.S. The U.K. does not give rewards to whistleblowers. The SEC does but refuses to allow anonymous filings. It allows temporary anonymity if the whistleblower uses an attorney to file the claim. Like many CEOs, Mr. Staley apparently thinks whistleblowers are disloyal and he felt in this case it was “an unfair personal attack.” After he was told it was not appropriate to inquire into the identity of the whistleblower, he continued to pressure his internal security investigator for the information. A U.S. law-enforcement agency was asked to help. Consider Wells Fargo Bank. It...
by Justin Tollefsen | Apr 5, 2016 | Administrative US, Administrative WA, Attorneys, Blog, Business Law, Corporate Law DL, Entrepreneurship, Regulatory Compliance, SEC, Securities Law WA, Securities US, Tollefsen Law
At some point, nearly every regulatory client has asked me, in a tone of incredulity, why “such a little thing” mattered to a regulating agency. Often the client also asks why a government regulator focuses on the “little guy” when big business appears to skate through regulatory compliance with no issues. The second answer is far simpler but answering it first leads us to part of the answer for the first question. How Big Businesses Treat Regulatory Compliance Big businesses appear to skate through regulatory matters without issues, in a sense, because they are big. Being big, they hire regulatory compliance experts to eliminate issues and quickly correct any problems that do come up. They have support personnel to do the actual work. The proactively address most problems before they get to the point of administrative sanctions or lawsuits. This is not to say big businesses don’t have regulatory problems: many do. Some businesses simply don’t bother to comply and have problems as a result. But most big businesses place an emphasis on regulatory compliance. They recognize that compliance failure can be a business-ending proposition. They place a priority on regulatory compliance. Simply making regulatory errors can put a company under heightened scrutiny, causing more frequent examinations and other disruptive and costly consequences. A series of errors, or repeated errors, may also raise questions that lead to more serious investigations or prosecutions. Each situation drags at a company’s bottom line and pulls focus from the company’s mission and vision. As a result, most big businesses solve their regulatory issues quickly. They hire staff to address compliance. They include it...
