Betsy draws upon a decade of legal and policy experience
to address sensitive issues for her clients. Whether guiding high-profile tech
companies through cutting-edge human rights challenges, advising on front-page international
peace negotiations, or safeguarding executives from white collar matters, Betsy
resolves conflict while preserving her client’s reputation.
As a leader of Orrick’s Business and Human Rights
practice, Betsy helps companies uncover, address, and remediate human rights
issues. This area of law is particularly critical for high-profile tech
companies, which can be more susceptible to the reputational, business, and
legal risks associated with violations concerning the freedom of expression,
right to privacy, gender equality, and other human rights issues. Betsy’s
work has ranged from helping a tech start-up build its business consistent with
human rights norms to helping a tech giant realign its policies to meet international human rights law standards.
Betsy first honed her ability to balance high-stakes and
complex legal and ethical challenges while advising parties involved in
international peace negotiations. She provides legal assistance to the Syrian
opposition in United Nations-mediated peace negotiations through the Public
International Law & Policy Group (PILPG). Betsy also serves as an
expert advisor to The Shaikh Group's track II Northeast Syria dialogue, and
works on its efforts to develop technology solutions to structural conflict
resolution barriers. She previously worked with PILPG on the UN-mediated Darfur
peace negotiations, provided legal and policy assistance to the Libyan National
Transitional Council, and founded PILPG’s Istanbul office when she was based there
during the Geneva III peace negotiations.
In her white collar practice, Betsy applies the same
delicate approach to help companies and individuals avoid or calm a public
outcry. When faced with allegations of corruption or other criminal issues,
clients rely on Betsy to thoroughly investigate, and offer a precise plan
Betsy maintains close ties to the human rights and
foreign policy communities by serving as a term member of the Council on
Foreign Relations and an Ambassador Council member of the International Crisis
Betsy is a Lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School where
she teaches negotiations. She previously guest lectured at UC Berkeley's Human Rights Center, University of San Francisco School
of Law, and American University Washington College of Law.
In a speech at the SIFMA AML Conference last week, FINRA Head of Enforcement Susan Schroeder openly explained the “straightforward framework” that Enforcement uses when making decisions about enforcement actions. The context for Schroeder’s speech was FINRA’s merger of two separate enforcement departments, resulting from FINRA head Robert Cook’s “listening tour” and FINRA’s recent self-evaluation, but Schroeder’s explanation appeared to be more of a response to broader industry complaints about FINRA Enforcement’s lack of consistency and transparency in its charging and sanctions decisions.
If that was Schroeder’s mission, she was successful. She identified the goals of enforcement actions, and justified FINRA’s use of its enforcement tool based upon harms to investors and perceived market risks. Overarching Schroeder’s speech was the principle that firms should know “what to expect from their regulator” so they know “how to shape their behavior in order to comply with the rules.” In this spirit of transparency, Schroeder identified the various principles or factors that FINRA Enforcement considers when evaluating enforcement actions and sanctions. Those principles should provide a vocabulary for firms and their counsel to assess and question FINRA’s enforcement activities.
Here are the principles in Schroeder’s own words:
Is this enforcement action appropriate? According to Schroeder, enforcement actions should be brought to “fix something that is broken or to prevent future misconduct, either by the same respondent or by another individual or firm.” Enforcement is not the only means FINRA has to fix something, and it is not always the “right tool” to use. To determine whether enforcement action is the appropriate regulatory response, FINRA will ask: READ MORE
A recent federal appellate decision shows there are limits to the ability of a regulator to claim monetary sanctions for statutory violations. Last week the 11th Circuit held that investors whose losses were solely associated with registration violations by their fraudster traders were not entitled to a restitution award – because such losses had not been proximately caused by the registration violations.
In an enforcement action brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the 11th Circuit affirmed a Florida district court’s findings that two companies and their CEO committed fraud by falsely representing to some investors that they had purchased physical metals on their behalf (when they had actually purchased futures), and violated the registration requirements of the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA) by trading in futures without registering as futures commission merchants. The district court had awarded restitution for losses arising from both of these violations. While the 11th Circuit upheld the restitution award of approximately $1.5 million based on the fraudulent misrepresentation, it vacated the award of approximately $560,000 based on the failure to register, holding that this violation did not proximately cause the investors’ losses. READ MORE