For the last few years, the SEC has been issuing guidance as to appropriate cybersecurity policies and procedures for financial firms. In a move that signal’s the regulator’s willingness to put muscle into its cybersecurity guidance, the SEC announced an agreement with St. Louis-based investment company, R.T. Jones Capital Equities Management (“R.T. Jones” or “the company”), to settle charges that the company failed to adequately safeguard the personal information (“PI”) of approximately 100,000 individuals. Consistent with this trend, the SEC has announced that its Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) would be conducting a second round of investigations into the cybersecurity practices of brokerage and advisory firms (the “Cybersecurity Examination Initiative”). These moves signal the SEC’s increasing scrutiny of investment firms’ information security practices and indicate the regulator’s willingness to enforce the guidance that it has issued.
Mark Mermelstein, a trial lawyer with more than 20 first-chair trials, specializes in white collar criminal defense and complex litigation.Mark Mermelstein, a trial lawyer with more than 20 first-chair trials, specializes in white collar criminal defense and complex litigation, particularly in technology-related matters. He also handles Cybersecurity, Privacy, Litigation and Enforcement matters.
Mark focuses his work representing corporations and individuals facing allegations of securities fraud, healthcare fraud, environmental crimes, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the False Claims Act, mail/wire fraud, and embezzlement.
Mark also focuses on asset recovery for corporate crime victims such as those victimized by cybercrime, including theft of trade secrets, hacking, counterfeiting and other business crimes. In this regard, Mark routinely leads data breach and cybersecurity incident response efforts, as well as proactively advises on data breach mitigation strategies.
Mark has written many articles and has spoken extensively on many aspects of his practice. A frequent commentator on matters related to white collar crime, he has been recommended by Legal 500 in both White Collar Criminal Defense, and Cybersecurity.
Posts by: Mark Mermelstein
On Monday, February 25, Goldman Sachs won its bid to force former director Rajat K. Gupta to pay legal fees it incurred while investigating Gupta’s insider trading activities. In October 2012, Gupta was sentenced to two years in prison following his conviction on conspiracy and securities fraud charges. As part of those sentencing proceedings, Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York has now ordered Gupta to pay Goldman Sachs $6.2 million, an amount equal to approximately 90 percent of the legal expenses the banking firm sought to recover. See United States v. Gupta, Case No. 11 CR 907 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013).
Background on the Ruling
Goldman Sachs sought its fees under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), which allows some crime victims to recover expenses they incur as a result of a criminal defendant’s wrongful conduct. See 18 U.S.C. §3663A.
Judge Rakoff’s restitution order requires Gupta to pay the legal fees Goldman Sachs incurred conducting an internal investigation; responding to grand jury subpoenas and document requests from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and from Gupta himself; collecting and reviewing millions of documents leading to document productions of over 400,000 pages; and providing counsel to represent various of its officers and employees in depositions and at trial. The restitution order also covered fees Goldman Sachs incurred relating to the criminal investigation of Raj Rajaratnam, who was unaffiliated with Goldman Sachs but convicted for his role in the same insider trading scheme. Finally, Judge Rakoff ordered Gupta to pay Goldman Sachs its fees associated with preparing the request for restitution.
Implications of the Ruling
In ordering restitution, Judge Rakoff found that the requested attorney’s fees were “necessary,” were “incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense,” and were incurred by a “victim.” While one may not have thought of Goldman Sachs – the entity from whom Gupta, the tipper, acquired the inside information – as a traditional victim of insider trading, in interpreting that term as anyone who was “directly and proximately harmed” by the offense of conviction, the Court had no difficulty in finding that Goldman was a victim and thus awarding it the attorney’s fees. READ MORE