Client Alert

The SEC’s Authority to Enforce the Bank Secrecy Act is Challenged

, , , and Posted on

In the past few years, the SEC has become increasingly active in bringing enforcement actions based on broker-dealers’ alleged failures to comply with requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), in particular that requirement that they file “Suspicious Activity Reports,” or “SARs.” The SEC’s authority to bring such actions, however, has never been established by statute or appellate authority, and is being challenged in a petition for a writ of mandamus currently pending in the Second Circuit.  Though the procedural posture of that case makes it an unlikely vehicle for resolving the question, the issue it raises is likely to recur so long as the SEC continues to bring such enforcement actions despite its lack of any clear authority to do so.  Practitioners should be aware of this open issue so that it can be properly raised and preserved in BSA enforcement actions brought by the SEC.

The SEC’s Lack of Civil Penalty Authority under the BSA

The Bank Secrecy Act, enacted in 1970 to combat money-laundering, gives general examination and enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Treasury.  The Treasury Secretary is also authorized to “delegate duties and powers … to an appropriate supervising agency.”  31 U.S.C. § 5318.  By regulation, Treasury has delegated “[a]uthority to examine institutions to determine compliance with the requirements of” the BSA to various other agencies. 31 C.F.R. § 1010.810(b).  With respect to securities broker-dealers, such “authority to examine” has been delegated to the SEC. 31 C.F.R. § 1010.810(b)(6).  However, Treasury has kept “[a]uthority for the imposition of civil penalties” with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, which is a bureau of Treasury.  31 C.F.R. § 1010.810(d).

Despite its lack of delegated authority, for more than a decade the SEC has initiated civil enforcement actions based on alleged failure of securities broker-dealers to comply with BSA requirements. In recent years, these enforcement actions have become more frequent, and have also changed in nature. Earlier enforcement actions typically focused on the requirement that broker-dealers establish and comply with a written Customer Identification Program. And in those cases where the SEC based its enforcement action on the requirement that broker-dealers file SARs, it was generally in circumstances where the broker-dealer in question failed to file any SARs at all for a protracted period. More recent enforcement actions, however, have challenged the adequacy of SARs that broker-dealers actually did file.

In these proceedings, the SEC has based its asserted enforcement authority under the BSA on Exchange Act Section 17(a), which allows the SEC to require that broker-dealers “make and keep for prescribed periods such records” that the Commission requires. Under that provision, the SEC promulgated Exchange Act Rule 17a-8—17 C.F.R. § 240.17a-8—which cross-references the regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department under the BSA and requires that securities broker-dealers comply with them.  In effect, then, the SEC has invoked its books-and-records authority as a means to assert for itself authority to enforce the requirements of the BSA.

The Pending SEC v. Alpine Securities Corp. Litigation

Although the SEC has been bringing enforcement actions based on securities broker-dealers’ alleged failures to comply with BSA requirements for more than a decade, its authority to do so was not challenged until recently.  The SEC brought a BSA enforcement action against Alpine Securities Corp. in the summer of 2017 in the Southern District of New York. That suit is representative of the SEC’s more recent BSA enforcement actions. According to the SEC’s allegations, Alpine did have a BSA compliance program, and did file thousands of SARs. The SEC, however, alleges that the SARs that Alpine filed were inadequate in various ways. And as in other BSA enforcement actions brought by the SEC, the agency alleged that these inadequate SARs violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-8.

In early 2018, Alpine moved for summary judgment, arguing that the SEC lacks authority to bring enforcement actions seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.  Alpine argued that the BSA expressly delegates authority to bring civil enforcement actions to the Treasury Secretary, and that the Treasury Secretary—while delegating authority to examine various institutions for BSA compliance to various other agencies—retained enforcement authority for itself.  Alpine contended that the SEC’s interpretation of the “books and record” provision as giving it the power to bring its own BSA enforcement actions was contrary to Congressional command, and that the SEC was improperly attempting to “bootstrap” itself into an area where it lacked jurisdiction.

The district court judge—Judge Denise Cote—denied Alpine’s motion. First, the court concluded that Alpine was wrong to characterize the SEC’s suit as seeking to enforce the BSA, because the SEC in fact brought the suit under Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8. Second, the court rejected Alpine’s challenge to the SEC’s interpretation of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act.  Applying the two-step framework from Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the court concluded that Rule 17a-8, which requires compliance with certain BSA regulations, is a reasonable interpretation of Exchange Act Section 17(a).  The court further observed that “neither the Exchange Act nor the BSA expressly precludes joint regulatory authority by FinCEN and the SEC over the reporting of potentially suspicious transactions.”

Alpine moved for reconsideration of the court’s order or, in the alternative, for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The court denied both motions.  On June 22, 2018, Alpine filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Second Circuit, again arguing that the BSA expressly delegates enforcement authority to Treasury, and such authority cannot be usurped by the SEC. On July 9, the SEC filed an opposition to the mandamus petition.

Implications for White-Collar and Securities Practitioners

In light of the high bar for obtaining a writ of mandamus, the chances that the Second Circuit will grant the relief Alpine requests are likely low.  The reasoning and conclusion of the district court’s decision, however, are vulnerable to attack.  The district court focused its analysis almost exclusively on Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8, and rejected Alpine’s challenge based on its determination that the SEC clearly has authority to impose record-keeping and production requirements on broker-dealers.  In FDA v. Brown & Williamson, however, the Supreme Court emphasized that, “[i]n determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue, a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation.”  529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000).  Rather, courts must “interpret the statute as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,” and must also take into account how one statute “may be affected by other Acts.”  Id. at 133 (internal citations omitted).  Similarly, the Second Circuit has held that where an Act of Congress “specifically and unambiguously targets” a particular issue and “unambiguously” gives enforcement authority to a particular agency, another agency’s “assertion of concurrent jurisdiction rings a discordant tone with the regulatory structure created by Congress.”  Nutritional Health All. v. FDA, 318 F.3d 92, 104 (2d Cir. 2003).

As long as the SEC continues to bring BSA enforcement actions, it appears inevitable that at some point a court of appeals will be called upon to determine whether the SEC does, in fact, have such enforcement authority. White-collar and securities practitioners defending broker-dealers in SEC enforcement actions based on the alleged failure to file SARs or comply with other requirements of the BSA should raise the issue during the investigation process and again during court proceedings to ensure that it is preserved, and ask the court to certify the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) if the court determines that the SEC does have such authority.  Although the district judge in the Alpine Securities case refused to certify an interlocutory appeal, in light of the dearth of appellate case law on the issue and the fundamental nature of the challenge, other district judges may be willing to certify.

D.C. Circuit Holds PCAOB Improperly Denied Target of Investigation Access to Expert Assistance

, and Posted on

A D.C. Circuit panel unanimously ruled that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) acted unlawfully by denying former Ernst & Young partner Marc Laccetti his right to bring an accounting expert to an investigative interview. The March 23rd decision in Laccetti v. Securities & Exchange Commission potentially throws the validity of many pending PCAOB investigations into question and provides important procedural rights to the subjects of those investigations.

Laccetti was investigated and sanctioned by the PCAOB in connection with Ernst & Young’s audit of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.’s 2004 financial statements. The PCAOB’s rules provide witnesses interviewed by the PCAOB the right to be represented by counsel. However, the PCAOB had interpreted that rule as limited to lawyers only. Accordingly, when Laccetti was interviewed during the PCAOB’s investigation, the PCAOB permitted Lacetti to be accompanied by an in-house Ernst & Young lawyer but refused his request that an Ernst & Young accounting expert also be present. The PCAOB advised Laccetti that he and his counsel could consult with an expert before or after testifying, but that the presence of any technical expert was “not appropriate” at the interview. Following that interview, in a decision subsequently affirmed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the PCAOB fined Laccetti $85,000 and suspended him from the accounting profession for two years. READ MORE →

Looking Out for Main Street: SEC Focuses on Retail, Cybersecurity and Cryptocurrency

and Posted on

The Commissioners and senior officials of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) addressed the public on February 23-24 at the annual “SEC Speaks” conference in Washington, D.C. Throughout the conference, many speakers referred to the new energy that SEC Chairman Jay Clayton had brought to the Commission since his confirmation in May 2017. The speakers also seemed relieved that the SEC was finally operating with a full set of commissioners since the recent additions of Robert J. Jackson, Jr. and Hester M. Peirce. Clayton’s address introduced the main refrain of the conference: that the SEC under his leadership is focused on the long-term interests of Main Street investors. Other oft-repeated themes included the challenges presented by cybersecurity and the fast-paced developments in cryptocurrency and blockchain. To address these shifts in focus, the Enforcement division plans to add more resources to the retail, cybersecurity and cryptocurrency spaces.

Following are the key litigation and enforcement takeaways.

Main Street Investors

Commissioner Kara Stein picked up on Clayton’s Main Street investors focus when she asked whether increasingly complex and esoteric investments, such as product strategies and structures that utilize derivatives, were appropriate for retail investors. She explained that it was not a question whether the financial industry could develop and sell these products, but whether it should. She said it was not clear that financial professionals fully understood the products they were selling, and that even if brokers and advisers made disclosures regarding the potential outcomes and risks to investors, complete disclosures might not even be possible due to the products’ complexity. Both SEC and FINRA Enforcement have brought actions related to the sales practices of inverse and leveraged ETFs, as well as the purchase and sale of complex products. Stein opined that gatekeepers needed to remember the real people behind every account number when they were advising clients on how to handle these types of products.

Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the Division of Enforcement, described the SEC’s Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative as one way in which Enforcement was trying to help Main Street investors. The Initiative was created to address the problem of investment advisers putting their clients into higher fee share classes when no fee or lower fee classes were available. The SEC is incentivizing advisers to self-report this issue by promising not to impose any penalties, and only requiring them to disgorge their profits to investors. Peikin encouraged investment advisers to take advantage of this opportunity, indicating that if the Commission learned that an adviser had engaged in this conduct and did not self-report, it would be subject to significant penalties. The Chief of the SEC’s Broker-Dealer Task Force shared that AML programs and SAR-filing obligations are also a priority for the Enforcement division and OCIE exams. READ MORE →

SEC’s OCIE Announces 2018 Areas of Focus

and Posted on

On February 7, 2018 the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) announced its 2018 National Exam Priorities. The priorities, formulated with input from the Chairman, Commissioners, SEC Staff and fellow regulators, are mostly unchanged from years past (New Year, Similar Priorities: SEC Announces 2017 OCIE Areas of Focus, Orrick.com). However, the publication itself is presented in a more formal wrapper that begins with a lengthy message from OCIE’s leadership team describing the Office’s role and guiding principles, including that they are risk-based, data-driven and transparent, and that they embrace innovation and new technology.

2018 Priorities

OCIE’s principal 2018 priority, not surprisingly, appears to be the protection of retail investors, including seniors and those saving for retirement. OCIE specifically stated that it will focus on the disclosure of investment fees and other compensation received by financial professionals; electronic investment advisors – sometimes known as “robo-advisors”; wrap fee programs in which investors are charged a single fee for bundled services; and never-before-examined investment advisors. As to the latter, OCIE indicated that in the most recent fiscal year, it examined approximately 15 percent of all investment advisors, up from 8 percent five years before. It remains to be seen whether that increasing trend will continue.

Noting that the cryptocurrency and initial coin offering (ICO) markets “present a number of risks for retail investors,” OCIE included them as a priority for the first time. Examiners will focus on whether financial professionals maintain adequate controls and safeguards over the assets, as well the disclosure of investment risks.

Other 2018 priorities are compliance and risks in critical market infrastructure; cybersecurity protections, which OCIE states are critical to the operation of our markets; and anti-money laundering programs. In addition, OCIE has prioritized its examinations of FINRA and MSRB to ensure that those entities continue to operate effectively as self-regulatory organizations subject to the SEC’s oversight. READ MORE →

New Delaware Supreme Court Ruling on Excess Director Compensation: A Return to Formula Plans?

, and Posted on

On December 13, 2017, in Re Investors Bancorp, Inc. Stockholder Litigation (“Bancorp”), the Supreme Court of Delaware held that when stockholders have approved an equity incentive plan that gives the directors discretion to grant themselves awards within a shareholder approved plan limit, and a stockholder properly alleges that the directors improperly exercised that discretion, then the stockholder ratification defense is unavailable to dismiss the suit, and the directors will be required to prove the entire fairness of the awards to the corporation.  The Bancorp case involved a generous shareholder approved plan limit and upholds the adage that bad facts make bad law.

In Bancorp, the company’s stockholders approved an equity plan for employees and directors that gave Bancorp Inc.’s board of directors discretion to allocate up to 30% of all option or restricted stock shares available under the plan as awards to themselves. After stockholders approved the equity plan, the board approved grants to themselves of just under half of the stock options available to the directors and nearly thirty percent of the shares available to the directors as restricted stock awards.

Each director’s grant far surpassed the median pay at similarly sized companies and the median pay at much larger companies. The awards were also over twenty-three times more than the median award granted to other companies’ non-employee directors after mutual-to-stock conversions. The court determined that the plaintiffs alleged facts that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by awarding excessive equity awards to themselves under the equity plan and that a stockholder ratification defense was not available for a motion to dismiss. READ MORE →

Sudan Now Open for Business, but Risks Remain

and Posted on

On October 12, 2017, the United States made permanent its lifting of a longtime general embargo on trade and investment with Sudan. As a result, U.S. individuals and companies are now generally free to engage in transactions involving Sudan, the Government of Sudan or many formerly sanctioned Sudanese persons without a license from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). While this presents opportunities for new business in Sudan, any U.S. person considering business relating to Sudan should be aware of the legal restrictions that remain in place and the risks associated with such an undertaking.

Background

For almost two decades, Executive Orders (EOs) by Presidents Bill Clinton (EO 13067) and George W. Bush (EO 13412), along with the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR), have generally prevented U.S. persons from conducting transactions involving the Government of Sudan or certain sanctioned Sudanese persons, importing goods or services of Sudanese origin, exporting any goods or services to Sudan, or performing any contract “in support of an industrial, commercial, public utility, or governmental project in Sudan,” among other things. This trade and investment embargo was prompted by findings that the Government of Sudan was engaged in support for international terrorism, efforts to destabilize its neighboring countries, and myriad human rights violations.

On January 13, 2017, President Obama issued EO 13761, which observed that the dangerous and unstable situation in Sudan that had prompted sanctions by his predecessors “has been altered by Sudan’s positive actions over the past 6 months.” In particular, the order praised Sudan for “a marked reduction in offensive military activity, culminating in a pledge to maintain a cessation of hostilities in conflict areas in Sudan, and steps toward the improvement of humanitarian access throughout Sudan, as well as cooperation with the United States on addressing regional conflicts and the threat of terrorism.” The order, which was one of President Obama’s final acts in office, called for a conditional return of U.S. trade and investment transactions with Sudan with permanent revocation of sanctions after a six-month monitoring period and approval by certain U.S. agencies. Consistent with this order, OFAC issued a temporary general license on January 17, 2017, authorizing transactions that were previously prohibited by the aforementioned sanctions. As it turns out, the January 17 general license marked the end of the main set of sanctions against Sudan. READ MORE →

SEC Updates Revenue Recognition Guidance for Bill-and-Hold Arrangements

and Posted on

Last Friday, the SEC issued two releases regarding guidance on revenue recognition, along with a related Staff Accounting Bulletin. These releases are notable for all SEC registrants, as they update prior revenue recognition guidance.

First, the SEC updated its guidance for criteria to be met in order to recognize revenue when delivery has not occurred, i.e., bill-and-hold arrangements. The SEC’s guidance now follows that of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 606, Revenues from Contracts with Customers. Per ASC Topic 606, revenue may be recognized when or as the entity satisfies a performance obligation by transferring a promised good or service to a customer, and a good or service is transferred when the customer obtains control of that good or service. In the context of bill-and-hold arrangements, ASC Topic 606 provides specific guidance that certain indicators must be met to show that control has been transferred, including: (i) a substantive reason for such an arrangement where the customer has declined to exercise its right to take physical possession of that product; (ii) the product must be identified separately as belonging to the customer; (iii) the product currently must be ready for physical transfer to the customer; and (iv) the entity cannot have the ability to use the product or direct it to another customer. Until a registrant adopts ASC Topic 606, however, it should continue to follow the older guidance for revenue recognition. In conjunction with the SEC’s release, the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant and Division of Corporate Finance also released a bulletin that brings existing SEC staff guidance into conformity with ASC Topic 606.

The SEC also published new guidance with respect to accounting for sales of vaccines and bioterror countermeasures to the Federal Government for placement into the pediatric vaccine stockpile or the strategic national stockpile. In light of the updated ASC Topic 606 referenced above, the SEC states that vaccine manufacturers should now recognize revenue and provide disclosures when vaccines are placed into Federal Government stockpile programs because control of the enumerated vaccines (i.e., childhood disease, influenza and others) will have been transferred to the customer.

On the Chopping Block: The Effort to Repeal the CFPB’s New Rule on Consumer Class Actions

and Posted on

On July 19, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) published a new rule that has the potential to significantly increase the number of class action lawsuits brought by consumers against their financial services providers.  Although consumer advocates applaud the rule, critics argue that the rule will lead to an explosion of frivolous lawsuits.  Congress, for its part, is currently taking steps to stop the rule from ever taking effect.

The rule would no longer allow a financial services provider to use mandatory arbitration clauses to stop its consumers from bringing class action lawsuits against that provider. Mandatory arbitration clauses require that disputes between parties to a contract must be resolved by privately appointed arbitrators rather than the courts, with few exceptions.  According to the CFPB, financial services providers have used arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to block class action lawsuits, forcing each consumer to pursue individual claims.  A CFPB study from March 2015 further claims that mandatory arbitration clauses are harmful to consumers because companies avoid paying full relief to all those harmed and are therefore not sufficiently deterred from engaging in the misconduct moving forward. READ MORE →

What Startups Need to Know About the Revised Reg D

, and Posted on

Startups need funding, and most startups want to raise money with as little legal red tape as possible. But when a startup takes investment money, it is issuing securities, and federal securities laws generally require a company – or “issuer” – to register the offering and sale of any securities with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The bad news is that most early-stage companies don’t have the legal resources to comply with the SEC’s registration and reporting requirements. The good news is that Congress and the SEC recognize this and so have created certain exemptions from the registration requirement.

The most commonly used exemptions derive from Sections 4(a)(2) and 3(b)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933. Section 4(a)(2) exempts issuer transactions “not involving any public offering,” while Section 3(b)(1) authorizes the SEC to create additional exemptions. The SEC adopted Regulation D (“Reg D”) in 1982 to clarify and expand the exemptions available under these two sections. The SEC further expanded Reg D in 2013 following passage of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (“JOBS Act”).

Until this year, Reg D included three rules – Rules 504, 505, and 506 – that provided specific exemptions from registration. Rules 504 and 505 exempted certain offerings up to $1 million and $5 million, respectively. Rule 506 spelled out two “safe harbors” – 506(b) and 506(c). If an offering met the conditions of either of Rule 506’s “safe harbors,” it would be deemed a transaction “not involving any public offering” and would be exempt under Section 4(a)(2). READ MORE →

Supreme Court Unanimously Limits the SEC’s Ability to Seek Disgorgement

and Posted on

This week, the United State Supreme Court finally resolved a circuit split and unanimously held that SEC actions seeking to disgorge ill-gotten gains are subject to a five-year statute of limitations on civil fines, penalties or forfeitures under 28 U.S.C. § 2462.  This decision is expected to dramatically reduce the SEC’s ability to collect disgorgement in enforcement actions.

The decision arose out of an SEC enforcement action brought in 2009 that alleged between 1995 and 2006, Charles Kokesh, a New Mexico-based investment adviser, misappropriated $35 million from two investment advisory companies he owned and controlled, thereby squandering the money of tens of thousands of small investors. Kokesh was ultimately found liable at trial and the trial court ordered him to disgorge the entire $35 million he was found to have misappropriated plus interest, and pay a civil monetary penalty.  Kokesh subsequently challenged the disgorgement order before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the SEC’s claim for disgorgement was subject to the five year statute of limitations period codified in Section 2462, and therefore the $35 million disgorgement amount should be significantly reduced by eliminating any ill-gotten gains received prior to 2004—five years prior to the initiation of the SEC enforcement action.  A three judge circuit court panel of the Tenth Circuit unanimously disagreed, and upheld the disgorgement order on the basis that disgorgement is not a “penalty” or “forfeiture” as defined in Section 2462, but rather was “remedial” and “does not inflict punishment” because it leaves the wrongdoer “in the position he would have occupied had there been no misconduct.”  On this basis, the Tenth Circuit held that Section 2462’s limitations period was inapplicable to disgorgement. READ MORE →