SEC adopts new executive benefit disclosure policy, widens options backdating probe

The SEC unanimously adopted a new set of regulations on Wednesday that will substantially overhaul its executive benefit disclosure policy. The new regulations, which are scheduled to take effect next year, will require companies to provide additional details of executive pay and perks. For the first time, public companies will be required to furnish tables in annual filings showing the total yearly compensation for their chief executive officers, chief financial officers, and the next three highest-paid executives. The SEC's new regulations are designed to force companies to disclose the true costs to companies' bottom line of their executives' pay packages, including stock options, in plain and understandable terms.

Continue Reading...

Brokerage Firms Beware: Defamation Claims May Follow Form U-5 Statements

New York's highest court has been asked to clarify just how much protection employer statements about terminated employees on NASD termination forms are entitled to. The NASD requires member firms to fill out a termination form ("Form U-5") whenever a registered employee is let go, explaining the reason for the termination. These forms are then available to any member firm upon request. Currently, New York law is unclear as to whether statements made in a Form U-5 deserve a qualified or an absolute privilege. If these forms are protected by an absolute privilege, then employers are immune from lawsuits based on claims by employees that statements in the form were defamatory. If, however, these forms are only entitled to a qualified privilege, if an employee can demonstrate that the defamatory statements were made with malice, the protection an employer had against suit dissolves.

Continue Reading...

No Free Lunches

The SEC is investigating forty investments firms located in Florida, California, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina, and Alabama over so-called "free lunch" investment seminars that target senior citizens. Seniors who attend these seminars get a free meal and a hard sell for investments that the SEC believes may range from inappropriate to fraudulent.

The seminars are often promoted as being hosted by other seniors who may be familiar to local people and seem trustworthy. Pitchmen at the seminars promote a wide range of products, suitable and otherwise.

Continue Reading...

Defending a State Securities or Insurance Action Before an Administrative Law Judge

So, how does a producer or a firm get a fair hearing when charges are brought against him/her or it by a state securities or insurance regulator? Based on the process by which state administrative actions are initiated, heard, and reviewed upon appeal, it's an uphill climb, and the incline is very steep.

Continue Reading...

NASD Slaps Brokerage Firm for Failure to Supervise Crooked Broker Working at Home

The NASD has long warned brokerage firms about their ongoing duties to monitor independent contractors, even those working at remote locations. The NASD put some teeth behind those warnings when it announced in a recent release sanctions imposed against LaSalle Street Securities, Inc. for failing to supervise Frank Devine, a former representative of the firm, who recently began serving a 13 year prison term after pleading guilty to federal wire and tax fraud charges for defrauding investors in a Ponzi scheme.

The NASD found that in June 1998, when LaSalle Street hired Devine, he disclosed a pending NASD investigation into the termination from his prior employment for unauthorized outside business activities. In September 1998, the NASD notified Devine that it intended to pursue disciplinary action against him. Notwithstanding this background, and knowing that Devine maintained a separate business account and conducted several outside businesses, LaSalle permitted Devine to work from his home with no on-site supervision.

Continue Reading...

Federal Court Criticizes Prosecutors' Coercive Actions Resulting in Non-Payment of Employees' Attorneys' Fees

DOJ prosecutors in corporate fraud and white-collar defense cases should think twice before pursing tactics designed to discourage corporations from paying their employees' attorneys' fees to avoid criminal indictment of the entity. This stems from a recent federal court ruling involving KPMG, one of the world's largest accounting firms. http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/05CR888_6272006_0835TS.pdf In that case, KPMG sought to avoid indictment by cooperating with prosecutors through, in part, firing employees suspected of wrongdoing (even before found guilty) and cutting off their legal fees. The judge found that KPMG cut off legal fees as a result of the prosecutors' coercive use of "Thompson guidelines". Specifically, the court found that the government, through use of the guidelines, discouraged KPMG from advancing defense costs to employees in an effort to avoid a corporate indictment, and that by doing so the government violated the employees' constitutional right to a fair trial and legal counsel.

The Thompson Guidelines (named after US Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson), came into being following the corporate scandals of Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing and other companies. KPMG, like most corporations, had a longstanding policy of advancing and paying legal fees to employees caught up in inquiries. The Thompson memorandum changed that practice, however, given its view that advancing or paying legal fees may be one and the same as protecting culpable personnel, thus being a factor weighing in favor of indictment of the entity.

The strongly worded opinion critical of prosecutorial tactics uses language such as, "KPMG refused to pay because the government held the proverbial gun to its head", and "The government . .. has let its zeal get in the way of its judgment". Since the opinion hales from Judge Lewis Kaplan, who sits in a federal court home to many high-profile corporate fraud cases, the DOJ is likely to take heed of the opinion and more carefully scrutinize how it implements the guidelines.