Prioritizing Market Integrity

Market integrity continues to be a prime concern for the SEC, especially with the rapid advancements in financial technology and increased market complexity. In recent times, the Commission has filed charges against indices for failures related to quality control, credit agencies for disclosure and internal control violations, and an investment platform for misleading customers about revenue. This pursuit underscores the SEC's commitment to preserving the integrity of the financial markets.

Keeping an Eye on SPAC Transactions

Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) transactions have also come under the SEC's lens. Given their surging popularity as an alternative to traditional IPOs, this increased focus is a testament to the Commission's adaptive approach to emergent market trends.

Scrutinizing Private Equity and Hedge Fund Fees

The SEC has also escalated its vigilance over private equity and hedge fund fees. As these alternative investment vehicles continue to attract significant capital, the SEC's priority on this front aligns with its mandate to ensure fair and transparent practices in all corners of the financial markets.

Record-Keeping Violations

The Commission has reiterated its commitment to rigorous compliance standards by maintaining a close watch on recordkeeping violations. As effective record-keeping is a cornerstone of market transparency and compliance, this focus helps prevent illicit activities and ensures market participants adhere to best practices.

Joseph Lucosky

Aggressive Pursuit of Gatekeepers' Liability

In its quest for greater market accountability, the SEC has begun to more assertively pursue 'gatekeepers' – including auditors, attorneys, and others who play pivotal roles in preventing financial misconduct. This renewed focus is aimed at holding these entities responsible for their essential role in maintaining market integrity.

Continued Enforcement Actions Against Individuals

Moreover, the SEC has continued its aggressive stance in investigating and charging individuals implicated in enforcement actions. The Commission also remains resolute in pursuing officer and director bars as viable remedies against individuals found culpable of financial misconduct. In Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022, more than two-thirds of newly filed enforcement actions involved at least one individual defendant or respondent, further reinforcing the SEC's commitment to individual accountability.

In conclusion, the SEC's shifting priorities reflect its adaptability and responsiveness to evolving market realities. By expanding its focus and vigorously pursuing new enforcement areas, the SEC aims to promote a robust, fair, and transparent financial landscape, reinforcing its core mission of investor protection and market integrity.

The SEC, as the federal agency responsible for regulating and enforcing securities laws, conducts investigations under the authority of several federal statutes. The governing rules for these investigations are outlined in 17 C.F.R. § 202.5, the Enforcement Division’s Enforcement Manual, and other Commission guidance.

These investigations, often focused on public company accounting and disclosures, can be either formal or informal, each having distinct implications and protocols.

1. Understanding Formal and Informal Investigations

During preliminary inquiries or informal investigations, also known as Matters Under Inquiry (MUIs), the SEC's enforcement staff (the Staff) cannot subpoena entities or individuals. Instead, the Staff relies on voluntary cooperation to obtain necessary information. In contrast, during a formal investigation, the Staff is authorized to issue subpoenas requiring the production of documents or provision of testimony by virtue of a formal order of investigation. This formal order is not publicly accessible, but it can be requested by those asked to testify or produce documents.

2. Purpose and Implications of SEC Investigations

The primary objective of SEC investigations is to ascertain whether there have been violations of securities laws. However, the existence of an investigation should not be interpreted as a negative assessment of the entity, individual, or security involved. It is rather an indication that the Staff has identified a potential issue that warrants allocation of investigative resources. The Staff maintains the discretion to close investigations without enforcement action at any point during the investigation.

3. Key Statutes Involved in SEC Investigations

SEC investigations may involve several federal statutes, particularly when there are concurrent or parallel criminal investigations. The primary federal securities statutes involved in investigations related to public company accounting and disclosures are discussed in the sections below.

A. The Anti-Fraud Provisions

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), constitute the central anti-fraud provisions that generally apply to misstated

Joseph Lucosky

financial statements and associated false or misleading disclosures by public companies. These provisions essentially prohibit fraudulent conduct in connection with the purchase, sale, offer, or sale of any securities.

Certain provisions under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, such as Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, necessitate proof of scienter – i.e., intentional misconduct or recklessness. In contrast, Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act do not require such a demonstration.

B. Liability Provisions

In serious cases, the Commission may levy charges of "control person" liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, "aiding and abetting" liability under Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act, and/or "causing" liability under Section 21C(a) of the Exchange Act. Both "control person" liability and "aiding and abetting" liability require a demonstration of scienter. However, for "causing" liability, the mental state depends on the primary violation: if the primary violation requires scienter, "causing" liability also requires scienter; if not, negligence is sufficient.

C. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Anti-Bribery Provision

Section 30A of the Exchange Act, the anti-bribery provision of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), strictly prohibits bribing "foreign officials" to obtain or retain business. This provision applies to "issuers", including officers, directors, employees, agents, or stockholders acting on behalf of the issuer, and foreign companies with American Depository Receipts (ADRs) listed on a U.S. exchange.

D. Reporting, Books and Records, and Internal Controls

Sections 13(a)(2), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, and 12b-20 thereunder, require every public company to file accurate annual, quarterly, and periodic reports with the Commission. These reports should not contain any materially false, misleading, or omitted information. They also require public companies to maintain accurate books, records, and accounts, and a robust system of internal accounting controls.

Violations of these reporting provisions can be established without showing scienter. Additionally, Rule 13a-15 requires issuers to establish and maintain an overall system of disclosure controls and procedures to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act financial reporting obligations.

E. Disclosure Controls for Individual Employees

Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13b2-1, 13a-14, and 13b2-2 thereunder, place obligations on individual employees to maintain the accuracy of the issuer's books, records, and accounts, and to certify the completeness of information contained in the issuer's reports. These rules prohibit directors or officers from making material misstatements to accountants during the audit, review, or examination of the issuer's financial statements.

In conclusion, understanding the statutes provided herein is essential to navigate through SEC investigations and to ensure adherence to the stringent regulatory framework of securities law.

Joseph Lucosky

The severity of an investigation conducted by the SEC, regardless of its formal or informal nature, mandates a diligent and serious approach from a company under its purview. Every investigation, irrespective of its initial nature, holds the potential to escalate into an enforcement action, the repercussions of which can profoundly affect a company's financial standing and reputation.

The company's attitude toward an investigation can act as a significant indicator to the SEC of its earnestness in identifying relevant facts and rectifying any errors or misconduct - factors that the SEC might evaluate while deciding on the charges and penalties to impose. A well-strategized approach, which encompasses key actions and considerations, can assist a company in setting the right tone from the very inception of an SEC investigation.

The cornerstone of a public company's response to an SEC investigation should be its sincerity and dedication to resolving the matter at hand. The SEC may view a company's commitment to fact-finding and remediation as a measure of its cooperation and willingness to comply with regulatory norms. Thus, the company's manner of handling the investigation significantly influences the SEC's assessment of the situation, and consequently, the severity of charges and penalties it may decide to pursue.

The gravity of potential enforcement actions underscores the need for a company to approach the investigation with utmost seriousness. It's not just the financial implications that are at stake, but the company's reputation may also suffer considerable damage if the charges materialize. In a business environment where reputation can significantly impact a company's relations with its stakeholders, maintaining a proactive and serious stance during an investigation becomes paramount.

To establish the appropriate tone, the company should strategize and execute a series of key actions. A crucial initial step is the understanding and acceptance that regardless of the formal or informal status of the investigation, the matter necessitates a thoughtful and earnest response. Every investigation carries the risk of leading to enforcement actions, which reinforces the need for the company to take every investigation seriously.

Building

this earnest approach towards an SEC investigation

involves several considerations. One of the critical elements in crafting this tone is to maintain an open and cooperative demeanor, showcasing a genuine desire to discover the relevant facts and address any instances of misconduct. By displaying a willingness to collaborate and rectify mistakes, the company can display to the SEC a level of commitment and seriousness that may influence the agency's determination of potential charges and sanctions.

Joseph Lucosky

Through these strategic actions and an attitude characterized by earnestness and cooperation, a company can navigate an SEC investigation effectively, demonstrating its compliance with regulatory norms and commitment to rectifying any possible wrongdoing. The company's approach towards an investigation can significantly impact the outcome and can play a vital role in mitigating potential financial and reputational damage. Therefore, it is of the essence that public companies facing an SEC investigation take the matter seriously, from inception to conclusion, and demonstrate their dedication to resolving any issues that arise.

The Advantage of Engaging External Legal Representation

In the event that a company becomes aware of a potential investigation by the SEC, it should seriously contemplate the engagement of external counsel experienced in handling SEC investigations. The vast and intricate array of issues and strategic decisions that a company may encounter necessitates the guidance of a seasoned external counsel. Furthermore, the counsel's in-depth knowledge of the case details, often bolstered by conducting an internal investigation, enables them to provide an adequate defense during an SEC investigation. SEC staff are more likely to have confidence in the thoroughness of an investigation steered by an adept external counsel rather than one conducted solely by legal teams, regardless of the latter's robustness. Utilizing an external counsel not only streamlines the investigation process, minimizing potential delays but also allows the counsel to maintain their focus on their day-to-day responsibilities.

Moreover, the use of external counsel to conduct the investigation can significantly enhance the preservation of attorney-client privilege protections, which can become challenging to maintain if counsel also provides business advice along with legal counsel. It is imperative to maintain a clear separation between legal advice, which is protected under attorney-client privilege, and business counsel, which isn't afforded the same protections.

Joseph Lucosky

This differentiation can often be blurry when the advice comes from counsel who are typically involved in both business and legal aspects of the organization.

The choice of experienced and reputable external counsel can also positively influence the SEC staff's perception of the company. The SEC staff may make adverse inferences against the company if it perceives the company's counsel to be employing delaying tactics or deceptive strategies. Having external counsel recognized for their professional integrity and respected for their work ethic can counter such negative assumptions and increase the credibility of the company's response to the investigation.

In circumstances where there is a high probability of criminal or other regulatory proceedings, or concurrent civil litigation, companies are well-advised to select counsel who have a proven track record in managing such parallel proceedings. These situations can present perilous waters, fraught with legal and reputational risks. An experienced counsel will understand how to navigate these risks, ensuring that the company's interests are protected, and its response to the investigation is well-coordinated across different legal forums.

In conclusion, when faced with a potential SEC investigation, a company stands to benefit significantly from engaging an external counsel well-versed in SEC proceedings. Their expertise can be invaluable in managing complex issues, maintaining privilege protections, enhancing the company's credibility, and adeptly handling parallel proceedings. The company can thus focus on its core operations while the external counsel ensures a thorough and professional response to the investigation.

Joseph Lucosky