UK Review of the Bribery Act 2010 – Committee Concludes New Guidance Needed

By Anne-Marie Ottaway on Posted in anti-bribery, Client Alert, Government, GT Alert, United Kingdom, white collar

In 2018 the House of Lords announced it would set up an ad hoc Select Committee to conduct a post-legislative review of the Bribery Act 2010. Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Anne-Marie Ottaway was appointed Specialist Advisor to the Committee, which on 14 March 2019 published the report of its findings. The review confirms that the Bribery Act 2010 is “an exemplary piece of legislation” which sets the global benchmark for anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation.

The Bribery Act was passed, with much fanfare, in 2010 and came into force on 1 July 2011. The Act simplified previous anti-corruption legislation dating back to 1889 and 1906 and introduced for the first time a specific corporate offence of failure to prevent bribery.

Under the Act, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) was required to publish guidance for businesses on the adequate procedures they would need to implement to have a defence to the failure to prevent offence. The Act applies to UK companies and foreign companies conducting business or part of a business in the UK. It pertains to conduct in both domestic and foreign jurisdictions and applies to bribery in both the public and private sectors.

Following the Act’s introduction, there was much concern about the impact it would have on the ability of UK businesses to conduct business abroad; this concern was a key focus of the Committee’s review, which covered the following:

  • Length of investigations
  • Police resources and training
  • Lack of cooperation and coordination
  • Revisions to the MOJ Guidance
  • Facilitation payments
  • The importance of a risk assessment
  • Corporate criminal liability
  • The adequate v reasonable debate
  • Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs)
  • DPAs not a substitute for prosecuting culpable individuals
  • Scotland

Click here for the full GT Alert on the Select Committee’s findings.

CFTC and NFA Commodities Regulatory Update

By Jeffry M. Henderson and Douglas E. Arend on Posted in CFTC, Client Alert, Commodities, Financial Regulation, GT Alert, Regulatory Compliance

Departing from its historical practice but following the approach taken by the SEC and FINRA, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Feb. 12, 2019, announced its first release of examination priorities for each of its regulatory divisions. In making the announcement, CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo indicated the release is part of CFTC’s “initiative to improve the relationship between the Agency and the entities it regulates, while promoting a culture of compliance at our registrants.”

The Release is divided into three main areas:

  1. Division of Market Oversight (DMO)
  2. Division of Swap Dealer & Intermediary Oversight (DSIO)
  3. Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR)

In another regulatory first, the National Futures Association (NFA) issued a notice to members requiring adoption and implementation of certain internal controls by registered commodity pool operators (CPOs).

Click here to read the full GT Alert.

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Newsletter – Winter 2019

By Greenberg Traurig on Posted in Blockchain, Blockchain Technology Task Force, Cybersecurity, Tax

2018 was a year of transformation for the blockchain industry. While the market continued to see technological advancements in smart contracts, platform functionality, scalability and security, regulators took a firmer rein in pursuing those seeking to exploit the uninitiated or those engaged in outright fraud. In this issue of Greenberg Traurig’s Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Newsletter, we discuss some of the key enforcement actions and proceedings during 2018 that have shaped the regulatory environment in the United States and the continuing uncertainty over the classification of digital assets as securities.

In this issue:

1. Disrupting the Disruptors: 2018 – The Year in Review

2. Noteworthy Federal Securities Cases During 2018

  • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blockvest, LLC et al.: SEC’s Request for Preliminary Injunction Denied
  • In the Matter of TokenLot, LLC et al.: SEC Order Against Unregistered Broker-Dealer
  • In the Matter of Crypto Asset Management, LP: SEC Order Against Unregistered Hedge Fund
  • In re Tomahawk Exploration: SEC Deems Token Airdrop as Sale of Securities

3. 2018 State Regulatory Overview

  • NASAA’s Operation Cryptosweep
  • Initial Coin Offering (ICO) Enforcement Actions by States

4. Traps for the Unwary: Federal Income Tax

5. FinCEN Update

Click here to read the full GT Newsletter.

Colorado Digital Token Act Exempts Certain Cryptocurrency Transactions From Colorado Securities Laws

By Michele L. Kulerman and Jason K. Zachary on Posted in Blockchain, Blockchain Technology Task Force, Brokers, Client Alert, Compliance, Financial Regulation, GT Alert, Regulatory Compliance, SEC

Colorado recently passed legislation that will facilitate the sale and transfer of digital tokens in Colorado. Under the Digital Token Act, Colorado businesses will be permitted to effect transactions involving the sale and transfer between certain persons of digital tokens secured through a decentralized ledger or database, with a focus on the production, distribution, and consumption of goods (also known as a “cryptoeconomic system”), as opposed to the current centralized internet platforms and applications that serve as intermediaries of such transactions in cryptocurrencies. Not only will these transactions be exempt from the securities registration requirements under the Colorado Securities Act (CSA), but persons dealing in these digital tokens will be exempt from the securities broker-dealer and salesperson licensing requirements under the CSA. However, the exemption will not be self-executing; it will require a notice filing with the Colorado Securities Commissioner prior to any offer, sale, or transfer of the qualifying digital token to satisfy the exemption. The transactions remain subject to the antifraud provisions of the CSA.

In an area still generally unregulated at the state level and where the SEC has taken a more measured approach, the Digital Token Act has the potential to at least encourage other states, including foreign jurisdictions, to address digital tokens for purposes of their securities laws. While the Digital Token Act applies only to intrastate digital token offerings, it does permit the Colorado Securities Commissioner to enter into agreements with federal, state, or foreign regulators to allow digital tokens issued in the state to be issued in another jurisdiction, and vice versa. It is unclear what steps the Colorado Securities Commissioner may propose in influencing other states’ treatment of digital token offerings, especially if and when an offering crosses into other states, or whether any other state would necessarily follow Colorado’s lead. In the absence of current federal guidance, the Digital Token Act is at least a step towards providing some clarity in this area and hopefully less state enforcement.

Click here to read the full GT Alert on Colorado’s Digital Token Act and its potential impact.

LIBOR and “No-Deal” Brexit

By Thédoor Melchers and Lotte Kuhn˘ on Posted in European Union, Global, United Kingdom

One of the consequences of a “no-deal” Brexit would be that the United Kingdom would no longer have access to the European financial market. This would affect LIBOR as a trusted and widely used benchmark.

LIBOR vs. EURIBOR

Currently, two relevant benchmarks exist in the European Union: LIBOR and EURIBOR. LIBOR stands for “London Interbank Offered Rate” and is a benchmark that is used for – among other things – loans based on Loan Market Association documentation. LIBOR is made available in five different currencies: U.S. dollar, British pound, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, and euro. EURIBOR stands for “Euro Interbank Offered Rate” and is, simply put, the interest rate at which European banks lend money to each other. EURIBOR is only available in euros. Both benchmarks are determined daily, but while LIBOR focuses on the London banking system, EURIBOR takes into account the entire European Union.

Developments around LIBOR

LIBOR has been the subject of increased scrutiny after it emerged that certain banks had manipulated LIBOR rates. Furthermore, insufficient activity in the unsecured interbank market raised questions about the sustainability of the LIBOR benchmark. Closely related to these developments is the new EU Benchmarks Regulation (EU) nr. 2016/11 and the development of a new secured overnight interest rate by the European Central Bank (ECB). The Benchmarks Regulation went into effect on 1 January 2018 and includes a two-year transitional period. The new interest rate for the euro will be based on data already available to the Eurosystem and is anticipated to be finalized before 2020.

The Future of LIBOR

Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has spoken to all current panel banks about agreeing voluntarily to sustain LIBOR until the end of 2021. However, a “no-deal” Brexit most likely will cause LIBOR to lose its authorized benchmark status in the European Union. This would leave nine months for the reference rate’s administrator to reapply as a third-country provider. Thus, even if LIBOR survives until 2020, a no-deal Brexit could come with enormous risks.

Takeaway

Market participants may wish to review and consider the amendment and waivers provision in loan agreements being concluded now, taking into account a possible “no-deal” Brexit and the development of the new overnight interest rate by the ECB. Furthermore, lenders should closely review the requirements posed by the Benchmarks Regulation to ensure they are compliant with its provisions.

To read more about Brexit, click here.

Questions about this information can be directed to:

˘ Not admitted to the practice of law

Prove It or Lose It: Lost It! NCA Uses New Powers to Freeze Accounts and Secure Substantial Asset Forfeiture

By Barry Vitou, Anne-Marie Ottaway and Gareth Hall on Posted in white collar

On Feb. 7, 2019, the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) confirmed that it had obtained account forfeiture orders over money held in bank accounts in the name of the former Moldovan prime minister’s son, Vlad Luca Filat.

Part III of our ‘Prove It or Lose It’ series anticipated the use of UK law enforcement authorities’ draconian new powers to obtain orders to freeze bank accounts and to apply for the forfeiture of money held in those accounts, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the money constitutes recoverable property. These powers, which lack historically enshrined safeguards, were introduced as part of the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which substantially amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Until now, these new powers had been given little publicity, although we predict the controversial new account freezing and forfeiture powers will be widely used. The order against Mr Filat is a high-profile example of the NCA’s intentions and has attracted considerable media attention.

To read the full GT Alert, click here.

FINRA’s 2019 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter

By William Mack, Paul Ferrillo and Vincent Lewis on Posted in Corporate Governance, FINRA, GT Alert, Regulatory Compliance

On Jan. 22, 2019, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) released its 14th Annual Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter, where it identifies its areas of examination focus for 2019. The FINRA president’s cover note points out the addition to the title of a reference to “risk monitoring.” While the Priority Letter describes the multiple issues and concerns on which FINRA will continue to focus during examinations, the president’s note points out that this year’s Priority Letter reflects two changes: (1) the clarification of how the examination process helps to fulfill the risk assessment function of FINRA; and (2) the shift in emphasis from extensive discussions of continuing concerns that have been the focus of examinations for many years to a more detailed explanation of certain new key priorities that now appear in the new letter.

FINRA’s central examination priorities have been and still include: obligations related to suitability determinations; outside business activities; private securities transactions; private placements, communications with the public; anti-money laundering (AML); best execution; fraud; insider trading and market manipulation; net capital and customer protection; trade and order reporting; data quality and governance; recordkeeping; risk management; and general supervision. However, in contrast to previous years, the 2019 Priority Letter attempts to limit repetitive discussions of certain topics that have been central to its focus in the past.

FINRA’s 2019 highlighted priorities are online distribution platforms, fixed-income mark-up disclosure, and regulatory technology. Reflecting FINRA’s concern with identifying risk factors, the Priority Letter also draws attention to the risks relating to the sales practices, operations, market, and financial practices of FINRA member firms.

To read the full GT Alert, click here.

SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations Releases 2019 Examination Priorities

By Arthur Don and Vincent Lewis on Posted in Financial Regulation, Investment Regulation, OCIE, SEC

Click here for a comprehensive GT Alert on this topic.

On Dec. 20, 2018, the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued its annual Examination Priorities for 2019 (Exam Priorities), which is available for download here. The Exam Priorities focus around six thematic areas: (1) Retail Investors, including seniors and those saving for retirement; (2) Registrants responsible for critical market infrastructure; (3) FINRA and MSRB; (4) Digital Assets; (5) Cybersecurity; and (6) Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Programs.

As in the past, OCIE notes that their priorities are not exhaustive. The scope of any examination is determined through a risk-based approach that includes analysis of the registrant’s operations and products offered. For example, OCIE typically examines the disclo­sure of services, fees, expenses, conflicts of interest for investment advisers, and trading and execution quality issues for broker-dealers. OCIE is continually evaluating changes in market conditions, industry practices, and investor preferences to assess risks to both investors and the markets.

In connection with OCIE’s priority to protect retail investors, OCIE reviews retail fees and expenses paid by investors, conflicts of interest of industry personnel, treatment of senior investors and the advertising and suitability of retirement products, portfolio management and trading, operations of and the selection of mutual funds and ETFs, procedures of municipal advisors, procedures for broker-dealers entrusted with customer assets, and microcap securities.

OCIE also continues to prioritize critical market registrants impacting the safety and operation of our financial markets, including clearing agencies, entities subject to Regulation SCI, transfer agents, and national securities exchanges.

Finally, OCIE will prioritize examinations of the effectiveness of FINRA and MSRB, which are assigned the responsibility for certain aspects of investor protection. OCIE also will conduct inspections to gather information and evaluate practices affecting digital assets, cybersecurity, and AML programs (especially broker-dealers subject to express obligations and SAR filing obligations).

Overall, OCIE noted that although changes to its priorities may be continual, OCIE’s analytic efforts and examinations remain firmly grounded in its four pillars: promoting compliance, preventing fraud, identifying and monitoring risk, and informing policy.

Prove It or Lose It! Parts I and II: Unexplained Wealth Orders and Civil Recovery Orders in the United Kingdom

By Anne-Marie Ottaway, Barry Vitou and Gareth Hall on Posted in Anti-Money Laundering, Litigation, Uncategorized, Unexplained Wealth Order, United Kingdom, white collar

Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) extend the powers available to UK law enforcement authorities under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), enabling investigators to ask people who are holding assets, which based on their legitimate income they would not be able to afford, to prove that such assets were obtained from legitimate sources. If the person can’t prove the assets are from a legitimate source, then the authorities can take steps to recover those assets.

How do UWOs work? What role do interim freezing orders play in the process? What are the penalties for non-compliance? How have UWOs been used thus far in the public domain? For answers to these questions, see Prove It or Lose It! – Part I: Unexplained Wealth Orders.

The UWO is the beginning of a journey that can result in assets being taken away from their owners by the state through commencement of civil legal proceedings. UK politicians and law enforcement agents have trumpeted these non-conviction-based asset-recovery powers for their ability to recover and rid the UK of laundered assets. However, many obstacles remain in pursuit of this goal. See Prove It or Lose It! Part II: Civil Recovery Orders for a review of these civil-recovery powers under POCA against the backdrop of UWOs.

LexBlog