Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Feb. 27, 2013, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected an argument advanced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the so-called “discovery rule” would apply to civil penalties cases involving fraud, such that the statute of limitations would not begin to run until the fraud was discovered. The case, Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 133 S.Ct. 1216 (2013), involved an SEC civil penalties case in which the petitioners were sued by the SEC with respect to fraud allegations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The Investment Advisers Act makes it illegal for investment advisers to defraud their clients, and allows the SEC to seek civil penalties through an enforcement action against investment advisers who violate the Act. In a 2008 complaint, the petitioners, a portfolio manager and chief operating officer of an investment advisory firm, were alleged to have aided and abetted fraud between 1999 until 2002 by allowing one investor in the fund they advised to covertly engage in a trading strategy that would harm other investors in exchange for investing in a hedge fund run by one of the petitioners. Id. at 1217-19.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.