Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Behind the SEC's Recent Crackdown on Compliance Officials
Recent comments by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Daniel Gallagher were noteworthy for both their candor and the subject he raised. On June 18, 2015, Gallagher wrote in a statement placed on the SEC website (http://tinyurl.com/nnatjpw) that the SEC was sending a “troubling message”: Chief compliance officers (CCOs) should not take ownership of their firms' compliance policies and procedures, lest they be held accountable for conduct that is not really their responsibility. He explained his dissents in two recent Enforcement actions brought by the SEC against CCOs and derided as not a “model of clarity” an SEC rule that requires investment advisers to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of laws and regulations. He also expressed concern that the SEC's current approach would actually disincentivize a vigorous compliance function at investment advisers.
The Two Recent SEC Cases Referenced by Gallagher
The two recent Enforcement actions referenced by Commissioner Gallagher, who is leaving the SEC soon, are worth exploring. The first case cited involved BlackRock Advisers, a registered investment advisory firm with approximately $452 billion assets under management. According to the SEC, BlackRock first knew of and approved an investment of $50 million into the company made by Daniel Rice III, who was the general partner of Rice Energy, a family owned-and-operated oil and natural gas company; and second, a joint venture that Rice Energy later formed with a publicly traded coal company. It eventually became the largest holding (almost 10%) in the $1.7 billion BlackRock Energy & Resources Portfolio, the largest Rice-managed fund.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?