Search results

To explain the current status of the SEC’s year-old Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) initiative, which encourages municipal securities issuers, borrowers, and underwriters to self-report possible securities law violations related to inaccurate representations in offering documents concerning an issuer’s prior continuing disclosure compliance.

Discusses the purpose of the MCDC, recent remarks by the chief of the SEC’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, the SEC’s first cease-and-desist order, and the independent consultant compliance review required by MCDC settlement terms. Recommends how an MCDC self-reporter should respond to a call from the SEC.

Thus far, the SEC has provided little detail regarding the MCDC enforcement process. Members of the SEC enforcement staff have said that underwriter MCDC cease-and-desist orders will be announced in the “coming months” and that issuers will not be named in these enforcement actions.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

To explain the first enforcement action the USA Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has brought under “pay to play” rules for investment advisers since those rules were adopted nearly four years ago.

First, the article provides a summary of the SEC enforcement action against TL Ventures Inc., a Philadelphia-area private equity firm. Next, the article provides a historical context and some key provisions of the rules. Finally, the article provides political contribution policy and procedure recommendations.

Political corruption in the municipal market has been a focus of the SEC for several years and is likely to continue to be a top priority. Investment advisers should ensure they have sufficient policies and procedures in place to avoid a two-year ban on business with a state or local government as the result of a political contribution.

The article provides the facts underlying the SEC’s enforcement action, the historical context of municipal market pay-to-play rules, a summary of the pay-to-play prohibitions, and recommendations for avoiding rule violations. The article would be of interest to investment advisers, public pension plans, municipal securities underwriters, brokers, and dealers as well as state and local governments.

This paper aims to provide insights as to why money laundering persists in banks and their weaknesses as gatekeepers.

This paper contextualizes the design and proliferation of anti-money laundering (AML) measures; investigates the different manners of conceptualizing them; and provides insights pertaining to probable limitations of these measures. The paper relies on primary data from statutes and secondary data from published sources.

The paper’s findings suggest that competitive pressures, shareholders return imperative, and lucrative misaligned incentives for management contributed to weaknesses in effective compliance in banks.

Insights drawn from this paper reinforces the notion that banks need to seriously review their business approaches, as well as their roles as gatekeepers.

Given the slew of corporate scandals and other materially harmful misjudgments in money-laundering compliance, banks might need to seriously review their role and obligations in the economy.

Much has been said about money-laundering activities enabled by the banking sector. This paper contributed to insights as to why they persist despite AML rules, and what measures could be further taken to enhance compliance effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to analyze the legal issues on disgorgement and disgorgement funds in Indonesia, the USA and the UK and to construct the ideal law regarding disgorgement and disgorgement fund.

The type of legal research in this paper is normative legal research. The research approach used is a comparative approach and a legal approach. The legal materials used are all regulations on the disgorgement law and the disgorgement fund that apply in Indonesia, the USA and the UK. The technique of collecting legal materials is done by using library research techniques.

The rapid growth of the capital market in Indonesia still faces various legal issues such as various market manipulations, insider trading and illegal investment management activities. Based on the results of a comparative study, Indonesia does not yet have a calculation mechanism regarding the imposition of disgorgement on violators. Unlike Indonesia, the USA has the rules of practice and rules on fair funds and exchange commissions, and the UK has the decision procedure and penalties manual, which regulates the mechanism for calculating the imposition of disgorgement. Indonesia is solely able to use administrative action in imposing disgorgement, while in the USA and the UK, it can be through courts or direct administrative actions. These legal issues have resulted due to the lack of confidence by international investors and the growth of the investment climate in Indonesia itself.

This study examines the regulation of disgorgement and disgorgement funds in Indonesia, the USA and the UK. However, the focus of research in this paper is limited to legal issues that occurred in Indonesia.

The results of this study may help to construct the ideal regulations on disgorgement and disgorgement funds in various countries and protect the capital market of the investors.

The results of this study are expected to be helpful for the investment climate in various countries, especially developing countries.

The ideal legal construction regarding disgorgement, namely, parties to the mechanism for imposing disgorgement; disgorgement filing mechanism; sanctions in disgorgement; disgorgement fund sources; provider of fundholding accounts; mechanism for calculating disgorgement imposition; disgorgement fund distribution mechanism.