Photo of Michael Rivera

Michael Rivera

Subscribe to Michael Rivera's Posts

Michael Rivera represents businesses and individuals in government investigations, securities enforcement proceedings and internal investigations. Michael is able to provide unique perspective and counsel to clients by drawing from his almost three decades of experience defending clients in private practice and serving as a government prosecutor in the roles of Chief Investigative Counsel for the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) and an enforcement attorney for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact: Read more about Michael Rivera

Fittingly, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) came into March like a lion. In addition to numerous SEC enforcement actions being filed this month, there were important developments with respect to the SEC’s enforcement and examination programs.  This notice briefly describes three of these SEC developments.

March 3:  SEC Division of Examinations Releases 2021 Examination Priorities

The SEC’s Division of Examinations (formerly the Division of Compliance and Examinations) released its 2021 Examination Priorities.  The Division publishes examination priorities annually to provide insights into its current approach to conducting examinations of registered broker-dealers and investment advisers and to highlight the areas it believes present potential risks to investors and market integrity.

Some of the key SEC examination priorities identified in the release are:

  • Compliance with Regulation Best Interest and whether registered investment advisers have fulfilled their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty.
  • Whether firm business continuity and disaster recovery plans are accounting for the growing risks associated with climate change.
  • Adequacy of the compliance programs of registered investment advisers.
  • Compliance with anti-money laundering requirements.
  • Firm exposure to LIBOR and firm preparations for the discontinuation of LIBOR.

…
Continue Reading SEC Roars Into March With Significant Enforcement Developments

There has been significant discussion lately about the need to restrict or improve the disclosure of trades made by corporate executives under 10b5-1 plans. In late 2019, I co-authored a series for Corporate Counsel discussing why public companies should consider updating their insider trading policies and training (see below with links to the article series).  In part three of the series, I discussed the regulatory focus on 10b5-1 plans, the stock trading plans that corporate executives routinely rely on to trade company stock.

Despite the legitimacy and legality of 10b5-1 plans, they have come under scrutiny by the media, academics and government officials for being subject to manipulation by corporate insiders.  My article summarized two pieces of legislation that had been introduced in Congress seeking to require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to formally review the regulations governing 10b5-1 plans and determine whether additional trading restrictions were warranted.

Executive Trades Under 10b5-1 Plans Scrutinized

While these bills have stalled in Congress, government officials have continued to scrutinize executive trades made under 10b5-1 plans and call for additional restrictions on the scope and use of these plans.  Two seniors SEC officials recently took the time to express concerns about 10b5-1 plans shortly before leaving their posts.  In a speech on November 19, 2020, outgoing SEC Chairman Jay Clayton expressed concern about situations where trading occurs (or does not occur) around times that 10b5-1 plans are implemented, amended or terminated.…

Continue Reading Insider Trading Policies and Training: Time for Another Refresher?

In one of her first official actions as Acting Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission), Allison Herren Lee reversed a major policy implemented by recently departed SEC Chairman Jay Clayton involving the SEC enforcement settlement process.  This decision could significantly impact the SEC settlement process by causing uncertainty for settling entities as to the business consequences of a settlement.  In a rare rebuke, two fellow SEC Commissioners promptly issued a statement decrying the Acting Chair’s decision.

Collateral Consequences of SEC Settlements

The federal securities laws contain provisions that impose restrictions on entities found to have violated certain statutes or regulations or that become subject to certain court-imposed injunctions or administrative orders.  These restrictions, commonly referred to as “collateral consequences,” range from prohibiting a settling entity (and possibly its affiliates) from taking advantage of certain exemptions under the federal securities laws to disqualifying an entity from engaging in specific business activities.  SEC settlements regularly trigger collateral consequences against settling SEC-regulated entities, like broker-dealers, hedge funds, investment advisers, and public companies.  For example, a public company issuer that settles with the SEC could be automatically disqualified from being considered a Well-Known Seasoned Issuer under Rule 405 of Regulation C.  Alternatively, a settlement could prohibit a settling investment adviser from providing advisory services to an investment company or from receiving cash fees for solicitations.

Given the serious collateral consequences an SEC settlement can trigger, and the fact that such consequences often are unrelated to the misconduct at issue in the corresponding SEC settlement, the SEC is authorized to grant disqualification waivers.  The SEC routinely grants waivers to prevent disproportionate and unintended consequences resulting from a settlement.…

Continue Reading SEC Commissioners Square Off Over Enforcement Settlement Process

In a prelude of things to come for public companies, on December 4 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued restaurant operator The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated for making misleading disclosures regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its financial conditions and operations. After issuing warnings and guidance to public companies since the early stages of the pandemic, this is the SEC’s first time charging a public company for misleading disclosures relating to the pandemic.

Allegations Against The Cheesecake Factory

The allegations against The Cheesecake Factory are straight forward. Early in the pandemic, The Cheesecake Factory disclosed in SEC filings that its restaurants were “operating sustainably.” The SEC alleged this disclosure contradicted internal company documents, which showed that due to the pandemic the company was losing approximately $6 million in cash per week, was projected to run out of cash in 16 weeks, and had notified its landlords that it would not pay rent in April.

The inadequacy of The Cheesecake Factory’s SEC filings was further confirmed according to the SEC when the company later shared the undisclosed financial information with potential private equity investors and lenders in connection with an effort to seek additional liquidity.…

Continue Reading SEC Files First Charges for Inadequate Public Company COVID-19 Disclosures

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a disclosure nightmare for public companies.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recognized this challenge and, to its credit, has provided relief to public companies by, among other things, extending the deadline for companies to file certain disclosure reports.  Nonetheless, companies are faced with the challenge of crafting disclosures regarding the risks presented by the coronavirus crisis to their business and operations and their plans for addressing those risks.  This challenge is made all the more difficult by the looming presence of securities class action firms, which already have sued companies over coronavirus-related disclosures.  In addition, the SEC in the recent past has charged companies for allegedly insufficient disclosures made in reaction to crisis situations.

The COVID-19 pandemic is wreaking havoc on the world economically.  Businesses are being harmed in a myriad of ways, from losing customers, to supply chain disruptions, to employee layoffs.  Many businesses and industries will change their operations in the short term and possibly permanently, while others will cease to exist.  Public companies have a unique responsibility under federal securities laws to disclose information to the public, including assessments and plans relating to their business and operations and related risks.  Such assessments and disclosures become thorny in the face of volatile markets, unprecedented events, and colossal business uncertainty.…

Continue Reading COVID-19: Mitigating Enforcement and Litigation Disclosure Risks for Public Companies

The Bass, Berry & Sims Corporate & Securities Practice Group recently hosted another in a series of complimentary webinars exploring various public company-related securities law issues.

The most recent Securities Law Exchange webinar, Recent SEC Reporting Developments and Enforcement Insights, was held on November 19 and discussed recent developments from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), including best practices and lessons learned from recent changes under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and the SEC’s new rule that extends “testing-the-waters” to all issuers. It also covered recent SEC guidance and enforcement actions impacting public companies.…

Continue Reading Key Takeaways from Our Public Company SEC Reporting Webinar

Register for the November 19th WebinarPlease join the Bass, Berry & Sims Corporate & Securities Practice Group for a series of complimentary webinars exploring various public company – related securities law issues. These quarterly CLE programs will be an extension of this blog and will feature timely and practical guidance to SEC disclosure counsel on key topics of interest.

The…

We recently wrote a three-part article series for Corporate Counsel highlighting recent trends warranting review by public companies and consideration as to whether to update their insider trading policies and training.

  • Part One offered practical guidance on mitigating risks associated with employees who may inadvertently share confidential information with others. As the benefits of remote work options increasingly pull the workforce out of the office, companies face risks from employees removing sensitive company documents from the secure confines of their offices and company databases. Because information removed from the safety of a corporate office or database is susceptible in many ways to being taken and misused by bad actors, it is important for in-house counsel to take steps to ensure their insider trading policies and training cover this area.

…
Continue Reading Insider Trading Policies and Training: Time for a Refresher?

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently awarded $3 million to joint whistleblowers despite concluding that the whistleblowers did not satisfy the technical eligibility requirements for receiving an award. See SEC Exchange Act Release No. 86010. The SEC Whistleblower Program has ramped up significantly the past few years, with record numbers of complaints being filed…

Last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) held its annual SEC Speaks Conference in Washington, D.C. We have summarized several significant insights conveyed by SEC Staff that are instructive for counsel handling investigations by the SEC’s Enforcement Division.

Continue reading to learn more about:

  • Herrera and Waiver of Work Product Protections
  • Further Insight on

…

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.