NYC Bar framework seeks clarity on when CCOs face SEC charges
By 
Aaron Nicodemus2021-06-03T20:40:00
The New York City Bar Association has proposed a framework for regulators like the SEC to use when considering charging chief compliance officers for misconduct that occurs on their watch.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT
You are not logged in and do not have access to members-only content.
If you are already a registered user or a member, SIGN IN now.
Related articles
-
ArticleSEC’s Peirce weighs CCO enforcement case against liability framework
What would it look like if the SEC adopted a chief compliance officer liability framework? Commissioner Hester Peirce offered a preview in a statement regarding an enforcement action against the CCO of a formerly registered investment adviser.
-
ArticleFINRA stresses supervisory authority as key to CCO liability cases
Whether chief compliance officers have supervisory authority is key to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s determination of CCO liability, the organization clarified in a regulatory notice.
-
ArticleShould SEC hold securities lawyers accountable for bad advice?
A commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed establishing a minimum set of standards for lawyers advising public companies on securities law to combat a trend of “overzealous” representation.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
ArticleFTC files contempt against credit card processor Cliq for alleged ongoing compliance failures
The Federal Trade Commission asked a court to hold the payment processor Cliq in contempt for allegedly “flagrantly” violating a 2015 order that the company monitor transactions for illegal charges and activity.
-
ArticleSEC drops all charges against former Rio Tinto CFO related to coal valuation
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dropped its case against Rio Tinto’s former chief financial officer, who has battled charges for eight years.
-
ArticleOwner of medical supply company faces 35 years for alleged false claims, kickbacks
The owner of a medical supply company allegedly billed federal health programs $30 million for items that were unnecessary and tainted by kickbacks, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).