U.K. firm BlueCrest fined $170M for violating U.S. securities laws
By 
Aaron Nicodemus2020-12-08T17:25:00
U.K.-based investment fund BlueCrest Capital Management has agreed to pay $170 million as part of a settlement with the SEC for allegedly violating anti-fraud provisions of U.S. securities laws.
Related articles
-
ArticleBlueCrest facing $55.5M fine for failing to manage fairly a conflict of interest
The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced its intention to fine hedge fund BlueCrest Capital Management £40,806,700 (U.S. $55.5 million) for failing to manage fairly a conflict of interest. BlueCrest has challenged the decision.
-
ArticleSanctions, money-laundering and supply chains top agenda for energy sector compliance
The energy sector faces rising regulatory activity, with more rules and enforcement. Bribery, corruption, and sanctions now dominate compliance concerns, driving rapid change and pressure on compliance officers.
-
OpinionAgentic AI and the policy blind spot: Why security can’t wait
The current AI policy and regulation landscape is still emerging globally. While some regulations and standards exist, governments, industry, and security leaders have critical gaps to close, especially around agentic artificial intelligence.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
News BriefCFPB ends probe into Meta’s financial advertising practices
Meta says it is no longer under investigation by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the latest instance of the agency scaling back enforcement under President Donald Trump.
-
News BriefTexas sues Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue over alleged misleading marketing of Tylenol
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued two pharmaceutical companies for ”deceptively marketing Tylenol to pregnant mothers” despite risks linked to autism. The filing came two days before HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared to walk back the claims.
-
News BriefCFPB scraps bad-actor registry, citing cost-benefit issues
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shut down a registry of non-bank financial firms that broke consumer laws. The agency cites the costs being ”not justified by the speculative and unquantified benefits to consumers.”