The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been vocal about its pursuit of corporate executives it believes to have violated the federal securities laws.
Pension funds have recently been in the public eye due to major scandals in New York State and elsewhere in which investment advisers were accused of making payments to help themselves get government business.1 As part of a three year investigation into New York State’s $125 billion pension fund by former Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, eight individuals pleaded guilty in relation to the administration of these funds.2 As a result, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) approved new regulations to curtail these payments by limiting political contributions. Although the new regulatory scheme promises to diminish the possibility of ‘‘pay-to-play,’’ it presents a new series of questions as to how it will impact statutorily protected employee lifestyle choices outside of the workplace, particularly employees’ involvement in the political process. The SEC failed to consider these lifestyle statutes when creating the new rules. While the SEC may be able to regulate investment advisers, will employers be able to control, punish or fire employees who violate the rules?
Morrison has, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the reach of securities and non-securities law. In this article, we examine how the lower courts have applied Morrison and identify some of the issues raised in Morrison but not addressed by the decision itself.
SEC Adopts Large Trader Reporting System
Best Lawyers in America, one of the oldest and most respected peer-review publications in the legal profession, has named Jerry A. Isenberg the “Washington DC Best Lawyers Securities Regulation Lawyer of the Year” for 2012.
Congressional testimony at hearing on “Fixing the Watchdog: Legislative Proposals to Improve and Enhance the SEC,” House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, September 15, 2011