Tag Archives: and

EY Appeals Hong Kong Court Order To Produce Audit Working Papers Notwithstanding Holding That EY ‘Deliberately Withheld From SFC’ and State Secrets Not at Issue

More than a year ago, we began following the so-called Ernst &Young (“EY”) State Secrets Case in Hong Kong.  On 23 May 2014, the High Court of Hong Kong finally concluded that there was no “reasonable excuse” for EY’s failure to comply with Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) notices seeking information and documents, and that … Continue Reading

The Lawman Cometh: The SEC Adds Deferred Prosecution Agreements to Its Bag of Remedies

This post was written by Terence Healy. Last week the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced it had entered into its first deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with an individual.  The announcement is interesting for two reasons.  It reflects the increasing tone of law enforcement the Commission is taking in its enforcement proceedings, and it raises the … Continue Reading

“Know Your Customer” No More? The SEC Signals a Uniform Fiduciary Standard May Be Coming for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers

This post was written by Terence Healy and Daniel Herbst. On March 1, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published a sweeping request for comments that may determine whether a uniform fiduciary standard will be required for all broker-dealers and investment advisers providing services to retail customers. Under the present regime, registered investment advisers … Continue Reading

New rules bring transparency, lower costs to consumers by requiring review of large insurance rate hikes

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final Rule on Thursday, May 19, 2011 that provides for review of “unreasonable” premium rate increases and requires that: (1) insurance companies to provide consumers with information about the reasons for such rate increases, and (2) states provide an opportunity for public input in the … Continue Reading

No Indemnification for SOX 304 Clawbacks

This post was written by James A. Rolfes. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a corporation could not indemnify its CEO or CFO against liability arising under Sarbanes Oxley Act Section 304. The so-called Section 304 “clawback” provision requires a public company’s CEO and CFO to return bonuses, other equity-based incentive compensation … Continue Reading
LexBlog