SEC v. Goldman Sachs

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the US federal agency that holds the primary mandate to enforce federal securities laws and regulations to control the securities industry and the country’s stock exchange and regulation of all activities and organizations including the US electronic securities market. The SEC is committed to promoting a market environment that yields public trust characterized by integrity to attain its mission of protecting investors through maintenance of fair and efficient markets through facilitation of capital information (Basagne, 2010). The SEC financing is a major area of focus since there has been major concern regarding the SEC agency financing and whether they utilize the

How strong is the case? It is not definitive given the information available but in reality the truth does not matter. Mounting a defense against the SEC makes little sense for Begelman. Being a civil case, criminal charges are not a consideration. The state is seeking a civil penalty and a repayment of the gains (Securities and Exchange Commission). If Begelman surrenders his profits and pays a penalty of $15K he is able to avoid any admission of wrongdoing (Gehrke-White). Thus, it is pragmatic and financially beneficial (avoid prolonged legal fees) for Begelman to settle and move on regardless of his actual guilt or innocence. The only winner in the case is the State. The SEC effectively extorts $30K from the defendant by

On May 26, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. Graham, No. 14-13562 (11th Cir. May 26, 2016), reached an important decision. The court extended the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the five-year statute of limitations for “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” applicable to enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The court held that SEC enforcement actions for declaratory relief and disgorgement were subject to the five-year statute of limitations. The Eleventh Circuit built its ruling on top of a decision by the Supreme Court, Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013), which held that 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applied to SEC civil penalty actions.

This memorandum discusses a brief history of Pat, his wrongdoings and related action, and the response by the related law enforcement agencies.

The case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. began in 2010, when female financial analysts (FAs) filed charges in in several states and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that the Bank of America (BoA) used discriminatory pay practices against them in violation of state laws and the U.S. Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (DiMarco, 2014; Calibuso, 2012). These laws forbid inequalities in pay (Schrimsher & Fretwell, 2012) and discriminating employment practices based on gender and other protected classes (42 U.S.C.A in Webber, 2015). The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs (DiMarco, 2014). However, legal and scholarly advice suggests that these kinds of cases can be avoided through organizational efforts in training in diversity (Bendick, Egan & Lofhjelm, 2001) and legal understanding along with professional validation of practices, and managerial accountability (Arthur & Doverspike in Malos, 2015). This writer agrees; the case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al, which involved discriminatory practices related to compensation and other employment-related acts may have been avoided by observing the advice aimed at organizational efforts in anti-discrimination in the workplace.

Gov. Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb had rather lackluster performances during the debate. Webb’s stand-out moments were his complaints of not being given enough time to answer, to which Cooper responded, “You agreed to these debate rules.” Gov. Chafee also faltered when Cooper asked about his 1999 vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, which Cooper explained to voters as the “Depression-era banking law repealed in 1999 that prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking and insurance activities.” Chafee said, “The Glass-Steagall was my very

Financial historians have disputed the rational for reforming the banking system in the US as a result of the 1920s banking crisis. Calomiris (2010) argue that there may have been political self-interest incentives as to why the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted. Firstly Steagall had bargaining power as Chairman of the banking committee in the House of Representatives. Second, the Pecora Hearings populist politicians including Henry Steagall advocated in favour of small banks contributing in making large bank disliked amongst the public. And finally deposit insurance was introduced as a temporary system allowing for easy approval in the Congress.

The blood stain clothes that detective Smith detained is considered real evidence. The clothes had been worn by the accused and were covered in blood; perhaps the victim’s blood, is in connection with the investigation (Anderson, Rondinelli, Watkins, 2013, p 26). Case Saturley v. CIBC World Markets Inc., 2012 had electronic documents as proof against the accused, he was doing unauthorized trading for CIBC clients. The records that were found on the defendant’s laptop was indeed connected to the investigation as was used to convict him.

On May 18, 1998 The United States Department of Justice, along with 20 states and lead

The Dodd- Frank law on whistle-blowing bounty program is an upgrade from the Sarbanes- Oxley. The Sarbanes – Oxley whistle -blower program protected employees from getting retaliated upon by their employers when they report misconduct within the company they are employed. Dodd- Frank law took is a step further, an employee who reports financial misconduct are entitled to receive 10 percent to 30 percent of the fines and settlements if the conviction is upheld and the penalties exceed $1 million dollars (Ferrell, 112, 2013). The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2010 (Ferrell, pg. 110, 2013). The focal mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is to make markets for

Viewing this article through the lens of the platonic framework is significant because it allows one to judge the acts of the Obama administration versus the acts of Wall Street executives in the aftermath of the previous recession. While the executives that are committing the injustice would be the most evil here for not only committing the unjust acts but for also not seeking their punishment and blaming it on low-level management, the administration is worse than the low-level management for the fact that they are not bringing justice either. This makes clear then why Lynch and Yates are attempting to correct this injustice that’s occurring

Even before FDR had taken his oath of office, the Glass-Steagall bill had been in the works. Representative Henry Steagall had proposed deposit insurance as a means of saving failed banks. This was not a new idea. Several states had initiated deposit insurance schemes in the 1920s, when bank failures were on the rise. During the depression, however, states lacked the capital resources to rescue their own state-chartered banks, to say nothing of the many smaller banks. Steagall realized that opposition to a federally insured deposit system would come from the large banks, which would resent parting with revenue for the sake of their weaker competitors. By the spring of 1933, however, even the major banks were willing to support this idea, rather

In 1999 the United States Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act which finished off the repealing process of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (Moffett, Stonehill, & Eiteman, 2012, p. 114). The Glass-Steagall Act had imposed barriers within the United States financial sector, where commercial banking entities were separate from investment banks. This meant that commercial banks were able to operate in higher risk activities that were traditionally reserved for the investment institutes. Commercial banks were now able to directly offer their customers a wider array of loans, including creative mortgage arrangements.

Rule based accounting standards are difference from principle based standards in that rule based standards are just that – rules. For instance, the Internal Revenue code is rule based. There are things you can do and things you can’t. When rules are broken,

The illegal construction of the Bernie Madoff securities pyramid scheme grew to preposterous proportions from legal, auditing, and regulatory weaknesses of the Securities Exchange Commission, the designated regulatory body of the U.S. financial markets. The required expertise, authority, and relevant penalties needed to deter management from committing ethical breaches lacked substance in the case study of BMIS (Crews 11). Even after the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals that occurred in the early 2000s, the SEC unexplainably revoked provisions created to help avoid fraud. The provision the SEC revoked specifically mandated firms structured like Madoff’s to be audited by accounting firms registered and audited by the Board. By revoking the provision, BMIS was allowed to continue its Ponzi scheme for another half a decade with the aid of utilizing an unregistered, small accounting firm called Freihling & Horowitz (“Madoff’s Jenga”