Numbers speak loudly regarding evaluations surrounding the anti-fraud whistleblower program established by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission back in 2011 pursuant to the enactment of the federal Dodd-Frank legislation.
Talk about exhaustive research that can’t easily be called into question. A team of researchers who recently published a paper on FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) arbitration buttressed the validity of their results through research spanning nearly 9,000 decisions rendered by approximately 8,000 arbitrators.
As an investor, how do you resolve a material dispute with your financial adviser and/or securities brokerage? Where do you turn for help if you reasonably suspect that one or more professsionals you justifiably rely upon have defrauded you through illegal behavior?
Regulators from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have a potent weapon in their war against fraud that harms American investors and roils the financial markets.
Imagine that you’re a “typical” securities investor in that you do not have vast resources at your ready disposal to guide your investment decisions. Instead, like most other Americans, you rely upon the advice of a professional broker or adviser to promote your best financial interests.
On April 5, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced that it has awarded $2.2 million to a whistleblower whose initial tip to another federal agency led to an SEC enforcement action. This marks the first instance in which the SEC has awarded a whistleblower for information from a tip that was previously reported to a different federal agency.
Justices from the nation's highest court might reasonably be thought of as austere legal masters whose prose is routinely dense and technical in order to deal with the weighty legal topics the tribunal regularly addresses.
Financial regulators from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission have long insisted that the impressive protections extended whistleblowers under the seminal Dodd-Frank legislation be liberally construed. That is, they are stated to apply to individuals who bring fraud-related charges to both the SEC and via other outlets, such as to company managers, various agencies and members of Congress.
Congress passed the consumer-protective Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010. The law's passage owed partially to a widespread belief that greater safeguards needed to be established for individuals brave enough to step forward and identify violations of U.S. securities laws within their companies.
It is likely that many Connecticut readers of our full-service business and consumer advocacy law firm have heard about class action lawsuits.