--ARCHIVE_PAGE_LINK--
 
 
 
 
 
AUGUST 7, 2019
 
 
 
NAMWOLF Annual Meeting
 
 
Quick Links
 
 
 
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Ballard Spahr LLP

Polsinelli PC


Vedder Price

Proskauer Rose LLP

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP



 
Farrone Advisors
National Law Review Law firm publishing
 
 
Financial Institutions Legal News
In house attorneys looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve legal news created the National Law Review on-line edition.

Around the clock, the National Law Review's editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists.

There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly.
 
 
 
 
On June 5, 2019, the Section 25401 of the Corporations Code is California's securities fraud statute.  Readers of this space will know that that scienter was not required under the former version of the statute but that the legislature rewrote Section 25401 to conform to federal Rule 10b-5 which does require scienter.  At the time, I pointed out that the legislature had likely made it tougher for plaintiffs to plead and prove securities claims.  See California Creates Complete Chaos By Rewriting Anti-Fraud Statute, But “We Are Against Fraud Aren’t We?”.  Then in 2015, the legislature returned to the former language of Section 25401 (effective January 1, 2016).  In a recent appeal, a criminal defendant argued that this legislative seesaw evidenced an attempt to write requirements of reliance and causation into Section 25401.  More on California Securities Fraud Here >
 
 
 
GT  Law Firm LogoIn connection with the U.S. financial crisis 10 years ago, legislation was adopted to enhance the safety and soundness of the commercial banking system in the United States. Amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 required five federal financial agencies1 to adopt joint regulations to (i) limit the authority of commercial banking institutions to place capital at risk in certain areas involving investment banking, and (ii) forbid banks to permit the name of the bank or certain affiliates of the bank to be used in connection with the operations of private funds. That provision, placed in Section 13 of the 1956 Act, is generally referred to as the “Volcker Rule.”  More on Volcker Rule  here >
 
 
 
The Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA) recently published the third edition of the ILPA Principles (Principles 3.0). ILPA originally published the principles in 2009 to encourage discussion between general partners (GPs) and limited partners (LPs) regarding alignment of interests in private equity funds, releasing a second edition in 2011 to incorporate feedback from both GPs and LPs at that time. Principles 3.0 incorporates further feedback from a range of stakeholders across the private equity industry addressing new and emerging issues as well as expanding, clarifying and providing detailed guidance on topics covered in previous editions. More on ILPA Principles 3.0 Here >
 
 
 
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision that revives claims by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that Monex Deposit Company and two affiliates (Monex) violated the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by engaging in an alleged scheme to defraud investors in precious medals.  CFTC v. Monex, No. 18-55815 (9th Cir. 2019).  While the opinion is expressly limited to leveraged retail commodity transactions, the CFTC is likely to interpret the opinion broadly to apply to all CFTC-regulated markets. Most relevant to parties trading (non-leveraged) commodities in interstate commerce, the three-judge panel relied upon the plain language of CEA §6(c)(1) to interpret the CFTC’s anti-manipulation authority to not be limited to allegations of market manipulation but also to reach allegations of stand-alone fraud (i.e., fraud in the absence of market manipulation), at least in the context of the sale of leveraged commodities.     More on Ninth Circuit and CFTC on Anti-Manipulation Authority Here >
 
 
 
 
Please let other interested professionals know about this valuable and free resource!

If you know someone interested in publishing with the National Law Review, kindly contact us at:
   
The National Law Review
National Law Forum, LLC
Jennifer Schaller, Esq.
 
 
NLR Legal Newsletters
 
 
 
NLR Publication Areas:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​​​​
 
 
 
The National Law Review
 708-357-3317 | jschaller@natlawreview.com | www.natlawreview.com
4700 Gilbert Avenue Suite #47 #230
Western Springs, IL 60558