Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/infobytes-april-82011-weekly-in-dept-95665/
Timestamp: 2015-05-25 14:02:33
Document Index: 498301917

Matched Legal Cases: ['§7701', '§ 7704', '§7701', '§ 7704', '§7701', '§ 7704']

InfoBytes, April 8,2011 - Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry | BuckleySandler LLP - JDSupra
Federal Reserve Board Proposes Repeal of Regulation Q. On April 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) requested comment on a proposed rule to repeal the Board’s Regulation Q, which prohibits banks from paying interest on demand deposits. The repeal, which is mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, would become effective on July 21, 2011 and would allow financial institutions to begin offering interest-bearing checking accounts. The Board specifically seeks comments regarding the effect of the repeal on bank balance sheets and income, the impact on short term funding markets, the expected demand for interest-bearing checking accounts, and the potential competitive burden on smaller depository institutions. For a copy of the Federal Reserve Board’s press release, see http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20110406a.htm.
D.C. Circuit Dissolves Temporary Administrative Stay and Denies Motion to Stay Implementation of Loan Originator Compensation Rule Pending Appeal. On April 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dissolved its March 31, 2011 administrative stay of the Federal Reserve Board’s Loan Originator Compensation rule. In general, that rule prohibits compensation of a mortgage loan originator based on any loan terms other than amount, and payment of any compensation where the originator is paid by the borrower. Please see full article below for more information
Download PDF BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com April 8, 2011 TOPICS IN THIS ISSUE  Federal Issues  Courts  Firm News  Miscellany  Banking  Litigation  E-Financial Services  Criminal Enforcement Action Federal Issues Federal Reserve Board Proposes Repeal of Regulation Q. On April 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) requested comment on a proposed rule to repeal the Board’s Regulation Q, which prohibits banks from paying interest on demand deposits. The repeal, which is mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, would become effective on July 21, 2011 and would allow financial institutions to begin offering interest-bearing checking accounts. The Board specifically seeks comments regarding the effect of the repeal on bank balance sheets and income, the impact on short term funding markets, the expected demand for interest-bearing checking accounts, and the potential competitive burden on smaller depository institutions. For a copy of the Federal Reserve Board’s press release, see http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20110406a.htm. Courts D.C. Circuit Dissolves Temporary Administrative Stay and Denies Motion to Stay Implementation of Loan Originator Compensation Rule Pending Appeal. On April 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dissolved its March 31, 2011 administrative stay of the Federal Reserve Board’s Loan Originator Compensation rule. In general, that rule prohibits compensation of a mortgage loan originator based on any loan terms other than amount, and payment of any compensation where the originator is paid by the borrower. The court issued the administrative stay in order to consider the merits of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers’ (NAMB’s) challenge to the portion of the rule prohibiting mortgage brokers from paying loan officers a commission on specified loan transactions (as reported in InfoBytes, April 1, 2010). The court also denied NAMB’s emergency motions for expedited relief and to stay implementation of the rule pending appeal, because NAMB had "not satisfied the stringent standards required for a stay pending appeal." As a result, the Loan Originator Compensation rule is now in effect.Click here for a copy of the Court of Appeal’s April 5 order. BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com U.S. District Court Withholds Definitive Ruling on Durbin Amendment to Dodd-Frank Act. On April 4, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota postponed a definitive ruling on a challenge to proposed rules under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The plaintiff bank had sought a preliminary injunction against the implementation of a proposed rule promulgated under the amendment by the Federal Reserve Board (the Board) that would have capped the amount of debit card interchange fees. The court denied this request. It also denied the Board’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and took the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s motion to dismiss, filed as a proper party defendant, under advisement. The court also indicated it would hold a further hearing immediately following the Board’s issuance of its final ruling on debit card interchange. The Dodd-Frank Act had required the Board to issue a final rule by April 21 that would become effective by July 21; however, the Board has since indicated that it will be unable to meet the April 21 deadline because it has received more than 11,000 comments about the proposed rule that is at the heart of the South Dakota lawsuit. For a copy of the court’s transcript postponing a definitive ruling, please see http://bit.ly/nNnJx1; for a copy of the Board’s announcement indicating a delay in issuing a final rule, please click here. U.S. District Court Allows Email Service Of Foreign Resident. On April 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted plaintiff’s motion for alternative service and entered an order allowing plaintiff to serve his complaint and summons by email upon the defendant, a resident of South Korea who plaintiff had previously been unable to locate and serve. Bullex v. Yoo, No. 10-668 (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2011). In Bullex, the plaintiff has alleged violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and sought transfer of the domain name bullex.com, which was registered to the defendant. Despite diligent efforts, the plaintiff had been unable to serve the defendant. The court explained that alternative service outside of the United States is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and comports with constitutional notions of due process if such service is directed by the court, and not prohibited by international agreement. Given the facts of this case, which included a reasonable showing that the defendant had an accurate email address in light of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) requirement that individual registrants maintain an up-to-date and accurate email address an accurate email address with ICANN, the court found that alternative service by email provided "the best opportunity" to make sure that the defendant was apprised of the action and afford him an opportunity to object. Click here for a copy of the opinion. Federal District Court Finds CAN-SPAM Act Applies to Misleading Commercial Information on Facebook. On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California determined that the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §7701, applies not only to traditional e-mail, but to all communications sent to unique electronic destinations. Facebook, Inc. v. MaxBounty, Inc., No. CV-10-4712-JF (N.D. Cal, Mar. 28, 2011) In this matter, Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. (Facebook), among other things, has alleged that defendant MaxBounty, Inc. (MaxBounty) violated the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and state law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, by creating fake Facebook pages that were intended to re-direct unsuspecting users to third-party commercial sites. MaxBounty moved for dismissal of all Facebook’s claims as insufficient as a matter of law, and with the exception of Facebook’s state law claim (which the court dismissed), the court denied MaxBounty’s motion. With respect to Facebook’s CAN-SPAM Act claim, MaxBounty asserted BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com that its advertisements were not e-mails and did not come within the meaning of electronic mail messages under the CAN-SPAM Act. The court, in rejecting this argument, stated that the Act should be interpreted expansively and in accordance with its broad legislative purpose of making it unlawful to initiate the transmission of commercial electronic mail messages with "header information that is materially false or materially misleading." 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(1). The court further held that MaxBounty’s communications were "electronic messages" under the Act, and noted that its holding "is consistent with the intent of Congress to mitigate the number of misleading commercial communications that overburden infrastructure of the internet." In allowing Facebook to proceed with its claim under the CFAA, the court rejected MaxBounty arguments that Facebook had failed to plead with particularity the alleged fraudulent conduct, noting that the CFAA requires only a showing of unlawful access without a need to plead the elements of common law fraud. Click here for a copy of the opinion. Firm News BuckleySandler LLP will host its West Coast Mortgage Lending and Servicing Today Conference on Monday, April 11 at the Balboa Bay Club and Resort in Newport Beach, CA. The conference will focus on compliance, regulatory, and litigation issues in today’s changing mortgage lending and servicing environment. For more information, please visit http://fairlendingtoday.com/. To register for the conference, please email Anne McKenzie at amckenzie@buckleysandler.com. Join Us! 2011 Fair Lending Today Conference on Compliance, Regulatory & Litigation Issues in Today’s Changing Enforcement Environment, hosted by BuckleySandler LLP. 2011 Panel Topics Include:  Fair and Responsible Lending Enforcement and Litigation Overview  Fair Mortgage Servicing: The Foreclosure Affidavit Crisis and More Challenges for Servicers  The New Wave of SCRA Enforcement  Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Implementation, Preemption, State Regulation, and UDAP  The New Enforcement Environment and Financial Services Regulation  Privacy, Data Security, and Data Breach Litigation Nationally and Internationally  Community Reinvestment Act: A Revitalized Statute?  Key Trends in Fair Lending Risk Management Programs  Fair Lending Issues Impact on Bank Merger & Acquisition Activity When: Monday, May 2 Where: The Fairmont Hotel in Washington, DC Register or Learn More: Visit http://fairlendingtoday.com or email fairlending@buckleysandler.com. BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com James Parkinson will speak on a panel session entitled "Compliance & Ethics Programs -Refreshed in Light of the UK’s Bribery Act of 2010 and the Dodd-Frank Act," at the ABA Business Law Section meeting in Boston on April 16. Donna Wilson will be presenting at a CLE webinar on "FCRA and FACTA Class Actions: Leveraging New Developments in Certification, Damages and Preemption" on Tuesday, April 26 at 1pm EDT/10am PDT. This seminar will discuss recent developments in FCRA and FACTA class action litigation, particularly the issue of proportionality of damages at the class certification stage and state law preemption, and litigation strategies for plaintiffs and defendants bringing or defending these claims. The webinar is sponsored by the legal publishing group of Strafford Publications. James Parkinson will participate on a panel entitled "The Role of the Lawyer in Preventing Corruption," at the International Bar Association’s Bar Leaders Conference in Miami, on May 4. Warren Traiger will be speaking about potential changes to the CRA regulations and the current regulatory environment during a webinar hosted by the CRA Qualified Investment Fund, on Thursday, May 19 at 2pm. Donna Wilson will be presenting at a CLE webinar on "Emerging Class Action Threat: Consumer Personal Identification Data Strategies to Minimize Litigation Risks and Maximize Insurance Coverage" on Tuesday, May 24. This seminar will analyze the Song-Beverly Act and its impact of ruling on class action litigation under other state privacy statutes. The Webinar is sponsored by the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications. James Parkinson will be speaking at the ACI’s "FCPA Compliance in Emerging Markets" program in Washington, D.C., on June 15 -16. Andrew Sandler will be speaking at CBA Live 2011 and presenting an Annual Fair Lending Report on Tuesday, June 14 at 3:30 pm in Orlando, Florida. Mr. Sandler will be giving an overview of current regulatory and enforcement developments and discussing the most significant fair lending risks confronting consumer lenders in the next twelve months. Andrew Sandler will be participating on a panel at the Florida Bar Annual Convention on Friday, June 24 as part of the "Presidential Showcase". On the panel with Mr. Sandler is Paul Bland, Public Justice. The Moderator is Justice R. Fred Lewis, a Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, a former Chief Justice and founder of Justice Teaching. Miscellany U.K. Ministry of Justice Publishes Guidance on "Adequate Procedures" Defense Under U.K. Bribery Act. On March 30, the U.K. Ministry of Justice published long-awaited Guidance on the implementation of Section 7 of the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010, which made it a criminal offense for a company to fail to prevent persons associated with the company from paying bribes on the company’s behalf, but provided a full defense if the company had "adequate procedures" to prevent BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com such bribery. The Guidance states that whether or not a company had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery is a fact-specific inquiry for a court, but that procedures put in place by companies should be informed by six principles. Under these principles a company should: (i) establish procedures proportionate to the bribery risk faced by the company and the company’s nature, scale, and complexity, (ii) ensure top-level management is committed to preventing bribery, (iii) periodically assess the nature and extent of exposure to bribery risks, (iv) apply due diligence procedures to individuals who perform services on behalf of the company, (v) ensure that anti-bribery policies are understood throughout the company, including through training, and (vi) monitor and review anti-bribery procedures and make improvements where necessary. The Guidance clarified that departures from the principles suggested in the Guidance will not create a presumption of a lack of adequate procedures. The Bribery Act will go into effect on July 1, 2011. For a copy of the Guidance, please see http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/bribery.htm. Mortgage CEO Pleads Guilty to $1.5 Billion Fraud Scheme. On April 1, Paul Allen, the former CEO of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation (TBW), pled guilty to conspiring to commit bank and wire fraud and making false statements. Among other things, Allen admitted that he and other co-conspirators defrauded financial institutions that had invested in Ocala Funding, a subsidiary of TBW that sold asset-backed commercial paper and used the funds to purchase TBW mortgages. Ocala Funding had inadequate assets backing its commercial paper, and in an effort to mask the deficiency, Allen instructed a co-conspirator to produce reports, which concealed this issue, that he knew were sent to investors and other third parties. Five other co-conspirators have already pled guilty. For a copy of the DOJ press release, please see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-crm-418.html. Banking Federal Reserve Board Proposes Repeal of Regulation Q. On April 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) requested comment on a proposed rule to repeal the Board’s Regulation Q, which prohibits banks from paying interest on demand deposits. The repeal, which is mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, would become effective on July 21, 2011 and would allow financial institutions to begin offering interest-bearing checking accounts. The Board specifically seeks comments regarding the effect of the repeal on bank balance sheets and income, the impact on short term funding markets, the expected demand for interest-bearing checking accounts, and the potential competitive burden on smaller depository institutions. For a copy of the Federal Reserve Board’s press release, see http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20110406a.htm. Litigation D.C. Circuit Dissolves Temporary Administrative Stay and Denies Motion to Stay Implementation of Loan Originator Compensation Rule Pending Appeal. On April 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dissolved its March 31, 2011 administrative stay of the Federal Reserve Board’s Loan Originator Compensation rule. In general, that rule prohibits compensation of a mortgage loan originator based on any loan terms other than amount, and BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com payment of any compensation where the originator is paid by the borrower. The court issued the administrative stay in order to consider the merits of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers’ (NAMB’s) challenge to the portion of the rule prohibiting mortgage brokers from paying loan officers a commission on specified loan transactions (as reported in InfoBytes, April 1, 2010). The court also denied NAMB’s emergency motions for expedited relief and to stay implementation of the rule pending appeal, because NAMB had "not satisfied the stringent standards required for a stay pending appeal." As a result, the Loan Originator Compensation rule is now in effect. For a copy of the Court of Appeal’s April 5 order, please see http://bit.ly/qHOdbn. U.S. District Court Withholds Definitive Ruling on Durbin Amendment to Dodd-Frank Act. On April 4, the U.S. District Court for South Dakota postponed a definitive ruling on a challenge to proposed rules under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The plaintiff bank had sought a preliminary injunction against the implementation of a proposed rule promulgated under the amendment by the Federal Reserve Board (the Board) that would have capped the amount of debit card interchange fees. The court denied this request. It also denied the Board’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and took the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s motion to dismiss, filed as a proper party defendant, under advisement. The court also indicated it would hold a further hearing immediately following the Board’s issuance of its final ruling on debit card interchange. The Dodd-Frank Act had required the Board to issue a final rule by April 21 that would become effective by July 21; however, the Board has since indicated that it will be unable to meet the April 21 deadline because it has received more than 11,000 comments about the proposed rule that is at the heart of the South Dakota lawsuit. For a copy of the court’s transcript postponing a definitive ruling, please see http://bit.ly/nNnJx1; for a copy of the Board’s announcement indicating a delay in issuing a final rule, please click here. U.S. District Court Allows Email Service Of Foreign Resident. On April 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted plaintiff’s motion for alternative service and entered an order allowing plaintiff to serve his complaint and summons by email upon the defendant, a resident of South Korea who plaintiff had previously been unable to locate and serve. Bullex v. Yoo, No. 10-668 (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2011). In Bullex, the plaintiff has alleged violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and sought transfer of the domain name bullex.com, which was registered to the defendant. Despite diligent efforts, the plaintiff had been unable to serve the defendant. The court explained that alternative service outside of the United States is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and comports with constitutional notions of due process if such service is directed by the court, and not prohibited by international agreement. Given the facts of this case, which included a reasonable showing that the defendant had an accurate email address in light of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) requirement that individual registrants maintain an up-to-date and accurate email address an accurate email address with ICANN, the court found that alternative service by email provided "the best opportunity" to make sure that the defendant was apprised of the action and afford him an opportunity to object. Click here for a copy of the opinion. BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com Federal District Court Finds CAN-SPAM Act Applies to Misleading Commercial Information on Facebook. On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California determined that the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §7701, applies not only to traditional e-mail, but to all communications sent to unique electronic destinations. Facebook, Inc. v. MaxBounty, Inc., No. CV-10-4712-JF (N.D. Cal, Mar. 28, 2011) In this matter, Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. (Facebook), among other things, has alleged that defendant MaxBounty, Inc. (MaxBounty) violated the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and state law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, by creating fake Facebook pages that were intended to re-direct unsuspecting users to third-party commercial sites. MaxBounty moved for dismissal of all Facebook’s claims as insufficient as a matter of law, and with the exception of Facebook’s state law claim (which the court dismissed), the court denied MaxBounty’s motion. With respect to Facebook’s CAN-SPAM Act claim, MaxBounty asserted that its advertisements were not e-mails and did not come within the meaning of electronic mail messages under the CAN-SPAM Act. The court, in rejecting this argument, stated that the Act should be interpreted expansively and in accordance with its broad legislative purpose of making it unlawful to initiate the transmission of commercial electronic mail messages with "header information that is materially false or materially misleading." 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(1). The court further held that MaxBounty’s communications were "electronic messages" under the Act, and noted that its holding "is consistent with the intent of Congress to mitigate the number of misleading commercial communications that overburden infrastructure of the internet." In allowing Facebook to proceed with its claim under the CFAA, the court rejected MaxBounty arguments that Facebook had failed to plead with particularity the alleged fraudulent conduct, noting that the CFAA requires only a showing of unlawful access without a need to plead the elements of common law fraud. Click here for a copy of the opinion. E-Financial Services U.S. District Court Allows Email Service Of Foreign Resident. On April 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted plaintiff’s motion for alternative service and entered an order allowing plaintiff to serve his complaint and summons by email upon the defendant, a resident of South Korea who plaintiff had previously been unable to locate and serve. Bullex v. Yoo, No. 10-668 (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2011). In Bullex, the plaintiff has alleged violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and sought transfer of the domain name bullex.com, which was registered to the defendant. Despite diligent efforts, the plaintiff had been unable to serve the defendant. The court explained that alternative service outside of the United States is permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and comports with constitutional notions of due process if such service is directed by the court, and not prohibited by international agreement. Given the facts of this case, which included a reasonable showing that the defendant had an accurate email address in light of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) requirement that individual registrants maintain an up-to-date and accurate email address an accurate email address with ICANN, the court found that alternative service by email provided "the best opportunity" to make sure that the defendant was apprised of the action and afford him an opportunity to object. Click here for a copy of the opinion. BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com Federal District Court Finds CAN-SPAM Act Applies to Misleading Commercial Information on Facebook. On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California determined that the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. §7701, applies not only to traditional e-mail, but to all communications sent to unique electronic destinations. Facebook, Inc. v. MaxBounty, Inc., No. CV-10-4712-JF (N.D. Cal, Mar. 28, 2011) In this matter, Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. (Facebook), among other things, has alleged that defendant MaxBounty, Inc. (MaxBounty) violated the CAN-SPAM Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and state law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, by creating fake Facebook pages that were intended to re-direct unsuspecting users to third-party commercial sites. MaxBounty moved for dismissal of all Facebook’s claims as insufficient as a matter of law, and with the exception of Facebook’s state law claim (which the court dismissed), the court denied MaxBounty’s motion. With respect to Facebook’s CAN-SPAM Act claim, MaxBounty asserted that its advertisements were not e-mails and did not come within the meaning of electronic mail messages under the CAN-SPAM Act. The court, in rejecting this argument, stated that the Act should be interpreted expansively and in accordance with its broad legislative purpose of making it unlawful to initiate the transmission of commercial electronic mail messages with "header information that is materially false or materially misleading." 15 U.S.C. § 7704(a)(1). The court further held that MaxBounty’s communications were "electronic messages" under the Act, and noted that its holding "is consistent with the intent of Congress to mitigate the number of misleading commercial communications that overburden infrastructure of the internet." In allowing Facebook to proceed with its claim under the CFAA, the court rejected MaxBounty arguments that Facebook had failed to plead with particularity the alleged fraudulent conduct, noting that the CFAA requires only a showing of unlawful access without a need to plead the elements of common law fraud. Click here for a copy of the opinion. Criminal Enforcement Action U.K. Ministry of Justice Publishes Guidance on "Adequate Procedures" Defense Under U.K. Bribery Act. On March 30, the U.K. Ministry of Justice published long-awaited Guidance on the implementation of Section 7 of the U.K. Bribery Act of 2010, which made it a criminal offense for a company to fail to prevent persons associated with the company from paying bribes on the company’s behalf, but provided a full defense if the company had "adequate procedures" to prevent such bribery. The Guidance states that whether or not a company had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery is a fact-specific inquiry for a court, but that procedures put in place by companies should be informed by six principles. Under these principles a company should: (i) establish procedures proportionate to the bribery risk faced by the company and the company’s nature, scale, and complexity, (ii) ensure top-level management is committed to preventing bribery, (iii) periodically assess the nature and extent of exposure to bribery risks, (iv) apply due diligence procedures to individuals who perform services on behalf of the company, (v) ensure that anti-bribery policies are understood throughout the company, including through training, and (vi) monitor and review anti-bribery procedures and make improvements where necessary. The Guidance clarified that departures from the principles suggested in the Guidance will not create a presumption of a lack of adequate procedures. The Bribery Act will go into effect on July 1, 2011. For a copy of the Guidance, please see http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/bribery.htm. BuckleySandler LLP www.buckleysandler.com Mortgage CEO Pleads Guilty to $1.5 Billion Fraud Scheme. On April 1, Paul Allen, the former CEO of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation (TBW), pled guilty to conspiring to commit bank and wire fraud and making false statements. Among other things, Allen admitted that he and other co-conspirators defrauded financial institutions that had invested in Ocala Funding, a subsidiary of TBW that sold asset-backed commercial paper and used the funds to purchase TBW mortgages. Ocala Funding had inadequate assets backing its commercial paper, and in an effort to mask the deficiency, Allen instructed a co-conspirator to produce reports, which concealed this issue, that he knew were sent to investors and other third parties. Five other co-conspirators have already pled guilty. For a copy of the DOJ press release, please see http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-crm-418.html. © BuckleySandler LLP. INFOBYTES is not intended as legal advice to any person or firm. It is provided as a client service and information contained herein is drawn from various public sources, including other publications. We welcome reader comments and suggestions regarding issues or items of interest to be covered in future editions of InfoBytes. Email: infobytes@buckleysandler.com For back issues of INFOBYTES (or other BuckleySandler LLP publications), visit http://www.buckleysandler.com/infobytes/infobytes
Download Word[1224KB]
InfoBytes, August 5, 2011 - Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, May 27, 2011 - Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, May 20, 2011 - Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, May 13, 2011 - Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, July 29, 2011 - A Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, July 22, 2011 - A Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, July 15, 2011 - Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, July 1, 2011 - A Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry InfoBytes, June 17, 2011 - A Weekly In-depth review of news & developments in the financial services industry See more