SEC Chief Accountant Lays a Cobblestone on the Road to Hell Paved with Good Intentions (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog) https://www.brokeandbroker.com/7130/crypto-sec-munter/ It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; and in keeping with that thought, the SEC's Chief Accountant has laid another cobblestone: "The Potential Pitfalls of Purported Crypto “Assurance” Work." As a society, we are growing tired of the thoughts and prayers of those in government when confronted by tragedy. There is a time for talk. There is a time for action. In the wake of the FTX collapse, the markets need intelligent rules and effective enforcement. We do not need more threats and warnings from the SEC. The SEC's mandate is not to think out loud but to protect the investing public and regulate the industry.
As Wall Street heated up in the 1980s, some hot shot lawyers took on in-house roles at various clients or "took stock" in a given deal. There are lines. Sometimes they're not crossed. Sometimes they are. When a lawyer goes over to the darkside, the result may be disbarment and a mugshot. Many modern-day lawyers take on in-house roles at clients, or, provide outside-counsel services that seem more "business-related" than legal counsel. A recent SEC lawsuit presents a scenario involving a lawyer who may have donned multiple hats. It's a wonderful read for industry lawyers. It's an instructive read for clients thinking of getting into bed with their counsel.
Ya got yer efforts. Ya got yer best efforts. Ya got closings and final closings and, y'know what, nothing ever closes when it's supposed to and few things in life and business ultimately prove final (except for death and taxes -- well, at least most of the time). Then you got laws, rules, and regulations that seem to say one thing but often mean something else. All of which brings us to a messy litigation in federal court involving the failed purchase of a FINRA broker dealer.
In a recent intra-industry FINRA arbitration, registered representative Claimant Johnson asserted "gender discrimination" among her causes of action -- and that in an industry with a sordid history of gender discrimination against women. Given Johnson's assertion of gender discrimination and the all-male composition of the FINRA Arbitration Panel, it is troubling that more verbiage is expended in the Award on informing us that Respondents are "not liable for gender discrimination" than informing us exactly which causes of action the Respondents were found liable for.