Jump to content

SEC: Statement of Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee on Contingent Settlement Offers


Recommended Posts

It seems that SEC Commissioners Peirce and Roisman have a different opinion from Chair Lee:

Statement of Commissioners Hester M. Peirce and Elad L. Roisman on Contingent Settlement Offers

Quote

We continue to support the policy of considering and accepting contingent settlement offers. Nothing in the policy altered the standards applicable either when the Division of Enforcement assessed the offer to settle the claimed violations or when the Division of Investment Management or Division of Corporation Finance assessed the appropriateness of granting requested waivers. The judgment of the Division of Investment Management and the Division of Corporation Finance remained fully independent of the Division of Enforcement, and the policy has not created structural conflicts or pressures between the settlement and waiver processes undertaken by the different operating divisions. In short, the policy worked well.

Openness to contingent settlement offers acknowledges the reality that an entity’s willingness to reach a prompt settlement on just and fair terms often is influenced by its concerns regarding the potential collateral consequences of entering into the settlement. The decision to disallow contingent settlement offers denies this reality—but it cannot change it. Insisting that an entity that is willing to settle be left in the dark about whether its waiver application will be granted significantly alters the entity’s settlement calculus because it undercuts the certainty and finality that settlement might otherwise provide.

For the reasons stated above, we disagree with Acting Chair Lee’s attempt to rescind that policy by directing the Division of Enforcement to decline to recommend contingent settlement offers to the Commission for consideration. This change marks a return to an unwieldy process that treats as completely separate what is in fact interrelated. It re-introduces an artificial separation between the process by which an entity reaches a resolution on its violations of securities laws and the process by which it obtains clarity with respect to the collateral consequences of those violations. The result will be a longer period between the initiation and resolution of enforcement matters. We do not see how this outcome advances either the Commission’s mission or serves the interests of investors.

My emphasis.

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't understand what Jesse is getting at - he's trolling at this point. The disqualification applies to directors and officers who request a waiver of automatic disqualification as part of the fina

It might be worth remembering that each of Ripple, Chris and Brad must have separate lawyers and be represented individually. That's the only way this could proceed. They can't share the one legal tea

It seems that SEC Commissioners Peirce and Roisman have a different opinion from Chair Lee: Statement of Commissioners Hester M. Peirce and Elad L. Roisman on Contingent Settlement Offers

Ok, I'll shed some light... this is important - everyone in corporate America and every investor, from the little guys up, should be watching this closely:

Look at who's running Enforcement, now - and couple that with a public spat about how and whether it's right to play good-cop/bad-cop like they're contemplating.

P.S. - I don't think this has much - or maybe even anything - to do with Ripple or XRP...

 

ETA:

Take Biden's WH Press Secretary - the "circle back" lady - gets asked a week or so ago about Robinhood/Gamestop hearings that are coming up in FinServ committee in Congress- the ones which involve Citadel - which involves Yellen and who knows - and Psaki smiles at journos and says "we'll take care of it."

Fast forward like a week... and "circle back" to Psaki's "we'll take care of it" statement:

Now, there's a blowup / power struggle / internecine spat over settlements at the SEC.

Can't imagine what that's about... artfully done!  (No wonder we're losing to f'in China!)

:rolleyes:

Edited by NightJanitor
Call me a "dot connector" if you must... but ._.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hay y'all, 

Like many of you this rigmarole regarding the SEC is obviously irritating but think about what has happened in the last few months.

XRP has been delisted on most US exchanges and a lot of US volume has dried up at least from trading and yet the price has stayed above the support.

Regardless of the SEC's decisions It really doesn't concern me personally, XRP is still being used all over the world and even more so with countries like Japan etc. Let there be no doubt that Ripple the company is growing as well as real world adoption of the asset. 

Even if things don't go ripples way the SEC are only shooting themselves in the foot. The US will have a Crypto brain drain, no other blockchain companies will start up or operate in the United States. They will just leave.

Just remember the world is a lot bigger than just the USA. 

Its super simple to me, if it doesn't go there way they can move there HQ to London or Tokyo etc and continue to sell XRP no big deal, sure everything/communication is all over zoom now a days. All it means is that if banks want to exchange XRP in the states they would have to have prefunded XRP wallets and agreements with other foreign banks to still use the system. So perhaps the US banks would still have Nostro/Vostro while the rest of the globe moved on. If everything goes to plan.

Ideal world Example: (US bank wants to buy Sterling but sterling is being settled in XRP between currencies. The US bank would have to go to the money markets direct and purchase the Sterling at a premium hold that currency in a foreign bank)

So in this example instead of countries outside of the states having the net larger balance of USD in there United States accounts the rest of the worlds banks would hold national currency deposits from US banks. Basically the Nostro Vostro system would shift away from deposits sitting in US Dollars and overall monetary value would be spread across the entire globe away from the United States. The US banks would have too many dollars and not enough demand for those dollars.  

It's funny how people think US is the be all, sure if that was the case whats gonna happen to Stellar (XLM) and all the other tokens that were funded through ERC20 tokens? Nothing good. But again personally it all doesn't phase me in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical - if in doubt change the rules - THE MAN is about to show US ALL that he is still in charge or so he thinks, this is typical legalese BS, this is another move by THE MAN to get what THE MAN wants = Ripple's escrowed XRP in the hands of current incumbents and on THE MAN's and his friends terms IMO.

The division at the SEC seems to be at least a glimmer of light, for the near future, reminds me a little of this:-

https://hackaday.com/2018/07/03/philo-farnsworth-rca-and-the-battle-for-television/

Who's pulling who's strings, is the real question, the SEC protecting the little guy HONEST.

Edited by HAL1000
Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical - if in doubt change the rules - THE MAN is about to show US ALL that he is still in charge or so he thinks, this is typical legalese BS, this is another move by THE MAN to get what THE MAN wants = Ripple's escrowed XRP in the hands of current incumbents and on THE MAN's and his friends terms IMO.

The division at the SEC seems to be at least a glimmer of light, for the near future, reminds me a little of this:-

https://hackaday.com/2018/07/03/philo-farnsworth-rca-and-the-battle-for-television/

Who's pulling who's strings, is the real question, the SEC protecting the little guy HONEST.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gepster said:

This Lee policy change is as abrupt as was Clayton's case weird by being filed last minute. Too much intransparent arbitrary action by this state body. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PunishmentOfLuxury said:

It seems that SEC Commissioners Peirce and Roisman have a different opinion from Chair Lee:

Statement of Commissioners Hester M. Peirce and Elad L. Roisman on Contingent Settlement Offers

My emphasis.

Interesting.

This is very very bizarre. For this to happen 24 hours later? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone in the US knows the SEC is a complete mess, that has repeatedly shown incompetence on being a regulating agency.  I am not sure who Allison Herren Lee is taking orders from, but she was nominated as temporary acting chair by Biden until permanent candidate like Gary Gensler is filled.

Who ever Lee is really aligned to and taking orders from, is clearly pissed off at Ripple. She is trying to sneak in a law change as temporary SEC Chair, just to screw over Ripple on this case.  While this is getting rejected internally at the agency she works at.

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.