ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Our Attorneys

SEC Whistleblower Lawyer Blog

Our Attorneys Include a Former SEC Prosecutor and Wall Street Defense Counsel

by

Some investors are increasingly opting to put their money in Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) rather than Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). But some of the very same reasons why SPACs are comparatively more attractive may also be reasons why SPAC investors are more vulnerable to losses—and even outright fraud. Let's explore a few of these differences to see why that's the case. Less Regulation SPACs are faster and cheaper to execute than IPOs because they are less regulated than IPOs. But that also means that SPAC sponsors have fewer requirements to disclose conflicts of interest. They aren't required to warn investors about the risks of their investment, such as those that come from dilution—when other investors come into to reduce the value of their stake Faster Timelines IPOs can take 12-18 months. By contrast, SPACs may take only 4-6 months from creation to its acquisition of a target company. The shorter timeframe means independent analysts have less time to evaluate a SPAC's claims. Unscrupulous SPAC sponsors can take advantage of that by distributing exaggerated forward-looking statements and hiding other issues of concern.Some investors are increasingly opting to put their money in Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) rather than Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). But some of the very same reasons why SPACs are comparatively more attractive may also be reasons why SPAC investors are more vulnerable to losses—and even outright fraud. Let’s explore a few of these differences to see why that’s the case. Continue reading

by

While Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) SPACs—shell companies created for the sole purpose of funding the future acquisition of another company—have existed since the 1990s, interest (and investing) in them took off during the pandemic. But the rise of SPAC popularity means that hedge funds and others have been entering the SPAC market, while a number of SPACs are under investigation. That has led the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to propose new rules relating to SPACs. The proposed rules set out requirements that SPACs would need to comply with to avoid registering as an investment company covered by the Investment Company Act. For example, a non-registered SPAC could only have cash and specified securities as assets. Also, once the SPAC had acquired a target company, the SPAC would need to switch to operating the target's business rather than continue as an investment entity.   Many of the proposed rules relate to disclosure requirements. If adopted, the SPACs will need to provide more information relating to SPAC sponsors, conflicts of interest, and dilution. They'd also need to provide disclosures relating to "de-SPAC transactions," i.e., the SPAC merger with an acquired company and these transactions' fairness to their investors. Most SPACs would also no longer be protected from liability when making forward-looking statements, such as projections, in filings.While Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) SPACs—shell companies created for the sole purpose of funding the future acquisition of another company—have existed since the 1990s, interest (and investing) in them took off during the pandemic. But the rise of SPAC popularity means that hedge funds and others have been entering the SPAC market, while a number of SPACs are under investigation. That has led the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to propose new rules relating to SPACs. Continue reading

by

Leaders of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently released its 2022 priorities for its Department of Examinations (EXAMS)—the office charged with monitoring risks and protecting investors. The SEC has made a point of saying the list is just a guideline. EXAMS will still pursue other investigations not on the list. But for those who are considering becoming a whistleblower, it can help strategize your reporting. EXAMS' priorities include: Private fund management— including calculation of fees, risk management, and portfolio strategies, with an emphasis on private funds investing in Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) where the fund adviser is also the SPAC sponsor Violations of fiduciary duties—such as broker-dealer and SEC-registered investment advisers (RIAs) failure to protect retail investors, through conflicts of interest, insufficient or inaccurate disclosures, account conversions, and rollovers Crypto and emerging technologies—including failure to meet the standards of conduct when offering, selling, and trading crypto-assets, and RIAs and broker-dealers' use of automated digital investment advice (a.k.a. "robo-advisers") to boost salesLeaders of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently released its 2022 priorities for its Department of Examinations (EXAMS)—the office charged with monitoring risks and protecting investors. The SEC has made a point of saying the list is just a guideline. EXAMS will still pursue other investigations not on the list. But for those who are considering becoming a whistleblower, it can help strategize your reporting. Continue reading

by

Most employees aren’t surprised when they’re asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as a condition of employment. It’s one way to warn and penalize employees about telling company secrets. But when the NDA prohibits an employee from becoming a whistleblower, the SEC steps in. From 2015 through 2019, Brinks hired between 2,000 and 3,000 new employees annually. The company required new employees to sign an NDA that prevented them from disclosing any financial or business information to third parties without written permission from the company. This included governmental agencies. The highly restrictive wording failed to give an exemption for an employee who wanted to become an SEC whistleblower and disclose wrongdoing. Employees who did violate the agreement—for any reason—were subject to $75,000 in liquidated damages, along with Brinks’ legal fees.Most employees aren’t surprised when they’re asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as a condition of employment. It’s one way to warn and penalize employees about telling company secrets. But when the NDA prohibits an employee from becoming a whistleblower, the SEC steps in. Continue reading

by

In a previous post, we began to address some general ways in which a financial advisor can overcharge investment clients. But it's worth a bit more focus on one specific type of investment: margin accounts. Some advisors contractually steer customers into margin accounts as the default investment. But margin accounts are inherently riskier investments, and investors with these accounts are more vulnerable to being overcharged by their advisors. The Basics of Margin Accounts As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) explains, in a margin account, clients pay part of the price for stock while a broker loans you the rest of the money to purchase securities. If the stock goes up, then clients can make a large return, but if the stock drops, they can lose a larger percentage of their investment than if they'd paid cash—even losing their entire investment. On top of that loss, they have to pay the relevant fees and the interest on the margin loan—even though the clients have lost all of the money the advisor has loaned them.In a previous post, we began to address some general ways in which a financial advisor can overcharge investment clients. But it’s worth a bit more focus on one specific type of investment: margin accounts. Some advisors contractually steer customers into margin accounts as the default investment. But margin accounts are inherently riskier investments, and investors with these accounts are more vulnerable to being overcharged by their advisors. Continue reading

by

As volatile as the market is these days, clients still should not lose sight of the value of their investment advisor. And understanding their value proposition goes beyond if an advisor gives them sound financial recommendations. It also means that advisors should be charging clients fair rates for their services. Unfortunately, for too many advisors, that just isn't the case. They may overcharge clients through fee manipulation, lack of disclosure or excessive trading. So let's discuss some red flags that may indicate if your firm is overcharging clients. Overcharging Or Undisclosed Fees In a "Risk Alert" published by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the SEC warned that some advisers were overbilling fees. Some did so included switching the metrics for valuing the assets in a client's account to a different method than was in the client's advisory agreement. For example, under the agreement, the advisor should charge based on a client's average daily balance, but, instead, they charge fees based on the market value of the assets at the end of the billing cycle.As volatile as the market is these days, clients still should not lose sight of the value of their investment advisor. And understanding their value proposition goes beyond if an advisor gives them sound financial recommendations. It also means that advisors should be charging clients fair rates for their services. Continue reading

by

Compared to the decades of experience investors have with the S&P and NASDAQ, everyone's a comparative rookie when it comes to cryptocurrency. And crypto's appeal often comes from the idea that crypto exists outside of traditional banking. However, overlooked in that idea is the reality that—not unlike traditional banking and other investment platforms—many crypto services charge users expensive fees for these crypto transactions. And these fees can get very steep, very quickly. All that's true, assuming that those platforms and third-party vendors are properly disclosing and administering those fees. But that's not always the case: In 2020, Robinhood paid $65 million in fines to settle claims that it failed to disclose commission fees and failed to get the best possible terms for when executing customers' orders. Elements that can influence crypto fees, markups or commissions.Compared to the decades of experience investors have with the S&P and NASDAQ, everyone’s a comparative rookie when it comes to cryptocurrency. And crypto’s appeal often comes from the idea that crypto exists outside of traditional banking. However, overlooked in that idea is the reality that—not unlike traditional banking and other investment platforms—many cryptocurrency services charge users expensive fees for these crypto transactions. And these fees can get very steep, very quickly. Continue reading

by

In January of this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a "Risk Alert" warning potential investors about four areas of concern—ways in which investment advisers are defrauding their clients. Let's briefly discuss each of these in turn, to see what concerning practices you should be on the lookout for. Hedge Fund Failure to Act Consistently with Disclosures The SEC is finding that some advisors are failing to take actions consistent with the material disclosures they have made to clients or investors, such as: disclosing one investment strategy but then using another; failing to follow the required practices in limited partnership agreements (e.g., fail to identify conflicts of interest); or charging them a fee based on the original cost basis of an investment when they've sold, written off, or otherwise disposed of a portion of that investment.In January of this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a “Risk Alert” warning potential investors about four areas of concern—ways in which investment advisers are defrauding their clients. Let’s briefly discuss each of these in turn, to see what concerning practices you should be on the lookout for. Continue reading

by

In the past few years, industry-watchers have seen a rise in lawsuits filed against pension funds: Clients have been suing pension fund providers for charging excessive fees—even higher fees than they charge other clients for similar investment products—and other wrongdoing. And now, following a unanimous decision issued by the Supreme Court in January 2022, even more clients may begin bringing lawsuits against providers—since the Court's ruling clarifies pension fund providers' duties to their customers holding that pension funds owe significant responsibilities to its investors. Hughes v. Northwestern University In Hughes v. Northwestern University, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant Northwestern failed to meet the fiduciary duties required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because it offered excessively expensive investment options and charged extreme recordkeeping fees. The Court of Appeals had held that, because the clients could ultimately pick a plan from a range of plans offered, Northwestern had fulfilled its responsibilities to them. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Instead, the Court held that Northwestern's fiduciary duties required that it regularly analyze the value of the plans it offered. If the provider found plans that were less beneficial to their clients, the answer was not just to include more plans, but also to stop offering the less valuable plans. Accordingly, the fact that customers could exercise judgment in their plan selection did not alleviate Northwestern of its responsibility to make its own judgment calls.In the past few years, industry-watchers have seen a rise in lawsuits filed against pension funds: Clients have been suing pension fund providers for charging excessive fees—even higher fees than they charge other clients for similar investment products—and other wrongdoing. And now, following a unanimous decision issued by the Supreme Court in January 2022, even more clients may begin bringing lawsuits against providers—since the Court’s ruling clarifies pension fund providers’ duties to their customers holding that pension funds owe significant responsibilities to its investors. Continue reading

by

Before sitting down for her now-famous 60 Minutes interview, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen had filed eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In these, she alleged that Facebook was misleading investors in how the company doesn’t act against hate crime, how it facilitates the spread of disinformation, how it harms young girls’ psychological wellbeing, and much more. Within days of Haugen’s interview, Haugen was testifying on Capitol Hill, members of Congress began debating new legislation to regulate Facebook, and Facebook stock prices dropped 15% from the previous month.  It’s hard to imagine that any whistleblower who isn’t thinking about Facebook and Haugen, particularly if the allegations would have a large impact on the company or the industry. But there are more practical considerations, in addition to headlines, that could impact a whistleblowing case. Let’s consider a few of these. The larger the case, the longer it will probably take Haugen isn’t the first to have made complaints about Facebook’s conduct. What made the difference, from the public reaction to the SEC’s investigation, was the sheer volume of material that she had accumulated. The larger the case, the more facts there will be to gather, so it will probably take longer to investigate and litigate. That’s true from your perspective: You may want to take more time to gather evidence before bringing in the information to the SEC. And a bigger case means you will have a longer wait before the case is resolved and you see an award.Before sitting down for her now-famous 60 Minutes interview, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen had filed eight complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In these, she alleged that Facebook was misleading investors in how the company doesn’t act against hate crime, how it facilitates the spread of disinformation, how it harms young girls’ psychological wellbeing, and much more. Continue reading

Badges
Contact Information
Silver Law Group
11780 W Sample Rd
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Phone: 954.755.4799 Toll Free: 800.975.4345
The Law Firm of David R. Chase, P.A.
1700 E Las Olas Blvd
#305
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.920.7779
By Appointment Only
229 W 36th St 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212.377.5227
By Appointment Only
4755 Technology Way #205
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: 561.665.8613
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Silver Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design