On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Enforcement 2017: Perspectives from Government Agencies

Released on: May. 18, 2017
Running Time: 06:24:44

We continue to see unprecedented changes in our economic, business and regulatory regimes in general, and in enforcement efforts in particular. This unique program brings together panels of senior staff from the various enforcement and regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, FINRA, New York State Department of Financial Services, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of State, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Moderated by law firm enforcement practitioners, the panels will discuss agency priorities, how the agencies are working together, and offer best practices for working with the government in today’s continually changing enforcement environment.

You will learn: 

  • Hot topic and enforcement priorities for Federal and State regulators and law enforcers
  • Hear what to expect as the new administration shapes the enforcement agenda
  • What are the agencies thinking about, what are they focusing on, how are they working together and how do you need to work with them?
  • Changes in practice, and practical ways to deal with those changes
  • Practical implications of dealing with multi-agency investigations
  • Legal and policy developments in the enforcement space
  • How new rules regarding swaps and derivatives will affect your practice
  • Latest enforcement developments related to financial reporting and disclosure
  • The cybersecurity landscape

Special Features:

  • Perspectives from various government enforcement agencies on each panel
  • Earn one hour of Ethics credit

Credit Offered:

CLE, CPE and CPD

Those who represent, as in-house or outside counsel, businesses and individuals that need to comply with financial regulatory requirements, businesses and individuals that are working hard to avoid regulatory and enforcement scrutiny, and businesses and individuals that, for whatever reason, find themselves under regulatory and enforcement scrutiny, will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 06:24:44]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:04:33]
    Joan E. McKown, Richard D. Owens, Linda Chatman Thomsen
  • Enforcement Priorities [01:21:18]
    Colleen P. Mahoney, Jeffrey Ehrlich, Susan Schroeder, Andrew Weissmann, James McDonald, Andrew M. Calamari
  • Swaps and Derivatives and Market Enforcement: Trends and Lessons from the Past [01:01:37]
    Geoffrey F. Aronow, Reid A. Muoio, Benjamin Singer, Larry R. Parkinson, Vincent A. McGonagle
  • The Cybersecurity Landscape: Working with Law Enforcement [00:58:01]
    Avi Gesser, Jamie Hine, Richard T. Jacobs, Ed Schmidt, Edward Kim
  • Special Concerns for Regulated Entities [00:59:52]
    Steven R. Peikin, Russell G. Ryan, Jason Cowley, Sheldon L. Pollock
  • Legal and Policy Developments in Enforcement [01:00:00]
    Sanket J. Bulsara, J. Gordon Seymour, Christopher B. Harwood, Katherine R. Goldstein, Jason Cowley
  • Ethical Issues that Arise When Working with Government Agencies [00:59:23]
    Dixie L. Johnson, Thomas M. Noone, Jeff Rosenblum

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Colleen P. Mahoney, Charles F. Walker, Erich T. Schwartz, Andrew M. Lawrence, Joshua A. Ellis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates, Trends in SEC Enforcement & Internal Investigations (February 17, 2017)
    Colleen P. Mahoney
  • CFTC Asserts Its Broader Fraud Jurisdiction and Steps into the World of Insider Trading: In the Matter of Arya Motazedi, CFTC Docket No. 16-02 (December 2, 2015), and Its Progeny (Substantive Outline) (February 14, 2017)
    Geoffrey F. Aronow
  • Sidley Austin LLP, Sidley Update, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Issues Final Rules on Cybersecurity System Safeguards (September 22, 2016)
    Geoffrey F. Aronow
  • Sidley Austin LLP, Sidley Update, CFTC Proposes Cross-Border Swap Rule, Revisits 2013 Cross-Border Swap Guidance (November 9, 2016)
    Geoffrey F. Aronow
  • Sidley Austin LLP, Sidley Update, CFTC Adopts Cross-Border Margin Rule for Non-Cleared Swaps (August 4, 2016)
    Geoffrey F. Aronow
  • Sidley Austin LLP, Sidley Update, CFTC Approves Supplemental Proposal for Reg AT (November 22, 2016)
    Geoffrey F. Aronow
  • Federal Trade Commission, Data Breach Response: A Guide for Business (September 2016)
    Avi Gesser
  • Federal Trade Commission, Privacy & Data Security Update: 2016 (January 2016–December 2016)
    Avi Gesser
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Press Release, U.S. Charges Russian FSB Officers and Their Criminal Conspirators for Hacking Yahoo and Millions of Email Accounts (March 15, 2017)
    Avi Gesser
  • FBI, National Cyber Security Awareness Month: Cyber Security is Everyone’s Responsibility (October 3, 2016)
    Avi Gesser
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Litigation Release No. 23711, Chinese Traders Charged with Trading on Hacked Nonpublic Information Stolen from Two New York-Based Law Firms: Marks First Time SEC Charges Hacking into Law Firm Computer Networks (December 27, 2016)
    Avi Gesser
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Release, IT Specialist Settles Charges of Insider Trading on Hacked Nonpublic Information (December 5, 2016)
    Avi Gesser
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Florida Man Sentenced for Hacking, Spamming Scheme that Used Stolen Email Accounts (February 16, 2016)
    Avi Gesser
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Statement, Dissenting Statement Regarding Certain Waivers Granted by the Commission for Certain Entities Pleading Guilty to Criminal Charges Involving Manipulation of Foreign Exchange Rates (May 21, 2015)
    Steven R. Peikin
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Press Release, Deutsche Bank Agrees to Pay $7.2 Billion for Misleading Investors in its Sale of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (January 17, 2017)
    Steven R. Peikin
  • Settlement Agreement, United States Department of Justice vs. Deutsche Bank AG (January 17, 2017)
    Steven R. Peikin
  • Andrew Ceresney, Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Speech, Remarks Before the Directors Forum 2016 Keynote Address (January 25, 2016)
    Steven R. Peikin
  • Andrew Ceresney, Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Speech, The SEC Enforcement Division’s Focus on Auditors and Auditing, Remarks Before the American Law Institute Conference on Accountants’ Liability 2016: Confronting Enforcing and Litigation Risks, Washington, D.C. (September 22, 2016)
    Steven R. Peikin
  • United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, Financial Institutions: Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures for Violations of Financial Crimes and Sanctions Requirements (March 2016)
    Steven R. Peikin
  • Legal and Policy Developments in Enforcement: Discussion Topics (Substantive Outline) (February 2017)
    Mark D. Cahn
  • Selected Ethics Topics (Substantive Outline) (March 15, 2017)
    Dixie L. Johnson
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Ethics Opinion 825, There Is No Ethical Bar to Lawyer Providing Legal Services by Telephone to Client Referred to the Lawyer, and Paid for by, an Employee Assistance Program, nor to Accepting Ancillary Private Retention by Such Clients (July 15, 2008)
    Dixie L. Johnson
  • Virginia State Bar, Legal Ethics Opinion 1765, Whether an Attorney Working for a Federal Intelligence Agency Can Perform Undercover Work Without Violating Rule 8.4 (September 3, 2014)
    Dixie L. Johnson
  • New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 927, Lawyer May Not Ethically Enter into Arrangement with a Non-Lawyer to Accept Referrals for a Fixed Monthly Fee for Each Case Referred Where Case Has Been Obtained by Telephonic Solicitation (August 2, 2012)
    Dixie L. Johnson
  • NYCLA Ethics Opinion 746, Ethical Conflicts Caused by Lawyers as Whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of 2010 (October 7, 2013)
    Dixie L. Johnson
  • New York City Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2001-3: Limiting the Scope of an Attorney’s Representation to Avoid Client Conflicts (July 2001)
    Dixie L. Johnson

Presentation Material


  • Enforcement 2017: Perspectives from Government Agencies
Co-Chair(s)
Joan E. McKown ~ Jones Day
Richard D. Owens ~ Latham & Watkins LLP
Linda Chatman Thomsen ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Speaker(s)
Geoffrey F. Aronow ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Sanket J. Bulsara ~ Acting General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Andrew M. Calamari ~ Regional Director, New York Regional Office, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Jason Cowley ~ Co-Chief, Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY
Jeffrey Ehrlich ~ Deputy Enforcement Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
Avi Gesser ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Katherine R. Goldstein ~ Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
Christopher B. Harwood ~ Co-Chief, Civil Frauds Unit, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York
Jamie Hine ~ Senior Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Richard T. Jacobs ~ Assistant Special Agent in-Charge, Cyber Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Dixie L. Johnson ~ King & Spalding
Edward Kim ~ Assistant U.S. Attorney, Co-Chief, Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY
Colleen P. Mahoney ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
James McDonald ~ Director, Enforcement Division, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Vincent A. McGonagle ~ Principal Deputy Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Reid A. Muoio ~ Assistant Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Thomas M. Noone ~ Counsel, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Larry R. Parkinson ~ Director, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Steven R. Peikin ~ Co-Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Sheldon L. Pollock ~ Assistant Director , U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Jeff Rosenblum ~ Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Russell G. Ryan ~ Senior Vice President and Deputy Chief, FINRA Department of Enforcement
Ed Schmidt ~ Assistant Director, Technology Controls Program, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Susan Schroeder ~ Executive Vice President, Enforcement, FINRA
J. Gordon Seymour ~ General Counsel, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Benjamin Singer ~ Chief, Securities & Financial Fraud Unit, U.S. Department of Justice
Andrew Weissmann ~ Chief, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.