So Much "Pausing" -- Crypto, Climate, FCPA...

SEC, Binance Seek 60-Day Pause in Crypto Litigation

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Binance asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Monday evening for a 60-day stay of the litigation over the agency’s allegation that the crypto exchange inflated trading volumes, diverted customer funds and misled investors about its market surveillance controls.

“On January 21, 2025, new SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda launched a crypto task force dedicated to helping the SEC develop a regulatory framework for crypto assets,” both sides wrote in the motion. “The work of this task force may impact and facilitate the potential resolution of this case. Accordingly, the SEC proposed a brief stay to defendants, and the defendants agreed that a stay is appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy.”

SEC Looks to Nix Requirements for Businesses to Disclose Climate Risks

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is looking to pause a legal challenge to a Biden-era rule requiring companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, setting the stage for the agency, now under the Trump administration, to drop a policy criticized by business groups and Republicans alike.

Acting Chairman Mark Uyeda on Tuesday directed agency staff to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit not to schedule oral arguments for a consolidated case over the disclosure rule, which also required businesses to inform shareholders of their climate-related risks.

Uyeda said he held reservations about the rule since it was first adopted in March 2024, including whether the securities regulator could enact what he viewed to be a climate policy.

Trump Halts FCPA Enforcement

What Does It Mean for Compliance Programs?

Well, quite possibly not that much. Hear me out.

First, the Justice Department is voluntarily deciding not to enforce the FCPA — but that doesn’t erase the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act from the books. It’s still a statute that companies are legally required to obey. So sure, a company could take Trump’s executive order as a green light to engage in bribery and dismantle its corporate compliance program; but that company would then be breaking the law and racking up potential future enforcement actions.[…]

Second, I’m hard-pressed to believe many large companies actually want to embrace corruption and bribery, even if their FCPA enforcement risk drops to zero. Contrary to what Trump believes, the ability to bribe foreign government officials does not bring any competitive advantage to U.S. businesses. Those foreign government officials will now hit you up for bribes more often, because they won’t believe you when you say, “Nope, sorry, we can’t do that.” The company paying the bribe is diverting cash from other useful purposes like product development; the competing companies that lose the contract thanks to corruption must now divert their cash to bribery too.

I Beg Your Pardon? Victims of Unjust Agency “Civil” Prosecution Deserve Mercy Too

All of which brings us back to the original question: Can a president pardon someone who was unjustly prosecuted and punished for committing only a civil violation of federal law, and by doing so relieve them of their ongoing misery and impecunity? The answer is surprisingly unclear.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution empowers a president “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the question largely boils down to whether the putatively “civil” violations prosecuted by administrative agencies are “Offences against the United States.”

Goldman Sachs ends IPO diversity policy as Trump cracks down on DEI

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon is scrapping a key DEI policy that banned the bank from doing IPOs for companies with white, all-male boards.

It marks a major U-turn for Goldman amid a White House-led crackdown on what the Trump administration believes to be discriminatory hiring policies in the private sector.

Only last week a company insider told The Post that there were no plans to change the investment bank’s approach to so-called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.

Morgan Stanley loses $843,000 investor claim stemming from ‘gold bar’ scam

An elderly Morgan Stanley client in Florida who fell prey to a so-called “gold bar” scam won $843,000 in damages on Monday from the firm after she claimed it failed to follow industry rules designed to protect senior investors.

Marjorie Kessler, 76, claimed last year that Morgan Stanley violated two industry rules and “long-standing” industry standards designed to protect elderly clients, according to her statement of claim, which alleged she had been defrauded of $1.75 million, not by the firm, but outside fraudsters targeting her wealth.[…]

According to the complaint, the online fraudsters eventually accessed Kessler’s bank account, bought gold bullion bars worth more than $1.6 million, which were delivered by UPS to her Florida condominium.

The scam artists told her to pack the gold bars in boxes and deliver them to a government courier who would meet her outside her condominium security gates and then deposit them in her escrow account in Washington D.C., according to the complaint.