Taylor Swift: Singer, Songwriter, Securities Law Expert

Taylor Swift didn’t sign $100 million FTX sponsorship because she was the only one to ask about unregistered securities, lawyer says

Taylor Swift avoided signing a $100 million sponsorship deal with FTX because she was the only celebrity to question the crypto exchange, according to the lawyer handling a class-action lawsuit against several FTX promoters.

***

The lawyer alleged that celebrities didn’t do their due diligence to check whether FTX was breaking the law. “The one person I found that did that was Taylor Swift,” Moskowitz told The Scoop’s Frank Chaparro, adding that Swift pulled out of the deal and never promoted the now-bankrupt exchange

***

“In our discovery, Taylor Swift actually asked them: ‘Can you tell me that these are not unregistered securities?'” Moskowitz added.

Failure to Poll Jurors in SEC Civil Case Warrants New Trial

A man found to have violated federal securities law in a civil jury trial will get a retrial because the judge refused his request to poll each juror, a federal appeals court ruled.

A party in a civil trial who has been denied the right to poll the individual jurors doesn’t need to show prejudice, but is automatically entitled to a new trial, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled Tuesday in a case of first impression.

Elizabeth Holmes launches appeal of ‘unjust’ conviction in Theranos fraud case

Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing lab Theranos, has filed an appeal of her January 2022 conviction on four counts of fraud in connection with her time as chief executive of the company.

In a 132-page filing Monday, Holmes and her lawyers argue the federal prosecutor’s case against her “parroted the public narrative” that she knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to investors the capabilities of Theranos technology.

***

Should no new trial be ordered, Holmes and her attorneys are also seeking a reduction to her sentence of more than 11 years in prison, which they called “severe” and erroneously decided.

The SEC is inching closer to clarity on cybersecurity requirements

Cybersecurity is a growing concern for investors and an enforcement priority for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The SEC has recognized that cyber-related threats are “omnipresent” and a serious danger to our capital markets. The investor community and commentators alike recognize that it is imperative that the SEC and courts act swiftly and severely, requiring companies to make robust and immediate disclosures of cybersecurity incidents, as well as implement safeguards to protect against cyberattacks.

The SEC is well positioned to address cybersecurity regulatory concerns. The Commission has followed up on rule-making efforts that began in 2022 and listed three cybersecurity initiatives on its Fall 2022 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (released in January 2023).

The cybersecurity-focused agenda items include…

Legislation or lawsuits? The spot bitcoin ETF debate forges aheadAfter Grayscale’s proposal to bring its bitcoin-holding exchange-traded fund to market in the U.S. was rejected last June, the firm sued the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Oral arguments kicked off last month in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

“I think the chances are more than 50-50 that [Grayscale] will win in this lawsuit,” Dave Nadig, financial futurist at VettaFi, told Bob Pisani on CNBC’s “ETF Edge” on Monday.

“However, I don’t think that means that we all of a sudden get a bitcoin ETF,” he added. “I think there’s actually a higher likelihood it means that they shut down some of the futures-based products.”

Betterment Missed Some Tax Trades

Third, there was pushback against Gensler for not owning or using crypto. “It is hard to understand something without using it,” writes Anthony Pompliano. “The idea that we have regulators who are actively making rules for something that they have never used seems confusing.”

***

… If you start from the assumption that crypto is the future of payments, or of the financial system, or of art or identity or the web or whatever, then, sure, the people regulating it should understand its mechanics and possibly be users and enthusiasts themselves. If you don’t start from that assumption, though, it seems reasonable to let the regulators examine the effects of crypto and decide whether it’s good or bad. I think it is plausible for a regulator to look at crypto’s track record in 2022 and say “we need much more restrictive anti-fraud enforcement in crypto” without using crypto himself, or understanding the technical workings of a blockchain, or whatever. He can judge by the effects. Nobody would say to the prosecutors looking into the FTX bankruptcy, “how can you prosecute this case if you never even owned any FTT tokens?” Owning FTT tokens is not a prerequisite to understanding or prosecuting FTX. Arguably owning FTT tokens is proof that you didn’t understand FTX.

Guest Post: ESG and Corporate Purpose: Their Current Status and How They Relate

… In ESG’s name the first two letters, E and S, refer to broad areas of great and possibly existential risk both locally and in some cases to civilization as we know it. For example, the long-term value of a corporation would likely be enhanced by reducing climate change induced natural disasters in the future and if there was more general acceptance of diversity and inclusion.

The third letter G relates to the principles of corporate governance which broadly set forth the way in which corporations should be managed.

We will describe in more detail certain of the E and S risks below. We will also later address competing theories about the purpose of proper goals of corporations as well as some of the ways in which corporations may be motivated to help address some of these risks and how the basic principles of corporate governance and corporate purpose fit with ESG.