Federal Regulatory Agencies
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from federal regulatory agencies ranging from the Securities Exchange Commission to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Featured Stories
SEC Issues Order Involving IFP Advisors and Richard Keith Robertson
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-20954; 3-20955) on March 21, 2023:
* * *
In the Matter of Richard Keith Robertson, Respondent.
In the Matter of IFP Advisors, LLC, Respondent.
ORDER APPOINTING TAX ADMINISTRATOR
On May 4, 2022, the Commission issued an Omnibus Order Directing the Engagement of Two Tax Administrators for Appointment on a Case-By-Case Basis in Administrative Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds (the "Omnibus Order")./1 The Omnibus Order engaged Miller Kaplan Arase LLP and Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following order (No. 3-20954; 3-20955) on March 21, 2023:
* * *
In the Matter of Richard Keith Robertson, Respondent.
In the Matter of IFP Advisors, LLC, Respondent.
ORDER APPOINTING TAX ADMINISTRATOR
On May 4, 2022, the Commission issued an Omnibus Order Directing the Engagement of Two Tax Administrators for Appointment on a Case-By-Case Basis in Administrative Proceedings that Establish Distribution Funds (the "Omnibus Order")./1 The Omnibus Order engaged Miller Kaplan Arase LLP and Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLPto serve as the Commission's tax administrator ("Tax Administrator"), for selection and appointment on an individual case basis, for calendar years 2022 through 2024 in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF") under the Department of the Treasury Regulation Sec. 1.468B-1(c).
The Director of the Division of Enforcement is authorized to appoint a Tax Administrator pursuant to the Omnibus Order./2 The Commission staff has requested the appointment of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the Omnibus Order, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP is appointed as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceedings.
For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority./3
Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Exchange Act Rel. No. 94845 (May 4, 2022).
2/ See Delegation of Authority to Director of the Division of Enforcement, Securities Act Rel. No. 10900 (Dec. 10, 2020).
3/ 17 C.F.R. Sec. 200.30-4(a)(21)(ii).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-97175.pdf
NLRB Issues General Counsel Memo on Status Update on Advice Submissions Pursuant to General Counsel Memo 21-04
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following General Counsel memo on March 20, 2023:
* * *
TO: All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers
FROM: Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel
SUBJECT: Status Update on Advice Submissions Pursuant to GC Memo 21-04
On August 12, 2021, I issued GC Memo 21-04, Mandatory Submissions to Advice. Many of the issues identified for mandatory submission in that memorandum involved Board decisions that I believed were contrary to our Congressional mandate as they improperly compromised the statutory rights
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The National Labor Relations Board issued the following General Counsel memo on March 20, 2023:
* * *
TO: All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers
FROM: Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel
SUBJECT: Status Update on Advice Submissions Pursuant to GC Memo 21-04
On August 12, 2021, I issued GC Memo 21-04, Mandatory Submissions to Advice. Many of the issues identified for mandatory submission in that memorandum involved Board decisions that I believed were contrary to our Congressional mandate as they improperly compromised the statutory rightsof workers we are required to protect. Many of these decisions overruled prior precedent that had already struck an appropriate balance between the rights of workers and the obligations of unions and employers. By placing these issues on the mandatory submission list, my goal was to provide transparency to the public and take a centralized approach to develop guidance for Regional Offices.
Placing these issues before the Board for reconsideration is one of my most important objectives as General Counsel. Without doing so, Board law that undermines workers' statutory rights remains unchallenged, which will continue to detrimentally impact millions of employees throughout the country.
Since the issuance of GC Memo 21-04, the Division of Advice has issued guidance, either in the form of Significant Advice Memoranda or inserts to be used in briefs to ALJs and/or the Board, for around 46 Board decisions identified in the initial mandatory submission memo and in later GC memos./1 I take great pride in the excellent work done by the career staff in crafting arguments for my consideration and in drafting related guidance pursuant to my determinations.
I am also appreciative of the Regional Offices for vigorously implementing the guidance so that we can more fully effectuate our Congressional mandate. Regions have been diligently ensuring that all guidance is properly followed when their cases involve those issues and precedent that warrant reconsideration, including, where appropriate, filing exceptions to place these decisions/issues before the Board. Regional Offices have processed hundreds of cases involving issues on the mandatory submissions list and subsequent GC memos. Of course, some of the Board decisions identified in the memos arise in ULP proceedings more frequently than others. For example, many cases have implicated the Board's decisions in Tschiggfrie and Electrolux, which modified the General Counsel's burden under Wright Line to require an additional showing of particularized animus, and minimized the significance of pretext, respectively. However, regardless of how frequently these Board decisions and legal issues are implicated, Regional Offices continue to present these important arguments to ALJs and the Board at every opportunity with the expectation that they will be addressed./2
Over time, as guidance and arguments in these areas have been fully developed, the majority of issues identified in GC Memo 21-04 no longer require submission to the Division of Advice. Thus, for those areas, absent unusual facts or complexities that would otherwise make Advice consideration appropriate, Regions have been authorized to proceed consistent with outstanding guidance. Indeed, Regions are now only required to submit the following 15 issues from GC Memo 21-04 (Sections A and B, pp. 2-8) to the Regional Advice Branch./3
* Cases involving the applicability of the inherently concerted doctrine, set forth in Hoodview Vending Co., 359 NLRB 355 (2012), including to subjects other than wages, but that regularly arise in the workplace, such as issues involving employees' health and safety, including insurance coverage; racism; gender or age-based discrimination; and sexual harassment.
* Cases involving applicability of Shamrock Foods Co., 369 NLRB No. 5 (2020 (distinguishing earlier Board cases, including Clark Distribution Systems, 336 NLRB 747, 751 (2001) and Webel Feed Mills & Pike Transit Co., 229 NLRB 178, 179-80 (1977) and finding the offer of significantly more backpay than is owed in return for a waiver of reinstatement lawful).
* Cases involving the applicability of United Nurses & Allied Professionals (Kent Hospital), 367 NLRB No. 94 (2019) (requiring that unions provide non-member Beck objectors with verification that the financial information disclosed to them has been independently audited and that lobbying costs are not chargeable to such objectors).
* Cases involving the applicability of Johnson Controls, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 20 (2019) (overruling the "last in time" rule of Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001) and requiring that a union faced with an anticipatory withdrawal of recognition, based upon evidence of a loss of majority support within 90 days prior to contract expiration, may only reacquire majority status through filing a petition for a Board election within 45 days from the date the employer gives notice of the anticipatory withdrawal during which time the employer is privileged to refuse to bargain or to suspend bargaining for a successor contract).
* Cases involving the applicability of Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 110 (2019) (overruling Galloway School Lines, 321 NLRB 1422 (1996) and finding that a successor employer that discriminates in refusing to hire a certain number of the predecessor's workforce to avoid a Burns successorship bargaining obligation does not necessarily forfeit the right to set employees' initial terms).
* Cases involving the applicability of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 368 NLRB No. 41, slip op. at 3, n.5 (2019) (distinguishing Finley Hospital, 362 NLRB 915 (2015) in determining whether the post-contract status quo required increases to employer fund contributions). See also Richfield Hospitals, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 44, slip op.at 3, n.7 (2019) (where Board again declined to rely on Finley in connection with whether longevity pay increases were required post-contract expiration).
* Cases involving the applicability of Brevard Achievement Center, Inc., 342 NLRB 982 (2004) (declining to extend the Act's coverage to individuals with disabilities on grounds that these individuals, where working in a rehabilitative setting, are not employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act).
* Cases involving the applicability of United States Postal Service, 371 NLRB No. 7 (2021) (Board refusing to find a pre-disciplinary interview right to information, including the questions to be asked in the interview, as a purported extension of Weingarten).
* Cases involving the applicability of ABM Onsite Services-West (2018) (Board, after initially asserting jurisdiction and certifying the union as representative of the employer's airport bag jammer technicians and dispatchers, reversed course and deferred to a National Mediation Board advisory decision in which NMB found Railway Labor Act jurisdiction under traditional six-factor carrier control test and overruled NMB cases requiring carrier control over personnel decisions). See also Oxford Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Srvcs., 369 NLRB No. 6 (Jan. 6, 2020) (giving substantial deference to NMB advisory opinions concerning RLA jurisdiction).
* Cases involving a refusal to furnish information related to a relocation or other decision subject to Dubuque Packing (see former Chairman Liebman's dissent in Embarq Corp., 356 NLRB No. 125 (2011) and OM-11-58).
* Cases involving the applicability of Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 350 NLRB 585 (2007) (to assess whether this case should be overruled. The case permits mid-term withdrawals of recognition where they occur after the third year of a contract of longer duration).
* Cases involving the applicability of Wal-Mart Stores, 368 NLRB No. 24 (2019) (broadly defining an intermittent strike).
* Cases involving the applicability of Service Electric Co., 281 NLRB 633 (1986) (allowing an employer to unilaterally set terms and conditions of employment for replacements even where those terms are superior to those that had been paid to striking unit employees).
* Cases involving the applicability of Ex-Cell-O Corp, 185 NLRB 107 (1970)(declining to provide a make whole compensatory remedy for failures to bargain).
* Cases involving the applicability of Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019) (Board finding, among other things, that an employer does not violate the Act by promulgating a mandatory arbitration agreement in response to employees engaging in collective action).
In addition, as set forth in GC Memo 23-02, Electronic Monitoring and Algorithmic Management of Employees Interfering with the Exercise of Section 7 Rights, Regions are now also required to submit to the Division of Advice cases involving electronic surveillance or algorithmic management that interferes with the exercise of Section 7 rights.
I explained in GC Memo 21-04 that no list of issues can be exhaustive, and new Board decisions often raise new questions. I fully anticipate that, as additional Board decisions issue, to the extent they raise questions as to application and interpretation, Regions will consult with the Division of Advice or submit such matters to it in order to ensure that our approach properly applies the law to maximize protection and enforcement of employee rights under the Act.
As described above (see, e.g., footnote 1), I have identified many issues warranting Board reconsideration; indeed many of these cases are currently pending before the Board./4 But because cases may settle, pending cases may not ultimately remain with the Board, nor is it clear which cases the Board will ultimately view as appropriate for reconsidering the law. Thus, when arguing for a change in the law, Regions should be mindful in each case to analyze the facts of that case under the proposed new legal standard and to fully set forth the legal analysis supporting the need for that particular doctrinal change as better effectuating our Congressional mandate.
Regional Offices continue to do outstanding work in investigating and litigating cases that raise these issues and in making arguments to ALJs and the Board to reconsider extant Board law, respectively, so that all of us at the Agency ensure that employees enjoy the fullest protection under the NLRA. I am confident that these efforts will ultimately bear significant, beneficial results for workers and workplaces across the country.
As always, questions you may have about any new Board decisions that may issue should be directed to the Division of Advice. Thank you for your great work and dedication.
/s/
J.A.A.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ The Board decisions for which guidance has issued include: Alstate Maintenance, LLC, 367 NLRB No. 68 (2019); American Security Programs, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 151 (2019); Amnesty International of the USA, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 112 (2019); Anderson Enterprises, 369 NLRB No. 70 (2020); Apogee Retail d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019); Arlington Metals Corp., 368 NLRB No. 74 (2019); AT&T Mobility, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 121 (2021); Babcock & Wilcox, 77 NLRB 577 (1948); Bath Iron Works, 345 NLRB 499 (2005); Baylor University Medical Center, 369 NLRB No. 43 (2020); Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017); Bethany College, 369 NLRB No. 98 (2020); Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center for Performing Arts, 368 NLRB No. 46 (2019); California Commerce Club, 369 NLRB No. 106 (2020); Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109 (2020); Crown Bolt, Inc., 343 NLRB 776 (2004); Electrolux Home Products, 368 NLRB No. 34 (2019); Ex-Cell-O Corp, 185 NLRB 107 (1970 ); General Motors, LLC., 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020); George Washington University Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 118 (2021); Grosvenor Resort, 350 NLRB 1197 (2007); Hot Shoppes, 146 NLRB 802 (1964); IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 1288 (2004); International Game Technology, 370 NLRB No. 50 (2020); Johnson Controls, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 20 (2019); Kroger Ltd. P'ship, 368 NLRB No. 64 (2019); Linden Lumber Div., Summer & Co., 190 NLRB 718 (1971); MV Transportation, 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019); Nielsen Lithographing Co., 305 NLRB 697 (1991); Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB 1348 (2007); Preferred Building Services, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 159 (2018); Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (2017), Rio All Suites Hotel and Casino, 368 NLRB No. 143 (2019); Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 350 NLRB 585 (2007); Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194 (1974); St George Warehouse, 351 NLRB 961 (2007); SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (2019); Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC, 367 NLRB No. 111 (2019); Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985); Toering Electric Co., 351 NLRB 225 (2007); Tschiggfrie Properties, Ltd., 368 NLRB No. 120 (2019); UPMC, 368 NLRB No. 2 (2019); United Parcel Service, 369 NLRB No. 1 (2019); Valley Hospital Medical Ctr., 368 NLRB No. 139 (2019); Velox Express, 368 NLRB No. 61 (2019); Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 91 (2020).
2/ To date, the Board has taken the opportunity to reconsider and address these issues in a few cases. For example, in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (Aug. 29, 2022), the Board agreed with the General Counsel's position, overruled Wal-Mart Stores, 368 NLRB No. 146 (2019), and returned to longstanding precedent holding that employer attempts to impose any restrictions on the display of union insignia, including apparel, are presumptively unlawful absent special circumstances. In Valley Hospital, 371 NLRB No. 160 (Sept. 30, 2022), on remand from the Ninth Circuit, the Board agreed with the General Counsel, returned to Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015), and held that employers may not unilaterally cease deducting employees' union dues pursuant to a valid dues-checkoff provision after expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement. In Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (Dec. 13, 2022), the Board agreed with the General Counsel about the necessity for full remedial relief and determined that victims of unfair labor practices must be compensated for all "direct or foreseeable pecuniary harm" caused by the unlawful conduct; the Board declined to adopt the General Counsel's position that victims are also entitled to emotional distress damages and left that issue for a future case. In Bexar County II, 372 NLRB No. 28 (Dec. 16, 2022), on remand from the D.C. Circuit, the Board agreed with the General Counsel's position in overruling Bexar County I, 368 NLRB No. 46 (2019), and restoring the rights of contracting employees to engage in protected concerted activity at their worksites as previously set forth in New York New York Hotel & Casino, 356 NLRB 907 (2011). And most recently, in McLaren McComb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (Feb. 21, 2023), the Board agreed with the General Counsel's position, overruled Baylor University Medical Center, 369 NLRB No. 43 (2020) and IGT d/b/a International Game Technology, 370 NLRB No. 50 (2020), and held that the proffer of severance agreements to permanently furloughed bargaining unit employees was unlawful where those agreements had non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses that interfered with the exercise of Section 7 rights.
3/ This list is in addition to the other types of cases traditionally submitted to Advice (see GC 21-04, Section C, pp. 8-10), as well as to mandatory Injunction Litigation Branch submissions.
4/ The cases currently before the Board raising one or more of these issues include at least the following: (1) Stericycle, 04-CA-137660; (2) Atlanta Opera, 10-RC-276292; (3) Cemex, 28-CA-230115; (4) Ralph's Grocery, 21-CA-073942; (5) American Federation for Children, 28-CA-246878; (6) Home Depot, 18-CA273796; (7) Parkside Cafe, 10-CA-268413; (8) Lion Elastomers, 16-CA-190681; (9) Endurance Environmental Solutions, 09-CA-273873; (10) Wendt, 03-CA-212225; (11) Inland Waters, 07-CA-277239; (12) ExxonMobil, 16-CA-276089 et al.; (13) Longmont United Hospital, 27-CA-296153; (14) Blue School, 02-CA-292782; (15) Oakrheem, d/b/a Hayward Convalescent Hosp., 32-CA-294577; (16) Siren Retail Corp., d/b/a Starbucks, 19-CA-299478; and (17) ArrMaz Products, 12-CA-294086.
* * *
Original text here: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45839f1ba4
NCUA Releases 2022 Annual Report
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, March 22 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release on March 21, 2023:
The National Credit Union Administration today released its 2022 Annual Report, highlighting the agency's activities, policy initiatives, and accomplishments for the past year.
"In 2022, the NCUA focused its efforts on protecting and benefiting more than 135 million credit union members, who entrust their hard-earned savings to federally insured credit unions," Chairman Todd M. Harper said. "Looking ahead, the NCUA will remain focused on risks to the system involving
... Show Full Article
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, March 22 -- The National Credit Union Administration issued the following news release on March 21, 2023:
The National Credit Union Administration today released its 2022 Annual Report, highlighting the agency's activities, policy initiatives, and accomplishments for the past year.
"In 2022, the NCUA focused its efforts on protecting and benefiting more than 135 million credit union members, who entrust their hard-earned savings to federally insured credit unions," Chairman Todd M. Harper said. "Looking ahead, the NCUA will remain focused on risks to the system involvinginterest rates, liquidity, cybersecurity, and consumer compliance. And, we will continue our efforts to enact needed legislative reforms like enhancements to the Central Liquidity Facility and restoring third-party vendor authority."
The NCUA's most significant initiatives in 2022 are highlighted in the report and grouped into five categories:
* Responding to evolving economic and financial challenges;
* Strengthening the credit union system's capital levels;
* Increasing cyber resiliency;
* Supporting small credit unions and minority depository institutions; and
* Fostering greater diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.
In 2022, the NCUA Board acted on several forward-looking measures, including proposed rules on financial innovation, amendments to the subordinated debt rule, and cyber notification requirements. The agency adopted a new enterprise risk appetite statement, developed the Information Security Examination, released the Simplified CECL Tool, implemented the CAMELS rating system and risk-based capital standards, and deployed the new MERIT examination system.
Additionally, the NCUA approved four new credit union charters and facilitated the ability of community development and minority depository institutions to access low-cost, long-term secondary capital.
"As we navigate through the challenges that 2023 will pose, the NCUA will continue to address the needs and best interests of credit union members while also ensuring the safety and soundness of credit unions and protecting the Share Insurance Fund from losses," Chairman Harper said. "We will work to allow the credit union system to innovate responsibly and evolve. By staying focused on these issues, the agency will ensure that the cooperative credit union system achieves its full potential, especially in meeting the credit and savings needs of people of modest means."
The 2022 Annual Report documents the NCUA's performance in meeting its strategic goals and objectives as detailed in its strategic plan (opens new window), and annual performance plan. The report contains the audited financial statements for the agency's four funds, which earned unmodified or "clean" opinions for 2022. It also provides assurances of the agency's compliance with federal financial management guidelines, regulations, and relevant laws.
* * *
View Annual Report at: https://ncua.gov/files/annual-reports/annual-report-2022.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2023/ncua-releases-2022-annual-report
Litigation: SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Ex-CFO Charged With Fraud and Lying to Auditors
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 17-cv-03230-SAG; D. Md. filed Nov. 2, 2017) involving Philip R. Jacoby, Jr., et al.:
* * *
On March 17, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a final consent judgment against Philip R. Jacoby, a former Chief Financial Officer of biotech company Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., for his role in Osiris's fraudulent conduct.
The SEC's complaint, filed November 2, 2017, charged Osiris with routinely overstating company performance and issuing fraudulent financial statements
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 17-cv-03230-SAG; D. Md. filed Nov. 2, 2017) involving Philip R. Jacoby, Jr., et al.:
* * *
On March 17, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a final consent judgment against Philip R. Jacoby, a former Chief Financial Officer of biotech company Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., for his role in Osiris's fraudulent conduct.
The SEC's complaint, filed November 2, 2017, charged Osiris with routinely overstating company performance and issuing fraudulent financial statementsfor a period of nearly two years. The SEC alleged that Jacoby caused Osiris to book fictitious and premature revenue and provided false information to Osiris's auditors. On February 2, 2021, the District Court found that Jacoby violated provisions of the federal securities laws prohibiting: fraud in connection with the offer, purchase, or sale of securities; false certifications of SEC filings; aiding and abetting false SEC filings; and lying to auditors.
Jacoby consented to a final judgment enjoining him from future violations of: Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, and 13b2-2 promulgated thereunder; as well as aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder. The judgment further prohibits Jacoby from acting as an officer or director of a public company, and finds Jacoby liable for reimbursement of $223,965.88 in Osiris stock sale profits pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but waives payment of all but $45,000 of this amount, and does not impose a civil penalty, based on his sworn statement of financial condition.
Osiris previously settled the SEC's charges and paid a $1.5 million civil penalty. One of Osiris's former Chief Financial Officers, Gregory I. Law, was dismissed from the case in September 2019. In October 2019, Bobby Dwayne Montgomery, Osiris's former Chief Business Officer, consented to a judgment enjoining him from future violations of the provisions of the federal securities laws that prohibit falsifying books and records and lying to auditors, and ordering him to pay a civil penalty of $40,000. Osiris's former Chief Executive Officer, Lode Debrabandere, was dismissed from the case in November 2022. The final judgment entered against Jacoby concludes this litigation.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Laura Ordaz, Anne Romero, and Danielle Voorhees, and was supervised by Laura Metcalfe and Jason Burt. The SEC's litigation was led by Nicholas Heinke, Zachary Carlyle, and Polly Atkinson, and was supervised by Greg Kasper and Mr. Burt.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2023/lr25671.htm
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Wireline Competition Bureau Copper Retirement Network Change Notification Filed By AT&T Oklahoma
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 23-106) on March 21, 2023:
* * *
Re: Copper Retirement Network Change Certification Received
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Oklahoma (AT&T), an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), has filed certification that public notice of network change(s) involving the retirement of copper has been provided through its publicly accessible Internet site, as required by section 51.329(a)(2) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 23-106) on March 21, 2023:
* * *
Re: Copper Retirement Network Change Certification Received
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Oklahoma (AT&T), an incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC), has filed certification that public notice of network change(s) involving the retirement of copper has been provided through its publicly accessible Internet site, as required by section 51.329(a)(2) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCCor Commission),/1 together with certification of service on identified interconnecting telephone exchange service providers, as required by section 51.333(a)./2 Upon initial review the filing appears to be complete./3 Specific network change information can be obtained on the Internet at: https://ebiznet.att.com/networkreg/.
The incumbent LEC's certification(s) refer(s) to the change(s) identified below:
* * *
Table
[Link to table at bottom of document.]
* * *
Incumbent LEC contact:
Victoria Carter-Hall
Manager - Federal Regulatory
AT&T Services, Inc.
1120 20th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 230-7525
An objection to an incumbent LEC's copper retirement notice may be filed by an information service provider or telecommunications service provider that directly interconnects with the incumbent LEC's network. Such objections must be filed with the Commission, and served on the incumbent LEC, no later than the ninth business day following the release of this Public Notice./4 The effective implementation date(s) of network changes referenced in standard copper retirement notices are subject to the FCC public notice periods described under section 51.333(b)(2)./5 For purposes of computation of time when filing a petition for reconsideration, application for review, or petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision, the date of "public notice" shall be the later of 15 days after the release date of this Public Notice, or the release date of any further public notice or order announcing final action, as applicable. Should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, the proceeding listed in this Public Notice shall be terminated, and the docket will be closed.
Information service providers and telecommunications service providers that directly interconnect with the incumbent LEC's network may file objections, and other interested parties may file comments, regarding this network change notice using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Interested parties also may comment on this network change notice by sending an e-mail to NetworkChange@fcc.gov. The subject line of the e-mail must include the correct NCD Report Number or docket number in order for the comments to be considered in conjunction with this proceeding. All information submitted including names and addresses will be publicly available via the web.
Parties who choose to file paper copies must file an original and one copy of each filing. Such filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail./6 All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20554.
This proceeding is considered a "permit but disclose" proceeding for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules./7 Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
People with Disabilities: We ask that requests for accommodations be made as soon as possible in order to allow the agency to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
For further information, please contact Rodney McDonald at (202) 418-7513, email: Rodney.McDonald@fcc.gov or Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325, email: Carmell.Weathers@fcc.gov, in the Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.329(a)(2).
2/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(a).
3/ See 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 51.325 through 51.335.
4/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(c).
5/ See 47 CFR Sec. 51.333(b)(2). In the absence of filed objections, a notice of copper retirement usually will be deemed final on the 90th day after the release of the Commission's public notice of the filing pursuant to section 51.333(b)(2). However, notice of copper retirement involving facilities that are not being used to provision services to any customers, usually will be deemed final on the 15th day after the release of the Commission's public notice of the filing. Id.
6/ Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Filing, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
7/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
* * *
View table at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391902A1.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391902A1.pdf
EEOC Scores Summary Judgment Win Against United Parcel Service in Disability Discrimination Case
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release on March 20, 2023:
* * *
Court Agrees With EEOC That UPS Failed to Accommodate and Terminated Employee With Diabetes, Violating Federal Law
* * *
A federal judge has ruled as a matter of law that United Parcel Service, Inc. violated federal law by failing to accommodate and then firing an employee because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC's suit, an employee who suffers from diabetes asked a UPS human resources
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release on March 20, 2023:
* * *
Court Agrees With EEOC That UPS Failed to Accommodate and Terminated Employee With Diabetes, Violating Federal Law
* * *
A federal judge has ruled as a matter of law that United Parcel Service, Inc. violated federal law by failing to accommodate and then firing an employee because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC's suit, an employee who suffers from diabetes asked a UPS human resourcessupervisor at a Jacksonville warehouse location for the accommodation of an occasional short break to check his blood sugar and eat or drink something if necessary. The human resources supervisor referred to the employee with a disability as a "liability," claiming that he could not do his job because of his diabetes. After the employee's second shift ended, the UPS human resources supervisor left the employee a voicemail message advising him it was his last day of work.
Failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee and terminating an employee because of his disability violate the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00656-BJD-JRK) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
The federal judge ruled in EEOC's favor that UPS failed to accommodate the employee's disability, noting that it was undisputed that the UPS human resources supervisor and the employee's full-time supervisor viewed the employee's request for accommodations as a problem. "Instead of working with [the employee] or trying to accommodate him, UPS classified him as a liability, berated him, and remarked that [the employee] placed himself and UPS's equipment in danger," the judge said.
In addition, the judge found that UPS terminated the employee in violation of the ADA, explaining that the UPS supervisor's remarks about the employee's disability constituted direct evidence of UPS's intent to discriminate and ". . . the only reasonable conclusion a juror could reach is that [the UPS human resources supervisor's] message notified [the employee] that he was fired from UPS."
The amount of monetary damages owed to the employee by UPS will be determined in further proceedings.
"The court's ruling made it clear that UPS's attempts to circumvent the protections of the ADA will not be tolerated," said EEOC trial attorney Carmen Manrara Cartaya. "The EEOC will continue to fight for disabled employees to ensure they get a fair opportunity to work and earn a living."
Evangeline Hawthorne, the EEOC's district director in Miami, added, "Congress passed the ADA to remove barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from finding and keeping their jobs. This decision should serve as a reminder to employers of the importance of educating supervisors about the protections afforded by the ADA - and the readiness of the EEOC to enforce that law."
Robert Weisberg, the EEOC's regional attorney in Miami, said, "Over 34 million people in the United States have diabetes. Employers should take note that they are required to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would create an undue hardship."
For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.
The EEOC Miami District Office's jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-scores-summary-judgment-win-against-ups-disability-discrimination-case
CFTC Commissioner Johnson Issues Statement on Notice and Order Imposing Statutory Disqualification Against Allianz Global Investors U.S.
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following statement on March 21, 2023, by Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson on notice and order imposing a statutory disqualification against Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC:
* * *
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the Registrations of Allianz Global Investors US LLC (AGI US) and simultaneously issued an Opinion and Order accepting AGI US's offer of settlement. In the settlement, the Commission revokes AGI US's registration as a commodity trading advisor and a commodity
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 22 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following statement on March 21, 2023, by Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson on notice and order imposing a statutory disqualification against Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC:
* * *
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the Registrations of Allianz Global Investors US LLC (AGI US) and simultaneously issued an Opinion and Order accepting AGI US's offer of settlement. In the settlement, the Commission revokes AGI US's registration as a commodity trading advisor and a commoditypool operator.
AGI US is a global investment advisory firm providing a variety of investment strategies for institutional and retail investors. For several years, AGI US offered clients a complex options trading strategy that used the purchase and sale of options on the S&P 500 Index and other equity indices to generate additional profits (Structured Alpha Funds). AGI US, through its portfolio managers, for several years made misrepresentations and omissions to investors to conceal the downside risk, including the manipulation of reports to conceal the fraud. The Structured Alpha Funds performed well and AGI US concealed its misrepresentations until March 2020, when COVID-related market volatility resulted in billions of dollars in losses and revealed the misconduct at issue in the Opinion and Order.
In May 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an action against AGI US for violations of the anti-fraud provisions under the federal securities laws.[1] AGI US admitted to violations of federal securities law and agreed to a cease-and-desist order, a censure, $315.2 million in disgorgement, and a $657 million civil monetary penalty.[2] As a result of the guilty plea, Section 9(a) of the Investment Company Act automatically disqualified AGI US from providing advisory services to US registered investment funds for a period of 10 years.[3]
Under Section 8a(2)(E)(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the Commission may order a statutory disqualification if it is determined by a court, the Commission, or another agency that a firm has engaged in conduct that is especially grave and clearly relates to a firm's fitness for registration with the Commission.[4] AGI US's misrepresentations and omissions defrauded its investors and undermined market integrity. This egregious behavior resulted in AGI US's disqualification from the equities markets and, therefore, the Commission has taken a necessary next step to protect the derivatives markets and market participants by ordering a statutory disqualification under the Act. In addition, AGI US agreed to certain undertakings related to transition of an existing investment fund to another firm, as well as certain registration-related restrictions.[5]
Fraud perpetuated in this manner is particularly pernicious because of the impact that such conduct may have on market integrity and public trust in financial markets. In periods of market stress, we must be vigilant in identifying misconduct and imposing appropriate remedial punishments.
I recognize the efforts of the Division of Enforcement and its staff, including Paul Flucke, Rachel Hayes, Christopher Reed, and Charles Marvine. The continuing efforts by the staff to protect our markets are deeply important to the integrity of our markets.
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] Securities and Exchange Commission v. Gregoire P. Tournant et. al, 1:22-cv-4016 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 12, 2022). The SEC Order found AGI US violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b); Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (2022); Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80b-6(1), (2), (4); and Rules 206(4)-7 and 206(4)-8, 17 C.F.R. Sec.Sec. 275.206(4)-7, 275.206(4)-8 (2022).
[2] Id.
[3] 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-9(a).
[4] 7 U.S.C. Sec. 12a(2)(E)(i). In relevant part Section 8a(2)(E)(i) states "upon notice, but without a hearing and pursuant to such rules, regulations, or orders as the Commission may adopt, to refuse to register, to register conditionally, or to suspend or place restrictions upon the registration of, any person and with such a hearing as may be appropriate to revoke the registration of any person... (E) if such person, within ten years preceding the filing of the application or at any time thereafter, has been found in a proceeding brought by the Commission or any Federal or State agency or other governmental body, or by agreement of settlement to which the Commission or any Federal or State agency or other governmental body is a party, (i) to have violated any provision of this chapter, ... the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.], ... the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.] or any similar statute of a State or foreign jurisdiction, or any rule, regulation, or order under any such statutes, ... where such violation involves embezzlement, theft, extortion, fraud, fraudulent conversion, misappropriation of funds, securities or property, forgery, counterfeiting, false pretenses, bribery, or gambling...."
[5] See Order, section V.4.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/johnsonstatement032123
