Top Menu

SEC’s FCPA Charges Against Former Och-Ziff Executives Cohen And Baros Dismissed

Judicial Decision

This previous post highlighted the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (and related) enforcement action against Michael Cohen and Vanja Baros (former Och-Ziff executives) based on the same core conduct as the DOJ and SEC’s September 2016 enforcement action against Och-Ziff.

The post noted that the meaty 80 page complaint against Cohen and Baros was a clear signal that a negotiated settlement was unable to be reached and that the defendants would put the SEC to its burden of proof. It was further noted that the SEC is rarely put to its burden of proof in FCPA enforcement actions (corporate or individual) and indeed has never prevailed in FCPA history when put to its ultimate burden of proof. Prior posts here and here summarized the issues in the motion to dismiss briefing.

Yesterday, in yet another blow to the SEC when put to its burden of proof in an FCPA enforcement action, Judge Nicholas Garaufis (E.D.N.Y.) dismissed the SEC’s complaint finding the SEC’s claims time-barred.

Continue Reading

Former Och-Ziff Executive Cohen Criminally Charged – Including For Obstruction And Making False Statements In Connection With DOJ/SEC Investigation

DOJ2

As highlighted in this prior post, in January 2017 former Och-Ziff executives Michael Cohen and Vanja Baros were civilly charged by the SEC with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and other, violations in connection with the same core conduct as the DOJ and SEC’s September 2016 enforcement action against Och-Ziff.

Recently, the DOJ unsealed criminal charges against Cohen. While some media sources have called the charges “bribery charges,” (see here for the Wall Street Journal article) this is false as Cohen was not charged with any FCPA offenses, but rather various fraud based offenses based on his role as an investment advisor. However, as detailed in this post, Cohen was also charged conspiracy to obstruct justice and making material false statements, charges at least indirectly related to the DOJ’s and SEC’s FCPA inquiry of Och-Ziff.

Continue Reading

Relevant To The Motions To Dismiss Filed In SEC v. Cohen & Baros

relevant

Yesterday’s post went in-depth into the recent motions to dismiss filed in SEC v. Cohen & Baros (a rare instance in which the SEC is being put to its burden of proof in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action).

As highlighted in the post, the disputed legal issues largely center around statute of limitations and (as relevant to Baros a foreign national defendant) general personal jurisdiction issues as well as specific FCPA jurisdictional issues.

There are several previously decided cases cited in the parties’ briefs that are relevant to the issues in dispute and to get you up to speed on these issues, this post highlights those cases (all previously covered by FCPA Professor).

Continue Reading

Motions To Dismiss Fully Briefed In SEC v. Cohen & Baros

Judicial Decision

As highlighted in this prior post, in January 2017 the SEC filed a civil complaint against former Och-Ziff executives Michael Cohen and Vanja Baros alleging the same core conduct as the DOJ and SEC’s September 2016 enforcement action against Och-Ziff.

The prior post noted that the defendants would be mounting a defense and further noted that the SEC is rarely put to its burden of proof in FCPA enforcement actions (corporate or individual). Indeed, the SEC has never prevailed in FCPA history when put to its ultimate burden of proof.

Late last week, the briefing on the motions to dismiss appeared (all at once) on the court’s docket and this post summarizes the disputed issues which largely center on statute of limitations issues and (as relevant to Baros, a foreign national defendant) general jurisdiction issues as well as FCPA specific jurisdiction issues).

Continue Reading

Former Och-Ziff Executives To Mount A Defense Against SEC’s FCPA (And Related) Claims

fightback

I am not suggesting that the following is a very meaningful statistic, but it is a fact: there has been more FCPA enforcement in the first week of the Trump administration than the first week of the Obama administration.

But then again “assigning” to the Trump administration yesterday’s SEC enforcement action against Michael Cohen and Vanja Baros (former Och-Ziff executives) based on the same core conduct as the DOJ and SEC’s September 2016 enforcement action against Och-Ziff is foolish just as it is foolish to “assign” FCPA enforcement in the first months (indeed the first year) of the Obama administration to the Obama Administration.

Yesterday’s enforcement action is not surprising as it was fairly obvious (as detailed in this prior post) that the main actors in the Och-Ziff matter were Cohen and Baros (even though not specifically named in the September 2016 resolution documents).

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes