[HN Gopher] SEC Director of Enforcement resign after a few days ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       SEC Director of Enforcement resign after a few days on the job
        
       Author : balozi
       Score  : 73 points
       Date   : 2021-04-28 21:39 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sec.gov)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov)
        
       | mvzvm wrote:
       | More context here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-sec-
       | enforcement-director-al...
        
         | carbocation wrote:
         | That is helpful! Thank you.
         | 
         | > _Ms. Oh decided to resign after a U.S. District Judge Royce
         | Lamberth, in an order issued Monday, questioned her conduct
         | during a deposition in a case filed against Exxon Mobil Corp.
         | Ms. Oh's law firm, Paul Weiss, represents Exxon._
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | codeulike wrote:
       | _DC Judge Royce Lamberth on April 26 set in motion a sanctions
       | probe affecting Alex Oh, who 'd joined the SEC as enforcement
       | chief from the law firm Paul Weiss. Lambeth's order:
       | https://courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.14559/gov.u...
       | Oh today announced her resignation_
       | 
       | https://twitter.com/MikeScarcella/status/1387524397993545728
       | 
       | edit: I dont understand it either, heres a longer article about
       | it
       | 
       | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/business/sec-enforcement-...
        
         | huac wrote:
         | The case in question is an important one:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Exxon_Mobil_Corp.
        
           | temp667 wrote:
           | It seems very unlikely that Exxon can be sued by folks living
           | overseas in US courts for things govt members (members of
           | their military) were involved in to benefit exxon, or am I
           | not following this?
           | 
           | China clears and relocates folks all the time, I've never
           | heard of those folks being able to sue in the US even if the
           | removals benefit a US company.
        
           | __john wrote:
           | For some reason your Wikipedia link doesn't include the
           | period at the end.
           | 
           | > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Exxon_Mobil_Corp.
           | 
           | edit: maybe a bug with the way HN handles the text to HTML.
        
         | stefan_ wrote:
         | I need a decoder ring for this. This is a court order in some
         | case v Exxon. Whats it got to do with FISA or Clinton?
        
           | dboreham wrote:
           | Nothing?
        
           | nickodell wrote:
           | Alex Oh worked for a law firm which represents Exxon. That
           | law firm was accused of obstructing a deposition to avoid
           | providing answers to the other side. [1]
           | 
           | >ORDERS defense counsel to show cause by May 14, 2021 why
           | sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11 (b)(3) for
           | alleging that plaintiffs' counsel was agitated,
           | disrespectful, and unhinged during the deposition despite a
           | lack of record evidence supporting those allegations. See
           | Mem. Op. 29-31. >ORDERS defendants to serve a copy of this
           | order on Ms. Oh.
           | 
           | Was Alex Oh specifically responsible for this conduct? The
           | order doesn't say.
           | 
           | What does this have to do with Clinton? Nothing, except in a
           | six-degrees-of-kevin-bacon sense.
           | 
           | [1]: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.145
           | 59/g...
        
           | the_optimist wrote:
           | Melissa Hodgman is Peter Strozk's wife. Peter was (is??) the
           | FBI-counter-intel agent notorious for his work on "Crossfire
           | Hurricane," the Hillary Clinton email server, the "lying to
           | the FBI" charges against Michael Flynn, and the questionable
           | representations made repeatedly by the FBI to the FISA court.
        
             | cyanydeez wrote:
             | by "notorious" you mean in the far right muck making
             | mschine
        
       | andrewmcwatters wrote:
       | Well, it's not like the SEC does anything meaningful these days
       | anyway. Along with the FCC and FTC. In fact, I can't think of
       | anything meaningful any of these agencies have done in recent
       | history.
       | 
       | Edit: It's interesting this post in particular was so divisive.
       | We don't have a well functioning market, my phone is effectively
       | worthless these days, and monopoly and over-regulated corporate
       | practices effect my day-to-day life in the most mundane of ways.
       | But apparently that's not a good opinion here to share. OK.
        
         | datavirtue wrote:
         | They keep the honest people honest.
        
           | andrewmcwatters wrote:
           | Which is good, but they don't keep the dishonest people from
           | dishonest practices, protect citizens from risk, nor protect
           | consumers from antitrust practices anymore, respectively, it
           | seems.
        
             | ysavir wrote:
             | I think that was the GP's point. They're implying that the
             | agencies only engage in redundant work, not significant
             | work.
        
             | aesh2Xa1 wrote:
             | OP's statement should be read as such:
             | 
             | "They make rules for people that follow rules. If you don't
             | follow rules, then their rules do not apply to you."
             | 
             | The implication is that they lack will, capability, or
             | force.
        
               | not2b wrote:
               | I think it's mainly capability. I know an SEC lawyer;
               | he's successfully prosecuted a number of insider training
               | cases, but thinks the SEC doesn't have the resources to
               | take on really big players if they put up a fight,
               | because they can overwhelm the SEC with legions of top
               | lawyers and stalling tactics that can make cases take
               | forever. The IRS is the same way; they've been cut way
               | back so they can't effectively fight wealthy cheaters, so
               | they mainly audit poor people for claiming the earned
               | income tax credit incorrectly; those are easy cases for
               | them to bring. A lot of this is because the IRS and SEC
               | have been gutted by Congress to benefit their wealthy
               | contributors.
        
             | dnautics wrote:
             | > Which is good
             | 
             | Only if rule-following is == honesty.
             | 
             | There are probably honest people who can't afford to follow
             | the rules (literally, in the sense of paying for the labor
             | to check boxes on forms correctly) and dishonest people who
             | can afford to cleverly check boxes on forms.
        
         | neolog wrote:
         | > I can't think of anything meaningful any of these agencies
         | have done in recent history.
         | 
         | How much have you looked into it?
        
         | JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
         | The SEC has done things about ICOs
        
         | scottmcleod wrote:
         | This is just not true. From firsthand experience and just any
         | basic research.
        
           | Dopameaner wrote:
           | From a complete layman, Do you have any good data points to
           | start research for this topic?
           | 
           | My initial thoughts are scanning through news websites.
        
         | EGreg wrote:
         | The JOBS act?
         | 
         | Crowdfunding? Test the waters most recently? Expanding who is
         | an accredited investor? No-action letters to various cryptos?
         | The list goes on...
        
         | cookguyruffles wrote:
         | If you don't think the SEC are keeping busy you probably
         | haven't been looking very hard. Ignoring enforcement which
         | someone else mentioned, they are the only thing stopping
         | exchanges charging every human on the planet $1000 each time
         | they blink.
         | 
         | It's a full time job in itself, and the SEC can be quite heavy-
         | handed in increasing competitiveness despite a continuous
         | onslaught of lawsuits from incumbents every time they sneeze.
         | Recent examples include approving an IEX order type that
         | fundamentally undermines a traditional business model for the
         | exchanges (but is beneficial to just about everybody else), and
         | the new market data initiative approved last year which should
         | greatly reduce extortionate rentseeking on the part of the
         | exchanges, while forcing them to share data with the public
         | (depth of book) that previously cost 6 figures per exchange per
         | user annually. Both of these generated immediate lawsuits from
         | NYSE
        
       | mvzvm wrote:
       | I wonder what they saw...
        
       | ffggvv wrote:
       | they havent done their job at all. from tesla to spacs to crypto
       | to GME.
        
         | sokoloff wrote:
         | What does/should the SEC have to do with crypto (in general;
         | they obviously have some oversight for COIN)?
        
           | jonathankoren wrote:
           | Crypto is a security. I'm under the impression that crypto is
           | just a massive fraud, market manipulation, including insider
           | trading. The whole MtGox debacle[0] cemented then idea in my
           | mind that crypto is shady AF.
           | 
           | [0] Lest we forget, the original largest crypto exchange was
           | named "Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange".
        
             | rawtxapp wrote:
             | SEC themselves ruled they don't consider BTC and ETH a
             | security and they are currently going after XRP because
             | they consider that to be a security.
             | 
             | MtGox has been dead in over 7 years, I'm not sure how
             | that's relevant today when we have well regulated
             | exchanges.
        
           | eloff wrote:
           | Crypto ICOs have been deemed to be a security offering, and
           | are being regulated as such by the SEC.
        
       | temp667 wrote:
       | If they would increase penalities and enforcement around failures
       | to deliver we'd know they actually cared about a functioning
       | market.
       | 
       | Too many attorney's, not enough CPA's / Economists or investors
       | in their staff.
        
         | gruez wrote:
         | I see r/superstonk is leaking.
        
         | datavirtue wrote:
         | They operate within the constraints of thier authority and
         | resources. Complain to you congress person and or senator.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-04-28 23:00 UTC)