Search for:

Peter Chan

Peter K.M. Chan is a member of Baker McKenzie’s North American Financial Regulation and Enforcement Practice, which provides our clients with a full range of regulatory advice and enforcement counseling. Peter brings two decades of experience at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to his litigation and counseling work. His tenure at the SEC, as well as a stint as Special Assistant US Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois, have given Peter experience with civil and criminal matters. At the SEC, Peter served as assistant regional director in the Chicago regional office, where he led investigations and litigations of high-profile enforcement cases. In the course of his SEC career, he handled corporate issuer disclosure and reporting violations, financial fraud, auditor independence violations, insider trading, broker-dealer misconduct and failure to supervise cases, hedge fund and investment company fraud, and Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley violations. As the head of the Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit at the SEC's Chicago office, he oversaw cases involving municipalities and public pensions throughout the Midwest, including disclosure failures by states, cities, and underwriters in municipal bond offerings; pay-to-play and public corruption; and securities fraud victimizing municipalities and public pensions. Peter also served in national leadership roles within the SEC's Enforcement Division. Peter acted as national leader of the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative. He also served as co-chair of the Priorities and Resources Subcommittee of the Division of Enforcement Advisory Committee and was one of the original architects of the SEC Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force. Peter's experience in criminal securities fraud cases includes serving as Special Assistant US Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois in a criminal investigation into market abuse by a Chicago broker-dealer, resulting in guilty pleas by several senior executives at the firm. In 2014, Peter received the SEC's prestigious Paul R. Carey Award for his [e]xceptional personal commitment and effectiveness as a member of the Division of Enforcement.

The last thirty days in September, the end of the US federal government’s fiscal year, is generally an important time to analyze enforcement activity by the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In this short video, Baker McKenzie Partner Peter Chan, a former SEC Assistant Director of Enforcement, provides his insights regarding the importance of the timing of some of these enforcement actions.

US agencies such as the SEC, the CFTC and the FTC have extensive enforcement powers to seek significant financial penalties and limit or otherwise affect conduct through court injunctions or administrative orders. Companies and executives under investigation and threatened with enforcement actions by these agencies often choose to settle rather than litigate. Historically, from as cost-benefit analysis, settlement is preferable to the cost of litigation and the long term risks of extensive fights with agencies that would continue to be their regulators.

In an attempt to protect its oil and gas industry, Texas has passed legislation that seeks to punish investment firms that divest from fossil fuel related investments. On 16 March 2022, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Glenn Hegar, sent a letter to 19 major financial companies which was not limited to US or Texas-based companies and included Japanese companies requesting verification that they do not engage in investment policies that result in the boycott of fossil fuel-based energy. This request was made pursuant to Texas Government Code Chapter 809: recent legislation prohibiting the Texas Government from investing in financial companies that take any action intended to penalize, inflict economic harm, or limit commercial relations with a company based on the company’s involvement in fossil fuel-based energy.

A significant new rulemaking proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would fundamentally alter how private investment funds negotiate and communicate with their investors. The proposal (“Proposal”) would prohibit indemnification of managers for many types of mistakes, restrict some common side letter terms, require auditors to report certain events to the SEC and mandate quarterly reporting for private fund investors. Crucially, some of the Proposal’s prohibitions would, for the first time, substantively regulate unregistered and exempt investment advisers, both inside and outside of the United States.

Under the Biden Administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to be aggressive in bringing enforcement actions against alleged corporate wrongdoers. In fact, the stage is already set for a broad range of SEC enforcement activities in the corporate arena based on actions the SEC brought in 2020.…

Please join us for a new weekly video series, hosted by Baker McKenzie’s North America Government Enforcement partners Tom Firestone and Jerome Tomas.

This weekly briefing is available on demand and will cover hot topics and current enforcement actions related to white collar crime and criminal investigations in the US and abroad to arm you with the information you need to start your business week.

As one of the largest global law firms, we will call upon our exceptionally deep and broad bench of white collar experts throughout the world and particularly in the commercial hubs of Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America to join our weekly discussion series.

On 1 February 2021, FINRA issued its 2021 Report on FINRA’s Examination and Risk Monitoring Program (“FINRA Report”) and a bit more than a month later, the SEC’s recently renamed Division of Examinations issued its own 2021 Examination Priorities (“Exam Priorities”). Each of these documents is quite long, with the FINRA report at 44 pages and the Exam Priorities document at 36 pages, and although there are some differences in focus and scope, we did find some common themes, which we have chosen to highlight in what we hope will be a helpful summary.

Join Baker McKenzie regulatory and enforcement practitioners as we navigate this uncertain time and work together through the challenges ahead. We offer practical advice and real-time analysis of the changing landscape across the United States, Europe and Asia. Webinar Series: The New Framework for Investment Adviser Marketing In this 4-part…

Baker McKenzie’s Government Enforcement Practice Group would like to wish you a Happy New Year. We have all taken some time off for the holidays, and a lot has happened in the interim. Perhaps most significantly, Congress passed, over President Trump’s veto, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA). The most ballyhooed aspect of the NDAA, from a white-collar criminal law standpoint, has been the de facto elimination of anonymous shell companies — The Corporate Transparency Act, which is discussed below. However, the NDAA also included a number of other key provisions buried in the text, which are certain to assist the Government in its prosecution of white collar crime as well as increase compliance obligations on businesses. We have put together this note to clients and friends for the purpose of quickly updating you on these developments in a single document.