4 ms·

Sub headline more relevant than the headline: "Company Will Pay $10 Million to Settle First Enforcement Action Against Alternative Data Provider". This is such

Sub headline more relevant than the headline: "Company Will Pay $10 Million to Settle First Enforcement Action Against Alternative Data Provider". This is such an insanely good arb for App Annie it boggles the mind. Paying a $10mm vig to the SEC for a scheme that probably minted hundreds of millions in revenue from hedge funds is a no brainer. If the SEC actually wanted to disincentivize future bad actors they'd prosecute rather than issue hilariously petty fines.

outworlder 5y ago
Yeah. At those levels, it's essentially a tax.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  It seems that’s pretty much by design these days. Most fines are not high enough to be a real deterrent.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> If the SEC actually wanted to disincentivize future bad actors they'd prosecute rather than issue hilariously petty fines The SEC can't prosecute. They can only make criminal referrals to the DoJ.
- ajsharp 5y ago
  I assume DOJ can't prosecute when SEC comes to a settlement agreement?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > I assume DOJ can't prosecute when SEC comes to a settlement agreement? This is incorrect. The SEC has no prosecution authority. That means it can't prosecute. It also means it can't take criminal prosecution off the table.
  - vmception 5y ago
    That's not a good assumption. Parallel enforcement routinely happens. Sometimes simultaneously, sometimes later. Sometimes both are reported in the same places, other times one is not reported at all except on DOJ's own website or in more obscure court dockets. Sometimes there is no referral. Sometimes the DOJ passes on it.
    - ajsharp 5y ago
      So if that's the case, what is the incentive to settle for the company? Or can the SEC just arbitrarily levy fees?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - tych0 5y ago
        Companies/directors can (and do, see e.g. Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes) settle without admitting fault. Presumably the goal is to lower the number of three letter agencies investigating you.
        hermitdev 5y ago
        Well, at least in the case of Holmes, her legal troubles are not over. I'm not familiar with the details, but among the charges are defrauding investors. The trial just started on Sep 8th.
      - belltaco 5y ago
        Several reasons.Just the lawyer fees to fight the SEC lawyers will be a lot. What they did could be worse than what the SEC found so far. Discovery process may be painful and lead to emails and documents to be published on the web. It will be a big distraction for the top brass.
- derefr 5y ago
  Nothing has happened here that breaks a regulation under which a civil suit can be brought?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Nothing has happened here that breaks a regulation on which a civil suit can be brought? That's what this announcement is. The SEC charged them. They settled. The investigation, meanwhile, provides documentary evidence for some of the wronged to pursue claims against the wrongdoers.

outworlder 5y ago

Yeah. At those levels, it's essentially a tax.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
It seems that’s pretty much by design these days. Most fines are not high enough to be a real deterrent.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> If the SEC actually wanted to disincentivize future bad actors they'd prosecute rather than issue hilariously petty fines The SEC can't prosecute. They can only make criminal referrals to the DoJ.

ajsharp 5y ago
I assume DOJ can't prosecute when SEC comes to a settlement agreement?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > I assume DOJ can't prosecute when SEC comes to a settlement agreement? This is incorrect. The SEC has no prosecution authority. That means it can't prosecute. It also means it can't take criminal prosecution off the table.
- vmception 5y ago
  That's not a good assumption. Parallel enforcement routinely happens. Sometimes simultaneously, sometimes later. Sometimes both are reported in the same places, other times one is not reported at all except on DOJ's own website or in more obscure court dockets. Sometimes there is no referral. Sometimes the DOJ passes on it.
  - ajsharp 5y ago
    So if that's the case, what is the incentive to settle for the company? Or can the SEC just arbitrarily levy fees?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - tych0 5y ago
      Companies/directors can (and do, see e.g. Theranos/Elizabeth Holmes) settle without admitting fault. Presumably the goal is to lower the number of three letter agencies investigating you.
      - hermitdev 5y ago
        Well, at least in the case of Holmes, her legal troubles are not over. I'm not familiar with the details, but among the charges are defrauding investors. The trial just started on Sep 8th.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Several reasons.Just the lawyer fees to fight the SEC lawyers will be a lot. What they did could be worse than what the SEC found so far. Discovery process may be painful and lead to emails and documents to be published on the web. It will be a big distraction for the top brass.
derefr 5y ago
Nothing has happened here that breaks a regulation under which a civil suit can be brought?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Nothing has happened here that breaks a regulation on which a civil suit can be brought? That's what this announcement is. The SEC charged them. They settled. The investigation, meanwhile, provides documentary evidence for some of the wronged to pursue claims against the wrongdoers.