🧩 Kim Kardashian's SEC fine explained

New Supreme Court terms, many firm changes and more

Welcome to Lookzy. Lookzy is the daily email newsletter that makes staying up to date as a BigLaw lawyer fun and easy (because your job often won't be).

We cover the big stories your colleagues are talking about, digests of the day's big litigation and corporate news, salary/bonus/layoff developments and interesting law firm and law school news. We keep it topical and direct so that you can go back to billing.

In today's Lookzy:

  • New Supreme Court term begins, with Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson

  • Kim Kardashian's big fine, sent with love from Gary Gensler

  • A rundown of recent big lateral moves at firms

  • The best amicus brief you will ever read, courtesy of The Onion

KIM KARDASHIAN'S BIG FINE

Kim Kardashian agreed to pay a nearly $1.3 million dollar penalty to the SEC related to her sponsored advertisement of EthereumMax.

Kardashian had labeled the promotion as an ad on her Instagram story and mentioned she was not offering any financial advice, both of which are seen as doing an influencer-style ad "by the book" according to the FTC. So why did Kardashian get hit by this big fine?

The fine hinges on the SEC treating EthereumMax as a security. For such a promotion of a security, SEC rules require that, additionally, Kardashian disclose the amount she was paid for the promotion at the time of the promotion.

Kardashian made a comfy $250,000 for the ad. Breaking down Kardashian's fine, $260,000 was disgorgement of this profit, plus interest. The other $1 million was just a fine.

What is EthereumMax? No one knows, but of course Floyd Mayweather Jr. was also involved in advertising the token.

ECON SNAPSHOT

The difference between special bonuses and layoffs.

THE VERDICT

Arguing today's litigation news

New Supreme Court term begins. The new Supreme Court term kicked off yesterday, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to hear her first arguments on the Court. The Court also announced it would continue to provide live audio feed of all scheduled oral arguments.

DOJ is struggling to access evidence when employees use Telegram and WhatsApp. The DOJ is frustrated by employees' use of such encrypted messaging services for business and is considering ways to push employers to help provide messages in investigations.

Supreme Court to hear case challenging immunity of tech companies under Section 230. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects social media platforms from being sued over most third-party content. Gonzalez v. Google LLC will decide whether those protections are too far-reaching when it comes to recommendations of terrorist videos from Google’s YouTube.

THE DEAL

Wheelin' and dealin' today's corporate news

Is Credit Suisse on the brink of a Lehman-style collapse? Maybe not. Matt Levine breaks down the bank's CDS spreads and decides the bank is likely to live another day.

Barclays fined $200 million. In this economy? The SEC's fine is related to the unregistered sale of structured notes and related control deficiencies.

RWE's $6.8 billion clean energy deal. Cravath and Latham, respectively, represented German energy company RWE AG's purchase of Con Edison Clean Energy Businesses, Inc. to become one of the largest renewable energy companies in the world.

BUSINESS OF THE FIRM

Firm Changes: 

Influential Judge Laurence Silberman, also an administrative law professor at Georgetown law, dies.

Jury finds Foley Hoag liable for $92,000 in damages to a legal expert it hired.

Former Dewey & LeBoeuf CFO reaches tentative settlement to resolve SEC lawsuit.

SOME FUN

The Onion filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in defense of parody under the First Amendment, and it fantastic. Here's a taste:

Read the full brief here.

Alright, back to billing. That's all, folks!