The Investors’ Control of Their Investment Advisers. Who Has the Final Word?

TAMAR FRANKEL

BU Law emerita professor Tamar Frankel discusses an emerging issue affecting financial advisers—when a client may exercise control over the actions of the adviser. Frankel relates the story of an investment adviser that did not follow the client’s orders to cease certain investments, at a cost of almost $5 million to the client. As Frankel explains, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) got involved, resulting in the investment adviser’s settlement for a significant payment to the client and other conditions.

Read More

Bah v. Barr

Docket: 18-1877

Opinion Date: February 13, 2020

Judge: Rushing

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fourth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determining that Petitioner was removable on account of his conviction for possession of ethylene, a substance that is illegal under both Virginia and federal law, holding that Petitioner's conviction renders him removable even though Virginia's controlled substance statute is broader than its federal counterpart. Petitioner, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, was found guilty by a Virginia court of possession of ethylene. Thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, alleging that he was removable because he had been convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Va. Code 18.2-250. The Immigration Judge deemed Petitioner removable. Before the BIA, Petitioner argued that the Virginia statute was overbroad and was indivisible. The BIA rejected Petitioner's argument. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that section 18.2-250(A), while overbroad, was divisible by substance, and the modified categorical approach was appropriate.