Author Archives: gg3051

10 Steps to Identify and Manage Tariff Risks and Opportunities

by Jonny Frank and Laura Greenman

Jonny Frank and Laura Greenman (photos courtesy of StoneTurn Group, LLP)

This article builds on “Tariffs Meet COSO: A Two-Way Street to Risk & Opportunity Management,” which introduces the COSO Integrated Internal Control Framework and explains how to use it to meet tariff operations, reporting and compliance objectives. Here, we present a 10-step process for using COSO’s risk assessment component to avoid tariff under- and overpayments, mitigate legal and reputational harm and identify potential opportunities for operational efficiencies.

Continue reading →

Federal AI Contracts and the New Era of False Claims Act Enforcement

by Henry Fina and Matthew P. Suzor 

Left to right: Henry Fina and Matthew P. Suzor (photos courtesy of Miller Shah LLP)

The explosion of the Artificial Intelligence market has drawn capital investment from almost every corner of the economy. The federal government is no exception. Between FY 2022 and 2023, the potential value of federal AI contracts increased from approximately $356 million to $4.6 billion. In July 2025, the Trump Administration released its AI Action Plan, outlining government initiatives to aggressively deploy AI in the health and defense sectors. Accordingly, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Defense (DoD) have increased funding allocations toward AI contracts. As contractors compete for increasingly valuable awards with limited oversight, the potential for misrepresented capabilities and compliance gaps grows. While the industry’s strong tailwinds may translate into lucrative opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs, for qui tam litigators, the expansion of publicly contracted AI services signals a new frontier for False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement. In turn, the FCA will be essential in ensuring accountability as federal agencies gradually adjust oversight mechanisms to handle the inconsistent reliability and limited technological opacity of AI models.

Continue reading →

From Peanuts to Elephant-Sized Penalties:  A Fresh Look at Recent U.S. Export Controls Enforcement Developments & Future Trends

by Brent Carlson

Photo courtesy of the author

Export controls penalties that were previously peanuts compared to FCPA penalties are now becoming more like elephants, with the “high probability” standard driving the stampede.

On July 28, 2025, DOJ and BIS announced a $140 million resolution with an electronic design automation (“EDA”) exporter via a guilty plea[1] and BIS settlement[2] over exports to China.

The BIS settlement turned on what the exporter had “reason to know, including awareness of a high probability” (aka the “high probability” standard), and not just actual knowledge—an escalation in BIS’s use of the full definition of “knowledge” under the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).[3] Recent BIS guidance in July 2024, October 2024, and May 2025 foreshadowed this shift,[4] as did an August 15, 2025, $5.8 million settlement.[5]

For practical guidance on the “high probability” standard, see prior “Fresh Looks” posts.[6]

This recent case also warrants an update of the November 14, 2023, comparison of export controls and FCPA enforcement, which likewise leveraged the “high probability” standard.[7]

Continue reading →

Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Privilege and Work-Product Protections in Internal Investigations

by David B. Anders, Randall W. Jackson, and Michael W. Holt

PHOTOS OF AUTHORS

Left to right: David B. Anders, Randall W. Jackson, and Michael W. Holt (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

Conducting an internal investigation in a disciplined and organized way is essential to protecting privilege.  A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, In re FirstEnergy Corporation, No. 24-3654 (Oct. 3, 2025), underscores that courts will uphold attorney-client privilege and work-product protections where counsel directs the investigation and its legal purpose is clear—even when the resulting work also informs a company’s business decisions.  Continue reading →

Do the Enforcement Choices Match the “America First” Antitrust Rhetoric?

by Bilal Sayyed

Bilal Sayyed (photo courtesy of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP)

Gail Slater, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, suggests that the antitrust leadership of both political parties “underenforced our century-old antitrust laws for several decades,” accepting “false economic theories of self-correction” of markets negatively impacted by anticompetitive conduct and dominant firms.  Gail Slater, The Conservative Roots of America First Enforcement (Apr. 28, 2025).  Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Mark Meador recently criticized “the monstrously swollen firms who’ve hollowed out communities, raised prices, distorted labor markets, corrupted the public square, or otherwise degraded quality across [the] economy.” “Antitrust enforcement is,” according to Meador, “one of the most powerful, economy-wide tools available for addressing” a “dehumanization of economic life” associated with “the size and power of the largest companies” that have “ballooned to unprecedented levels.” Mark Meador, Antitrust’s Populist Soul (Sept. 15, 2025). “Big is bad.” Mark Meador, Antitrust Policy for the Conservative (May 1, 2025).

Continue reading →

The Newest Form of the Romance Scam: Corporate Insider Fraud Through Outsider Threat – How AI is Allowing Scammers to Make it Appear that Authorized Employees are Conducting Authorized Activity When the Opposite is True

by Tom Melvin, Rich Kando, and Kevin Madura

Left to right: Tom Melvin, Rich Kando, and Kevin Madura (photos courtesy of AlixPartners LLP)

Today’s most-concerning corporate romance is not on Coldplay’s kiss cam. Artificial-intelligence (AI)-enabled document creation, synthetic IDs, face swapping, and impersonated voice overlays have made online scams more dangerous and more ubiquitous than ever. Armed with those new tools, scammers once used them primarily to defraud individuals, with an estimated loss of $75 billion[1] is targeting corporate bank accounts and data repositories. Enter the corporate romance scam as a direct threat to two of a company’s most highly valuable assets: cash and data.

Continue reading →

Beware the Tariff DDP Trap: Managing Hidden Import Liabilities Before They Bite

by Jonny Frank and Jerry McAdams 

Photos of authors

Left to right: Jonny Frank and Jerry McAdams  (photos courtesy of StoneTurn Group, LLP)

Looking to mitigate tariffs, companies are purchasing foreign products through Duty Paid (“DDP”) transactions marketed by foreign suppliers as turnkey solutions.  DDPs promise efficiency but often deliver exposure. Under U.S. law, the importer—not the supplier—remains legally responsible for accurate customs declarations, tariff payments, and regulatory compliance. When suppliers cut corners or game the system, the importer inherits the fallout, including potential Customs Border Protection (“CBP”) penalties, DOJ criminal prosecution and False Claim Act (“FCA”) exposure.

Continue reading →

California Adopts New Employment Al Regulations Effective October 1, 2025

by Arsen Kourinian, Ruth Zadikany, and Remy N. Merritt

Left to right: Arsen Kourinian, Ruth Zadikany, and Remy N. Merritt (photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

The California Civil Rights Council (CRC) recently announced that it has finalized regulations that clarify how California’s anti-discrimination laws apply to the use of artificial intelligence (Al) and automated decision systems (ADSs) in employment decision-making (the “Regulations”). The Regulations provide that the use of an ADS (including Al) in making employment decisions can violate California law if such tools discriminate against employees or applicants — either directly or due to disparate impact — on the basis of protected characteristics (including race, age, religious creed, national origin, gender, and disability).

Continue reading →

Recent Developments in the Law of Federal Property Fraud: It’s a Long and Winding Road

by James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Katherine R. Goldstein, Michael A. Asaro, and Parvin Daphne Moyne 

Left to right: James Joseph Benjamin Jr., Katherine R. Goldstein, Michael A. Asaro, and Parvin Daphne Moyne (photos courtesy of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP)

In two recent high-profile decisions, Chastain v. United States and Johnson v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed wire fraud convictions that were based on theories resembling insider trading.[1] In both cases, the government invoked the wire fraud statute, and not a securities fraud statute, because the products at issue (non-fungible tokens and spot foreign currency) were not securities. These cases mark the latest developments in a long-running, ongoing and sometimes head-spinning debate in the courts concerning the breadth of the federal property fraud statutes.

Continue reading →

DOJ Defines “Illegal DEI,” Warns Recipients of Federal Funds to Take Notice

by Adam S. Hickey, Marcia E. Goodman, Ruth Zadikany, and Hiral D. Mehta

Left to right: Adam S. Hickey, Marcia E. Goodman, Ruth Zadikany, and Hiral D. Mehta (photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

On July 29, 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (the “Guidance”). Following the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud  Initiative by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and joint guidance issued by DOJ and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on “unlawful DEI-related discrimination“, the Guidance is the most tangible guidance released to date on what the administration views as “illegal DEI” and a likely roadmap for DOJ’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) investigations under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative.

Continue reading →