Author Archives: Joseph P Facciponti

PCCE Hosts Roundtable Discussion on Leniency Policies with the DOJ’s Antitrust Division

All photos courtesy of NYU Photo Bureau

On September 19, 2024, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted senior members of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division including Emma Burnham, Director of Criminal Enforcement, Ryan Danks, Director of Civil Enforcement, and Sean Farrell, Chief, New York Office, as well as academics, in-house counsel, and distinguished members of the antitrust bar to examine the efficacy of the Antitrust Division’s corporate and individual leniency policy and discuss possible reforms. The roundtable discussion was moderated by Director Burnham, PCCE Faculty Director Jennifer Arlen, and NYU Law Professor Daniel Francis.

Photos of the event below:

Continue reading →

PCCE Welcomes Four New Members to its Board of Advisors

The NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is delighted to announce that Avi Gesser, Randall Jackson, Winston Paes, and Jennifer Zachary have joined PCCE’s Board of Advisors.

Left to right: Avi Gesser, Randall Jackson, Winston Paes, and Jennifer Zachary (Photos courtesy of board members)

Continue reading →

PCCE Hosts Senior DOJ Officials for a Discussion of the Newly Announced Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program

PDAAG Nicole Argentieri. (All photos courtesy of Sam Hollenshead, NYU Photo Bureau)

On September 17, 2024, the NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) hosted Nicole M. Argentieri, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Brent Wible, Chief Counselor for the Criminal Division, and Molly Moeser, Chief of the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section, as well as academics and distinguished counsel, for a discussion of the DOJ Criminal Division’s newly-announced Corporate Whistleblower Awards Program. A link to the details of the program is here. Below are the remarks delivered by PDAAG Argentieri. After Argentieri’s remarks, PCCE Faculty Director Jenifer Arlen led a fireside chat discussion with Brent Wible, followed by a moderated panel discussion that included Molly Moeser, Jane Norberg (Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP), Preston Pugh (Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP), Dan Richman (Professor, Columbia Law School), Max Rodriguez ’15 (Principal, Max Rodriguez Law PLCC), and Andrew Weissmann (Professor, NYU Law). Opening remarks were delivered by Troy McKenzie, Dean of NYU School of Law.

Continue reading →

Takeaways from the Dismissal of Most of the Government’s Case Against the SolarWinds CISO

by Ilona Cohen

Photo courtesy of the author

Last year, the government filed a landmark lawsuit alleging that SolarWinds and its Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) misled the public about the company’s cybersecurity practices before and after a major cyberattack. The charges surprised leaders in the industry and forced many companies to reevaluate their own security programs. In a recent development, however, a judge in New York dismissed most of the charges against the company and SolarWinds’ CISO, leaving many to wonder what these developments mean for them.

The case against SolarWinds was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a government agency that has interpreted its authority broadly to regulate publicly traded companies. The court did not agree with the SEC’s use of that authority in key respects and dismissed allegations that the statements in SolarWinds’ press releases, blog posts, podcasts, and certain SEC filings, misrepresented the company’s cybersecurity risks and controls.

Continue reading →

FinCEN Adopts Rule Extending AML/CFT Requirements to RIAs and ERAs, Further Increasing Regulatory Obligations on Investment Advisers

by David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Ivet Bell, David Nicolardi, and Nathaniel Balk

Left to Right: David Sewell, Timothy Clark, Ivet Bell, David Nicolardi, and Nathaniel Balk (photos courtesy of authors)

On August 28, 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) adopted a final rule that extends anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance obligations to certain types of investment advisers (the Final Rule), and delegates to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the authority to examine investment advisers’ compliance with these obligations.[1] The Final Rule ends a long-running debate over whether to subject investment advisers to AML/CFT obligations after multiple prior proposals to do so had stalled.

The Final Rule imports standards and requirements that will be familiar to investment advisers affiliated with financial institutions already subject to AML/CFT obligations, but may be new to smaller and independent investment advisers. For these entities, the compliance uplift required could be substantial.

Continue reading →

Confronting Percoco and Full Play: The Limitations of Honest Services Fraud and the Travel Act as an Alternative Source of Liability for Commercial Bribery

by Hector Correa Gaviria and Berke Gursoy

Left to Right: Hector Correa Gaviria and Berke Gursoy (photos courtesy of authors)

On September 1st, 2023, District Court Judge Pamela Chen delivered a startling decision, overturning the honest services fraud convictions of Hernán Lopez, former Fox executive, and FullPlay Group, S.A., an Argentine sports marketing company. Lopez and FullPlay were convicted of federal wire fraud for bribing employees of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and CONMEBOL (the South American soccer federation under the umbrella of FIFA) to secure lucrative broadcasting contracts for some of Latin America’s most prestigious soccer tournaments and World Cup qualifying matches.

In United States v. Full Play,[1] a federal jury found that Lopez and FullPlay used U.S. wires to defraud FIFA by depriving the international soccer organization of the right to its employees’ faithful and honest services in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 (jointly referred to as honest services wire fraud “HSF”). However, soon after this conviction, the Supreme Court in Percoco v. United States limited the scope of HSF.[2] They did so by restricting the sources of fiduciary duty that can support an HSF conviction, holding that a limited number of on-point pre-McNally cases was insufficient to sustain an HSF conviction.[3] Through this ruling, Percoco essentially established a limiting principle for HSF; however, it did not articulate a test for when an actionable fiduciary duty under HSF could be found.[4]

In the wake of Percoco, the defendants in Full Play filed a motion for acquittal on their honest services charges. They argued that under Percoco, honest services fraud does not cover foreign commercial bribery because the statute requires defendants to induce a violation of the bribe-recipient’s fiduciary duty to the victim organization and because the type of fiduciary duty alleged in this case, a duty owed by foreign employees to a foreign employer, is not cognizable under §1346. Judge Chen agreed, holding that there was not “even a smattering” of pre-McNally cases to support the defendants’ HSF convictions.[5]

Though this case is under appeal, the judge’s ruling represents the difficulties of post-Percoco commercial bribery prosecutions through § 1346.[6] This article will argue that the Travel Act, 18 USC § 1952, represents an effective substitute for § 1346 that allows federal prosecution of commercial bribery through both HSF and state-level commercial bribery statutes.

Continue reading →

EU Court Upholds Commission’s Power To Demand Data Held by Foreign Companies

by Bill Batchelor, Ryan D. Junck, David A. Simon, Nicola Kerr-Shaw, Bora P. Rawcliffe, and Margot Seve

Top left to right: Bill Batchelor, Ryan D. Junck, and David A. Simon. Bottom left to right: Nicola Kerr-Shaw, Bora P. Rawcliffe, and Margot Seve (Photos courtesy of authors)

Summary

In Nuctech Warsaw (T-284/24), the EU Court of Justice held that EU subsidiaries can lawfully be required to provide access to email accounts and data held by their overseas parent company. The ruling involved the following framing:

Broad reach of EU extraterritorial investigative powers: The order interprets the European Commission’s (EC’s) investigative powers broadly. EU law applies to conduct with significant effects in the EU, even if the conduct occurs outside the EU. Consequently, the EC may request information from non-EU companies to assess potential EU law violations.
Implications for other EU enforcement regimes: The investigation was carried out under the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR), but the ruling has implications for the EC’s powers under general antitrust rules and other regulations such as the Digital Markets Act or the Digital Services Act. The judgment follows divergent rulings in the UK that limited the extraterritorial reach of UK regulators’ enforcement powers in fraud and antitrust cases. (See our February 2021 alert “English Supreme Court Limits Serious Fraud Office’s Extraterritorial Reach” for more details.)
Siloing access to data within a corporate organization: The ruling held that there was no evidence local subsidiaries could not access China-held data, or that compliance with the EC’s inspection decision would compel the applicants and the group to infringe Chinese law, including criminal law. Therefore, companies should consider:
- If their IT environment and procedures can be siloed to enable the company to demonstrate that accessing parent company data from the EU is not technically feasible without cooperation from the non-EU entities.
- Whether law and regulation applicable to a company would prevent it from sharing this data with an EU regulator. If so, this should be well-documented in advance, potentially with external legal counsel validation, so that any refusal to comply with a request for data could be quickly substantiated with specific reference to other applicable laws.

Continue reading →

It May Not Be Worth the Paper (or Pixel) It’s Written On (Part 2): A Fresh Look at Common Responses to Bolster Export Controls Compliance Programs as BIS Primes the Corporate Enforcement Engine

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

Amid reports of continued export controls diversion[1] to entities in locations including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) has been priming the corporate enforcement engine.[2] This dynamic increases challenges for in-house legal and compliance teams to respond to BIS’ latest moves and bolster compliance program effectiveness. In this new environment, the greatest compliance risks revolve around explaining and defending relationships with distributors and resellers in the face of allegations and reports of product diversion or other “red flags” indicating the same—a task made more nuanced under the “high probability” standard of “knowledge” recently highlighted by BIS in new guidance issued on July 10, 2024 (the “July 10 BIS Guidance”).[3]

In Part 1 we previously discussed the practice of using letters of assurance—and the problems of relying solely upon them without resolving related red flags—to bolster export controls compliance programs in response to the new BIS enforcement playbook.[4] In Part 2 we now examine other common responses based on legacy approaches to export controls and why they are ineffective—and even detrimental—in today’s new and evolving enforcement environment.

Continue reading →

CFTC Begins Its Enforcement of NDA Rule with Action Against Trafigura

by Benjamin Calitri

Photo courtesy of the author

On June 17, 2024, Trafigura Trading LLC (“Trafigura”) agreed to pay $55 million to settle charges brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) that they “traded gasoline while in knowing possession of material nonpublic information, . . . manipulated a fuel oil benchmark to benefit its futures and swaps positions,” and notably that they violated CFTC Regulation 165.19(b) by “requir[ing] its employees to sign employment agreements, and request[ing] that former employees sign separation agreements containing non-disclosure provisions prohibiting them from disclosing company information, with no exception for law enforcement agencies or regulators.” This is the CFTC’s first enforcement of Regulation 165.19(b).

Continue reading →

Shining a Light on the Shadows: A Data-Driven Look at Global Anti-Corruption Efforts

by Leonardo Borlini

Photo courtesy of the author

Corruption has been the target of significant international efforts in recent decades. A complex web of international treaties and monitoring mechanisms has emerged, aiming to curb this global scourge. But how effective are these efforts? Are countries truly implementing and complying with their international anti-corruption commitments?

In my recent study, Compliance Mechanisms as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Tool for the Evolution of the International Anti-Corruption Cooperation: A Data-Driven Study, forthcoming in 22(2) International Constitutional Law Journal (2024), I try to shed light on these questions. Using innovative text-as-data analysis, the study delves into the vast trove of evaluation and compliance reports produced by the monitoring mechanisms established by the main international anti-corruption. The findings offer a comprehensive assessment of the successes, failures, and enduring challenges in global anti-corruption cooperation.

Continue reading →