Category Archives: Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

CFTC Begins Its Enforcement of NDA Rule with Action Against Trafigura

by Benjamin Calitri

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

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Stands Up to Protect Whistleblowers from Overly Broad NDAs

by Benjamin Calitri

Benjamin Calitri

Photo courtesy of author

Protections for whistleblowers from overly expansive non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) aimed at preventing whistleblowers from providing information to law enforcement and regulators have been expanding exponentially in the past year. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enforcement of Rule 21F-17(a) has gained teeth by increasing the monetary sanctions for enforcement. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) took its first enforcement of Regulation 165.19(b) against Trafigura for the use of NDAs meant to silence whistleblowers. The latest agency to take action against overly expansive NDAs is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which has announced that their employee protection regulation applies to NDAs that seek to silence whistleblowers.

Continue reading

DOJ Launches New Whistleblower Incentive Program

by Kevin ChambersTerra ReynoldsDouglas K. Yatter, and Lilia B. Vazova

Photos of authors.

From left to right: Kevin Chambers, Terra Reynolds, Douglas K. Yatter, and Lilia B. Vazova. (Photos courtesy of Latham & Watkins LLP)

DOJ’s pilot program aims to fill gaps in existing federal whistleblower programs and incentivize prompt corporate self-disclosure alongside individual whistleblower tips.

Following the March 2024 announcement of its intention to introduce a new corporate whistleblower incentive program, on August 1, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a three-year pilot program for rewarding whistleblowers who alert DOJ to significant corporate misconduct. DOJ’s new program, modeled after whistleblower programs run by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), may generate a significant number of tips about potential misconduct and adds an important new dimension for companies’ compliance measures and handling of investigations.

Continue reading

Empirical Data Supports Efforts to Reform Internal Corporate Whistleblower Protections

by Stephen M. Kohn, Alyce Petit, Kate Reeves, and Geoff Schweller

Photos of the authors

Left to Right: Stephen M. Kohn, Alyce Petit, Kate Reeves and Geoff Schweller (photos courtesy of authors)

Corporate whistleblowers who report through internal compliance channels face higher rates of retaliation than those who report externally to the government, according to research published in a working paper on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

An analysis of 8-years worth of Dodd-Frank Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower retaliation cases found that over 90% of the cases involved internal whistleblowers.

These findings are of particular importance in light of Congressional efforts to amend the Dodd-Frank Act to extend anti-retaliation protections for internal whistleblowers. They also validate the importance of regulations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that explicitly do not require whistleblowers to make internal reports prior to qualifying for a reward under the Dodd-Frank.

Continue reading

CFTC Year in Review: 23 Takeaways From 2023 and Predictions for 2024

by Matthew B. KulkinElizabeth L. Mitchell, Gretchen Passe Roin, Timothy F. Silva, Tiffany J. Smith, Dino WuMatthew Beville, and Joseph M. Toner

Photos of the authors

Top (left to right): Matthew B. Kulkin, Elizabeth L. Mitchell, Gretchen Passe Roin, and Timothy F. Silva
Bottom (left to right): Tiffany J. Smith, Dino Wu, Matthew Beville, and Joseph M. Toner (photos courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP)

At an industry event in early 2023, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or the Commission) Chairman Rostin Behnam set out a comprehensive agenda.[1] When Chairman Behnam detailed the CFTC’s 2023 work plan, the CFTC was building on its first year with a full slate of Commissioners, new Division Directors, and senior leadership. As we look back on the recently completed calendar year and turn our attention to the rapidly approaching 2024 presidential and congressional elections, the CFTC seems poised for another year packed with a flurry of regulatory, policy, and enforcement activity. This article lays out 23 of our key takeaways from the past year and offers insights on what might take place in the coming months.

Continue reading

A Thousand Pilot Programs Bloom: DOJ Pushes Forward to Further Welcome Whistleblowers

by Max Rodriguez

photo of author

Max Rodriguez (photo courtesy of author)

Not even three months into the new year, the Department of Justice has announced three new pilot whistleblower programs that meaningfully incentivize whistleblowers to come forward and bring new information to the government’s attention. These programs have the potential to help supercharge DOJ’s already-substantial enforcement capabilities and fill a much-needed gap for whistleblowers, who were limited to reporting information to subject matter-specific agency programs or only pursuant to individual enforcement authorities under DOJ’s purview like the False Claims Act.

Still, details matter, and implementation is everything. Many questions remain about how these programs will work in practice, and how they will interact with other overlapping or abutting whistleblower programs. These overlaps and details will present challenges for the government and for attorneys representing whistleblowers to minimize the risk and maximize the reward for their clients.

Continue reading

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 2): A Fresh Look at the “High Probability” Definition of Knowledge Applied to Export Controls and Sanctions Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

Media coverage concerning the widespread use of U.S. or Western microelectronics in recovered Russian- or Iranian-manufactured missiles and drones is putting pressure on governments, manufacturers, and exporters to consider ways to reduce more effectively the flows of such items to prohibited end-users. Even considering that many of the items are ubiquitous consumer electronics, the discovery of such items after mass-casualty events—including fatalities—on the front lines puts manufacturers and exporters on the front pages and in the crosshairs of U.S. regulators, prosecutors, media, and congressional committees. However the items arrived on the battlefield, their presence begs the questions of how and through whom they arrived. Continue reading

U.S. White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: Some Thoughts for 2024

by Joshua A. Naftalis and Melissa Kelley

Photos of authors

Left to right: Joshua A. Naftalis and Melissa Kelley (Photos courtesy of Pallas Partners LLP)

2023 was another busy year in the U.S. white-collar and regulatory enforcement areas.  As we begin 2024, a few of the Government’s recent enforcement policies and priorities should be kept front of mind: (1) the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) focus on corporate criminal enforcement; (2) DOJ’s related prioritization of sanctions evasion and anti-foreign bribery enforcement; (3) the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) diverging policies on “no-admit/no-deny” settlements; and (4) the cryptoasset space.  

Continue reading

How Not to Stand Out Like a Sore Thumb (Part 1): A Fresh Look at the “Willful” Intent Standard for Criminal Liability in Export Controls and Sanctions Corporate Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (Photos courtesy of authors)

“The ‘willfulness’ standard for criminal prosecutions appears nearly insurmountable to reach.”

So concluded a “90-Day Review Report” issued January 2, 2024 by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, following congressional hearings in May and December 2023.[1] The report further contended that “the statutory requirement to prove ‘willfulness’” for there to be a criminal violation of U.S. export controls (and sanctions) is a “high bar” that “often results in [the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry & Security (“BIS”)] export enforcement personnel pursuing administrative enforcement actions with lower penalties,” compared to the alternative (unstated but implied by the report) of U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) personnel pursuing criminal penalties.[2]

This conclusion is not accurate. BIS is not itself responsible for criminal enforcement, yet it has partnered closely with the DOJ’s National Security Division—including by co-leading the inter-agency Disruptive Technology Strike Force launched on February 16, 2023—to bring several high-profile convictions or resolutions. Nor is the requirement to prove willfulness “insurmountable” for U.S. federal prosecutors, whose cases achieve the standard regularly and can do so not only with direct evidence of intent but also indirect evidence, i.e., the relevant facts and circumstances. Such facts and circumstances often—especially in the eyes of jurors—make the willful nature of criminal evasion schemes stand out like a sore thumb. Continue reading

White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2023 and What to Expect in 2024

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Sarah K. Eddy, Randall W. Jackson, and Kevin S. Schwartz

Photos of Authors

Top left to right: John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, and David B. Anders.
Bottom left to right: Sarah K. Eddy, Randall W. Jackson, and Kevin S. Schwartz. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

This past year was yet another notable and intensely active one across the entire range of white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement areas. We heard continued tough talk from law enforcement authorities, especially concerning the government’s desire to bring more enforcement actions against individuals and on the need to keep ramping up corporate fines and penalties. The government largely lived up to its talking points about increasing the numbers of individual prosecutions and proceedings, particularly with respect to senior executives in the cryptoasset industry. But there were some notable stumbles. The most striking example of this was DOJ’s failure to secure convictions in cases where it attempted to extend criminal antitrust enforcement in unprecedented areas, such as no-poach employment agreements and against certain vertical arrangements—neither of which has historically been viewed as involving per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. And, as in years past, many state attorneys general remained active throughout 2023, using broad state consumer-protection statutes to bring blockbuster cases across a wide array of industries, from ridesharing and vaping to opioids and consumer technology offerings.

Continue reading