Category Archives: Corporate Investigations

No Good Deed: Privilege is at Risk When the Government Directs Your Company’s Internal Investigation

by Jeffrey P. Schomig

Photo courtesy of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

It is a familiar scene in corporate governance:  A company learns of potential malfeasance within its ranks.  Its board forms a special committee and hires outside counsel to conduct an internal review.  Outside counsel interviews key employees and prepares a detailed account of events which it presents to the board. The board then decides whether to part ways with any employees who breached company policy or broke the law. 

A key additional decision facing the company is whether to cooperate with government authorities, some of whom may already be investigating the incident.  For many (if not most) companies, this is a decision in theory only.  Failure to cooperate can result in reputational harm among the public and stockholders, massive fines or even indictment of the company – an event that many company counsel and their boards fear could be a mortal blow.[1] 

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

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

DOJ Announces First FCPA Enforcement Activity After Months-Long Pause

by Kimberly A. Parker, Jay Holtmeier, Erin G.H. Sloane, and Christopher Cestaro

Left to Right: Kimberly A. Parker, Jay Holtmeier, Erin G.H. Sloane, and Christopher Cestaro (photos courtesy of WilmerHale)

Over the past week, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) unsealed its first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement action and issued its first declination since the pause in FCPA enforcement mandated by President Donald Trump’s February 10, 2025 Executive Order (“February Executive Order”)[1] and the subsequent issuance of updated FCPA enforcement guidelines, the Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (“June Guidelines”).[2]  

Continue reading

A Step Towards Transparency Or The Devil Is In The Detail? Analysing The Effectiveness Of The SFO’s New Corporate Guidance

by Jonah AndersonNeill BlundellAnneka Randhawa, and Phil Taylor

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Jonah Anderson, Neill Blundell, Anneka Randhawa and Phil Taylor (photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

More than a decade ago, the concept of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) became part of UK law. Ever since, there has been considerable uncertainty as to exactly what conditions a company needs to meet in order to be given the chance to enter into a DPA. Continue reading

White Collar Experts Discuss New DOJ Criminal Enforcement Priorities (Part II)

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Trump Administration’s new approach to corporate criminal enforcement. In this post, which is the second in a 2-part series, PCCE invited leading white collar practitioners to discuss the new enforcement priorities and revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) outlined by Matthew Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division for the DOJ, in a speech at the SIFMA Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference on May 12, 2025.

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Robertson Park, Elizabeth Roper, and Maria Piontkovska (photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading

White Collar Experts Discuss New DOJ Criminal Enforcement Priorities (Part I)

Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Trump Administration’s new approach to corporate criminal enforcement. In this post, PCCE invited leading white collar practitioners to discuss the new enforcement priorities and revisions to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) outlined by Matthew Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division for the DOJ, in a speech at the SIFMA Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference on May 12, 2025.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Paul Krieger, Michael Chang-Frieden, Sharon Cohen Levin, and Andrew J. DeFilippis
Bottom left to right: David Massey, Jamie Schafer, Seetha Ramachandran, and William C. Komaroff
(photos courtesy of the authors)

Continue reading

European Union, United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority Impose More Than €549 Million in Fines on Major Car Manufacturers for 15-Year Cartel Involving Vehicle Recycling

by Jonathan J. Rusch

photo of author

Photo courtesy of the author

On April 1, the European Commission (EC) and the United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) simultaneously announced that they had imposed fines collectively totaling more than €549 million against a total of 17 leading car manufacturers and two trade groups, the European Automobiles Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) and the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT), for conducting a more than 15-year cartel pertaining to “end-of-life” vehicle recycling.[1]

Continue reading

SEC Now Requires Commission Approval for Subpoenas, but Says It Is Not ‘Walking Away’ From Enforcement

by Andrew Goldstein, Elizabeth Skey, and Bingxin Wu

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Andrew Goldstein, Elizabeth Skey and Bingxin Wu (photos courtesy of Cooley LLP)

On March 10, 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a final rule that will require a majority of the commissioners to agree before the SEC formally opens an investigation. For the past 15 years, that power had been delegated to the SEC’s director of enforcement – enabling SEC staff attorneys to issue subpoenas to companies and individuals without approval of the commission. The new rule will make it more difficult for staff to gain subpoena power, adding a bureaucratic hurdle that could slow investigations down. At the same time, however, Acting Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement Antonia Apps has insisted publicly that the SEC is not “walking away” from enforcement, but will focus on core areas, such as fraud and deceptive market practices.

Continue reading

Personal and Ephemeral Messaging Platforms: A Priority Target for Enforcement and Regulators.

by David Craig, Michael Koenig, and Mark Rosman

Photos of the authors

Left to right: David Craig, Michael Koenig, and Mark Rosman (photos courtesy of Secretariat and Proskauer Rose)

In the not-too-distant past, professionals used email as their primary, if not their only, means of electronic communication. Texting was a futuristic novelty but also clumsy endeavor requiring between one and four button pushes on a small keypad to produce a single letter on an even smaller screen. It goes without saying, text messaging was ill-suited for rapid and substantive business communications. While a company’s employees occasionally sent work-related text messages for scheduling purposes, clear dividing lines generally existed between personal and professional communication. This made litigation holds and discovery relatively straight forward: discoverable business-related communications were in one bucket and non-discoverable personal communications were in another.

Continue reading