Category Archives: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

SDNY Whistleblower Pilot Program Incentivizes Self-Disclosure and Cooperation

by Helen V. Cantwell, Andrew J. Ceresney, Andrew M. Levine, David A. O’Neil, Winston M. Paes, Jane Shvets, Bruce E. Yannett, Douglas S. Zolkind, Erich O. Grosz, and Rebecca Maria Urquiola

Top left to right: Helen V. Cantwell, Andrew J. Ceresney, Andrew M. Levine, David A. O’Neil, and Winston M. Paes.
Bottom left to right: Jane Shvets, Bruce E. Yannett, Douglas S. Zolkind, Erich O. Grosz, and Rebecca Maria Urquiola. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) launched the SDNY Whistleblower Pilot Program (the “Program”).[1] The Program seeks to incentivize individuals to report criminal wrongdoing—including corporate control failures, state and local bribery, and fraudulent dealings involving public funds—before SDNY learns of the conduct and to fully cooperate with any resulting investigations and prosecutions. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams encouraged individuals “to come clean, cooperate, and get on the right side of the law,” cautioning “[c]all us before we call you.”[2]

Continue reading →

U.S. M&A Antitrust Enforcement: 2023 and the Year Ahead

by Ilene Knable Gotts, Nelson O. Fitts, Damian G. Didden, Christina C. Ma, and Monica L. Smith.

From left to right: Ilene Knable Gotts, Nelson O. Fitts, Damian G. Didden, Christina C. Ma, and Monica L. Smith (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

In 2023, leadership of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice maintained an aggressive approach to merger enforcement, investigating and challenging transactions on the basis of a broad range of theories of harm articulated in the agencies’ newly issued 2023 Merger Guidelines. Although some transaction parties abandoned their deals at the prospect of a lengthy investigation or litigation, others defended their transactions in court, where the agencies met with mixed success. The FTC and DOJ also continued to disfavor merger settlements, entering into only three such consent decrees in 2023.

Continue reading →

Possible Unintended Consequences of the SDNY’s New Whistleblower Program

by Brian A. Jacobs and A. Dennis Dillon

From left to right: Brian Jacobs and A. Dennis Dillon (photos courtesy of authors)

Cooperating witness Gary Wang provided crucial testimony in the prosecution of Sam Bankman-Fried, by describing (among other things) how at Bankman-Fried’s direction he had coded a means for Alameda Research—the FTX-affiliated hedge fund—to withdraw unlimited funds from FTX. Mr. Wang’s credibility was enhanced by the fact he already had pled guilty to four felony counts, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud, and had accepted a theoretical maximum sentence of decades in prison. It is possible, but by no means certain, given Mr. Wang’s cooperation, that he will receive little or no prison time. Even so, he will carry the burden of a felony conviction forever. Had the FTX case (and his confession) come just a year later, however, might the outcome have been different?

Continue reading →

Looking Back at Fall 2023 PCCE Events: Conference on Security, Privacy, and Consumer Protection

As we prepare for a full schedule of events in 2024, the NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is taking a moment to reflect on our busy Fall 2023 program. In this post, we review our November 17, 2023 full day conference on Security, Privacy, and Consumer Protection.

(©Hollenshead: Courtesy of NYU Photo Bureau)

Continue reading →

SDNY Announces Whistleblower Pilot Program to Incentivize Self-Disclosure of Financial Fraud and Public Corruption

by Joshua A. Naftalis, Anastasia Cembrovska, Brianna Hills Simopoulos, and Jingxi Zhai

Joshua A. Naftalis, Anastasia Cembrovska, Brianna Hills Simopoulos, and Jingxi Zhai (photos courtesy of Pallas Partners LLP)

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) has rolled out a first-of-its-kind whistleblower program that offers individuals who self-report financial fraud or public corruption a path to a non-prosecution agreement. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams unveiled the pilot program on January 10, 2024, which provides specific guidance for when the SDNY will enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for an individual’s “early and voluntary self-disclosure of criminal conduct.”

Continue reading →

Boards of Directors Lovin’ It after McDonald’s? A Fresh Look at Directors’ Duty of Oversight in the New Era of Sanctions & Export Control Corporate Enforcement

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

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

In this era of heightened geopolitical tensions with a renewed focus on national security, a perfect storm of liability risk is brewing for boards of directors.

Sanctions and export controls violations can be costly and dangerous, with multi-billion-dollar fines and jail sentences imposed in 2023.

For companies engaged in international trade, these events engage directors’ fiduciary duties. Looking to bellwether Delaware corporate law, Delaware’s Chancery Court recently reiterated in the McDonald’s shareholder litigation that directors’ Caremark duty of oversight is a function of their duty of loyalty. As such, this reinforces the limits of the protections directors would otherwise have if it were instead a function of the duty of care—under both the business judgment rule and “exculpation,” i.e., the option corporations have to excuse in their certificates of incorporation directors’ liability for breaches of their duty of care (but not of loyalty).[1] Directors’ duty of oversight further requires ensuring that they receive information regarding any “central compliance risks,” not just “mission critical” risks, and that there is an appropriate response to red flags. Continue reading →

A View from Abroad: Unpacking DOJ’s M&A Safe Harbor Policy, Part II

by Joel M. Cohen, Marietou Diouf, James Hsiao, Francisco Málaga Diéguez, Aleksandra Oziemska, Jean-Pierre Picca, Anneka Randhawa, Jean-Lou Salha, Dr. Daniel Zapf, Dr. Nicolas Rossbrey, and Dr. Tine Schauenburg

Top left to right: Joel M. Cohen, Marietou Diouf, James Hsiao, Francisco Malaga, Aleksandra Oziemska, and Jean-Pierre Picca. Bottom left to right: Anneka Randhawa, Jean-Lou Salha, Daniel Zapf, Dr. Nicolas Rossbrey, and Dr. Tine Schauenburg (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On October 4, 2023, United States Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco announced a new Department of Justice (DOJ) Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy that encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company. Under the policy, the acquiring party will receive a presumption of criminal declination if it promptly and voluntarily discloses criminal misconduct, cooperates with any ensuing investigation, and engages in appropriate remediation, restitution and disgorgement. While the DOJ has offered little guidance as to what it might expect from a company that self-discloses under the policy, many jurisdictions outside the United States offer corporate self-disclosure and cooperation incentives. This alert analyzes several of those practices in Europe and Asia, and what can be learned from their application. Continue reading →

Congress Passes Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, Targeting “Demand Side” of Foreign Bribery

by Kara Brockmeyer, Andrew M. Levine, David A. O’Neil, Winston M. Paes, Jane Shvets, Bruce E. Yannett, Douglas S. Zolkind, and Erich O. Grosz

Top left to right: Kara Brockmeyer, Andrew M. Levine, David A. O’Neil, and Winston M. Paes
Bottom left to right: Jane Shvets, Bruce E. Yannett, Douglas S. Zolkind, and Erich O. Grosz (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On December 14, 2023, the U.S. Congress approved the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”), which will make it a federal crime for any foreign government official to demand or receive a bribe from a U.S. citizen, resident or company in exchange for taking or omitting to take official action or conferring any improper business-related advantage.[1] This legislation, which is part of the National Defense Authorization Act and expected to be signed into law by President Biden, substantially expands U.S. enforcement authority with respect to foreign bribery and aligns with the Biden Administration’s elevation of anti-corruption enforcement to a national security priority.

Continue reading →

United States v. Calk: The Second Circuit Construes the Bank Bribery Act

by Jonathan Rusch

Photo courtesy of the author

In any U.S. bank’s anti-bribery and anti-corruption compliance program, one of the fundamental federal criminal offenses that the program must address is the Bank Bribery Act (Act), 18 U.S.C. § 215.[1] Subsection 215(a) of the Act sets out two separate offenses:

(1) “corruptly giv[ing], offer[ing], or promis[ing] anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution in connection with any business or transaction of such institution”[2]; and

(2) “as an officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney of a financial institution, corruptly solicit[ing] or demand[ing] for the benefit of any person, or corruptly accept[ing] or agree[ing] to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business or transaction of such institution.”[3]

Maximum penalties for a violation of either offense include 30 years’ imprisonment and a fine not more than $1,000,000 or three times the value of the thing given, offered, promised, solicited, demanded, accepted, or agreed to be accepted, whichever is greater.[4]

Surprisingly — given New York’s status as the world’s leading financial center[5], and the fact that section 215, with periodic revisions, has been in force for more than 75 years — the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had no occasion to construe the scope of section 215 until November 28, in United States v. Calk.[6] This post will summarize and discuss the key elements of Calk.

Continue reading →

DOJ, FBI Issue Guidance for Public Companies Seeking to Delay Disclosure of Material Cybersecurity Incidents

by Michael T. Borgia and Patrick J. Austin

Left to right: Michael T. Borgia and Patrick J. Austin (Photos courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)

Public companies may only request a delay of the SEC’s disclosure requirements for national security or public safety reasons

As we discussed in our prior blog post, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently finalized its Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure rule for public companies (the “Rule”). The Rule requires, among other things, that public companies disclose “material” cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K (Form 6-K for foreign private issuers). Item 1.05 of Form 8-K must include the “material aspects of the nature, scope, and timing of the incident, and the material impact or reasonably likely material impact on the registrant, including its financial condition and results of operations,” and the form must be filed within four business days of determining that an incident is material. The Rule permits companies to delay disclosure beyond four business days only where the U.S. Attorney General determines that disclosure “would pose a substantial risk to national security or public safety.” The Rule’s cyber incident disclosure requirements go into effect on December 18, 2023.

Continue reading →