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

Companies Face Increased Criminal Enforcement Risk From Aging Infrastructure-Related Disasters

by Alexander C.K. Wyman, Aron Potash, and Mikaela Wynne Gilbert-Lurie

From left to right: Alexander C.K. Wyman, Aron Potash, and Mikaela Wynne Gilbert-Lurie. (Photos courtesy of Latham & Watkins LLP)

Utilities and energy companies can implement strategies to mitigate risks from more frequent environmental disasters and infrastructure failures.

In the early morning of June 11, 2023, a tanker truck carrying gasoline up I-95 in Philadelphia crashed and caught fire, and the overpass above buckled and collapsed. The section of the highway is critical to the roughly 160,000 vehicles that cross it daily. The immediate cause of the collapse is believed to be either the heat from the flames or the impact of the explosion weakening the steel beams supporting the overpass. Some, however, identified a more fundamental problem: “the fragility of the state’s aging infrastructure.”[1]

While the I-95 collapse presents a recent example of the significant risks associated with the US’s aging infrastructure, it is by no means unique. Many of the roads, bridges, dams, and electrical grids that keep the country running are decades old and often in need of repair. Infrastructure failures combined with environmental disasters can be catastrophic, and the consequences dire, for the public, the environment, and the utility or corporate entity potentially responsible for operating the failed infrastructure component. Moreover, a vicious cycle is often at work with respect to the environment and infrastructure failures in which, for example, extreme weather causes an infrastructure breakdown that in turn may result in environmental damage.

Continue reading

FTC Alleges “Serial Acquirer” Theory in Challenge to Consummated PE Deals

by Andrew J. Nussbaum, Jonathan M. Moses, Nelson O. Fitts, Adam L. Goodman, and Itai Y. Thaler

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Andrew J. Nussbaum, Jonathan M. Moses,  Nelson O. Fitts, Adam L. Goodman, and Itai Y. Thaler. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission sued U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (“USAP”) and its private equity investor, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, as well as a number of Welsh Carson entities, in federal district court, alleging that USAP and Welsh Carson conspired to monopolize and reduce competition for anesthesia services in Texas.  The FTC’s complaint alleges that, beginning in 2012, Welsh Carson, through its investment in USAP — which varied between 23% and 50.2% over the relevant period — directed a “roll-up scheme” to acquire and consolidate over a dozen Texas anesthesia practices; caused price increases across the state; and coordinated prices and allocated markets with some of the remaining independent anesthesia providers.  The complaint claims violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act, and seeks unspecified “structural relief” that could include restitution and divestitures.

Continue reading

Know Your Customer, But Also Yourself: A Fresh Look at Sanctions & Export Controls Risk Assessments in the Era of the “New FCPA”

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of the authors

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

We have written recently about liability pitfalls caused by misperceived “loopholes” in sanctions and export controls regimes.[1] We have also written about the meaning and practical implications of the U.S. government’s emphasis on sanctions enforcement as the “new FCPA,” discussing how to identify and respond to circumstances posing a high probability of sanctions or export controls evasion.[2]

Having identified these new priority issues, what is the first step towards a solution? Risk assessments are the starting point.[3] Assess your own risk, but do so in an updated—and more effective—manner that reflects the evolving economic sanctions and export controls enforcement environment. Here are some suggestions to help with the assessment.

Continue reading

Meeting (and Not Breaching) DOJ And SEC Corporate Settlement Agreements

by Jonny Frank, Laura Greenman, Chris Hoyle, Michele Edwards, and Ksenia Ioffe 

From left to right: Jonny Frank, Laura Greenman, Chris Hoyle, Michele Edwards, and Ksenia Ioffe. (Photos provided by the authors).

No Longer Just a Matter of Paying the Fine and Moving On

Corporate settlement agreements used to be straightforward—pay the penalty and move on.

Now, these resolutions rival complex business transactions, including months of negotiations and multi-year post-resolution obligations. Satisfying post-settlement commitments is a business imperative, not just a legal obligation. Meeting, if not exceeding obligations, helps restore brand value and improves employee and investor stakeholder confidence.

Continue reading

When Loopholes Create Liability Pitfalls: A Fresh Look at Export Controls

by Brent Carlson

Photo of the author

Photo courtesy of the author

Export controls have been around for decades, but the pace of change has accelerated dramatically in recent years propelled by powerful geopolitical and national security drivers. The US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has made it clear that sanctions and export controls constitute a new top enforcement priority.[1] With twenty-five new dedicated prosecutors on the DOJ roster, increasingly it will not just be the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) knocking on the door anymore.

The rapid pace of change has left many companies struggling to catch up with new risk management challenges. Certain assumptions and practices around export controls, which may have been widely accepted in the past, have become not only obsolete but increasingly landmines leading to disastrous potential criminal liability.

In addition to administrative penalties which are on the rise, the criminal penalties are steep, up to one million dollars and twenty years imprisonment per violation.[2]  However, by adopting a white collar enforcement perspective to export controls compliance, companies and individuals may avoid creating unnecessary potential criminal liability pitfalls.

Continue reading

FTC and DOJ Propose Fundamental Revision of Merger Guidelines

by Ilene Knable Gotts, Christina C. Ma, and Katharine R. Haigh

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Ilene Knable Gotts, Christina C. Ma, and Katharine R. Haigh (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice published a proposed replacement to the existing Horizontal Merger Guidelines and Vertical Merger Guidelines. The agencies’ draft guidelines (the “Guidelines”) do not have any independent legal effect, but are intended to influence the federal courts and to provide guidance as to how the federal antitrust authorities will analyze the competitive impact of transactions and decide whether to challenge them. 

Continue reading

Foxes or Hedgehogs: Evolving Taint Team Jurisprudence

by Luke Cass, Michael Clark, and Matthew Hickman

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Luke Cass, Michael Clark, and Matthew Hickman (photos courtesy of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP)

Corporate criminal enforcement is a top priority for the Department of Justice.[1] As the number of corporate search warrants rise, so does the government’s use of taint, or filter, teams.  A wave of recent caselaw addressing the procedure, role, and handling of taint teams along with potentially privileged material has varied among the circuits, leaving in its wake dramatically unsettled law.

This article discusses what taint teams are, recent circuit splits about them, and how the Supreme Court, the DOJ, and the ABA can, and should, address issues that impact one of the oldest privileges in western jurisprudence.

Continue reading

DOJ, BIS and OFAC Release Guidance on Voluntary Self-Disclosures

By Eric J. Kadel, Sharon Cohen Levin, Anthony J. Lewis, Shari D. Leventhal, and Edoardo Saravalle

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Eric J. Kadel, Sharon Cohen Levin, Anthony J. Lewis, Shari D. Leventhal, and Edoardo Saravalle (Photos courtesy of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP)

DOJ, BIS and OFAC Issue Joint Guidance on Policies Relating to Voluntary Self-Disclosures of Potential Violations of Sanctions, Export Controls and Other National Security Laws

Summary

On July 26, 2023, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Treasury released a Tri-Seal Compliance Note describing voluntary self-disclosure and whistleblower policies applicable to U.S. sanctions, export controls and other national security laws.  The release does not impose new obligations, but provides an overview that (i) clarifies the salient aspects of the agencies’ voluntary self-disclosure policies (particularly following recent updates to these policies), (ii) suggests the differences between each agency’s approach to voluntary self-disclosures (including with respect to the mitigation of civil or criminal liability) and (iii) underscores the agencies’ goal of shifting the private sector’s risk calculus toward greater voluntary self-disclosures.

Continue reading

Do the DOJ’s Sticks and Carrots Actually Work?

by Veronica Root Martinez

Photos of the author

Photo courtesy of the author

Arguably one of the most important developments within the compliance industry of the past several years is a greater reliance on data and measurement.  Both scholars and leaders within the compliance industry have argued that firms should spend time and effort empirically assessing whether the systems within their compliance programs are actually working.  For example, Professors Brandon Garrett and Gregory Mitchell have argued for more “evidence-based compliance” efforts.[1]  Additionally, Professors Benjamin van Rooij and Melissa Rorie have articulated the trade-offs “involved in using different quantitative and qualitative approaches to measure corporate compliance and its predictors.”[2]  And industry leader Hui Chen has argued that companies “should avoid treating their compliance programs like a checklist and focus on ethics, metrics and measurable results.”[3]

Continue reading

DOJ Leadership Highlights National Security Focus and Previews New Corporate Enforcement Guidance

by Greg D. Andres, Uzo Asonye, Martine M. Beamon, Robert A. Cohen, Daniel S. Kahn, Tatiana R. Martins, Fiona R. Moran, Paul J. Nathanson, and Patrick S. Sinclair

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Greg D. Andres, Uzo Asonye, Martine M. Beamon, Robert A. Cohen, and Daniel S. Kahn.
Bottom left to right: Tatiana R. Martins, Fiona R. Moran, Paul J. Nathanson, and Patrick S. Sinclair.
(Photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP)

In recent speeches, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Marshall Miller laid out how the DOJ uses active corporate criminal enforcement and interdepartmental cooperation to preserve national security and the rule of law, and previewed forthcoming compliance guidance on M&A deals.

Continue reading