Category Archives: U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

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 →

The Supreme Court’s Business Docket: October Term 2023 in Review

by John F. Savarese, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Adam L. Goodman, and Akua Abu

Left to right: John F. Savarese, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Adam L. Goodman, and Akua F. Abu. (Photos courtesy of the authors)

In early July, the Supreme Court concluded its most consequential Term in years, with a flood of decisions on contentious issues ranging from abortion access to the regulation of social media companies and gun possession to presidential immunity. The Court’s business docket was no less active. While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau narrowly survived a constitutional challenge to its funding mechanism, the Court’s conservative majority elsewhere struck body blows to the administrative state—including the long-anticipated reversal of the Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Beyond this headline-grabbing showstopper, the Court issued a string of commercially significant decisions, affecting bankruptcy, arbitration, securities, and employment law. We summarize below the key business decisions from this Term and flag a few key cases to watch in the coming Term.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Punches SEC APs Right in the Seventh Amendment

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Arian M. June, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Jonathan R. Tuttle

Top left to right: Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Arian M. June, and Robert B. Kaplan. Bottom left to right: Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Jonathan R. Tuttle. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

Recently, in a long-awaited ruling with significant implications for the securities industry and administrative agencies more generally, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, holding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial precluded the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) from pursuing monetary penalties for securities fraud violations through in-house administrative adjudications. The key takeaways are:

The Court’s ruling was limited to securities fraud claims, but other SEC claims seeking legal remedies may be impacted, as well as claims by other federal agencies that may have been adjudicated in-house previously.
We expect that the SEC will continue its practice of bringing new enforcement actions in district court, except when a claim only is available in the administrative forum.
Because of the majority decision’s focus on fraud’s common-law roots, the decision raises questions about whether the SEC may bring negligence-based or strict liability claims seeking penalties administratively.
The Court did not resolve other constitutional questions concerning the SEC’s administrative law judges, including whether the SEC’s use of administrative proceedings violates the non-delegation doctrine and whether the SEC’s administrative law judges are unconstitutionally protected from removal in violation of Article III.
We anticipate additional litigation regarding these unresolved issues.

Continue reading →

CFPB “Firing On All Cylinders” After Surviving Constitutional Challenge To Funding Structure

by Nowell D. Bamberger, Elsbeth Bennett, and Andrew Khanarian

From left to right: Nowell D. Bamberger, Elsbeth Bennett and Andrew Khanarian. (Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure in a 7–2 decision that will likely pave the way for renewed regulatory activity by the agency in the near future.

Enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB’s unique funding structure permits the agency to annually request an unspecified portion of funds from the Federal Reserve System, subject to an inflation-adjusted cap. In rejecting a constitutional challenge to this funding structure by several trade associations, the Supreme Court held in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America that the Appropriations Clause merely requires Congress to identify the source and purpose of federal funds, and that Congress’s one-time appropriation for the CFPB in the Dodd-Frank Act meets that minimal constitutional standard. The seven-member majority largely aligned in their reasoning that the Constitution’s text and history, as well as early congressional practice, endorsed funding mechanisms such as this one, and thus provided broad legal support for the fiscal independence of agencies that are delegated substantial powers. As a practical matter, this decision will likely jumpstart long-delayed regulatory and enforcement work at the CFPB, including the vacated payday lending rules that were the subject of this litigation.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Holds That “Pure Omissions” Are Not Actionable Under Rule 10b-5(b)

by Elliot Greenfield, Matthew E. Kaplan, Maeve O’Connor, Benjamin R. Pedersen, Jonathan R. Tuttle, Anna Moody, Brandon Fetzer, and Mark D. Flinn

Top left to right: Elliot Greenfield, Matthew E. Kaplan, Maeve O’Connor, and Benjamin R. Pedersen.
Bottom left to right: Jonathan R. Tuttle, Anna Moody, Brandon Fetzer, and Mark D. Flinn. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP).

On April 12, 2024, in a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.[1] that pure omissions are not actionable in private litigation under Rule 10b-5(b). Resolving a circuit split, the Court held that Rule 10b-5(b) does not support a “pure omissions” theory based on an alleged failure to disclose material information required by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K (Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations, or MD&A). Instead, a “failure to disclose information required by [MD&A] can support a Rule 10b-5(b) claim only if the omission renders affirmative statements made misleading.”[2] While the decision arose in the context of Item 303, which requires disclosure of “known trends and uncertainties” that have had or are “reasonably likely” to have a material impact on net sales, revenues or income from continuing operations,[3] the decision stands for the broader principle that Rule 10b-5(b) does not support pure omissions theories based on alleged violation of any disclosure requirement. Such claims remain viable, however, under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. This ruling provides welcome clarity to issuers and eliminates the risk of pure-omission claims under Rule 10b-5(b) based on the judgment-based requirements of MD&A.

Continue reading →

Amid Storm of Controversy, SEC Adopts Final Climate Disclosure Rules

by Stephen A. Byeff, Ning Chiu, Joseph A. Hall, Margaret E. Tahyar, Ida Araya-Brumskine, Loyti Cheng, Michael Comstock, and David A. Zilberberg

Top from left to right: Stephen A. Byeff, Ning Chiu, Joseph A. Hall, Margaret E. Tahyar.
Bottom left to right: Ida Araya-Brumskine, Loyti Cheng, Michael Comstock, and David A. Zilberberg. (Photos courtesy of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP).

Changes from the proposal include elimination of Scope 3 disclosures, scaled back attestation requirements, additional materiality qualifiers and narrower financial statement triggers. Given the lack of explicit congressional authorization for this new sweeping disclosure regime, its political sensitivity, complexity, cost and the substantial challenges already underway in federal courts, we anticipate rapid developments and possibly confusing stops and starts to unfold over the coming weeks.

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

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 →

DEI Initiatives Post-SFFA: Considerations for Boards and Management

by Martin Lipton, John F. Savarese, Adam J. Shapiro, Erica E. Bonnett, Noah B. Yavitz, and Carmen X. W. Lu

Top left to right: Martin Lipton, John F. Savarese, and Adam J. Shapiro.
Bottom left to right: Erica E. Bonnett, Noah B. Yavitz, and Carmen X. W. Lu
(Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

It is no secret that American corporations face vigorous — and often conflicting — demands concerning diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Over the past year, DEI initiatives and commitments have come under pressure in the face of macroeconomic headwinds, political scrutiny and legal challenges. That pressure has only grown following the Supreme Court’s recent decision against affirmative action in SFFA v. Harvard (as discussed in our prior memo), after which Attorneys General from both red and blue states sent conflicting letters to Fortune 100 companies on what the SFFA decision meant for corporate DEI initiatives.

Continue reading →

Former Federal Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys React to Dubin v. United States

Editor’s Note: The NYU Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement is following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dubin v. United States, in which it circumscribed the application of the aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. In this post, former federal prosecutors and current defense attorneys react to the decision.

Top left to right: Elizabeth Geddes, Brian Jacobs, Paul Krieger, and Harry Sandick.
Bottom left to right: Justin Weddle, Elisha Kobre, and Sarah Krissoff
(Photos courtesy of authors and their firms)

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Issues Decision in High-Stakes False Claims Act Case: Outcome and Future Implications

by Kayla Conti

Kayla Conti (Photo courtesy of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto LLP)

On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision[1] in the consolidated case of U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. (“SuperValu”)[2] and U.S. ex rel. Thomas Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. (“Safeway”),[3] holding that subjective intent is relevant for determining whether a defendant acted “knowingly” under the False Claims Act. The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s decisions in favor of Petitioners, which effectively preserves the False Claims Act as a major tool for both prosecuting and deterring fraud. While whistleblowers, taxpayers, and anti-fraud advocates have ample reason to rejoice, the decision left more to be desired by the Department of Justice and many entities who submit claims for payment to federal programs.

Continue reading →