First Keynotes Announced for PCCE’s 5th Annual Directors’ Academy: Register Now to Receive the Early-Bird Rate!
DOJ Announces New Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement Guidelines
by David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, and Aline R. Flodr
Left to right: David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, and Aline R. Flodr (photos courtesy of authors)
On June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the awaited new guidelines for prosecutors investigating and enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). These enforcement guidelines were issued in response to President Trump’s Executive Order titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security,” which directed DOJ to “pause” certain FCPA investigations while reassessing enforcement priorities and to issue new FCPA enforcement guidelines within 180 days. The stated aim of the new policy is to reduce undue burdens on American companies operating abroad and to focus on activities that undermine U.S. national interests. The memorandum announcing the guidelines directs prosecutors to consider the following non-exhaustive factors and confirms that these new guidelines shall govern all current and future FCPA investigations and enforcement actions:
Maturing Compliance with the Bulk Sensitive Data Rule before the July 8, 2025 Safe Harbor Expires
by Luke Dembosky, Avi Gesser, Erez Liebermann, Rick Sofield, Johanna N. Skrzypczyk, and Mengyi Xu
Top left to right: Luke Dembosky, Avi Gesser, Erez Liebermann, Rick Sofield, Johanna N. Skrzypczyk, and Mengyi Xu (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)
All eyes are on the DOJ Bulk Sensitive Data Rule (28 C.F.R. Part 202) and July 8, 2025, when the recently announced good-faith safe harbor expires. The rule, which the Department of Justice now refers to as the Data Security Program (the “DSP”), creates a comprehensive export control regime to restrict the transfer of bulk sensitive personal and government-related data to foreign adversaries deemed threats to U.S. national security. On April 11, 2025, shortly after the first effective date of the DSP, the National Security Division (“NSD”) of DOJ issued a suite of three policy and guidance documents to facilitate compliance with the DSP, including a 90-day civil enforcement safe harbor for good-faith compliance. As previously discussed, the DSP seeks to address the bipartisan concern that sensitive datasets could be exploited by foreign adversaries for espionage, cyberattacks, malign influence, and coercion, which would undermine the United States’ national security interests.
A Reflection on the OECD’s Report (Part II): Governments’ Assessments of Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance
by Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco
Left to right: Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco (photos courtesy of authors)
Governments have a responsibility to evaluate corporate compliance programs and an opportunity to design strong regulatory frameworks. To identify reforms and encourage implementation, they must first understand the state of compliance. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Governments’ Assessments of Corporate Anti-Corruption Compliance[1] provides a detailed look at how governments are approaching the assessment of corporate anti-corruption compliance programs. The report explains that clear, consistent standards for assessing these programs would improve both efficiency and credibility—but few governments have adopted such standards. This blog post explores governments’ roles in 1) guiding companies on compliance criteria, 2) enhancing oversight, and 3) the value of information sharing.
Board Priorities in a Geopolitical Landscape: Risk, Compliance, and Supply Chain Resilience
This post comes from a webinar with Bets Lillo, Edward Knight, Will A. Clarke, and Jana del-Cerro delivered on May 22, 2025. They offered a clear-eyed view of how boards and executive management must adapt to effectively lead amid a world where national security, economic policy, and supply chain resilience are deeply intertwined. Five key takeaways from their discussion are outlined below, alongside practical implications for boardroom oversight and planning.
From left to right: Bets Lillo, Edward Knight, Will A. Clarke, and Jana del-Cerro (photos courtesy of authors).
As the impact of global interdependencies becomes increasingly complex, boards and executive management are guiding and governing their companies in an unpredictable environment. That was the central theme of the recent May 2025 webinar, Geopolitical Issues Impacting Global Supply Chains and National Security, hosted by the Nasdaq Center for Board Excellence and the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at NYU School of Law.
Experts Discuss the Implications of the Supreme Court’s Recent Expansion of Federal Fraud Liability
Editor’s Note: PCCE has been following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kousisis v. United States, which, unlike recent cases narrowing the scope of white collar crimes, appears to have expanded the reach of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. In this post, PCCE invited leading white collar practitioners to discuss the implications of the Court’s decision.
Left to right: Robertston Park, Alexandra Marinzel, Helen Cantwell, Winston Paes, and Mark Krotoski (photos courtesy of the authors)
Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Test for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims Under Title VII
by Matthew M. Yelovich, Jennifer Kennedy Park, Christopher R. Kavanaugh, and Ethan Singer
From left to right: Matthew M. Yelovich, Jennifer Kennedy Park, Christopher R. Kavanaugh, and Ethan Singer (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs who belong to a majority group do not face a heightened burden to establish a disparate treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The Court’s holding resolves a significant circuit split and affirms that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals. This decision arrives as the Trump Administration has launched significant new initiatives to bring Title VII and civil rights investigations and claims against employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs that the Administration views as unlawful. In light of this decision and the various DEI-related Executive Orders, employers should consider the following:
- Employers should continue to carefully scrutinize human resource related programs that consider demographic characteristics in any way.
- Employers should review their whistleblower programs, policies, and practices to ensure they are robust around discrimination-related issues.
- Notably, the Ames decision considered a disparate treatment claim, and the Administration has ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and other agencies to cease pursuing disparate impact investigations and claims.[1]
A Reflection on the OECD’s Report (Part I): Companies’ Assessments of Anti-Corruption Compliance
by Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco
Left to right: Veronica Root Martinez and Liz Carrasco (photos courtesy of authors)
As anti-corruption compliance programs have become standard within corporations, an increasing number of companies are shifting their focus to the effectiveness of these programs. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Companies’ Assessments of Anti-Corruption Compliance[1] provides a detailed look at this shift within the private sector. Drawing on survey data and examples from a range of companies, the report highlights a growing recognition that compliance cannot be isolated from a company’s culture, leadership, or structure. In short, the question is not merely whether a compliance program exists, but whether it is effective.
The report includes anonymized company case studies to illustrate various approaches and insights. This blog post explores three key aspects of the report: (1) why companies assess the effectiveness of their anti-corruption compliance programs; (2) what methodologies they use to do so; (3) the tools companies leverage to monitor progress over time.
Supreme Court Upholds Expansive Reading of Wire Fraud Statute
by David A. Last, Rahul Mukhi, Joon H. Kim, Matthew M. Yelovich, and Michael Cronin
From left to right: David A. Last, Rahul Mukhi, Joon H. Kim, Matthew M. Yelovich, and Michael Cronin (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)
On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the wire fraud conviction of a government contractor in Kousisis v. United States, rejecting the argument that federal wire fraud requires proof of economic loss to the victim. In so holding, the Court endorsed the “fraudulent inducement” theory of wire fraud, marking a victory for federal prosecutors after several recent decisions that narrowed the scope of federal fraud statutes. This decision takes on added significance given the current administration’s renewed emphasis on False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement, as companies now face heightened exposure under both criminal fraud and civil FCA theories for false representations to government agencies, even absent demonstrable financial harm.