Tag Archives: Rahul Mukhi

Crossing a New Threshold for Material Cybersecurity Incident Reporting

by Helena K. Grannis, Rahul Mukhi, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Tom Bednar, Nina E. Bell, and James P. Abate

Photos of authors

Helena K. Grannis, Rahul Mukhi, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Tom Bednar, Nina E. Bell, and James P. Abate (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

In July 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules to enhance and standardize disclosure requirements related to cybersecurity. In order to comply with the new reporting requirements of the rules, companies will need to make ongoing materiality determinations with respect to cybersecurity incidents and series of related incidents. The inherent nature of cybersecurity incidents, which are often initially characterized by a high degree of uncertainty around scope and impact, and an SEC that is laser- focused on cybersecurity from both a disclosure and enforcement perspective, combine to present registrants and their boards of directors with a novel set of challenges heading into 2024. Continue reading →

U.S. District Court Tosses FIFA Bribery Convictions, Finding Honest Services Statute Does Not Reach Foreign Commercial Bribery

 by Victor L. Hou, Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, Hannah Rogge, Lisa Vicens, David A. Last, Matthew C. Solomon, and Jennifer Kennedy Park.

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Victor L. Hou, Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, and Hannah Rogge.
Bottom left to right: Lisa Vicens, David A. Last, Matthew C. Solomon, and Jennifer Kennedy Park.
(Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP).

On September 1, 2023, U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen of the Eastern District of New York granted a judgment of acquittal in the latest FIFA bribery prosecution, holding that the federal honest services statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, does not cover foreign commercial bribery in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.

The decision comes after a jury convicted two defendants of honest services wire fraud and money laundering arising from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)’s multi-year pursuit of alleged corruption in FIFA and the international soccer media industry.  Judge Chen based her ruling on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Ciminelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States, which cabined the reach of honest services mail and wire fraud in domestic corruption prosecutions.  Applying the principles articulated by these two decisions—which were issued by the Supreme Court two months after the verdict in the latest FIFA trial—Judge Chen held that honest services did not cover the foreign commercial bribery that was the object of the charged conspiracy.  The DOJ may appeal, and U.S. prosecutors may still reach similar conduct under different federal statutes, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the federal programs bribery statute, anti-money laundering laws, and the Travel Act, albeit with some limitations.  However, the decision continues a trend of U.S. courts rejecting an overly broad reading of federal fraud and corruption statutes. 

Continue reading →

SEC Proposes Rules Limiting the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Registered Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers

by Robin M. Bergen, Brant K. Brown, James R. Burns, Jennifer Kennedy Park, Rahul Mukhi, and Mohit Rathi

Photos of the authors

Robin M. Bergen, Brant K. Brown, James R. Burns, Jennifer Kennedy Park, Rahul Mukhi, and Mohit Rathi (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

On July 26, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed new rules targeting the use of predictive data analytics and artificial intelligence (“AI”) by registered investment advisers (“RIAs”) and broker-dealers.[1]  The new proposed rules focus on the potential for conflicts of interest and the possibility that newer, more complex analytics models (including those using AI) might optimize decision making for RIAs and broker-dealers by placing those firms’ interests above the interests of their clients.[2]  The proposed rules would require RIAs and broker-dealers to: (i) evaluate whether their use of technologies “that optimize for, predict, forecast or direct investment-related behaviors or outcomes” create such a conflict of interest, and (ii) either stop using or address the effects of tools that place a firm’s interests before the interests of clients.  RIAs and broker-dealers will also will be required to adopt policies to ensure compliance with the new proposed rules.[3] 

Continue reading →

Second Circuit Rules Foreign State-Owned Bank Does Not Have Sovereign Immunity From Criminal Prosecution

by Carmine Boccuzzi, Jr., Jonathan Kolodner, Rahul Mukhi, Boaz Morag, Rathna Ramamurthi, Hyatt Mustefa, and Matthew Slater 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in U.S. v. Halkbank[1] that a Turkish state-owned bank did not have sovereign immunity from criminal charges that it engaged in a conspiracy to launder $20 billion of Iranian oil and gas proceeds in violation of U.S. sanctions.

While the district court had joined other Circuit courts in ruling that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) does not confer on foreign sovereigns immunity from criminal prosecutions, the Second Circuit declined to decide that unsettled issue, except insofar as it held that the FSIA is not the only source of criminal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign.  Instead, the Second Circuit assumed arguendo that the FSIA confers immunity in the criminal context and held that the conduct at issue would fall under the FSIA’s commercial activity exception to immunity. 

Continue reading →

DOJ Charges Former Uber Executive for Alleged Role in Attempted Cover-Up of 2016 Data Breach

by Rahul Mukhi, Joon H. Kim, Jonathan S. Kolodner, and Michael J. Phelan

On August 20, 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had charged Joseph Sullivan, the former Chief Security Officer (“CSO”) of Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”), with obstruction of justice and misprision of a felony for allegedly attempting to cover up Uber’s 2016 data incident during the course of an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). While the DOJ and federal law enforcement have generally treated corporate hacking targets as victims in connection with data breaches, the charges against Sullivan reinforce that they will actively pursue any violations of federal law that are committed by entities or individuals during the course of responding to such incidents.

Continue reading →

Second Circuit Denies Gupta Appeal of Insider Trading Conviction—Continuing to Give Broad Meaning to “Personal Benefit” Requirement

by Joon H. Kim, Rahul Mukhi, Alex Janghorbani, Shannon Daugherty, and Destiny D. Dike

On January 11, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal of Rajat Gupta, who was seeking to undo his insider trading conviction.  Relying on the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman, Gupta argued that—to satisfy the requirement that Gupta personally benefit from tipping inside information—the Government must show “a quid pro quo – in which [Gupta] receive[d] an ‘objective, consequential . . . gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.’”[1]  In other words—intangible benefits should not, standing alone, constitute a personal benefit sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction.  The Second Circuit rejected this argument, finding that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dirks v. SEC and Salman v. United States foreclosed such a narrow definition of “benefit,” opting instead for a test that looked at “varying sets of circumstances”—including those that involve indirect, intangible, and nonquantifiable gains, such as an anticipated quid quo pro that can be inferred from an ongoing, business relationship—to satisfy the “personal benefit” test.[2]  This case is the latest in a line of decisions—in the Supreme Court, as well as the Second and Ninth Circuits—to reject defendants’ arguments for a narrow definition of the “personal benefit” element of insider trading law based on Newman. Continue reading →

Supreme Court Hears Argument to Determine Whether Mandatory Federal Restitution Statute Covers Professional Costs Incurred by Corporate Victims

by Joon H. Kim, Rahul Mukhi, Rusty Feldman, and Samantha Del Duca

On April 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lagos v. United States.[1]  On appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Lagos presents the important issue of whether a corporate victim’s professional costs—such as investigatory and legal expenses—incurred as a result of a criminal defendant’s offense conduct must be reimbursed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”).[2] 

The issue has been subject to a recurring circuit split and Lagos now offers the Supreme Court an opportunity to resolve the conflict.[3]  Moreover, as noted by the certiorari petition, the Court’s decision will necessarily have implications “every time corporations engage in internal investigations or audits at the suspicion of wrongdoing.”[4]  Continue reading →