Tag Archives: Ralph M. Levene

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 →

White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2022 and What to Expect in 2023

by John F. Savarese, David B. Anders, Ralph M. Levene, Sarah K. Eddy, Wayne M. Carlin, and Kevin S. Schwartz

(Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz) From left to right: John F. Savarese, David B. Anders, Ralph M. Levene, Sarah K. Eddy, Wayne M. Carlin, Kevin S. Schwartz.

Introduction

Each year we try in this wrap-up memo to flag the main enforcement developments that companies should be alert to in the coming year and also to identify steps companies should be taking to prepare themselves in the event of a significant white-collar or regulatory enforcement inquiry. Because policy preferences (and politics) often shape these developments, the early days of any new administration in D.C. are frequently harder to read, and teasing apart mere rhetoric from concrete changes in enforcement priorities can be challenging. But now, two years into the Biden administration, we can see some clear themes emerging: Penalties are up—way up; investigations appear to be moving a bit faster; cryptoassets and cybersecurity have become heightened risk areas; government expectations for what constitutes full cooperation have been amped up; and many new disclosure demands across a wide range of corporate activities are coming on line. At the same time, however, several time-tested verities remain firmly in place, including the need to maintain strong internal accounting controls, provide comprehensive (and frequent) training, instill a genuinely ethics-oriented tone at the top, stay vigilant in detecting internal misconduct, and react swiftly in the event problems do arise by self-remediating and self-reporting when appropriate. A company that positions itself in this way optimizes its chances not only of securing the best possible resolution in the event of criminal or civil charges but also of forcefully resisting enforcement action where warranted.

Continue reading →

DOJ Clarifies and Refines Its Policies for Corporate Criminal Enforcement

Editor’s Note: On September 15, 2022, the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) at New York University School of Law hosted Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco while she delivered a speech detailing significant changes to the Department of Justice’s corporate prosecution policies. The speech and accompanying policy memo are available here. Over the coming days and weeks, PCCE will be publishing reactions to the new DOJ policies by practitioners, scholars, and compliance officers.

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, David B. Anders, and Daniel H. Rosenblum

In an important policy speech late last week, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco acknowledged “the data showing [an] overall decline in corporate criminal prosecutions over the last decade.” The interesting question prompted by that data, of course, is the one no one seems to know the answer to: Is this decline in corporate prosecutions the result of efforts by well-managed companies to respond to the oft-repeated admonition to set the right tone at the top and invest extensively in compliance programs, training and personnel such that the number of corporate prosecutions actually should be coming down? Or is it because there is some lack of adequate prosecutorial effort or some other obstacle standing in the way of achieving the right level of corporate prosecutions? In the absence of any hard empirical data on that crucial question, DAG Monaco opted for the latter explanation, thus repeating the common DOJ mantra that it “need[s] to do more and move faster.”

Continue reading →

White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2020 and What to Expect in 2021

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Sarah K. Eddy, Lauren M. Kofke, Carol Miller, and Tamara Livshiz

As we write this memorandum, a new administration is forming in Washington, with new leadership teams being nominated at DOJ, SEC, CFTC and other regulatory and law-enforcement agencies — thus prompting the question of what these changes may portend for white-collar and regulatory enforcement priorities, trends and policies. Having watched many administrations come and go over the years, our sense is that, in this area at least, continuity tends to prevail over disruption. That said, we can offer the following educated guesses on what to expect going forward:

Continue reading →

Remaining Attuned to Internal Whistleblower Reports

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, and Wayne M. Carlin

The SEC’s whistleblower program has long been a centerpiece of its enforcement efforts. Over the past seven weeks alone, the Commission has announced eight whistleblower awards totaling more than $56 million, including a single award on April 16 of $27 million, the largest of the year and the sixth largest award overall since the inception of the program. Because the coronavirus pandemic has understandably dominated the news over that same period, this striking accumulation of whistleblower awards has received little press attention. But we think these recent awards provide a telling and significant reminder of the critical importance, even in the current challenging environment, of keeping employee hotlines open and of responding to internal compliance reports promptly and effectively.
Continue reading →

White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement in the Era of COVID-19

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, and David B. Anders

When we issued our memorandum (PDF: 231KB) on “what to expect in 2020” concerning white collar and regulatory enforcement developments, we certainly did not expect that just two months later, 41 states would effectively be locked down due to the coronavirus pandemic, many courts would be closed, and governments would be intensely focused on adopting measures responsive to the global health crisis. What we’re now seeing in the white collar/regulatory world is that, instead of pushing forward at their usual pace, prosecutors and regulators are adjusting to a new reality in which live testimony is impractical, courts are on pause and most everyone is working from home. It is impossible to predict when the normal cadence of such investigations will resume, but inquiries of all kinds will undoubtedly return to their normal pace and intensity when the crisis abates. Continue reading →

DOJ Extends FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy Principles to Non-FCPA Misconduct Discovered in the M&A Context

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, David B. Anders, Marshall L. Miller, and Daniel H. Rosenblum

In an important speech, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Matthew Miner of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division announced on Thursday that DOJ will “look to” the principles of the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (PDF: 50.6 KB) in evaluating “other types of potential wrongdoing, not just FCPA violations” that are uncovered in connection with mergers and acquisitions. As a result, when an acquiring company identifies misconduct through pre-transaction due diligence or post-transaction integration, and then self-reports the relevant conduct, DOJ is now more likely to decline to prosecute if the company fully cooperates, remediates in a complete and timely fashion, and disgorges any ill-gotten gains. Continue reading →

DOJ Applies Principles of FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy in Other White-Collar Investigations, Increasing Opportunity for Corporate Declinations

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Marshall L. Miller, and Jonathan Siegel

Late last week, the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division announced at an ABA white-collar conference that it has begun using the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy (PDF: 51 KB) as “nonbinding guidance” in other areas of white-collar enforcement beyond the FCPA. As a result, absent aggravating factors, DOJ may more frequently decline to prosecute companies that promptly self-disclose misconduct, fully cooperate with DOJ’s investigation, remediate in a complete and timely fashion, and disgorge any ill-gotten gains. As a first example of this approach, the officials pointed to DOJ’s recent decision (PDF: 1,743 KB) to decline charges against Barclays PLC, after the bank agreed to pay back $12.9 million in wrongful profits, following individual charges arising out of a foreign exchange front-running scheme. Continue reading →

White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What to Expect in 2018

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Jonathan M. Moses, Marshall L. Miller, Louis J. Barash, and Carol Miller

Introduction

In our memo last year, we acknowledged that it was close to impossible to predict the likely impact that the newly elected Trump administration would have on white-collar and regulatory enforcement. (White Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What to Expect in 2017 (PDF: 240 KB) Instead, we set out a list of initiatives we urged the new administration to consider, including clarifying standards for when cooperation credit would be given, reducing the use of monitors, and giving greater weight to a company’s pre-existing compliance program when exercising prosecutorial discretion, among other suggestions. While the DOJ under Attorney General Jeff Sessions has, for example, taken some steps toward clarifying the applicable standards for cooperation and increasing incentives to disclose misconduct in the FCPA area, few other policy choices or shifts in approach have been articulated or implemented. Continue reading →

Second Circuit Limits Judicial Scrutiny of Deferred Prosecution Agreements

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, David B. Anders, Marshall L. Miller, and Christopher R. Deluzio

In an anticipated and important decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court’s order requiring the unsealing of an independent monitor’s report detailing HSBC’s compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement. United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (PDF: 284 KB) (Nos. 16-308, 16- 353, 16-1068, 16-1094, July 12, 2017). In so doing, the Second Circuit substantially limited a district court’s power to scrutinize DPAs, thereby following a course similarly embraced by the D.C. Circuit (as discussed in our prior memo (PDF: 27 KB).

In the district court, Judge Gleeson granted the joint request by DOJ and HSBC to approve the DPA, subject to the Court’s ongoing oversight of the DPA’s implementation pursuant to the Court’s asserted “supervisory authority”—a decision we discussed in our earlier memo (PDF: 21 KB). As part of its oversight, the Court ordered the government to file under seal an independent monitor’s report, which eventually led to a member of the public requesting access to the report. Construing that request as a motion to unseal, the Court granted the motion, finding that the monitor’s report was a “judicial document” subject to the public’s qualified First Amendment right of access. The government and HSBC appealed. Continue reading →