Corporate Investigations

As discussed in our prior blog post, earlier this year the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Second Circuit’s decision in a high-profile insider trading case, United States v. Blaszczak,[1] for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” decision in Kelly v. United States.[2]  In Blaszczak, the Second Circuit had previously found that a government agency’s confidential pre-decisional information constituted “property” under Title 18, and that therefore the Blaszczak defendants had committed fraud under the applicable statutes when they obtained the information and traded on it.[3]  However, following that decision, the Supreme Court held in Kelly that a government regulatory interest did not constitute “property” for the purpose of Title 18 fraud statutes.[4]  The Blaszczak defendants filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the Second Circuit’s reading of Title 18 could not be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s holding.[5]  After the Blaszczak defendants filed their petition, the government consented to a remand to the Second Circuit.
Continue Reading DOJ Concedes Error In Title 18 Insider Trading Convictions After Supreme Court’s “Bridgegate” Decision

On February 18, 2021, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $507,375 settlement with BitPay, Inc. (BitPay), a payment processor for merchants accepting digital currency as payment for goods and services, for 2,102 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programs between 2013 and 2018.[1] The settlement highlights that financial service providers facilitating digital currency transactions must not only establish sanctions compliance programs to screen their own customers but also must monitor third-party non-customer transaction information.
Continue Reading OFAC Settles with Digital Currency Payment Processor for Sanctions Violations

Corporate investigations under the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are expected to increase in the coming months.  Navigating such investigations can be complex, distracting, and costly, and comes with the risk of prosecution and significant collateral consequences for the company.  Recently, Cleary Gottlieb partners and former DOJ prosecutors, Lev Dassin, Jonathan Kolodner, and Rahul

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a high-profile insider trading case, United States v. Blaszczak, to the Second Circuit “for further consideration in light of Kelly v. United States.”[1]  Kelly is more commonly known as the “Bridgegate” decision, in which the Supreme Court restricted the application of federal fraud statutes to schemes seeking to obtain property, to the exclusion of schemes primarily targeting regulatory actions by government officials.  In light of the remand, the Second Circuit will now reconsider its endorsement in Blaszczak of liability under Title 18 for a scheme targeting “political intelligence.”
Continue Reading Second Circuit to Reconsider the Scope of Insider Trading Prosecutions Under Federal Fraud Statutes After Supreme Court’s Bridgegate Decision

Antitrust was front-page news in 2020: regulators sued Google and Facebook in some of the biggest antitrust enforcement actions in recent decades. Robust antitrust enforcement can be expected to continue under a Biden administration.
Continue Reading U.S. and EU Antitrust: Expect Robust Enforcement in 2021

Insider trading law has remained a subject of significant debate and attention, including with a recent Second Circuit decision addressing the use of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 (wire fraud) and 1348 (securities fraud) in insider trading cases[1] and a new insider trading bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in December by an overwhelming majority.  Yesterday, a blue ribbon task force headed by Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, published a report studying the history and current state of insider trading law and proposing reforms that would bring greater clarity and certainty to the law.
Continue Reading Task Force Led By Preet Bharara and Cleary Gottlieb’s Joon H. Kim Issues Report Recommending Reforms to Insider Trading Law

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) announced a proposed settlement with InfoTrax Systems, L.C. (“InfoTrax”), a third-party service provider, regarding multiple data security failures.  As a result of these security shortcomings, a hacker accessed about one million consumers’ sensitive personal information after more than twenty intrusions into InfoTrax’s network.  This settlement marks one of the first instances in which the FTC has alleged a violation of the FTC Act predicated solely upon the failure to maintain reasonable security measures by a third-party service provider.  The settlement is also notable for a Commissioner’s concurring statement criticizing the settlement’s standard twenty-year term.
Continue Reading Latest FTC Data Privacy Settlement May Signal More Direct Approach to Regulating Data Security

Have the right policies in place

– Ensure clear, readily accessible, and (where necessary) country-specific policies are in place indicating the permitted uses of company devices and other IT equipment, including messaging services. If you allow employees to use their own devices to perform work, make sure your policies adequately address issues of access in the context of investigations.
Continue Reading Be Prepared: How to Proactively Account for Data Privacy

Many investigations, particularly those that are cross-border in nature, are likely to present data privacy issues, and managing these issues is frequently a key consideration in an investigation.  By keeping data privacy laws in mind as soon as an investigation starts, an organization will avoid the risk that it has failed to satisfy certain requirements, thereby exposing itself to the possibility of a fine or sanction from a regulator.
Continue Reading Incorporating Data Privacy Considerations Into Investigations

When a company receives a request for information from an investigating authority, one initial issue is whether to cooperate with the request or to assume an adversarial (or at least non-cooperative) position.  Even if the company ultimately decides to contest the authority’s characterization of the conduct, it is often in the company’s best interest to agree to cooperate with the investigation and the authority’s requests (to the extent they are reasonable and lawful).  In this vein, there are three important ways to establish and maintain a cooperative posture with an investigating authority, while also protecting the company’s interests in the process.
Continue Reading Best Practices for Negotiating the Scope of an Investigative Request