Entries by Michael D. Mann

17 06 '26

China’s New Supply Chain Security Regulations: Key Takeaways for Companies With China Operations or China-Linked Supply Chains

/in , , /by

China’s new Regulations on Industrial and Supply Chain Security, which took effect on April 7, 2026, add another significant layer to the country’s expanding countermeasures framework. The regulations give Chinese authorities broad powers to monitor activities that could be viewed as threatening China’s industrial or supply chain security, creating new compliance challenges for companies with China operations or China-linked supply chains.

From increased scrutiny of key sectors and supply chain due diligence to heightened risks around supplier transitions, customer terminations, and sanctions-driven business decisions, the regulations underscore a growing reality: actions taken to comply with foreign trade restrictions may carry legal consequences in China.

In this blog post, we examine the regulations’ key provisions, identify four principal risk areas for multinational companies, and discuss practical steps companies should consider as conflict-of-laws risks become increasingly difficult to avoid.

15 06 '26

Cracking Open the Grand Jury Black Box: Recent Cases Show Prosecutorial Misconduct Can Lead to Dismissal of Charges

/in , /by

Recent federal cases in Wyoming and Illinois involving judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury have resulted in dismissed indictments. In Wyoming, three federal judges dismissed nine felony indictments after concluding that the interim U.S. Attorney made inflammatory and prejudicial remarks to grand jurors that compromised the integrity of the proceedings. In Illinois, the prosecution of the so-called “Broadview Six” collapsed after a federal judge authorized disclosure and review of grand jury materials amid allegations of serious misconduct during the charging process, leading the government to dismiss the remaining charges with prejudice.

These outcomes are remarkable because courts rarely agree to scrutinize what occurs before the grand jury. Grand jury proceedings are cloaked in secrecy, and courts generally presume that prosecutors properly present evidence and accurately instruct grand jurors on the law. As a result, efforts to challenge indictments based on misconduct in the charging process face a steep uphill battle. The Wyoming and Illinois cases nevertheless demonstrate that, where defense counsel can identify objective facts raising legitimate concerns about the integrity of the grand jury process, courts may be willing to look behind the curtain, authorize disclosure or review of grand jury materials, and, in extraordinary circumstances, dismiss indictments altogether. This blog post examines those cases, the legal framework governing grand jury secrecy, and the practical lessons they offer for defense counsel seeking to investigate and litigate potential grand jury misconduct.

12 06 '26

Prediction Market “Insider Trading” Revisited: Technology Employee Charged With Using Confidential Corporate Information to Profit from Event Contracts

/in , , , /by

On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission(“CFTC”) charged a Google software engineer with allegedly using confidential internal search data to profit from prediction market contracts on Polymarket. The case is the latest example of regulators applying insider trading-style theories outside traditional securities markets and raises important questions regarding confidential business information, prediction markets, and the scope of the CFTC’s enforcement authority.

For companies, the matter underscores increasing scrutiny of trading activity involving confidential corporate information and the need to assess whether existing insider trading and confidentiality policies adequately address emerging trading platforms.

Read the full blog post for an analysis of the allegations, the implications of United States v. Chastain, and key compliance considerations for companies navigating the rapidly evolving prediction market landscape.

11 06 '26

SDNY Signals Increased Scrutiny of Private Market Valuations

/in , , , /by

In remarks delivered at the Bloomberg Global Credit Forum on June 3, 2026, Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), signaled increased scrutiny of private-market valuations. While emphasizing the importance of private credit to the U.S. economy, Clayton identified inconsistent asset valuations as a key area of concern and called for greater transparency around firms’ valuation practices. He specifically noted that significant discrepancies in the valuation of the same assets may raise concerns, particularly where valuations affect fee generation.

Clayton further stated that he has directed SDNY prosecutors to examine valuation discrepancies and outlier marks when assessing cases. This focus may represent a shift from the private-credit cases currently pursued by SDNY, which have largely centered on borrower-side fraud, and suggests increased attention on the conduct of lenders, asset managers, and investors.

Our blog post examines what Clayton’s comments may signal about future enforcement priorities, the types of valuation-related conduct likely to draw scrutiny, and practical steps firms can take to strengthen their valuation frameworks.

05 06 '26

New Clarity Emerges on DOJ’s Fraud Enforcement Reorganization

/in , , , , , , , , /by

In remarks delivered on June 3, 2026, at the American Conference Institute’s Global Anti-Corruption, Ethics & Compliance Conference in New York City, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva, the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division, provided the clearest public indication to date of how DOJ intends to divide fraud enforcement responsibilities between the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”).

Under the emerging structure, NFED will focus on government program fraud, i.e., criminal offenses involving public payers and public systems, including taxpayer-funded programs, while the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section will remain focused on private-sector market, consumer, and corporate fraud matters—a traditional strength of the Unit previously known as Market Integrity & Major Frauds, which will remain part of the Criminal Division. Duva further emphasized that the Fraud Section will be focusing on securities and major financial fraud schemes, global fraud, and prediction markets, and is actively looking to further build capacity by hiring talented lawyers.

The remarks largely confirm earlier expectations that DOJ would eventually provide greater clarity regarding the respective roles of the Criminal Division and NFED following NFED’s creation. We examine what Duva’s comments reveal about DOJ’s enforcement priorities, staffing changes, and the implications for future enforcement activity.

21 05 '26

Back Before the Fifth Circuit: DOJ Appeals Another FCPA Acquittal

/in , , , , , /by

On May 8, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed Judge Kenneth Hoyt’s post-verdict acquittal in the FCPA prosecution of Ramón Alexandro Rovirosa Martínez, setting up what could become a significant Fifth Circuit decision on both double jeopardy and the use of translated foreign language evidence in federal criminal trials.

Although a Houston jury convicted Rovirosa in December 2025 on conspiracy and substantive FCPA charges tied to alleged bribery of officials at Mexico’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, Judge Hoyt later vacated the convictions, concluding that the Government’s reliance on certified English translations of Spanish language communications violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause because the translators themselves did not testify.

The appeal raises potentially consequential questions about whether post-verdict acquittals can be reviewed without violating double jeopardy protections, and whether certified translations of foreign language communications are “testimonial” statements requiring live confrontation. This blog post explores those issues and places the appeal in the broader context of the Fifth Circuit’s continuing scrutiny of major FCPA decisions.

20 05 '26

Supreme Court’s First Choice Decision May Expand Federal Court Options to Recipients of State Attorney General CIDs

/in , , , , , , , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport may create a new strategic consideration for recipients of state attorney general civil investigative demands (CIDs). In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a nonprofit could pursue a Section 1983 challenge to a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena in federal court based on alleged First Amendment associational harms arising from compelled donor disclosure.

Although the Court emphasized the narrow nature of its holding, the decision potentially opens the door to federal court challenges where state attorney general CIDs implicate donor anonymity, expressive association, advocacy activities, or other constitutional interests. The ruling also reflects the Court’s continued willingness to recognize Article III standing based on alleged chilling effects tied to First Amendment rights.

Our latest post examines the decision, the arguments raised by a coalition of state attorneys general, and what the ruling may mean for companies, nonprofits, trade associations, and other recipients of state attorney general investigative demands.

12 05 '26

“Don’t Wait”: DOJ Criminal Division Chief Signals Faster Disclosure Expectations and Uptick in Corporate Enforcement

/in , , , , , , , /by

On May 7, 2026, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva used his first major speech to the compliance community since DOJ’s March 2026 rollout of its department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) to deliver a clear message: corporate enforcement activity is expected to increase, companies should self-disclose misconduct early—even before completing internal investigations—and robust compliance programs remain central to DOJ’s expectations.