DOJ Reaches $507,144 Settlement with Defense Contractor, Signals Increased FCA Scrutiny of Cybersecurity Self-Assessments
On June 18, 2026, DOJ announced a settlement with LOGZONE Inc., a defense contractor, to pay $507,144 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act through its failure to satisfy cybersecurity requirements in its contracts with the Department of the Navy (“the Navy”). This settlement involves yet another coordinated enforcement effort through the recently created Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, previously reported on here and here. DOJ reached this settlement with assistance from the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Army, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”). This settlement underscores cybersecurity compliance as a focus of FCA enforcement.
Supreme Court Limits Enforcement of Appellate Waivers in Cases Involving Miscarriages of Justice
On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hunter v. United States that appellate waivers in plea agreements are not enforceable when doing so would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” The Court rejected arguments that knowing and voluntary appeal waivers must always be enforced, recognizing instead a narrow exception for sentences tainted by obvious and egregious errors that threaten public confidence in the judiciary.
The decision resolves a longstanding circuit split and underscores the judiciary’s independent role in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system. Although appellate waivers remain generally enforceable, Hunter creates a limited pathway for defendants to challenge certain unlawful sentences notwithstanding a waiver provision in a plea agreement.
The case also produced a notable concurrence from Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, questioning the modern plea-bargaining system and the leverage prosecutors wield in securing guilty pleas and appellate waivers. Read more in this blog post.
SEC Rescinds Its Gag Rule Policy
The SEC yesterday rescinded its so-called gag rule policy prohibiting parties from denying the allegations in no admit/no deny settlements. The SEC also announced it would not enforce gag rule provisions in existing settlements (which it pointed out was not enforced previously). Even with this policy change, the SEC can still agree to no admit/no deny settlements, and it noted that it may continue to require admissions in some cases.
The practical effects of this policy change remain uncertain, but we can predict at least two possible consequences despite the fact that this will be a welcome change for some settling parties. First, the SEC staff may seek to include more detailed allegations in settled orders to make it more difficult for settling parties to deny the allegations. Second, some settling parties have viewed the gag rule as helpful because it constrained their public statements after a settlement. Without the ability to rely on the “no deny” language, those parties may now face pressure to say more, which could introduce new risks.
