On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced parallel criminal and civil actions against a U.S. Army service member accused of using classified military information about a planned operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place profitable trades on Polymarket, a prediction market platform. The case, the first to apply traditional insider trading and fraud theories to prediction markets, signals a shift in how the government will regulate this emerging market. In response to this news, companies should consider reviewing company policies on insider trading and compliance to address prediction markets and the use of confidential information in connection with event-based trading.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/02/GettyImages-1307247030.jpg400600Matthew Podolskyhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngMatthew Podolsky2026-05-08 15:27:102026-05-12 11:55:55The First Prediction Market Insider Trading Case: SDNY and CFTC Test the Limits of Fraud and Commodities Law
On April 30, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Civil Division announced the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics, or FOCUS, initiative. The initiative is aimed at a fast-growing category of False Claims Act relators that exploded in the aftermath of the pandemic and the Paycheck Protection Program: “data miners” who analyze publicly available government data to identify potential fraud and then file qui tam complaints. DOJ’s message to these non-traditional relators is twofold. First, the Department seems to have accepted that data-miner relators are here to stay, and so has invited sophisticated, well-supported data analysis that can help identify fraud that might otherwise go undetected. But second, DOJ intends to prioritize data-miner relators who can demonstrate meaningful pre-filing diligence, analytical rigor, familiarity with the governing program rules, and legally sufficient allegations.
For companies in sectors with substantial government funding or reimbursement, including healthcare, life sciences, defense, education, technology, and other government contractors, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Companies should evaluate their own publicly available data with the same skepticism and sophistication that a relator, short seller, or agency analyst might apply. Leveraging enhanced analytics and AI to match and front-run potential data miner-driven qui tams will allow companies to quickly assess the likely source of government interest, and explain it.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Michael D. Mannhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngMichael D. Mann2026-05-07 15:47:382026-05-11 10:29:08DOJ’s FOCUS Initiative: An Invitation or a Warning to Data Miner Relators?
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction in United States v. Bolandian, holding that the trial court failed to properly investigate a juror who admitted he was “not sure” he could remain impartial. The case involved a Los Angeles trader accused of profiting from confidential merger tips, resulting in a conviction and 24-month sentence. But on appeal, the court found plain error in allowing the uncertain juror—who ultimately served as foreperson—to remain without further inquiry. Emphasizing the court’s independent duty to ensure juror impartiality, the decision underscores that even without a defense objection, unresolved bias concerns can mandate a new trial—offering both a cautionary note and a safeguard for defense counsel.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/05/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_32.jpg606833Lisa H. Millerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngLisa H. Miller2026-05-06 09:50:302026-05-07 15:49:10Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
In another signal that health care fraud enforcement remains a top priority for DOJ, on April 30, 2026, the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (the “Fraud Division”) announced the launch of the West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force, a multi-district initiative targeting health care fraud across the District of Arizona, the District of Nevada, and the Northern District of California. This expansion is consistent with the time-tested model of Main Justice-based health care matters that has existed since 2007. Like its predecessor strike forces, the West Coast Strike Force will use dedicated agent and prosecutorial resources in the region to combat schemes identified based on data analytics and traditional law enforcement techniques. This announcement is independently notable because it makes clear that while the Health Care Fraud Unit—rebranded as the Health Care Section of the new Fraud Division—is no longer part of the Criminal Division, it will continue with the same career leadership and approach to enforcement: use of data to expand prosecutorial pipelines, solicitation of whistleblowers, and aggressive pursuit of corporate and individual prosecutions.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Lisa H. Millerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngLisa H. Miller2026-05-05 21:06:032026-05-05 21:06:03New Division Continues Time-Tested Model: DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Launches West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force
This article, “Clear and Present Danger: How U.S. Department of Justice Trade-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Show Trade and Customs Risks Are Here to Stay,” published in The Global Trade Law Journal, examines the DOJ’s increased focus on trade fraud, tariff evasion and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risks. The authors highlight key enforcement trends, including expanded whistleblower incentives and renewed use of the Trade Fraud Task Force, and explain how these developments are driving more aggressive investigations. The article also outlines practical steps companies can take to strengthen trade compliance, enhance oversight of third-party intermediaries and reduce enforcement risk.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/04/GettyImages-1080626808.jpg400600Lisa H. Millerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngLisa H. Miller2026-05-05 11:22:422026-05-07 15:48:23Clear and Present Danger: DOJ Trade Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Signal Lasting Compliance Risk
The Trump Administration is advancing a coordinated effort to tie federal funding and contracting eligibility more closely to its interpretation of antidiscrimination law. Recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) guidance directs agencies to incorporate a new contract clause prohibiting practices the Administration deems discriminatory, while proposed revisions to System for Award Management (SAM) certifications would require recipients of federal grants and other financial assistance to affirm compliance with similar standards. These developments build on earlier Department of Justice guidance outlining the types of conduct the Administration views as unlawful and are reinforced by a recent False Claims Act (FCA) settlement signaling a willingness to pursue enforcement in this area. Together, the FAR changes and proposed SAM revisions point to a more integrated enforcement framework—one that expands certification and disclosure obligations, links compliance more directly to FCA materiality, and increases oversight and reporting expectations. For federal contractors and grant recipients, the result is a heightened risk environment requiring careful reassessment of policies, internal controls, and subcontractor compliance in anticipation of greater scrutiny from both contracting agencies and enforcement authorities.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-05-01 09:04:552026-04-30 15:15:56New Guidance on U.S. Procurement Raises Risk to Federal Contractors From Potentially Discriminatory Practices
On April 22, 2026, DOJ and DEA took two coordinated steps that could reshape—though not resolve—the federal treatment of marijuana. First, they issued a final order placing certain FDA-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana products in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. At the same time, DEA announced an expedited hearing on a separate proposal to reclassify marijuana more broadly from Schedule I to Schedule III, with proceedings set to begin in late June. Together, these actions signal movement toward a less restrictive federal framework, but their immediate impact is narrower than it may appear: the final order applies only to a limited subset of medical marijuana products and leaves most cannabis activity subject to existing federal controls. For industry participants, the developments introduce a more compliance-driven, state license-dependent pathway today, while setting the stage for potentially more significant changes in the months ahead.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/AdobeStock_71272800.jpg400600Michael D. Mannhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngMichael D. Mann2026-04-30 14:02:422026-04-30 15:19:20DOJ and DEA Loosen Medical Marijuana Restrictions and Move Toward Broader Rescheduling
Sidley’s global Antitrust and Competition team recently shared its perspectives on key antitrust issues currently top of mind—and why they matter for businesses. The April Antitrust and Competition Bulletin highlights continued scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission of labor markets, including noncompete agreements and talent-focused transactions, as well as evolving enforcement approaches to information exchanges, as reflected in the DOJ’s recent statement in In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation. It also examines the growing willingness of state Attorneys General to act independently of federal enforcers, signaling an increasingly complex enforcement landscape. In addition, the team addresses notable international developments, including leadership changes at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition and new guidance on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act and the General Data Protection Regulation. The Bulletin further explores how these developments may affect businesses.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Juan A. Arteagahttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJuan A. Arteaga2026-04-27 14:53:392026-04-27 14:53:39April Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Top-of-Mind Global Antitrust Issues
The First Prediction Market Insider Trading Case: SDNY and CFTC Test the Limits of Fraud and Commodities Law
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) announced parallel criminal and civil actions against a U.S. Army service member accused of using classified military information about a planned operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to place profitable trades on Polymarket, a prediction market platform. The case, the first to apply traditional insider trading and fraud theories to prediction markets, signals a shift in how the government will regulate this emerging market. In response to this news, companies should consider reviewing company policies on insider trading and compliance to address prediction markets and the use of confidential information in connection with event-based trading.
Matthew Podolsky
New York
matthew.podolsky@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
New York
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Hao Zhu
Washington, D.C.
hao.zhu@sidley.com
Jessica Martinez
Boston
jessica.martinez@sidley.com
DOJ’s FOCUS Initiative: An Invitation or a Warning to Data Miner Relators?
On April 30, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Civil Division announced the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics, or FOCUS, initiative. The initiative is aimed at a fast-growing category of False Claims Act relators that exploded in the aftermath of the pandemic and the Paycheck Protection Program: “data miners” who analyze publicly available government data to identify potential fraud and then file qui tam complaints. DOJ’s message to these non-traditional relators is twofold. First, the Department seems to have accepted that data-miner relators are here to stay, and so has invited sophisticated, well-supported data analysis that can help identify fraud that might otherwise go undetected. But second, DOJ intends to prioritize data-miner relators who can demonstrate meaningful pre-filing diligence, analytical rigor, familiarity with the governing program rules, and legally sufficient allegations.
For companies in sectors with substantial government funding or reimbursement, including healthcare, life sciences, defense, education, technology, and other government contractors, the practical takeaway is straightforward. Companies should evaluate their own publicly available data with the same skepticism and sophistication that a relator, short seller, or agency analyst might apply. Leveraging enhanced analytics and AI to match and front-run potential data miner-driven qui tams will allow companies to quickly assess the likely source of government interest, and explain it.
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Hao Zhu
Washington, D.C.
hao.zhu@sidley.com
Jessica Martinez
Boston
jessica.martinez@sidley.com
Ninth Circuit Vacates Insider Trading Conviction Over Court’s Failure to Investigate Juror Bias
On April 21, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated an insider trading conviction in United States v. Bolandian, holding that the trial court failed to properly investigate a juror who admitted he was “not sure” he could remain impartial. The case involved a Los Angeles trader accused of profiting from confidential merger tips, resulting in a conviction and 24-month sentence. But on appeal, the court found plain error in allowing the uncertain juror—who ultimately served as foreperson—to remain without further inquiry. Emphasizing the court’s independent duty to ensure juror impartiality, the decision underscores that even without a defense objection, unresolved bias concerns can mandate a new trial—offering both a cautionary note and a safeguard for defense counsel.
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Mallory W. Edel
New York
medel@sidley.com
Tyler Baylis
San Francisco
tbaylis@sidley.com
Lauren T. Dehn
San Francisco
ldehn@sidley.com
New Division Continues Time-Tested Model: DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Launches West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force
In another signal that health care fraud enforcement remains a top priority for DOJ, on April 30, 2026, the newly created National Fraud Enforcement Division (the “Fraud Division”) announced the launch of the West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force, a multi-district initiative targeting health care fraud across the District of Arizona, the District of Nevada, and the Northern District of California. This expansion is consistent with the time-tested model of Main Justice-based health care matters that has existed since 2007. Like its predecessor strike forces, the West Coast Strike Force will use dedicated agent and prosecutorial resources in the region to combat schemes identified based on data analytics and traditional law enforcement techniques. This announcement is independently notable because it makes clear that while the Health Care Fraud Unit—rebranded as the Health Care Section of the new Fraud Division—is no longer part of the Criminal Division, it will continue with the same career leadership and approach to enforcement: use of data to expand prosecutorial pipelines, solicitation of whistleblowers, and aggressive pursuit of corporate and individual prosecutions.
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Mallory W. Edel
New York
medel@sidley.com
Dave Anderson
San Francisco
dlanderson@sidley.com
Kevin R. Rubino
San Francisco
krubino@sidley.com
Sheila A.G. Armbrust
San Francisco
sarmbrust@sidley.com
Douglas A. Axel
Los Angeles
daxel@sidley.com
Clear and Present Danger: DOJ Trade Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Signal Lasting Compliance Risk
This article, “Clear and Present Danger: How U.S. Department of Justice Trade-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Priorities Show Trade and Customs Risks Are Here to Stay,” published in The Global Trade Law Journal, examines the DOJ’s increased focus on trade fraud, tariff evasion and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act risks. The authors highlight key enforcement trends, including expanded whistleblower incentives and renewed use of the Trade Fraud Task Force, and explain how these developments are driving more aggressive investigations. The article also outlines practical steps companies can take to strengthen trade compliance, enhance oversight of third-party intermediaries and reduce enforcement risk.
(more…)
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Jacqueline Pruitt
Chicago
jpruitt@sidley.com
Jazmyne Denman
Washington, D.C.
jazmyne.denman@sidley.com
New Guidance on U.S. Procurement Raises Risk to Federal Contractors From Potentially Discriminatory Practices
The Trump Administration is advancing a coordinated effort to tie federal funding and contracting eligibility more closely to its interpretation of antidiscrimination law. Recent Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) guidance directs agencies to incorporate a new contract clause prohibiting practices the Administration deems discriminatory, while proposed revisions to System for Award Management (SAM) certifications would require recipients of federal grants and other financial assistance to affirm compliance with similar standards. These developments build on earlier Department of Justice guidance outlining the types of conduct the Administration views as unlawful and are reinforced by a recent False Claims Act (FCA) settlement signaling a willingness to pursue enforcement in this area. Together, the FAR changes and proposed SAM revisions point to a more integrated enforcement framework—one that expands certification and disclosure obligations, links compliance more directly to FCA materiality, and increases oversight and reporting expectations. For federal contractors and grant recipients, the result is a heightened risk environment requiring careful reassessment of policies, internal controls, and subcontractor compliance in anticipation of greater scrutiny from both contracting agencies and enforcement authorities.
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Kyle J. Fiet
Washington, D.C.
kfiet@sidley.com
H. Boyd Greene IV
Washington, D.C.
bgreene@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Joseph R. LoCascio
Chicago
joseph.locascio@sidley.com
Natalie A. Piazza
Dallas
npiazza@sidley.com
DOJ and DEA Loosen Medical Marijuana Restrictions and Move Toward Broader Rescheduling
On April 22, 2026, DOJ and DEA took two coordinated steps that could reshape—though not resolve—the federal treatment of marijuana. First, they issued a final order placing certain FDA-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana products in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. At the same time, DEA announced an expedited hearing on a separate proposal to reclassify marijuana more broadly from Schedule I to Schedule III, with proceedings set to begin in late June. Together, these actions signal movement toward a less restrictive federal framework, but their immediate impact is narrower than it may appear: the final order applies only to a limited subset of medical marijuana products and leaves most cannabis activity subject to existing federal controls. For industry participants, the developments introduce a more compliance-driven, state license-dependent pathway today, while setting the stage for potentially more significant changes in the months ahead.
(more…)
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Diane C. McEnroe
New York
dmcenroe@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
Abigail K. Caroll
Washington, D.C.
abigail.carroll@sidley.com
April Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Top-of-Mind Global Antitrust Issues
Sidley’s global Antitrust and Competition team recently shared its perspectives on key antitrust issues currently top of mind—and why they matter for businesses. The April Antitrust and Competition Bulletin highlights continued scrutiny by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission of labor markets, including noncompete agreements and talent-focused transactions, as well as evolving enforcement approaches to information exchanges, as reflected in the DOJ’s recent statement in In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation. It also examines the growing willingness of state Attorneys General to act independently of federal enforcers, signaling an increasingly complex enforcement landscape. In addition, the team addresses notable international developments, including leadership changes at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition and new guidance on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act and the General Data Protection Regulation. The Bulletin further explores how these developments may affect businesses.
(more…)
Juan A. Arteaga
New York
juan.arteaga@sidley.com
Vadim Brusser
Washington, D.C.
vadim.brusser@sidley.com
Laura Collins
Washington, D.C.
laura.collins@sidley.com
James W. Lowe
Washington, D.C.
jlowe@sidley.com
Carrie Mahan
Washington, D.C.
carrie.mahan@sidley.com
Ken Daly
Brussels
kdaly@sidley.com
Mary K. Marks
New York
mary.marks@sidley.com
Benjamin M. Mundel
Washington, D.C.
bmundel@sidley.com
Benjamin Nagin
New York
bnagin@sidley.com
Corey Roush
Washington, D.C.
corey.roush@sidley.com
Lawrence D. Silverman
Miami
lawrence.silverman@sidley.com
Rosanna Connolly
London
rconnolly@sidley.com
Jason C. Semmes
Washington, D.C.
jason.semmes@sidley.com
Categories
Archives
Meet the Team
Douglas A. Axel
daxel@sidley.com
David H. Hoffman
david.hoffman@sidley.com
Joan M. Loughnane
jloughnane@sidley.com
Kenneth A. Polite Jr.
kpolite@sidley.com
Daniel D. Rubinstein
drubinstein@sidley.com
Yuet Ming Tham
ytham@sidley.com
Dave Anderson
dlanderson@sidley.com
Sheila A.G. Armbrust
sarmbrust@sidley.com
Ellyce R. Cooper
ecooper@sidley.com
Daniel C. Craig
dcraig@sidley.com
Alexandria Daugherty
adaugherty@sidley.com
Craig Francis Dukin
cdukin@sidley.com
Sara George
sara.george@sidley.com
Shu Min Ho
shumin.ho@sidley.com
Naomi A. Igra
naomi.igra@sidley.com
Kristin Graham Koehler
kkoehler@sidley.com
Scott R. Lassar
slassar@sidley.com
Michael A. Levy
mlevy@sidley.com
Geeta Malhotra
gmalhotra@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
mdmann@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Paige Holden Montgomery
pmontgomery@sidley.com
Julia G. Mirabella
jmirabella@sidley.com
Takayuki Ono
tono@sidley.com
Matthew Podolsky
matthew.podolsky@sidley.com
Alexa Poletto
apoletto@sidley.com
Karen A. Popp
kpopp@sidley.com
Jacqueline Pruitt
jpruitt@sidley.com
Doreen M. Rachal
drachal@sidley.com
Kevin Rubino
krubino@sidley.com
Leslie A. Shubert
lshubert@sidley.com
David A. Silva
david.silva@sidley.com
Michele Tagliaferri
mtagliaferri@sidley.com
Frank R. Volpe
fvolpe@sidley.com
Marisa S. West
marisa.west@sidley.com
Angela M. Xenakis
axenakis@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com