The CFTC’s Division of Enforcement has issued a significant new policy on cooperation that reshapes how self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation will affect enforcement outcomes. The May 19, 2026 Staff Advisory replaces prior guidance and, for the first time, creates a defined framework for when the Division may decline to recommend an enforcement action altogether.
The policy establishes detailed criteria for declinations, including prompt voluntary self-reporting, full cooperation, timely remediation, and restitution or disgorgement, while also introducing structured penalty reduction tiers of up to 75% for parties that cooperate even if they do not qualify for a declination. At the same time, the guidance raises the stakes on timing, requiring parties to report misconduct “at the earliest possible opportunity.”
The new internal guidance provides important insight into how the Division intends to exercise prosecutorial discretion and will have significant implications for firms evaluating potential misconduct, internal investigations, and disclosure decisions. Read the full Sidley post for a detailed analysis of the policy’s requirements, cooperation credit framework, and practical considerations for market participants. The CFTC press release can be found here.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Nathan A. Howellhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngNathan A. Howell2026-05-28 14:33:102026-05-28 13:33:30CFTC Division of Enforcement Issues New Cooperation Policy
It is not business as usual at DOJ. In the latest announcement related to the Department’s efforts to fight alleged fraud, on May 27, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate issued a memorandum directing DOJ’s Civil Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to accelerate the review of qui tams alleging fraud against federally funded state-administered benefits programs, including programs involving housing, food assistance, medical care, and cash assistance. The memorandum, titled “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in Benefits Fraud Matters,” implements President Trump’s March 2026 Executive Order establishing the “Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” which we reported on here, and which directed the Department to take appropriate action to promote “meritorious” qui tams and to complete investigations sooner, including within the 60-day statutory period.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/AdobeStock_71272800.jpg400600Kristin Graham Koehlerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-05-28 11:32:382026-05-28 12:17:59DOJ Announces Accelerated Review of FCA Qui Tams Alleging Fraud Against State-Administered Benefits Programs
On May 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General announced the first publicly disclosed settlement arising from the federal government’s nationwide investigation into gender-affirming care for minors. The resolution with Texas Children’s Hospital reflects a coordinated federal-state enforcement approach grounded in False Claims Act (“FCA”) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) theories, alongside significant non-monetary remedies extending beyond traditional healthcare fraud settlements. In addition to a substantial monetary payment, the agreements impose operational, clinical, and governance-related obligations that may signal how enforcement authorities intend to pursue similar matters going forward.
This blog post examines the settlement terms, the broader federal policy and enforcement framework underlying the investigation, and the implications for healthcare providers and life sciences companies navigating areas of aligned federal and state enforcement focus. Click to read more about the resolution and what it may signal for future DOJ and state attorney general enforcement activity.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Doreen M. Rachalhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngDoreen M. Rachal2026-05-26 12:12:172026-07-17 13:11:22DOJ and Texas AG Announce First Settlement in National Investigation of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
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.
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. Miller2026-05-21 16:50:372026-05-21 16:50:37Back Before the Fifth Circuit: DOJ Appeals Another FCPA Acquittal
A recent English High Court decision could significantly affect how companies structure internal investigations and legal communications under English law. In Aabar Holdings v. Glencore, the court held that certain internal corporate communications created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice may be protected by legal advice privilege even where no lawyer is directly involved in the communication. The decision provides important clarification on the scope of English legal privilege, particularly for multinational companies navigating cross-border investigations and compliance reviews, while also underscoring the continued importance of carefully defining the corporate “client group” when seeking legal advice.
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.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kenneth G. Coffinhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKenneth G. Coffin2026-05-20 11:24:572026-06-29 15:07:29Supreme Court’s First Choice Decision May Expand Federal Court Options to Recipients of State Attorney General CIDs
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.
On May 12, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $549.5 million settlement with Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC and four affiliated companies to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by evading customs duties. This settlement is the largest trade-related settlement under the FCA.
The action was initiated by qui tam cases brought by individuals who worked for U.S.-based competitors and the Aluminum Extrusion Counsel and ultimately coordinated through the DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force, which involved cooperation between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security. This case highlights the increasing use of the FCA to hold importers liable for the underpayment of customs duties, the Administration’s commitment to enforcing U.S. customs laws, and the potential for competitors and former employees to harness the FCA to motivate federal investigations into allegations of trade fraud.
This post examines the settlement and discusses its implications for importers, manufacturers, and other companies facing customs and trade enforcement risk.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/04/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_29.jpg606833Kristin Graham Koehlerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-05-18 11:46:492026-07-09 11:31:08Tariff Enforcement at the Forefront: Importer Agrees to Pay $549.5 million in Largest-Ever Trade-Related False Claims Act Settlement
CFTC Division of Enforcement Issues New Cooperation Policy
The CFTC’s Division of Enforcement has issued a significant new policy on cooperation that reshapes how self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation will affect enforcement outcomes. The May 19, 2026 Staff Advisory replaces prior guidance and, for the first time, creates a defined framework for when the Division may decline to recommend an enforcement action altogether.
The policy establishes detailed criteria for declinations, including prompt voluntary self-reporting, full cooperation, timely remediation, and restitution or disgorgement, while also introducing structured penalty reduction tiers of up to 75% for parties that cooperate even if they do not qualify for a declination. At the same time, the guidance raises the stakes on timing, requiring parties to report misconduct “at the earliest possible opportunity.”
The new internal guidance provides important insight into how the Division intends to exercise prosecutorial discretion and will have significant implications for firms evaluating potential misconduct, internal investigations, and disclosure decisions. Read the full Sidley post for a detailed analysis of the policy’s requirements, cooperation credit framework, and practical considerations for market participants. The CFTC press release can be found here.
(more…)
Nathan A. Howell
Chicago
nhowell@sidley.com
Kate Lashley
Miami, New York
klashley@sidley.com
Peter Malyshev
Washington, D.C.
peter.malyshev@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
New York
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Rebecca Lewis Tierney
Chicago
rebecca.lewistierney@sidley.com
Hector Pagan
Boston
hector.pagan@sidley.com
DOJ Announces Accelerated Review of FCA Qui Tams Alleging Fraud Against State-Administered Benefits Programs
It is not business as usual at DOJ. In the latest announcement related to the Department’s efforts to fight alleged fraud, on May 27, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate issued a memorandum directing DOJ’s Civil Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to accelerate the review of qui tams alleging fraud against federally funded state-administered benefits programs, including programs involving housing, food assistance, medical care, and cash assistance. The memorandum, titled “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in Benefits Fraud Matters,” implements President Trump’s March 2026 Executive Order establishing the “Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” which we reported on here, and which directed the Department to take appropriate action to promote “meritorious” qui tams and to complete investigations sooner, including within the 60-day statutory period.
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
DOJ and Texas AG Announce First Settlement in National Investigation of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
On May 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General announced the first publicly disclosed settlement arising from the federal government’s nationwide investigation into gender-affirming care for minors. The resolution with Texas Children’s Hospital reflects a coordinated federal-state enforcement approach grounded in False Claims Act (“FCA”) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) theories, alongside significant non-monetary remedies extending beyond traditional healthcare fraud settlements. In addition to a substantial monetary payment, the agreements impose operational, clinical, and governance-related obligations that may signal how enforcement authorities intend to pursue similar matters going forward.
This blog post examines the settlement terms, the broader federal policy and enforcement framework underlying the investigation, and the implications for healthcare providers and life sciences companies navigating areas of aligned federal and state enforcement focus. Click to read more about the resolution and what it may signal for future DOJ and state attorney general enforcement activity.
Doreen M. Rachal
New York, Boston
drachal@sidley.com
Shu Min Ho
Singapore
shumin.ho@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Lucia Radder Quick
New York
lradderquick@sidley.com
Nicole A. Heise
Chicago
nheise@sidley.com
Micah D. Stewart
New York
micah.stewart@sidley.com
Back Before the Fifth Circuit: DOJ Appeals Another FCPA Acquittal
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.
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Asher J. Zlotnik
New York
asher.zlotnik@sidley.com
English Privilege Ruling Carries Important Lessons for Internal Investigations
A recent English High Court decision could significantly affect how companies structure internal investigations and legal communications under English law. In Aabar Holdings v. Glencore, the court held that certain internal corporate communications created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice may be protected by legal advice privilege even where no lawyer is directly involved in the communication. The decision provides important clarification on the scope of English legal privilege, particularly for multinational companies navigating cross-border investigations and compliance reviews, while also underscoring the continued importance of carefully defining the corporate “client group” when seeking legal advice.
(more…)
Alastair Hopwood
London
ahopwood@sidley.com
Jack Roxburgh
London
jroxburgh@sidley.com
Supreme Court’s First Choice Decision May Expand Federal Court Options to Recipients of State Attorney General CIDs
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.
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Hao Zhu
Washington, D.C.
hao.zhu@sidley.com
Austin Severns
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.
(more…)
Ike Adams
Washington, D.C.
iadams@sidley.com
Kathryn L. Alessi
Boston
kalessi@sidley.com
W. Hardy Callcott
San Francisco
wcallcott@sidley.com
Kevin J. Campion
Washington, D.C.
kcampion@sidley.com
Stephen L. Cohen
Washington, D.C., Boston, ...
scohen@sidley.com
Ranah Esmaili
Washington, D.C., New York
resmaili@sidley.com
Kenyon Hall
Boston
kenyon.hall@sidley.com
Elizabeth A. Marino
Boston
emarino@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
New York
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Lara Mehraban
New York
lmehraban@sidley.com
Christopher R. Mills
Washington, D.C.
cmills@sidley.com
David S. Petron
Washington, D.C.
dpetron@sidley.com
John I. Sakhleh
Washington, D.C.
jsakhleh@sidley.com
Charles A. Sommers
Washington, D.C.
csommers@sidley.com
Simona K. Suh
New York
simona.suh@sidley.com
Corin R. Swift
New York, Boston
corin.swift@sidley.com
Lara C. Thyagarajan
New York, Boston
lthyagarajan@sidley.com
Paul M. Tyrrell
Boston
ptyrrell@sidley.com
Tariff Enforcement at the Forefront: Importer Agrees to Pay $549.5 million in Largest-Ever Trade-Related False Claims Act Settlement
On May 12, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $549.5 million settlement with Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC and four affiliated companies to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by evading customs duties. This settlement is the largest trade-related settlement under the FCA.
The action was initiated by qui tam cases brought by individuals who worked for U.S.-based competitors and the Aluminum Extrusion Counsel and ultimately coordinated through the DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force, which involved cooperation between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security. This case highlights the increasing use of the FCA to hold importers liable for the underpayment of customs duties, the Administration’s commitment to enforcing U.S. customs laws, and the potential for competitors and former employees to harness the FCA to motivate federal investigations into allegations of trade fraud.
This post examines the settlement and discusses its implications for importers, manufacturers, and other companies facing customs and trade enforcement risk.
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Ted Murphy
Washington, D.C.
ted.murphy@sidley.com
Craig Francis Dukin
Washington, D.C.
cdukin@sidley.com
Aaron M. Applebaum
Washington, D.C.
aapplebaum@sidley.com
Gwen Ellis-Joyce
Washington, D.C.
gwen.ellisjoyce@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