The National Law Forum

Federal Agencies Have Placed a Heightened Priority on Whistleblowers and Speedy Cooperation

As new areas of the law emerge, driven in part by technology and the free flow of information, federal agencies are becoming more aggressive with a tried and true carrot-and-stick approach to law and regulatory enforcement.

In a recent PLI panel on government enforcement priorities in May 2024, Brent Wible, Chief Counselor, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice (DOJ or Department); Daniel Gitner, Chief of the Criminal Division, US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY or the Office); and Antonia Apps, Director of the New York Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) shared their thoughts, priorities and practices in 2024 enforcement and beyond.

All of the government lawyers stressed that the DOJ and enforcement agencies are open and are actively encouraging whistleblowers with new incentives and programs. To that end, Mr. Gitner from the SDNY stated very directly that corporations need to understand that there is a “need for speed” in corporate self-disclosures. Otherwise, whistleblowers will be closing the door to the benefits of corporate self-disclosures. Put differently, enforcement agencies do not want a corporation to complete lengthy internal investigations before reporting.

A uniform theme and stance taken by all is that whistleblowers are valuable, and bounties will be paid in cash or in deferred prosecution agreements or possibly both. Whistleblowers must be protected. Internal and external whistleblowers should be encouraged.
This article focuses on three whistleblower initiatives—(i) the SEC’s Whistleblower Program, (ii) the SDNY Whistleblower Pilot Program and (iii) DOJ’s Pilot Whistleblower Program for voluntary self-disclosure—and how those programs may impact a corporation’s response to whistleblowers, internal investigations, and disclosures.

SEC 21F WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

Since its inception more than a decade ago, the SEC’s Whistleblower Program is widely viewed as successfully incentivizing whistleblower reports of violations of the securities laws. In its 2023 fiscal year, the SEC received more than 18,000 tips from whistleblowers and issued the most awards to whistleblowers ever in one year, totaling nearly US$600 million. That year, the Commission also issued its largest ever award of US$279 million to a single whistleblower.¹

What is the SEC’s Whistleblower Program?

Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, codified as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, requires the SEC to pay awards to whistleblowers who provide information to the SEC about violations of federal securities laws.² Accordingly, the SEC has issued a series of rulemakings implementing Section 21F to create its whistleblower program. To qualify as a whistleblower, an individual must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information in writing about a possible violation of federal securities law that has occurred, is ongoing, or is about to occur.³ To qualify for an award, this information must lead to a successful enforcement action with monetary sanctions totaling more than US$1 million.⁴

“Original” information means that it cannot be found in publicly available sources and is not already known by the Commission, but is instead the product of the whistleblower’s independent knowledge or analysis.⁵ A submission is “voluntary” if the whistleblower provides it to the SEC before receiving a regulatory request or demand for information relating to the same subject matter. Therefore, a submission of information that is made in response to a request, inquiry, or demand by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a self-regulatory organization (such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), or a separate federal or state governmental body does not qualify as a voluntary submission.⁶ Additionally, a submission that is required under a legal or contractual duty to the Commission is not considered voluntary and is thus ineligible for an award.⁷

The SEC’s whistleblower rules also include anti-retaliation protections intended to ensure that the incentives provided to whistleblowers for reporting are not outweighed by a fear of reprisal from their employer. Under Rule 21F-17, companies are prohibited from interfering with or impeding a whistleblower’s communications to the SEC about a possible violation of the securities laws, including through enforcement or threatened enforcement of a confidentiality agreement that may be read to prevent whistleblower communications with the SEC.⁸

The SEC is taking violations of Rule 21F-17 seriously and has increased enforcement activity in this area over the last two years. The Commission brought a number of actions, with significant civil penalties, focused on corporate agreements containing confidentiality language that, according to the SEC, does not provide an express exception for whistleblower communications. The enforcement actions extend to different types of companies, including publicly traded companies, privately held companies, broker-dealers and investment advisers, and to a variety of forms of agreements with employees and customers alike.⁹

For example, a gaming company paid US$35 million to settle claims that it had violated the whistleblower protection rule by requiring former employees to execute separation agreements that obligated them to notify the company of any request for information received from the Commission, in addition to compliance failures regarding workplace complaints.¹⁰ In January 2024, the SEC settled the largest ever standalone Rule 21F-17 case, imposing US$18 million in civil penalties against a dually registered investment adviser and broker dealer for allegedly requiring clients to sign a confidential release agreement—without expressly allowing for direct communications to regulators regarding potential securities law violations—in order to receive certain credit or settlement payments.¹¹ In another case involving US$10 million in civil penalties, the Commission charged a registered investment adviser with a standalone violation of Rule 21F-17 based on employment agreements that contained a confidentiality clause prohibiting external disclosure of confidential company information, without a carve-out for voluntary communications with the SEC concerning possible violations of the securities laws.¹² As recently stated by the co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit, “Investors, whether retail or otherwise, must be free to report complaints to the SEC without any interference. Those drafting or using confidentiality agreements need to ensure that they do not include provisions that impede potential whistleblowers.”¹³

SDNY WHISTLEBLOWER PILOT PROGRAM

In February 2024, the SDNY launched a whistleblower pilot program. The purpose of the program is to encourage early and voluntary self-disclosure of criminal conduct by individual participants.¹⁴ The program is applicable to disclosures of conduct committed by public or private companies, exchanges, financial institutions, investment advisers, or investment funds involving fraud or corporate control failure or affecting market integrity, or criminal conduct involving state or local bribery or fraud relating to federal, state, or local funds.¹⁵ In exchange for a qualifying self-disclosure, the Office will enter into a non-prosecution agreement with the whistleblower.¹⁶

Given that a non-prosecution agreement is promised, the SDNY has identified factors to determine whether a whistleblower qualifies for a discretionary non prosecution agreement. The most salient include: whether and to what extent the misconduct is unknown to either SDNY or the DOJ; whether the information is disclosed voluntarily to SDNY and not in response to an inquiry or obligation to report misconduct; whether the whistleblower provides substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of culpable individuals, and in the investigation and prosecution of the disclosed conduct; whether the whistleblower truthfully and completely discloses all criminal conduct they participated in and are aware of; whether the whistleblower is a chief executive officer or chief financial officer of a public or private company, who is not eligible for the pilot program; and the adequacy of noncriminal sanctions, such as remedies imposed by civil regulators.

Mr. Gitner said the defense bar is coming around to a non-prosecution carrot for individuals involved in wrongdoing within the corporation. Mr. Gitner said that SDNY seeks early discussions, and the pilot program seems to be driving toward that goal.

DOJ PILOT PROGRAM ON VOLUNTARY SELF-DISCLOSURES FOR INDIVIDUALS

In March 2024, the DOJ announced an upcoming program to reward whistleblowers who report corporate crimes. The new program seeks to bolster existing whistleblower programs established by the SEC (discussed above), the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC), the Internal Revenue Service, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.¹⁷ Accordingly, the program will offer rewards to whistleblowers who provide information on misconduct that is not under the jurisdiction of those agencies. In particular, the Department is interested in criminal abuses of the US financial system, foreign corruption cases outside of the SEC’s jurisdiction, and domestic corruption cases. In order to qualify, an individual must provide original, nonpublic, and truthful information that assists the Department in uncovering “significant corporate or financial misconduct” and is previously unknown to the agency.¹⁸ Like the SEC and CFTC, the Department does not plan to provide awards for information that is submitted under a preexisting duty or in response to an inquiry.¹⁹ Access to the program is only available where existing programs or qui tam actions do not exist. Additionally, the whistleblower in this program cannot be involved in the criminal activity itself. After compensation to victims, the whistleblower will receive a portion of the resulting forfeiture as a reward.²⁰

Interestingly, however, it appears the Department may be moving away from offering monetary awards to whistleblowers. In April 2024, the Department introduced a pilot program that tracks with the SDNY and offers mandatory non prosecution agreements to individuals who provide information on corporate misconduct.²¹ Under the program, an individual must voluntarily self-disclose original information to the Criminal Division about criminal misconduct that is not previously known to the Department. The information must be “truthful and complete,” meaning it must include all known information relating to the misconduct, including the individual’s own culpability. In particular, the Department seeks information on violations by financial institutions; violations related to market integrity committed by financial institutions, investment advisers, investment funds, or public or private companies; foreign corruption and bribery violations by public or private companies; violations relating to health care fraud or illegal health care kickbacks; fraud or deception against the United States in connection with federally funded contracting; and bribery or kickbacks to domestic public officials by public or private companies. The whistleblower also cannot be a chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or those equivalents of a public or private company; or an elected or appointed foreign government or domestic government official; nor can the whistleblower have a previous felony conviction or a conviction of any kind involving fraud or dishonesty. Irrespective of this program, the Department still has the discretion of offering a non-prosecutorial agreement to individuals who may not meet the above criteria in full, subject to Justice Manual and Criminal Division procedures.²²

TAKEAWAYS

The takeaways here for corporate in-house legal departments are:

Federal agencies are incentivizing whistleblowers with cash and non-prosecution agreements. It is clear that wrongdoers and witnesses now more than ever have several whistleblower programs from which to choose. As a result, corporations must become more vigilant at detecting wrongdoing and effectively utilizing internal reporting systems. Careful consideration of an early self-disclosure to the appropriate agency may also be warranted. Internal investigations will take a heightened priority to aid the c-suite and board on disclosure decisions.
Not only is protecting whistleblowers a priority but encouraging whistleblowers through heightened compliance programs, updated hotlines or other internal reporting programs should be considered. You may also wish to consider offering financial incentives for timely reporting to the corporation’s internal reporting program. All of which will benefit the company in any government disclosure.
The enforcement risk for companies under the SEC’s whistleblower rules is real and potentially significant, including with respect to day-to-day business activities (such as entering into client or employee confidentiality agreements) that may not otherwise be recognized as creating regulatory exposure. Companies may wish to revisit their standard contracts and compliance materials to ensure that any confidentiality provisions align with Rule 21F-17.

We acknowledge the contributions to this publication from our summer associate Minu Nagashunmugam.

¹https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/enforcement-results-fy23.

²https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 2.

³https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 2.

⁴https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 3.

⁵https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 5.

⁶https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 5.

⁷https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 5.

⁸https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 28.

⁹The SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower has stated that violations of Rule 21F-17 may be triggered by “internal policies, procedures, and guidance, such as codes of conduct, compliance manuals, training materials, and other such documents.” SEC, Whistleblower Protections (last updated July 1, 2024) https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program/whistleblower-protections#anti-retaliation.

¹⁰https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/sec-biggest-whistleblower-penalty-signals-broad-protection-focus?context=search&index=11

¹¹In re JP Morgan Sec. LLC, File No. 3-21829 (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2024/34-99344.pdf.

¹²In re D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P., File No. 3-21775 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2013/34-70396.pdf.

¹³SEC Press Release (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-7.

¹⁴https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/sdny_wb_policy_effective_2-13-24.pdf

¹⁵https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/sdny_wb_policy_effective_2-13-24.pdf

¹⁶https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/sdny_wb_policy_effective_2-13-24.pdf

¹⁷https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting-assistant-attorney-general-nicole-m-argentieri-delivers-keynote-speech-american

¹⁸https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-monaco-delivers-keynote-remarks-american-bar-associations

¹⁹https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1347991/dl?inline

²⁰https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-monaco-delivers-keynote-remarks-american-bar-associations

²¹https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1347991/dl?inline

²²https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1347991/dl?inline

Listen to this post

Petition for Certiorari Filed in Supreme Court in False Claims Act Case Seeking Review of Whether “Willful” Under the Anti-Kickback Statute Requires Knowledge that the Conduct is Unlawful

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to define “willfulness” under the federal criminal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). In a declined qui tam case filed against McKesson Corporation, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, the relator, Adam Hart, a former McKesson employee, filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of a Second Circuit decision that upheld the dismissal of relator’s complaint asserting claims under the civil False Claims Act (FCA) premised on alleged violations of the AKS. U.S. ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corp., 96 F.4th 145 (2d Cir. 2024). A violation of the AKS requires as the scienter element that the defendant “knowingly and willfully” offered or paid remuneration to induce the recipient of the renumeration to purchase goods or items for which payment may be made under a federal health care program. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2). The Second Circuit held that a defendant does not act “willfully” within the meaning of the AKS unless that defendant “act[s] knowing that his conduct is unlawful.” United States ex rel. Hart, 96 F.4th at 154.

The AKS is enforced both as a criminal statute and, as in this case, is frequently used by the government or relators as a predicate violation to support an alleged violation of the civil FCA. Since 2010, Congress has specified that a claim that includes items or services “resulting from” an AKS violation is a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). Though the evidentiary standard in criminal and civil cases differs, the government or relator in civil cases must adequately plead the “knowingly and willfully” scienter element of the AKS.

Hart alleged in his Second Amended Complaint that McKesson offered physician oncology practices two valuable business tools, the Margin Analyzer and the Regimen Profiler, to induce those practices to purchase oncology pharmaceuticals from McKesson. Hart alleged that these business tools were prohibited remuneration, and that McKesson acted “knowingly and willfully” in offering these two tools to its customers in violation of the AKS. Hart’s basis for alleging “willfulness” included: (1) alleged document destruction during the litigation; (2) Hart informed his supervisor during compliance training about the potential AKS violation, yet McKesson continued to provide these tools, worth about $150,000, to medical practices free of charge in exchange for commitments to purchase drugs from McKesson; and (3) Hart’s discussions with other employees that McKesson was inappropriately exploiting the business tools.

After the government declined to intervene, the District Court dismissed the FCA claims in a Second Amended Complaint (after dismissing the prior complaint as well) by ruling that Hart failed to plausibly allege sufficient facts to suggest McKesson acted “willfully”. The Second Circuit upheld the dismissal and agreed that a defendant acts “willfully” under the AKS only if the defendant knows “that its conduct is, in some way, unlawful.”

The Second Circuit rejected the relator’s proposed approach, a looser standard that would meet the “willfully” standard of the scienter element if (a) the company provided something of value in connection with the sale of pharmaceuticals reimbursed by the government, and (b) knew, even through general compliance training, that it is illegal to provide things of value to induce sales. Hart filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, presenting the question: “[t]o act ‘willfully’ within the meaning of the [AKS], must a defendant know that its conduct violates the law?”

There is no dispute, under the law, that a defendant does not need “specific intent” to violate the AKS. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(h). However, the petition raises questions about how certain sister Circuits interpret “willfully” when addressing violations of the AKS:

The Second Circuit held in this case that a defendant does not act “willfully” within the meaning of the AKS unless that defendant “act[s] knowing that his conduct is unlawful, even if the defendant is not aware that his conduct is unlawful under the AKS specifically.” United States ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corp., 96 F.4th 145,154 (2d Cir. 2024).
The Eleventh Circuit, in accord with the Second, has also held that a defendant must know that its conduct is unlawful in order to violate the AKS. United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[T]o find that a person acted willfully in violation of § 1320a-7b, the person must have acted voluntarily and purposely, with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, that is with a bad purpose, either to disobey or disregard the law.”) (internal quotations omitted)).
The relator argues in the petition that the Fifth and Eighth Circuits are split with the Second Circuit. Relator relies on a Fifth Circuit case holding that “willfully” requires that a “defendant willfully committed an act that violated the . . . Statute” without a requirement that a defendant know its conduct is unlawful. United States v. St. Junius, 739 F.3d 193, 210 & n.19 (5th Cir. 2013). However, a more recent Fifth Circuit case, which was cited by the Second Circuit, defines “willfully” to mean “the act was committed voluntarily or purposely, with the specific intent to do something the law forbids; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.” United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823, 830 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
The relator cites an Eighth Circuit case holding a defendant’s conduct is willful if a defendant “knew that his conduct was wrongful,” but asserts the Eighth Circuit has not “require[d] proof that [the defendant] . . . knew it violated ‘a known legal duty.’” United States v. Jain, 93 F.3d 436, 441 (8th Cir. 1996). However, a more recent Eighth Circuit relied on Jain to uphold a jury instruction stating, “[a] defendant acts willfully if he knew his conduct was wrongful or unlawful.” United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 708 (8th Cir. 2011).
The Second Circuit did recognize a circuit split, but described its view as in “align[ment] with the approach to the AKS taken by several of our sister courts [including the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits], which have held or implied that to be liable under the AKS, defendants must know that their particular conduct was wrongful.” United States ex rel. Hart, 96 F.4th at 154-55.

It is important to remember that the AKS is a felony statute subject to criminal fines and up to 10 years of imprisonment. It also criminalizes conduct that, in other industries, is not illegal. Further, due to the breadth of the statute and its complexity, Congress and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) have developed a complicated set of guidance to help attorneys and compliance professionals understand and provide counsel with respect to AKS compliance, including statutory exceptions, regulatory safe harbors, advisory opinions, and an enormous body of sub-regulatory guidance. The Second Circuit understood this and noted that its “interpretation of the AKS’s willfulness requirement thus protects those (and only those) who innocently and inadvertently engage in prohibited conduct.” Id. at 155-56.

If the Supreme Court takes an interest in this case, it likely will invite the view of the Solicitor General. Any Supreme Court interest in granting this petition will likely attract a wide range of amici participation at the certiorari stage by health care industry groups and associations, pharmaceutical company associations, other business groups, as well as associations of whistleblower counsel and other supporters of the private action qui tam provisions of the FCA. Though the range of holdings by the Courts of Appeal are often nuanced, Supreme Court consideration of the issue would be viewed as very significant, and a decision that creates a rigorous standard for “willfulness,” or alternatively, a lenient one, could considerably impact the Department of Justice (DOJ) and relators’ ability to successfully plead, and prove, an AKS violation as a predicate to an alleged FCA violation.

FinCEN Publishes Updated FAQs

Entities terminated in 2024 are required to file Corporate Transparency Act beneficial ownership information reports, as are administratively dissolved entities.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) recently published updates to its list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) to assist entities in complying with the beneficial ownership reporting requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).

Principal among these updates was FinCEN’s clarifying requirement that business entities terminated in the year 2024 (whether existing prior to 2024 or formed in 2024) are required to file beneficial ownership information reports (BOIR) under the CTA.

This filing requirement also expressly includes BOIR filings for administratively dissolved entities.

Each of these concepts were the subject of debate as to their applicability under the CTA prior to this FAQ release, with some conjecture that terminating an entity’s existence prior to its BOIR filing deadline would alleviate the need to make a BOIR filing – a position now refuted by FinCEN.

As Polsinelli has consistently advised, the obligation to file under the CTA has accrued for all entities in existence in 2024, only the deadline for filing the BOIR has not yet arrived. Entities are advised to file their BOIR prior to consummating their termination process.

The July 8 FAQs also included clarification on beneficial owner disclosure scenarios involving an entity fully or partially owned by an Indian Tribe.

FinCEN expects to publish further guidance in the future. The updated FAQs can be accessed here.

* * * * *

Several of the updates bear special note:

1. FAQ C. 12. – Reporting Company Status

Do beneficial ownership information reporting requirements apply to companies created or registered before the Corporate Transparency Act was enacted (January 1, 2021)?

FinCEN stated “Yes.” Beneficial ownership information reporting requirements apply to all companies that qualify as “reporting companies”, regardless of when they were created or registered. Companies are not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN if they are exempt or ceased to exist (i.e., are formally terminated with the Secretary of State) as legal entities before January 1, 2024.

2. FAQ C. 13. – Reporting Company Status

Is a company required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN if the company ceased to exist before reporting requirements went into effect on January 1, 2024?

A company is not required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (i.e., was formally terminated with the Secretary of State) before January 1, 2024. This means that the entity entirely completed the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving (i.e., was formally terminated with the Secretary of State). A company that ceased to exist as a legal entity before the beneficial ownership information reporting requirements became effective January 1, 2024, was never subject to the reporting requirements and thus is not required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.

Although state or Tribal law may vary, a company typically completes the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving by, for example, filing dissolution paperwork with its jurisdiction of creation or registration, receiving written confirmation of dissolution, paying related taxes or fees, ceasing to conduct any business, and winding up its affairs (e.g., fully liquidating itself and closing all bank accounts).

If a reporting company continued to exist as a legal entity for any period of time on or after January 1, 2024 (i.e., did not entirely complete the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving (i.e., terminating) before January 1, 2024), then it is required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, even if the company had wound up its affairs and ceased conducting business before January 1, 2024.

Similarly, if a reporting company was created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, and subsequently ceased to exist, then it is required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN—even if it ceased to exist before its initial beneficial ownership information report was due.

A company that is administratively dissolved or suspended—because, for example, it failed to pay a filing fee or comply with certain jurisdictional requirements—generally does not cease to exist as a legal entity unless the dissolution or suspension becomes permanent. Until the dissolution becomes permanent, such a company is required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.

3. FAQ C. 14. – Reporting Company Status

If a reporting company created or registered in 2024 or later winds up its affairs and ceases to exist before its initial BOI report is due to FinCEN, is the company still required to submit that initial report?

FinCEN stated “Yes.” Reporting companies created or registered in 2024 must report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN within 90 days of receiving actual or public notice of creation or registration. Reporting companies created or registered in 2025 or later must report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN within 30 days of receiving actual or public notice of creation or registration. These obligations remain applicable to reporting companies that cease to exist as legal entities—meaning wound up their affairs, ceased conducting business, and entirely completed the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving—before their initial beneficial ownership reports are due.

It bears note that, if a reporting company files an initial beneficial ownership information report and then ceases to exist, then there is no requirement for the reporting company to file an additional report with FinCEN noting that the company has ceased to exist.

4. FAQ D. 17. – Beneficial Owner

Who should an entity fully or partially owned by an Indian Tribe report as its beneficial owner(s)?

An Indian Tribe is not an individual, and thus should not be reported as an entity’s beneficial owner, even if it exercises substantial control over an entity or owns or controls 25 percent or more of the entity’s ownership interests. However, entities in which Tribes have ownership interests may still have to report one or more individuals as beneficial owners in certain circumstances.

Entity Is a Tribal Governmental Authority. An entity is not a reporting company—and thus does not need to report beneficial ownership information at all—if it is a “governmental authority,” meaning an entity that is (1) established under the laws of the United States, an Indian Tribe, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or under an interstate compact between two or more States, and that (2) exercises governmental authority on behalf of the United States or any such Indian Tribe, State, or political subdivision. This category includes tribally chartered corporations and state-chartered Tribal entities if those corporations or entities exercise governmental authority on a Tribe’s behalf.

Entity’s Ownership Interests Are Controlled or Wholly Owned by a Tribal Governmental Authority. A subsidiary of a Tribal governmental authority is likewise exempt from BOI reporting requirements if its ownership interests are entirely controlled or wholly owned by the Tribal governmental authority.

Entity Is Partially Owned by a Tribe (and Is Not Exempt). A non-exempt entity partially owned by an Indian Tribe should report as beneficial owners all individuals exercising substantial control over it, including individuals who are exercising substantial control on behalf of an Indian Tribe or its governmental authority. The entity should also report any individuals who directly or indirectly own or control at least 25 percent or more of the ownership interests of the reporting company. (However, if any of these individuals own or control these ownership interests exclusively through an exempt entity or a combination of exempt entities, then the reporting company may report the name(s) of the exempt entity or entities in lieu of the individual beneficial owner.)

Google Modifies Ad Policy to Benefit Daily Fantasy Sports and Lottery Couriers

Google has set the stage for a transformative change slated for July 15, 2024, providing a roadmap to extend Google Ads to daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) operators and lottery courier services across numerous U.S. states. A significant shift in the search engine’s Google Ads gambling and games policy, this move is indicative of the company’s responsiveness to the evolving legal landscape surrounding online gaming and lottery courier services. Industry stakeholders must navigate this new advertising landscape mindfully, seizing its potential within regulatory bounds. Legal advice and assistance may be needed to address the new policies and understand the new Google environment.

Google announced that it would permit these businesses to advertise on a state-by-state basis.

Approved for DFS Advertising: Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Approved for Lottery Courier Advertising: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

If advertisers are targeting their ads in a state that does not require a license to conduct DFS or lottery courier service, they must be licensed in at least one other U.S. state that mandates such a license.

The Legal Context of the Updated Google Ads Policy

Usually circumspect when it comes to gambling-related content, Google’s policy update marks a notable departure. Traditionally, its stringent restrictions limited advertising to state-run lotteries and horse racing only. The historical context here is important as this shift from Google’s previously conservative policy marks a wider change in the digital advertising of gaming activities. Now, licensed lottery courier services will be able to market themselves through Google Ads in 40 states, excluding California due to specific state restrictions. The revised guidelines correspond with the expanding endorsement and enactment of governance over online gaming and lottery operations. Nonetheless, this update enforces rigorous procedural rules and criteria for advertising compliance, encompassing adherence to both individual state regulations and the certification processes established by Google.

This paradigm shift in Google’s policy echoes their latest requirements for advertisers, who are compelled to demonstrate compliance not just through licensing but also through the integrity of their ad content and search positioning efforts, reflecting a commitment to consumer trust and regulatory adherence.

Daily Fantasy Sports Advertising: A New Playing Field

On the DFS front, Google’s policy expansion allows operators to advertise in 17 states, including jurisdictions where online sports betting remains unlegislated. DFS operators in states which currently do not permit online sports betting will remain at liberty to run Google ads. This reflects Google’s nuanced approach to advertising within the gaming industry, ensuring that ads from entities that have met state-imposed standards are available to users. DFS providers can enter new markets at the rollout, subject to regulatory compliance, including state licensing. In states without such licensing requirements, operators must nonetheless hold a valid license from another state that does enforce scrutiny of operators, underscoring Google’s effort in promoting only legitimate, reputable services.

Lottery Courier Advertising: Riding the Wave of Legalization

Entities such as Jackpocket and Lotto.com, acting as intermediaries, can now increase their visibility and customer base through Google Ads. Among other recent developments, DraftKings’ recent acquisition of Jackpocket for $750 million showcases the growing economic significance of lottery courier services. This growing market, while gaining popularity for convenience, is also varied in acceptance across states; advertisers must navigate diverse regulations and be keenly aware of states like California, where the State lottery commission has expressed restrictions and presently takes a dim view of courier operations.

Understanding Compliance: Standing At the Gate of Certification

Google’s guidelines mandate advertisers provide evidence of all aspects of their operation, from licensing to customer data protection and legal compliance. Certification thus becomes synonymous with service integrity, with Google’s policy now establishing this as a prerequisite. To synchronize with this directive, advertisers must:

Hold an official license in one state, considering the dynamics of interstate variances in regulation.
Target ads with precision, respecting the complexities of state-specific legal frameworks.
Engage diligently with Google’s certification process, indicative of an advertiser’s adherence to compliance and transparency.

Advertisers seeking certification need to demonstrate compliance with rigorous legal standards, including the authentication of tickets and adherence to regulations. The process calls for delivering not just proof of licensing where required, but also extensive details pertaining to their business operations. The intent behind this comprehensive evaluation is to safeguard consumers by preventing untrustworthy services from gaining approval to advertise.

It will be particularly interesting to understand how Google enforces its ”licensing” requirement for vendors, such as marketing affiliates, which promote lottery/fantasy sports services indirectly. Unlike B2C fantasy sports operators or couriers, these B2B entities traditionally not providing consumer-facing services may not be subject to the same state licensing demands, yet they must still navigate the intricacies of Google’s policy in their marketing efforts.

Implications for Advertisers: A Forward-Looking Approach

In navigating Google’s updated advertising framework, adherence to its detailed certification process is paramount to successful marketing. A failure to meet Google’s more robust standards could lead to advertising restrictions on its platform and related services—underscoring the need for meticulous strategy alignment and transparent operations.

The alterations to Google’s policy demand substantial attention to detail and legal compliance. These policy changes necessitate careful scrutiny and a proactive stance from advertisers to ensure alignment with new advertising avenues. On July 15, 2024, Google’s updated advertising policies will come into effect, after which the related policy page will be updated to reflect these changes.

Google’s revisions to its policies underscore the company’s pragmatic response to the dynamic realm of Internet-based lottery-related and gaming services. Notably, Google’s decision enables lottery courier advertising in a majority of states, acknowledging the sector’s growth. It is highly likely that other social media platforms will soon follow suit, thereby setting new standards for these business to adhere to if they want to take advantage of these powerful tools.

EB-5 Filing Strategies: Continued Immigrant Visa Availability Under the RIA’s Set-Aside Categories

The passage of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act (RIA) in 2022 resulted in the most significant changes to the EB-5 investor immigrant visa program since its establishment in 1990. Among the most notable changes implemented through the RIA was the creation of new “set aside” visa categories for EB-5 investors. These set-aside categories allocate a certain amount of the 10,000 EB-5 immigrant visas available each year to investments in certain areas or projects, which include:

20% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a rural area;
10% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a ‘targeted employment area’ (TEA), which meets the requirements that apply to areas of high unemployment (unemployment rate of at least 150% of the U.S. national average); and
2% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects.[1]

Additionally, the RIA allows for the concurrent filing of the investor immigrant visa petition on Form I-526E and adjustment of status (AOS) filing on Form I-485 for those present in the U.S.[2] While certain types of EB-5 investments filed prior to the passage of the RIA remain subject to visa bulletin backlogs, which particularly impact petitioners and dependent family members born in countries with the highest demand for immigrant visas (e.g., mainland China and India), the Visa Bulletin has not yet announced a visa backlog for any of the set aside categories established by the RIA.

With the establishment of the set-aside categories, the availability of EB-5 immigrant visas is now subject to multiple factors, in addition to country of birth, under the Department of State’s Visa Bulletin, which dictates an applicant’s ability to apply for an immigrant visa or concurrent AOS (if in the U.S.) based on per-country limitations released monthly by the Department of State (DOS).[3] As the visa bulletin is based on visas approved visa petitions and the petitioners’ countries of birth (as opposed to petitions filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and currently in process), investors understandably are faced with a level of uncertainty when strategizing the timing of their investments and associated petition filings. This is due to the uncertain nature of the continued availability of immigrant visas, which can retrogress with little notice based on the DOS’ contemporaneous issuance of immigrant visas under the EB-5 program. This post will outline data and strategies available to investors to clarify questions related to potential changes to the visa bulletin that may impact EB-5 immigrant visa availability in the coming months. As the progression of the Visa Bulletin is subject to internal data shared between USCIS and the DOS, as well as the DOS’ internal visa issuance metrics, some level of obscurity and uncertainty should be accounted for when planning for immigrant visa petition filing, but the below is meant to help address and account for these inherent uncertainties.

Background on the Visa Bulletin

In connection with the U.S. government’s policy imperative to encourage a diverse pool of immigrants to the U.S., family- and employment-based immigrant visas are subject to a specific allocation of available visas every federal fiscal year. A total of approximately 140,000 immigrant visas are available every fiscal year for employment-based immigrant visas, including the EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4, and EB-5 immigrant visa categories. Of the total of 140,000 immigrant visas available annually, approximately 10,000 are allocated to the EB-5 investor visa program, which are also subject to the below per-country visa quotas.

To that end, no one country (based on the applicant’s country of birth) can be allocated more than approximately 7.1% of all available immigrant visas.[4] Importantly, the DOS recently revised its interpretation of the statutory language on the 7.1% per country limit to clarify that it applies in any preference only if a country’s use of visas exceeds 7.1% of all employment-based preferences together.[5] For example, the 7.1% per country limit for Vietnam will only start in the EB-5 category if Vietnam were to reach the 7.1% limit for the overall 140,000 employment-based visas available. In the past, investors born in Vietnam and Taiwan also have been high users of EB-5 visas; however, with this new interpretation by DOS, they will likely never be subject to a per-country limitation for EB-5 again given that these countries generally have never reached 7.1% of the overall 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas.

The above only tells part of the story on immigrant visa allocation. This is because in addition to the total of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas allocated yearly to all countries, unused visa numbers from prior fiscal years (i.e. immigrant visas that are available to those born in under-subscribed countries, but not utilized) roll over for use by applicants of over-subscribed countries according to priority date and availability within the immigrant visa preference category.[6] Moreover, unused family-based immigrant visas may also be utilized to address excess demand in employment-based categories.[7] While the specific number of unused immigrant visas varies considerably year to year, there tends be some available unused family-based visa numbers from under-subscribed categories each federal fiscal year based on the most recent data made available by USCIS and DOS.[8] Additionally, unused EB-5 numbers from the unreserved ‘general pool’ of EB-5 immigrant visas available yearly (based on worldwide applicant demand), are reallocated to over-subscribed EB-5 categories, including the above-referenced EB-5 set-aside categories created post-RIA implementation.[9]

EB-5 Investor Immigrant Program Data

With the dynamic nature of the immigrant visa allocation process in mind, there is no simple, readily available formula that can help predict the numbers of EB-5 immigrant visas that may be available in a given fiscal year, nor one that can precisely predict how soon retrogression may impact the EB-5 program, particularly in connection with I-526E petitions filed by investors born in traditionally high-demand countries, like China and India. This process is made difficult because USCIS and the Immigrant Investor Program Office (IPO) have not released important statistics to the public that would allow investors to accurately predict how long of a backlog may form in the various set-aside categories. However, we do have some data.

To solve for the lack of government-released data, stakeholders have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that provide more nuanced data on the government’s current processing volumes. Notably, recent data disclosures made available through FOIA requests found a significant increase in demand for the rural set-aside category, but demand remains “below the needed level to absorb the near-term annual visa supply.” The data released also showed that demand for high unemployment TEA set-aside continued to increase through the end of 2023, which may result in a backlog for that specific set-aside category.[10] As expected, demand remains particularly high for immigrant applicants born in mainland China; the below chart published in connection with the data disclosed pursuant to FOIA provides further insight on the processing volumes:

TOTAL NUMBER OF I-526/I-526E FILED FROM APRIL 1, 2022,TO NOVEMBER 2023, BY TEA CATEGORY AND COUNTRY OF CHARGEABILITY (LATEST STATS AS PER AIIA FOIA DATA)[11]

	China	India	Taiwan	Rest of World	Total	Total %
Rural	767	174	18	134	1,093	32%
High unemployment	976	375	209	625	2,185	63%
Infrastructure	0%
Multiple TEA categories	7	3	5	16	0.5%
Not TEA	26	21	6	97	150	4%
Total	1,776	573	233	861	3,444	100%
Total %	52%	17%	7%	25%	100%

While the data above is subject to change and specifically reflects government filings through November 2023, and spanning multiple federal fiscal years (2022-23), it shows that about two times as many high unemployment set-aside I-526E Petitions were filed as compared to rural area set-aside I-526E Petitions. However, in June 2024, USCIS also released their January to March 2024 form data, which revealed that an additional 1,810 I-526E Petitions had been filed with USCIS over that three-month period, leaving 3,672 I-526E Petitions pending as of March 31, 2024.[12]

Importantly, the quarterly USCIS data shows a huge number of new I-526E Petitions were filed during Q2 2024. Half of all I-526E Petitions pending as of the date of this blog were filed just in Q2 of 2024. USCIS has not released any statistics to show the breakdown of I-526E Petitions filed in the high unemployment or rural area set aside categories. Anecdotal evidence from stakeholders and projects seems to show a strong uptick in the demand for rural area projects, and it is possible that many of these new I-526E Petitions were for rural area set-aside visa numbers. More data from USCIS will be required on this point to give investors a more accurate picture on visa wait times in both rural area and high unemployment set-aside projects.

Moreover, the USCIS Q2 2024 data shows that the agency only completed review of 356 I-526E Petitions this fiscal year. The statistics do not break down completions by approvals or denials. Given the small number of case completions during this fiscal year, no visa retrogression has been announced in the Visa Bulletin because an insufficient number of I-526E Petitions have been approved to necessitate announcement of retrogression for any country.

In fact, at a recent conference, the DOS indicated that there is a record amount of EB-5 visas available for this year and predicted again for next year. Specifically, DOS is predicting that there are more than 14,000 unreserved EB-5 visas and more than 8,000 set-aside visas available in FY 2024, and that there will be more than 11,000 unreserved EB-5 visas and more than 6,800 set-aside visas available in FY 2025. Together, that is more than 14,800 set-aside visas over this fiscal year and next, split between rural and high unemployment according to their percentages. This would mean approximately 9,800 rural visas and 4,900 high unemployment EB-5 visas are available over this fiscal year and next, with additional high numbers remaining available in the unreserved EB-5 category. Even assuming that each petitioner also brought two dependent applicants with them to the U.S., the sheer number of EB-5 visas available in these categories over this year and next would provide many immigrant visa numbers for applicants and their dependents in both set-aside categories, and drastic retrogression wait times are not yet predicted.

Additionally, note that the data provided reflects raw numbers of petition filings and does not take into account potential roll overs of additional unused immigrant visas, as noted above. In addition, applicants born in under-subscribed countries, like Vietnam and Taiwan, with robust demand for EB-5 immigrant visas that may qualify for the set-aside category, still have the option to choose to process under the general pool of unreserved EB-5 visa numbers, thereby freeing up additional availability under the reserved high-unemployment and rural TEA set-aside categories for individuals born in mainland China. This selection is typically made at the time that the National Visa Center (NVC) processes the immigrant visa application for applicants based outside of the U.S.

Key Takeaways

There are a record number of EB-5 visas available to applicants in both the high unemployment and rural area set-aside categories in FY 2024 and FY 2025. While stakeholders need more data from USCIS on the breakdowns of pending I-526E Petitions between the high unemployment and rural set-aside categories, there is a record number of visas available and extensive backlogs are not expected to occur like those experienced by pre-RIA I-526 Petitions.
File the I-526E Petition and associated AOS applications concurrently if possible. Although visa numbers remain available in the set-aside categories even for traditionally high-demand countries, the dynamics associated with the DOS Visa bulletin may result in retrogression with little notice. Filing concurrently where eligible can provide multiple benefits in the event of retrogression, including:a. Locking in dependent child’s age under chart A or chart B of the DOS Visa Bulletin, which under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) allows for a tolling of age progression while the petition is in process and based on the unavailability of a visa number; and
b. Obtaining short-term U.S. immigration benefits that allow for work (employment authorization document (EAD)) and travel (advance parole (AP)) while the USICS processes the AOS filing.
Individuals born in under-subscribed countries with qualifying investments in rural or high-unemployment TEAs should consider opting for processing under the general unreserved pool where possible. This would allow for use of additional reserved immigrant visas in the set-aside categories by those born in countries with higher demand for EB-5 immigrant visas, such as China and, potentially, India.
Monitor visa bulletin progression and available government data. It will remain important to continue monitoring Visa Bulletin releases and planning for potential retrogression. As noted above, while the set-aside categories created under the RIA remain broadly available for immigrant visas and concurrent AOS processing, conditions may change with little notice as the government processes its backlog of filed EB-5 petitions or if USCIS speeds up its processing of I-526E Petitions.

[1] INA § 203(b)(5)(B)(i)(I).

[2] See INA § 245(n); 203(b)(5).

[3] See U.S. Dept. of State Visa Bulletin.

[4] See INA § 203(b).

[5] See 88 Fed. Reg. 50, 18252 (March 28, 2023).

[6] See, e.g. “Practice Pointer: Strategic Planning in an Era of EB-5 Visa Waiting Lines,” AILA EB-5 Committee, AILA Doc. No. 18060537, June 5, 2018.

[7] See, e.g., “The CIS Ombudsman’s Webinar Series: USCIS’ Backlog Reduction Efforts,” June 22, 2022 (“DOS currently estimates that approximately 57,000 unused family sponsored visa numbers from FY 2022 have been added to the employment-based limit for FY 2023.”).

[8] See, e.g., “Employment-Based Adjustment of Status FAQs,” USCIS, May 20, 2024 (“DOS determined that the FY 2023 employment-based annual limit was 197,091, due to unused family-based visa numbers from FY 2022 being added to the employment-based limit for FY 2023. In addition, 6,396 EB-5 visas carried over from FY 2022 to FY 2023 in the reserved subcategories.”)

[9] See id.

[10] See “AIIA FOIA Series: Updated I-526E Inventory Statistics for 2023,” American Immigrant Investor Alliance, Feb. 29, 2024.

[11] Id.

[12] See USCIS Quarterly Statistics “All USCIS Application and Petition Form Types (Fiscal Year 2024, Quarter 2).

by: Jennifer Hermansky, Jack Jrada of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more on EB-5 Filing, visit the NLR Immigration section

It Takes More than an Algorithm to Prove an Agreement: An Analysis of Gibson v. Cendyn Group

On May 8, 2024, Chief Judge Miranda Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice the complaint in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC, Docket No. 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA, an antitrust case alleging that hotel operators on the Las Vegas Strip used algorithms to inflate room prices in violation of Section One of the Sherman Act. The court’s reasoning provides litigants on both sides with a framework for future cases.

Plaintiffs claimed that Caesars Entertainment, Inc., Treasure Island, LLC, and Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC (hereinafter, the “Hotel Operators”) charged supercompetitive prices for rooms through GuestRev (individual rooms) and GroupRev (rooms for groups), which are shared-revenue management systems licensed by the Cendyn Group. Cendyn allegedly spearheaded a hub-and-spoke conspiracy[1] through an algorithm that used price and occupancy data to recommend room rates. The algorithm’s “optimal” rate was visible to individual hotel operators, who were discouraged by system prompts from overriding the recommendation. To establish anticompetitive effects in the relevant market, the plaintiffs relied on third-party economic analyses of revenue and price trends as well as circumstantial evidence known as “plus factors”—e.g., the motive and opportunity to conspire, market structure, the interchangeability of hotel rooms, and inelastic demand.

Before the court entered judgment in favor of defendants, Judge Du closely scrutinized plaintiffs’ claims. In an October 23, 2023 order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend, the court asked plaintiffs to address: (i) when the conspiracy began and who participated; (ii) whether the Hotel Operators colluded to adopt a shared set of pricing algorithms; (iii) whether the Hotel Operators must accept the price recommendations; and (iv) whether the algorithm facilitated the exchange of non-public information.[2]

In its 2024 decision, the court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended complaint failed to meet these threshold requirements. First, the court disagreed with plaintiffs’ contention that the initial timing of the conspiracy was irrelevant because the Hotel Operators renewed their licensing agreements every year. Because defendants started using Cendyn’s technology at various points in time over a 10-year period, there was “no existing agreement to fix prices that a late-arriving spoke could join” and “a tacit agreement among [the Hotel Operators] was implausible.”[3]

Nor did plaintiffs allege that the Hotel Operators “agreed to be bound by [Cendyn’s] recommendations, much less that they all agreed to charge the same prices.”[4] To the contrary, plaintiffs maintained that Cendyn had difficulty getting customers to accept the recommendations. Even drawing all inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, the court determined that the Hotel Operators were independently reacting to similar pressures within an interdependent market, consistent with lawful conscious parallelism.

Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the Hotel Operators used Cendyn to exchange confidential information or, in the alternative, that Cendyn used machine learning and algorithms to facilitate the exchange of confidential information. The court reasoned that without more evidence, “using data across all your customers for research does not plausibly suggest that one customer has access to the confidential information of another customer—it instead plausibly suggests that Cendyn uses data from various customers to improve its products.”[5] The Cendyn dismissal will not be the last word on the “relatively novel antitrust theory premised on algorithmic pricing.”[6] Pricing algorithms are the focus of three class action lawsuits pending in different jurisdictions.[7] As algorithms become a mainstream tool for pricing, more are certain to follow.

[1] A hub-and-spoke antitrust conspiracy consists of (i) a leading party (“the hub”); (ii) co-conspirators (“the spokes”); and (iii) connecting agreements (“the rim”).

[2] See generally Order, Gibson v. Cendyn Group, Inc., 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 23, 2023).

[3] Order, Gibson v. Cendyn Group, Inc., 2:23-cv-00140-MMD-DJA at 4 (D. Nev. May 8, 2024).

[4] Id. at 6.

[5] Id. at 10.

[6] Id. at 5.

[7] See Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., 1:23-cv-02536-KMW-EAP (D. N.J. filed Mar. 28, 2024); Duffy v. Yardi Sys. Inc., 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash. filed on Mar. 1, 2024); In re: RealPage, Rental Software Antitrust Litig., 3:23-md-03071 (M.D. Tenn. filed on Nov. 15, 2023).

The New Cross-Cultural Playbook for Global Arbitration

Cross-cultural differences and the misunderstandings that often arise from them play a powerful role in how businesses build relationships and conduct their commercial and legal affairs. At a time of expansive growth in transnational business, trade, and investment, a lack of knowledge about local culture, values, and customs in business and legal dealings are leading to ever more complex and tense international legal disputes.

As lawyers and arbitrators, it is critical to foster a deeper understanding of how cultural and emotional factors along with behavioral tendencies impact business decisions and the practice of arbitration worldwide. Addressing these issues in the context of business-to-business (B2B) relationships, a recent report by the International Chamber of Commerce, Jus Connect, and McCann Truth Central found that a new set of principles—based on emotional intelligence, cultural awareness, and cultural fluency—is required to create a cross-cultural playbook for arbitration and re-imagining dispute outcomes.

Global leaders surveyed said that arbitration is still the preferred way to resolve cross-border disputes over litigation. If a contract fails, 60% prefer arbitration to legal proceedings in a court. Overall, arbitration has increased significantly over the past decade, reaching an estimated $80 billion in 2022. Some 37,000 new cases were registered between 2018 and 2022, an increase of nearly 30% between 2013 and 2017. While this represents a mere fraction of the $121 trillion in international trade in 2022, arbitration is growing twice as fast as global trade as clients recognize the speed, efficiency, transparency, and flexibility it offers to resolve disputes compared to traditional litigation.

Cultural Miscues

In my travels as President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, I have heard countless stories about the influence of cross-cultural differences on business and legal affairs, including arbitration. And with good reason: every country has unique and often contrasting attitudes about dispute resolution and misunderstanding them can add layers of difficulty during legal proceedings for both general counsel and arbitration lawyers.

Based on extensive interviews and quantitative data, the ICC report divides cultural attitudes and approaches into four generalized categories and suggests which countries fit into each one. The Innovative Explorer, for example, including France and Saudi Arabia, seeks collaboration and co-creation, looks for emotional chemistry, and tends to stretch goals. For their part, India and Nigeria can be seen as a Strategic Balancer, eager for collaboration and co-creation, along with emotional chemistry, and ready to stretch goals.

Brazil and Mexico are among the countries regarded as a Decisive Custodians, in that they tend to value structure and contracts as part of a more direct, yet discrete approach and in addition, prefer working with senior partners. Finally, as the name indicates, the Pragmatic Realist—including the U.K. and Switzerland—takes a reasoned and practical approach, with an appreciation for clear expectations meeting agendas, and giving parties a second chance.

These attitudes are reflected in the different approaches that countries have toward contracts. Some want a clear scope, set in stone. Others put more focus on outcomes and fluidity in delivery. For instance, while Mexico and Brazil prefer structured approaches in contract agreements, India and Saudi Arabia are open to collaboration and co-creation in a scope of work. France and China prefer to stretch sometimes-unrealistic goals, but India and Nigeria, want realistic and achievable ones.

Chameleon U.S.

Digging deeper into the analysis shows that in some ways, the U.S. has a lot in common with Brazil and China when considering the role of hierarchy and discretion in a business situation. If someone in business makes a mistake, Americans prefer to promptly resolve disputes, even if a party might get offended and are also unlikely to copy their boss on an email.

These categories help explain many business decisions and actions and can guide teams to recognize and overcome cultural differences. But they don’t always tell the whole story: cultural nuances add even more complexity to cross-border business and legal dealings.

The U.S., for example, can be described as a chameleon or shapeshifter that doesn’t always neatly fit any descriptor. In my experience, U.S. business representatives will typically revise their approach depending on what the customer or counterparty needs. This flexibility is likely due to the presence of diverse and multicultural U.S. business teams compared to some other countries. As one senior arbitrator said in the report, “In the U.S., the common denominator is understanding what the customer needs.”

Small Behavior, Big Impact

Mapping the world by culture rather than geographic positioning offers valuable insights that can improve cultural fluency and ensure that geography alone does not influence expectations and approaches. The report showed how small behaviors point to larger cultural priorities. Teams from France and Saudi Arabia don’t necessarily need an agenda to attend a meeting, but those from India and Nigeria would usually prefer a detailed agenda. Acknowledging these cultural differences, however small and seemingly inconsequential, provides a framework for anticipating and resolving friction and helping teams adapt.

One of the most interesting aspects of the study is that business teams and leaders say they want lawyers involved earlier in the B2B process—and more deeply integrated into the journey—with a focus on win-win outcomes. This is consistent with the changing role of in-house counsel, particularly in the U.S., where in house counsel work more closely with business teams to develop strategy and structure the deal. Given the growing complexity of today’s global regulatory environment, business teams can no longer negotiate the deal first and then bring the terms to the in-house team to document.

While the study focused on cultural differences, it also found a commonality across cultures: a growing preference for non-legal dispute resolution. Some 77% favored an amicable, interest-based resolution—through internal or contract review, or direct negotiations between legal teams—compared to 52% favoring a rights-based resolution using arbitration or legal proceedings in a court. Only about one-third chose a so-called power-based resolution, such as a canceled contract, a report to a regulator, a post on social media, or a leak to the press.

Key Truths

Understanding the diverse world of business culture reveals several truths about B2B relationships. One is that emotion and culture have a significant impact on business—perhaps more than many realize—because the B2B journey comprises the human experience. Contrary to the commonly held perceptions that B2B interactions are largely transactional or purely functional, and free of emotions, the report found that they are emotionally charged, from initial engagement with parties and contracts to long-term partnerships.

I have experienced this firsthand when representing a multinational company in a very complex arbitration involving the calculation of damages. I needed to prepare the CEO for cross-examination. Yet his analysis was not entirely data-driven decision-making: emotions were also a big part of his thinking. When describing his approach and his meeting with his CEO counterpart, he just kept telling me, “This is so emotional.”

Another truth is that by effectively navigating cultural differences and overcoming communication barriers, we can improve business relationships. In this context, business attitudes toward particulars such as contracts and meeting styles reflect cultural priorities and offer relevant cultural cues. At first, these may appear to be minor details but unveil deeper cultural attitudes concerning hierarchy, orderliness, adaptability, and creativity.

When I was in China earlier this year, I was surprised by the number of back-channel conversations that took place to determine how many people we could bring to a meeting and the level of seniority so that the Chinese delegation would have the same. There were also discussions about attire—including whether men should wear a tie—so that nobody would feel out of place.

Cross-Cultural Playbook

With these truths in mind, a new cross-cultural playbook for global arbitration should include the following actions. First, integrate legal teams as early as possible into the process and keep them engaged via partnerships with business teams. Train teams to understand emotional intelligence and be more culturally aware so they can become more adept at relationship building and managing shifting emotions during the B2B journey. Ensure teams can interpret subtle behavioral and cultural cues to make informed decisions and improve communications. Equally important, prioritize direct negotiation channels for dispute resolution, reserving legal action for failed negotiations.

More than ever, we must emphasize the role of emotion and human interaction in business and how important it is in building trust: the report noted that half of all B2B disputes are likely caused by the breakdown of human interaction rather than solely by contractual issues. With heightened sensitivity to cultural differences, we can better understand the complexities of the B2B journey, minimize business and legal disputes, and successfully apply these truths to resolving conflicts through arbitration.

Ozempic Lawsuit Overview

Makers of Ozempic and other semaglutide drugs are facing hundreds of lawsuits throughout the United States. While intended for diabetes management and weight loss, research has linked the drug to increased risk of gastroparesis, stomach paralysis, pancreatitis and bowel obstruction.

Plaintiffs and their Ozempic lawsuit lawyers are seeking monetary compensation through products liability litigation. Victims are continuing to come forward. As of June 2024, cases are in preliminary stages, with new cases being added to multi-district litigation.

What Is the Ozempic Lawsuit About?

The Ozempic lawsuit is about whether the manufacturers of semaglutide drugs created and sold an unreasonably dangerous drug that hurt people. Plaintiffs say that the drugs created an unreasonable risk of gastrointestinal injury – a risk that the drug manufacturers knew about, and that they hid from the public.

What drugs are involved in the Ozempic weight loss lawsuit?

Ozempic might be the best known of the drugs involved in the weight loss lawsuits, but there are several drugs named in litigation. These drugs include:

● Ozempic
● Wegovy
● Rybelsus
● Trulicity
● Mounjaro

Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus are manufactured by Danish pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk. Trulicity and Mounjaro are manufactured by Eli Lilly and Company.

Each individual case names the drug or drugs that the plaintiff took.

What are the issues in the Ozempic lawsuit?

There are three primary issues alleged in the Ozempic lawsuits:

1. Whether the drug companies knew or should have known that their semaglutide drugs could cause gastroparesis and other gastrointestinal issues.

2. Whether the drug companies adequately warned doctors and patients about the dangers of their products.

3. Whether the drug companies made false, misleading, or incomplete statements about safety as they marketed their products.

Overview of the Drug of Ozempic and How It Works

Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk developed the diabetes drug Ozempic. Its purpose is to treat type 2 diabetes.

How do Ozempic and related weight loss drugs work?

Ozempic is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. The drug signals the body that it is not hungry and to stop eating. It is meant to act like the GLP-1 hormone.

When we eat, the body releases the GLP-1 hormone in the intestinal tract. The hormone signals the brain that it is full. When the hormone is present, a person may eat less or stop eating. In diabetes patients, the drugs trigger insulin production and reduce a hormone from the pancreas that increases blood sugar. The drug helps keep the person’s blood sugar level lower, managing their diabetes.

Over time, Novo Nordisk made and marketed three different semaglutide GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs:

● Ozempic – Injected with a pen, approved in 2017
● Rybelsus – Taken by pill, approved in 2019
● Wegovy – Targeted for weight loss patients, in a higher concentration than other forms of semaglutides, approved in 2021

With FDA approval, sales of these weight loss drugs soared. Medicare even began to cover the drug Wegovy in 2024, with some restrictions. There was such a demand for the products that there was a shortage in 2023.

Not a miracle drug after all

At first, manufacturers thought that they had created a miracle drug. The New England Journal of Medicine reported that people taking semaglutide drugs lost up to 15% of their body weight. Novo Nordisk aggressively marketed the drugs, including with consumer-direct marketing campaigns. Influencers on social media touted the benefits, and there were stories of celebrities who had found seemingly effortless success.

However, it soon became clear that there may be serious problems with the drugs. Doctors and researchers began learning that the drugs may cause higher rates of gastroparesis and other gastrointestinal issues. Victims say that when these drugs were marketed to them, they were unaware that they were placing themselves in serious danger.

What’s the problem with Ozempic?

Ozempic and other weight loss drugs may cause higher rates of gastroparesis. Gastroparesis is a medical condition of weakened stomach muscles and intestines. The condition can lead to other problems and complications because the person cannot move food through the body in a
timely manner.

What is gastroparesis?

Gastroparesis is delayed gastric emptying of the digestive tract, including the stomach, intestines and bowels. The person has weakened muscles in their stomach and intestines, so they’re not able to digest food at a reasonable pace. The condition can cause several problems
and complications, including:

● Stomach pain
● Vomiting, nausea, diarrhea
● Fatigue
● Vitamin, nutrition deficiencies
● Bloating
● Too many bacteria in the small intestine
● Obstructed intestine or bowel

Gastroparesis can cause discomfort. The condition can be dangerous and life-threatening. Diabetes can mask the symptoms of gastroparesis, making it harder to detect.

Ozempic Lawsuit Case Details

What type of case is the Ozempic lawsuit?

The Ozempic stomach paralysis lawsuit is a tort product liability case, which is not an Ozempic class action lawsuit. The claims have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation. People who were harmed by taking the drug are bringing civil claims, seeking compensation for their monetary damages, physical harm and suffering.

What is the Ozempic lawsuit case number?

The Ozempic gastrointestinal lawsuits are currently joined in Multi-District Litigation In Re: Glucagon-Like Peptide – 1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAS) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-3094. The cases are joined in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Each individual case that is part of the multi-district litigation proceeds retains its
own individual case number.

Note: Ozempic is also the subject of unrelated multi-district litigation regarding patents (MDL-3038). The cases have been consolidated in a Delaware court. The issues are unrelated to the issues in the defective drug products liability cases.

Who is the judge of the Ozempic multi-district litigation?

District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter was assigned to preside over the Ozempic multidistrict litigation. However, she passed away in May 2024. A new judge will be assigned to the case.

How many cases are a part of the Ozempic lawsuit?

As of June 2024, there are 101 cases pending in the Ozempic lawsuit multi-district litigation. New cases are being added periodically as victims come forward.

Multi-District Litigation – Cases Joined Together for Preliminary Proceedings

The Ozempic lawsuit started as separate lawsuits filed throughout the United States. At first, 18 cases were filed in 11 judicial districts. There were another 37 related cases in 15 districts.

Nine of the original plaintiffs believed that it would make more sense to build their cases together. They thought their cases were similar enough that they should work together for preliminary proceedings. They wanted to work together in discovery, preliminary motions, depositions and evidentiary rulings. On December 1, 2023, they filed a motion to transfer the cases from their respective courts.

On February 5, 2024, the courts agreed and ordered the cases combined for preliminary proceedings in multi-district litigation.

Not everyone wanted the transfer. Some plaintiffs thought that only claims against Novo Nordisk should be combined. The parties opposing MDL didn’t want multiple defendants combined.

However, the court transferred all claims involving similar allegations about GLP-1 RA drugs and whether they cause gastrointestinal issues. The court said that even though the two companies sold drugs with different molecular structures, complete overlap of issues is not required.

Current Status of the Ozempic Weight Loss Litigation

The Ozempic weight loss litigation is in the early stages. As of June 9, 2024, the court has issued four case management orders. These orders direct the parties to do certain things in preliminary proceedings.

Case management order no. 1 – February 15, 2024

● A statement that cases transferred to the court, and cases subsequently transferred to the court, will be subject to the court’s orders.
● Attorneys are directed to review the court’s policies and procedures.
● The court set the date, time and place for the first in-court case conference. The court set aside two hours of court time for the conference.
● Topics to be discussed included selecting plaintiff’s lead counsel, the responsibilities of lead counsel and allocation of tasks. The court said that pleadings, timing, future status conferences and other issues could be discussed.

Case management order no. 2 – February 16, 2024

● Waiving pro hac vice fees in the case.
● Requiring parties to submit the court’s pro hac vice form, if applicable.

Case management order no. 3 – April 23, 2024

● Appointing Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs, and a mentor.
● Identifying and appointing counsel to the Plaintiff’s Committee.
● Authorizing Committee members to select additional counsel for the Committee, up to 25 total members.
● Allowing the Committee to create subcommittees.
● Ordering the Committee to propose conference dates.

Case management order no. 4 – April 24, 2024

● Requiring the parties to preserve potentially relevant evidence.
● Parties must keep documents, data and tangible things in their presence that are relevant to the claims and defenses in the case.
● Each party must take reasonable steps to avoid loss of the evidence. Auto-delete features must be disabled.
● Certain sources don’t need to be preserved, searched or produced from.
● Keeping evidence or information is not an agreement or concession that the material is relevant to litigation.

There have been other filings in the case. These filings are procedural, like asking the court for additional time to respond to the motion to transfer the cases to multi-district litigation and required proof of service documents.

The court held a status conference on March 14, 2024. Preliminary proceedings will continue, after which the court may schedule bellwether trials. These early trials inform the parties as to how cases may be decided if they go to trial.

Basis of a Claim

The decisions that people make about their medical care may impact the rest of their lives. The choices that people make about their healthcare should be informed.

A critical basis for the Ozempic lawsuit is the claim that the drug manufacturer failed to warn consumers about the risks of the drugs. Some claims allege that the warning label was too generic, listing minor symptoms but saying too little about gastrointestinal issues, and not
emphasizing the dangers enough.

Many patients saw the direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns, including $180.2 million spent to market the drug in 2022. Marketing efforts for Rybelsus were similarly robust in 2022, at $167.2 million spent. Much of the marketing budget was spent on national television ads.

The marketing worked, and sales climbed high that year. Novo Nordisk credited the marketing effort for its 36% revenue growth in North America in 2022.

Consumers say that with marketing efforts this strong, they had the right to complete information before taking Ozempic or another semaglutide drug.

U.S. products liability law and the Ozempic case

In the United States, drug manufacturers have a legal liability to make products that are reasonably safe. Product liability is the type of case that a victim may bring if they are harmed by a dangerous drug. One of the ways that a drug can be dangerous is if the public doesn’t have the information that they need about the risks and potential harm.

A claim may also be based on misleading statements in advertising. The lawsuits say that the drug manufacturer proclaimed the benefits of the drugs without emphasizing the potential risks. Plaintiffs say that the advertising campaigns were deficient enough that the drug companies
should be liable for damages.

Damages for Ozempic Lawsuit

The purpose of the Ozempic lawsuit is to compensate victims. A person who develops gastroparesis likely has significant losses due to medical expenses. They may have physical suffering.

Damages claimed may include economic and non-economic losses. Valuing damages is an important part of any case.

Proving an Ozempic Legal Claim

While you can file an Ozempic lawsuit, to succeed in an Ozempic lawsuit, a person must prove:

● They took Ozempic or a related drug.
● The drug was defective under legal standards.
● Because of taking the drug, the victim developed medical problems. There is causation between using the drug and the harm that occurred.
● Damages resulted to the victim including medical bills, other financial losses, physical pain, suffering and other damages.

Novo Nordisk is aggressively fighting claims. They have responded to the allegations and will be fighting the claims in the months to come. The parties will continue to discuss medical evidence and pursue their respective positions.

Justice for Ozempic Victims

Ozempic lawsuits are still in the early stages. New plaintiffs are continuing to join, and the cases are moving through preliminary proceedings. The court will schedule future dates as the parties develop their cases, pursue settlement and prepare for trial.

“Arbitrary and Capricious” – A Sign of Things to Come?

On July 3, 2024, the US District Court of Northern Texas issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in the combined cases of Americans for Beneficiary Choice, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (Civ. Action No. 4:24-cv-00439) and Council for Medicare Council, et al., v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (Civ. Action No. 4:24-cv-00446).

The Plaintiffs (in this combined case) challenged the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) rule issued earlier this year. The new rules attempt to place reimbursements to third-party firms into the definition of compensation where the prior rules did not include reimbursements into the definition of compensation which would have been subject to the regulatory cap on compensation.

This Memorandum Opinion Order granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Stay in part and denied it in part. The Motion was granted in relation to the new CMS rules around compensation paid by Medicare Advantage and Part D plans to independent agents and brokers who help beneficiaries select and enroll in private plans.

The Court found that the compensation changes were arbitrary and capricious and that the Plaintiffs were substantially likely to succeed on the merits of the case. The Court found that CMS failed to substantiate key parts of the final rule. During the rulemaking process, industry commenters asked for clarification around parts of the rule, but CMS claimed “the sources Plaintiffs criticized were not significant enough to warrant defending them.” The Court found “because CMS failed to address important problems to their central evidence…that members of the public raised during the comment period, those aspects of the Final Rule are most likely arbitrary and capricious.”

One of the Plaintiffs, Americans for Beneficiary Choice, also challenged the consent requirement of the final rule. The final rule states that personal beneficiary data collected by a third party marketing organization (“TPMO”) can only be shared with another TPMO if the beneficiary gives prior express written consent. The Plaintiff argued that the consent requirement is “in tension with HIPAA’s broader purpose of facilitating data sharing” and CMS stated that HIPAA might facilitate data sharing, but that does not limit CMS’s ability to limit certain harmful data-sharing practices. The Court denied the Motion to Stay regarding the consent requirement, but interestingly stated that Plaintiff’s “claim regarding the Consent Requirement may ultimately have merit, [Plaintiff]’s current briefing does not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success at this stage”.

What does this mean now that we are less than 90 days from the start of the 2025 Medicare Advantage/Part D contract year?

The consent requirement is still moving forward – While the memorandum order hints at the possibility of it being rejected, as of right now, TPMO’s must get prior express written consent before sharing personal beneficiary data with another TPMO.
The fixed-fee and contract-terms restrictions in the final rule have had their effective date’s stayed until this suit is resolved. Therefore, the compensation scheme that was in place last year is essentially the same for those two sections.

How does this affect the FCC’s 1:1 Ruling?

It doesn’t. While this case does show that courts are willing to look critically at agencies’s rulemaking process, the FCC’s 1:1 consent requirement is different than the compensation changes set forth by CMS.

The FCC arguably just clarified the existing rule around prior express written consent by requiring the consent to “authorize no more than one identified seller”.

CMS, on the other hand, attempted to make wholesale changes and “began to set fixed rates for a wide range of administrative payments that were previously uncapped and unregulated as compensation.”

There is still the IMC case against the FCC , so there is the possibility (albeit small) there could be relief coming in that case. However, the advice here is to continue planning for obtaining consent to share personal beneficiary data AND single seller consent.

Federal Court Enjoins Federal Trade Commission’s Rule Prohibiting Non-Competition Agreements (US)

In January 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a sweeping rule that, with limited exceptions (such as for highly compensated executives or in connection with the sale of a business), would prohibit employers from entering into post-employment non-competition arrangements with workers. (See our post here.) Under the proposed rule, an agreement between an employer and a worker – not just employees, but also independent contractors, interns, and even volunteers – that would prevent the worker from seeking or accepting employment, or from operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s working relationship with the employer would be unlawful. As proposed, the rule not only applied prospectively, but invalidated previously entered-into non-competition arrangements. After a notice-and-comment period, the FTC issued the “Final Rule” on April 23, 2024 and it is scheduled to go into effect September 4, 2024.

As expected, the FTC’s Final Rule immediately generated legal challenges. Among the arguments advanced by those opposing the Final Rule were that the FTC lacks legal authority to regulate unfair methods of competition, that the FTC’s actions violated the “major questions doctrine” because the FTC’s actions lacked authorization from Congress, and that the FTC’s actions constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

On July 3, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued the first ruling in these pending challenges to the Final Rule (Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission). In her 33-page decision, Judge Brown preliminarily enjoined the Final Rule from going into effect on September 4, 2024 but only with respect to the Plaintiffs in the action—consisting of one private business (Ryan, LLC), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Longview, Texas Chamber of Commerce, and two trade organizations (Business Roundtable and the Texas Association of Business)—and signaled that the Final Rule is unlikely to pass final judicial review on the merits for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, Judge Brown found unconvincing the FTC’s explanation that it was authorized to publish the Final Rule under its broad powers to prevent unfair methods of competition. In its briefing, the FTC argued that it is an unfair method of competition for persons to enter or enforce non-compete agreements, and that the powers entrusted to the FTC empower the agency to make substantive rules precluding unfair competition. The court rejected this argument. Although Judge Brown acknowledged that the FTC has the authority to make certain “housekeeping” rules dealing with unfair or deceptive practices, the FTC Act does not “expressly grant the [FTC] authority to promulgate substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition.” Because agencies only have “the powers that Congress grants through a textual commitment of authority” and Congress has not expressly delegated substantive rulemaking to the FTC to regulate unfair competition, the court found that the FTC exceeded its authority in enacting the Final Rule.

Although the first reason was by itself sufficient to find that the Plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits, the court also found that the FTC’s rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious: “[The Final Rule] imposes a one-size-fits-all approach with no end date,” and thus lacks a rational connection between the agency’s goal of preventing unfair competition and the “categorical ban” it adopted without “targeting specific, harmful non-competes.” The court specifically noted the FTC’s failure to consider any alternatives to a blanket ban on non-competes, failure to consider the potential “pro-competitive justifications” of such covenants, and failure to differentiate the effect of non-competes among different types and classes of workers.

The court also had little trouble finding that the Final Rule would result in irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, agreeing that its implementation would “announce open season” for poaching workers and increase the risk that departing workers would take valuable intellectual property and proprietary methods to competitors. The operational cost of complying with a likely invalid rule and the nonrecoverable financial costs associated with complying with the Final Rule before its effective date were sufficient to demonstrate a significant risk of irreparable harm. Thus, finding that the injury to the Plaintiffs and the public interest would be great if the court were not to enjoin the rule, the court granted the Plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief and stayed the Final Rule’s effective date as to the Plaintiffs. The court would not, however, grant nationwide injunctive relief and limited its preliminary injunction and the stay of the Final Rule’s effective date to the Plaintiffs before the court. However, Judge Brown noted that she “intends to enter a merits disposition on th[e] action on or before August 30, 2024,” a decision likely to convert the preliminary injunction to permanent relief. Between this initial blow to the Final Rule and the pendency of other lawsuits in Texas and Pennsylvania attacking the Final Rule, the chances of the FTC’s non-compete ban going into effect appear to be in serious jeopardy. We’ll continue to monitor and update with further developments.

The National Law Forum

Federal Agencies Have Placed a Heightened Priority on Whistleblowers and Speedy Cooperation

SEC 21F WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

SDNY WHISTLEBLOWER PILOT PROGRAM

DOJ PILOT PROGRAM ON VOLUNTARY SELF-DISCLOSURES FOR INDIVIDUALS

TAKEAWAYS

Listen to this post

Like this:

Petition for Certiorari Filed in Supreme Court in False Claims Act Case Seeking Review of Whether “Willful” Under the Anti-Kickback Statute Requires Knowledge that the Conduct is Unlawful

Like this:

FinCEN Publishes Updated FAQs

Like this:

Google Modifies Ad Policy to Benefit Daily Fantasy Sports and Lottery Couriers

Like this:

EB-5 Filing Strategies: Continued Immigrant Visa Availability Under the RIA’s Set-Aside Categories

Background on the Visa Bulletin

EB-5 Investor Immigrant Program Data

TOTAL NUMBER OF I-526/I-526E FILED FROM APRIL 1, 2022,TO NOVEMBER 2023, BY TEA CATEGORY AND COUNTRY OF CHARGEABILITY (LATEST STATS AS PER AIIA FOIA DATA)[11]

Key Takeaways

Like this:

It Takes More than an Algorithm to Prove an Agreement: An Analysis of Gibson v. Cendyn Group

Like this:

Ozempic Lawsuit Overview

What Is the Ozempic Lawsuit About?

Overview of the Drug of Ozempic and How It Works

Ozempic Lawsuit Case Details

Multi-District Litigation – Cases Joined Together for Preliminary Proceedings

Current Status of the Ozempic Weight Loss Litigation

Basis of a Claim

Damages for Ozempic Lawsuit

Proving an Ozempic Legal Claim

Justice for Ozempic Victims

Like this:

“Arbitrary and Capricious” – A Sign of Things to Come?

Like this:

Federal Court Enjoins Federal Trade Commission’s Rule Prohibiting Non-Competition Agreements (US)

Like this:

SEC 21F WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

SDNY WHISTLEBLOWER PILOT PROGRAM

DOJ PILOT PROGRAM ON VOLUNTARY SELF-DISCLOSURES FOR INDIVIDUALS

TAKEAWAYS

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Background on the Visa Bulletin

EB-5 Investor Immigrant Program Data

TOTAL NUMBER OF I-526/I-526E FILED FROM APRIL 1, 2022,TO NOVEMBER 2023, BY TEA CATEGORY AND COUNTRY OF CHARGEABILITY (LATEST STATS AS PER AIIA FOIA DATA)[11]

Key Takeaways

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Cultural Miscues

Chameleon U.S.

Small Behavior, Big Impact

Key Truths

Cross-Cultural Playbook

Share this:

Like this:

What Is the Ozempic Lawsuit About?

Overview of the Drug of Ozempic and How It Works

Ozempic Lawsuit Case Details

Multi-District Litigation – Cases Joined Together for Preliminary Proceedings

Current Status of the Ozempic Weight Loss Litigation

Basis of a Claim

Damages for Ozempic Lawsuit

Proving an Ozempic Legal Claim

Justice for Ozempic Victims

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: