Insights

In a May 12, 2025 speech that signaled both a recalibration of and recommitment to prosecuting white-collar crime, Matthew R. Galeotti, the newly appointed Head of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, said that the Division is “turning a new page” and embracing an enforcement approach that aims to elevate efficiency, predictability, and fairness. The changes he outlined aim to incentivize self-reporting, narrow corporate monitorships, and refocus whistleblowers.

On November 8, 2024 the SEC announced a settled enforcement action against Invesco Advisers, Inc. for making misleading statements about its integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into the firm’s investment decisions. Invesco agreed to pay a $17.5 million civil penalty to settle the matter. This enforcement action makes it clear that, even though the SEC dissolved its ESG Task Force, the Commission continues to monitor firms’ statements and representations for misleading statements about ESG.

On September 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced a settlement with Keurig Dr Pepper Inc (“Keurig”).  The SEC alleged that Keurig made incomplete and inaccurate statements in the Company’s annual reports for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 touting the recyclability of its K-Cup products. Keurig agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has reportedly recently dissolved its Climate and ESG Enforcement Task Force (the Task Force). The Task Force was part of SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s broader push to increase investors’ access to environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) information about public companies and registered investment companies. The dissolution of the Climate and ESG Enforcement Task Force comes after three years marked by industry resistance and a mixed record in the courts. Prior to the Task Force’s dissolution, the agency removed ESG from its annual Examination Priorities Report, which provides areas of particular focus during SEC examinations. While the Task Force has been dissolved, the SEC is still pursuing a number of its proposed ESG and climate-related rules.

On May 22, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD) announced its first declination to prosecute a company under its Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (Enforcement Policy).

On March 6, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to finalize a rule that requires regulated issuers to disclose information regarding their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other climate-related information. First proposed in 2022, the final rule has been scaled back in some significant ways from what was initially proposed. Notably, the final rule requires only large accelerated filers and non-exempted accelerated filers to disclose direct and energy-related (Scope 1 and 2)[1] GHGs—and only if such emissions are material to the business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition of a registrant—with no Scope 3 requirement to report on other indirect emissions (Scope 3). By comparison, the proposed rule would also have required Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosures for all types of regulated entities regardless of materiality, and Scope 3 disclosures required of certain filers if material. The final rule reflects a heightened focus on materiality regarding disclosures of climate-related risks, and adjusts assurance requirements. It also extends the timing of GHG reporting, when required, to at least 2026 (for FY 2025 data) and phases in the assurance requirements. As soon as the SEC voted to finalize the rule, ten states (West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming) filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit challenging the final rule.

While not new, Congressional investigations have certainly been receiving increased press coverage in recent years, raising questions about their scope and potential risk for organizations and individuals. Congressional investigations have some similarities to other law enforcement and regulatory investigations, but are distinct in many respects. This alert will provide guidance about the unique nature of congressional investigations, and how to respond if you are the target of one.

On September 11, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”)’s National Security Division (“NSD”) announced the appointment of its first-ever Chief Counsel and Deputy Chief Counsel for Corporate Enforcement, fulfilling a commitment made by DOJ in March 2023. Both appointees are prosecutors with significant experience prosecuting large-scale, international corporate crimes, commensurate with DOJ’s recent emphasis on holding accountable corporate actors that violate national security laws, including sanctions and export controls.

On Wednesday the SEC adopted amendments to the “Names Rule” that are meant to promote “truth in advertising” according to SEC Chair Gary Gensler. Specifically, the amendments require funds with names that reference a thematic investment focus (such as incorporation of Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) factors), or that suggest an investment portfolio with certain characteristics (such as “growth” or “value”) to invest at least 80% of the value of their assets in those named focus areas.

Investment companies and advisers would be subject to more stringent standards regarding how investment funds are named; and heightened disclosure requirements regarding Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors, under two proposals the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued on May 25, 2022. For example, the SEC proposes to amend the “Names Rule,” first implemented in 2001, to require that any fund using terminology such as “growth,” “value,” or “ESG” in its name must invest at least 80% of its assets in investments matching the name. The SEC also proposes to amend regulations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 to require investment advisers to disclose information such as the carbon footprint of a fund that advertises that such information is part of the fund’s strategy. This proposal comes just two months after the SEC proposed sweeping disclosure rules related to climate-related risks, as described in a prior alert.

On April 28, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Vale S.A., a Brazilian mining company that trades ADRs [Ticker: VALE] on the New York Stock Exchange, with multiple violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules promulgated thereunder. Arising out of the tragic January 25, 2019, collapse of a massive iron-ore tailings dam (Brumadinho) at the Córrego do Feijão mine in Minas Gerais, Brazil, the complaint alleges that Vale knowingly or recklessly deceived investors and made materially false or misleading statements with regard to the safety and stability of its dams.

Publicly traded companies would have to provide detailed information about potential financial risks related to climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (with varying levels of detail and assurance depending upon a company’s status and size), under a proposal the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued for public comment on March 21, 2022. For example, if finalized in its current form, the proposal would require disclosure of information about how climate change could impact a business’s strategy and outlook, processes for managing climate-related risks, the impact of climate-related events on the company. Notably, the proposal requires disclosure of direct GHG emissions (i.e., “Scope 1”), indirect GHG emissions from the purchase of electricity or other energy sources ( i.e., “Scope 2”), and, in some situations, indirect GHG emissions from both upstream and downstream sources (i.e., “Scope 3”). As summarized in a related fact sheet, the SEC proposal would also require that, if a company has identified a GHG emission-reduction goal, it disclose information about how it intends to reach that goal and report on its progress toward the same—a common target of “greenwashing” claims that have increased of late.

This week, a DOJ Antitrust Division official signaled a significant expansion of its criminal enforcement program. While speaking at the ABA White Collar Conference in San Francisco, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Powers said that the Division is considering criminally prosecuting violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization. This is a major break from long-standing Division policy that it would prosecute only per se violations of the antitrust laws, and raises potentially significant due process concerns.

In line with increased investor demand for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and climate-related disclosures, on March 4, 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the creation of a Climate and ESG Task Force within the Division of Enforcement. The ESG Task Force’s goal is to “develop initiatives to proactively identify ESG-related misconduct.” Its initial focus will be on “material gaps and misstatements in issuers’ disclosures of climate risks under existing rules,” as well as “disclosure and compliance issues relating to investment advisers’ and funds’ ESG strategies.” Working with other components of the SEC like the Office of the Whistleblower, the ESG Task Force will receive and evaluate tips, referrals, and whistleblower complaints, and will be an agency-advisor on ESG-related matters. The 22-member ESG Task Force will be headed by current Acting Deputy Director of Enforcement Kelly L. Gibson. 

On Monday, June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court, in Koons v. United States, clarified that when a District Court bases a sentence on statutory mandatory minimums and substantial assistance departures—and not the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guideline’s advisory range—petitioners who would otherwise be eligible to benefit from retroactive changes to the Guidelines cannot have their sentences reduced.

On May 27, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice alleged that 14 FIFA officials and marketing executives took over $150 million in bribes and kickbacks over the course of more than two decades. The government charged the indicted individuals with, among other offenses, wire fraud, money laundering, a racketeering conspiracy, submitting fraudulent tax returns, and the obstruction of justice. In addition, Swiss authorities have opened criminal proceedings related to FIFA's process for awarding the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. At the press conference announcing the allegations former Crowell & Moring partner and current acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Kelly Currie, said that what those indicted had in common was that "greed … drove them to use and exploit their positions for cash."