Insights

On April 11, 2024, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”) announced proposed amendments to its enforcement and mitigation regulations, marking the first substantive update to CFIUS’s mitigation and enforcement provisions since the enactment of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018.  The Committee issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("NPRM”) that would modify the regulations that apply to certain investments and acquisitions, as well as real estate transactions, by foreign persons as follows:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) just issued its new Strategic Civil-Criminal Enforcement Policy, setting the stage for the new manner in which the agency manages its pollution investigations. David M. Uhlmann, the head of OECA, signed the Policy memorandum on April 17, 2024, in order to ensure that EPA’s civil and criminal enforcement offices collaborate efficiently and consistently in cases across the nation. The Policy states, “EPA must exercise enforcement discretion reasonably when deciding whether a particular matter warrants criminal, civil, or administrative enforcement. Criminal enforcement should be reserved for the most egregious violations.” 

On April 22, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Rule significantly revising the Uniform Guidance for grants, cooperative agreements, and other federal financial assistance.  The Final Rule (titled “OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance”), and OMB’s accompanying memorandum to agencies and reference guide, state that the revisions aim to streamline and clarify the grant rules and improve management, transparency, and oversight of federal financial assistance.  Agencies must implement the Final Rule by October 1, 2024; however, agencies may apply it to federal awards as early as June 21, 2024.

On April 12, 2024, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision in I DIG Texas LLC v. Kerry Creager, which analyzed country-of-origin claims in a manner that diverged from the well-established Federal Trade Commission’s “Made in USA” policy.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently entered into a settlement with Monument, Inc., an alcohol addiction treatment service, for allegedly disclosing users’ personal health data to third-party advertising platforms without consumer consent and violating their own website claims to consumers with respect to the disclosure of such data. The action follows other settlements by the FTC focused on tracking technologies collecting sensitive health information through web pages and web portals. “This action continues the FTC’s work to ensure strict limits on how firms handle sensitive health data, rather than putting the onus on consumers to protect themselves,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Following on the heels of actions against GoodRx, BetterHelp, and Premom, the market should be getting the message that consumer health data should be handled with extreme caution.”

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Agency”) voted 3-2 along partisan lines in a special public meeting to adopt the “Non-Compete Clause Rule” (the “Final Rule”), which will prohibit most employee non-competes with retroactive effect, except existing non-compete provisions of “senior executives.”  The Final Rule will also ban future non-compete agreements, including for senior executives, with limited exceptions.  The rule will not become effective until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and covered employers will be required to comply with the Final Rule by that effective date, which could come as early as August this year.  By the FTC’s own estimate, this ban could affect up to one-in-five American workers.

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. 

On April 15, 2024, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Nicole Argentieri announced a new Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals (“Pilot Program” or “Program”). The Pilot Program offers a clear path for voluntary self-disclosure by certain corporate executives and other individuals who are themselves involved in misconduct by corporations, in exchange for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”). The Pilot Program specifically targets individuals who disclose to the Criminal Division at DOJ in Washington, D.C. information about certain corporate criminal conduct. By carving out a clear path to non-prosecution for those who qualify, DOJ has created another tool to uncover complex crimes that might not otherwise be reported to the Department. 

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Luv n’ Care v. Laurain provides a cautionary tale for patentees. Disclosing prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not enough to insulate against a finding of inequitable conduct, particularly where a patentee mischaracterizes that prior art and the PTO’s patentability determination may have differed had the patentee accurately described the prior art. Misconduct by the patentee during litigation can also lead to a finding of unclean hands that bars the patentee from relief for alleged infringement against the opposing party in that litigation.

There are very few issues that can unite Republican and Democratic State Attorneys General in today’s polarized political environment. Aviation is one of those issues.

The Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) is currently in the process of introducing the first ever amendments to its Cybersecurity Act (CS Act) 2018 via the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill.  Through these Amendments, CSA is looking to account for advancements in Singapore’s technology and business landscape since 2018.  It is also hoping to holistically enhance the cybersecurity of not only the country’s critical information infrastructure (CII) but also other digital infrastructure important for Singapore’s economy.

In the latest sign that federal enforcers remain focused on increasing antitrust enforcement, last Thursday, the Justice Department (DOJ), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed an online portal, HealthyCompetition.gov, to encourage the public to submit reports on potential anticompetitive and monopolistic conduct in the healthcare sector.  The initiative seeks to address concerns that such behavior may affect healthcare affordability and quality, and employee wages. 

On March 15, 2024, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued Acquisition Letter MV-2024-01 providing guidance to GSA contracting officers on the use of upfront payments for acquisitions of cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS).  Specifically, this acquisition letter clarifies that despite statutory prohibitions against the use of “advance” payments outside of narrowly-prescribed circumstances, upfront payments for SaaS licenses do not constitute an “advance” payment subject to these restrictions when made under the following conditions:

Following federal lawmakers’ initiative to lower prescription drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, several states have taken similar steps to limit certain drugs’ prices. Drug affordability for consumers is a top priority for federal and state lawmakers and regulators because it is a bipartisan issue that directly impacts consumers’ wallets. With negotiations between the federal government and drug manufacturers over 10 drugs’ prices for Medicare beneficiaries well underway under the Inflation Reduction Act, 11 states, including Maryland and Colorado, have created drug affordability review boards to more directly tackle rising prices for both brand and generic drugs.[1] And another 12 states have pending legislation to create these boards.[2] 

On April 10, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property convened Part III to an ongoing discussion and exploration of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) rights. The session, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part III - IP Protection for AI-Assisted Inventions and Creative Works,” delved into the nuanced debate over what IP protections should exist for AI-generated or AI-assisted works.

On March 19, 2024, the European Council adopted changes to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union in an attempt to improve its efficiency.

On April 1, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) issued a final rule updating the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to add Part 40 on information security and supply chain security. This first action did not implement any new requirements; however, separate rulemakings will follow to relocate existing information security and supply chain security policies and procedures to the new Part 40. Additionally, new related regulations will be housed in Part 40. These actions suggest that the flow of information security and supply chain regulations is likely to continue unabated for at least the next few years.

On January 30, 2024, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule entitled “Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting” (“Proposed Rule”). The Proposed Rule would: (1) prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering information about job applicants’ compensation history when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract; and (2) require contractors and subcontractors to disclose, in all advertisements for job openings involving work on or in connection with a government contract placed by or on behalf of the contractor or subcontractor, the compensation to be offered to the hired applicant for any position to perform work on or in connection with the contract.

On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court finally brought the curtain down on the Kirschner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al., action when it denied Plaintiff’s petition for certiorari that challenged the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s determination that syndicated bank loans were not “securities.” While the Second Circuit made that decision in August, fears of significant market disruption were raised again in December, when the plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to review the case. But, as a result of the denial of cert, the Second Circuit decision stands, and for the time being, syndicated term loans will not be subject to securities regulation.

On June 20, 2023, the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy published a Joint Communication on the European Economic Security Strategy. The Strategy was adopted to reduce risks to the European Union’s economic security amid rising geopolitical tensions and rapid technological changes. The Strategy is structured according to a three-pillar approach: promoting competitiveness, protecting against risks and partnering with like-minded countries.