We are pleased to provide you with Gibson Dunn’s ESG update covering the following key developments during April 2025. Please click on the links below for further details.
- International Maritime Organization (IMO) announces deal to decarbonize global shipping
On April 11, 2025, the IMO, the United Nations agency responsible for developing global shipping standards, announced its approval of draft regulations setting a global fuel standard to reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and establishing a pricing system for above-threshold emitters. Sixty-three nations approved the framework, including EU member states, China, and the United Kingdom, while 16 nations opposed, 25 nations abstained, and the United States leaving negotiations prior to the vote. The United States subsequently warned of “reciprocal measures” to compensate for fees charged to U.S. ships and “other economic harm” resulting from the new regulations. The regulations are expected to be formally adopted in October 2025 and effective in 2027 and will apply to large ocean-going ships over 5,000 gross tonnage.
- Institutional Shareholders Services (ISS) launches new sustainability bond rating
On April 3, 2025, ISS ESG launched a new sustainability bond rating to provide investors with a sustainability impact and risk assessment for bonds issued labeled as green, social, sustainability, or sustainability-linked. These new ratings will assess bonds in three categories: how they align with international standards and guidelines, an environmental and social impact assessment, and the issuer’s sustainable strategy.
Other highlights:
- On April 28, 2025, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) published draft amendments to the IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures standard that would ease certain requirements related to the reporting of GHG emissions.
- The Net Zero Banking Alliance provided new guidance to align all sector financing with a goal to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, up from the prior target of 1.5°C.
- T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Investment Management have both issued updated proxy voting guidelines for 2025 that soften their approach to director votes, disclosure of GHG emissions, dual-class stock, and shareholder proposals on political spending and lobbying.
- Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) publishes consultation on managing climate-related risk
On April 30, 2025, the PRA issued Consultation Paper CP10/25, proposing to replace Supervisory Statement 3/19 with an updated and more granular statement on managing climate-related financial risk. The draft statement would apply to UK banks, building societies, PRA-designated investment firms and insurers (but not branches). The draft statement sets outcome-focused expectations structured around five themes: (i) governance – boards will be expected to set firm-wide risk appetite for each material climate exposure, translating it into quantitative limits for every business line, and periodically reassessing it in light of evolving regulatory, technological, or scientific standards; (ii) risk management – firms should conduct periodic materiality assessments, develop quantitative metrics and integrate climate considerations into operational resilience frameworks; (iii) climate scenario analysis – models must cover all material risks, inform capital planning and be refreshed; (iv) data – firms should have strategic plans to close data gaps, deploy conservative proxies where needed and oversee external providers while building in-house capability; and (v) disclosure – alignment will shift from Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures to forthcoming UK Sustainability Reporting Standards. The expectations remain guidance, not rules, but supervisors will test implementation six months after finalisation. The consultation closes on July 30, 2025.
- UK Government launches consultation into voluntary carbon and nature markets (VCNMs)
On April 17, 2025, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published a consultation paper seeking views on the implementation of its principles to ensure integrity within VCNMs, launched at COP 29 in November 2024. VCNMs allow entities and/or individuals to acquire credits that represent avoided or removed greenhouse gas emissions or measurable environmental improvement. The acquiring entity/individual can then utilize the credits to offset unavoidable emissions and/or reach its environmental targets. The six principles announced at COP 29 include: (i) the use of credits in addition to ambitious actions within value chains; (ii) the use of high integrity credits; (iii) the disclosure of credits in ESG-related reporting; (iv) the role of credits in the transition plan; (v) the accuracy of green claims; and (vi) domestic and international co-operation. The consultation closes on July 10, 2025.
- UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) publishes guidance on biodegradable and compostable products
On April 30, 2025, the ASA issued guidance on products that claim to be biodegradable and/or compostable to reflect relevant changes introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and included the following: (i) ensure claims are genuine; (ii) do not exaggerate the biodegradable content of the product; (iii) do not omit information material to a product’s ability to biodegrade or compost; and (iv) ensure absolute environmental claims apply to the product’s full lifecycle. In the event of an investigation, marketers should ensure that they hold sufficient evidence to substantiate claims about the extent to which their products are biodegradable and/or compostable.
Other highlights:
- On April 24, 2025, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published the draft primary legislation for the carbon border adjustment mechanism for technical consultation.
- On April 2, 2025, the Financial Conduct Authority shared feedback it received on its discussion paper on sustainability-related governance, incentives, and competence for regulated firms (DP23/1), confirming that it is not currently considering introducing new rules on the themes discussed in the discussion paper.
- On April 11, 2025, the Lending Standards Board (LSB) announced its forthcoming Access to Financial Services for Ethnic Minority-led Businesses Code, committing participating firms to reduce barriers, enhance cultural understanding, apply evidence-based improvements, and share best practice, while the LSB monitors and reports progress.
- On April 16, 2025, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors issued its final application paper on the supervision of climate-related risk, explaining how existing Insurance Core Principles should be applied to ensure insurers and supervisors adequately address the mounting consumer and commercial impacts of climate-driven events.
- Discussions about Omnibus Simplifications in substance ongoing
On April 25, 2025, the rapporteur for the EU’s Omnibus Simplification Package in the European Parliament, Swedish MEP Jörgen Warborn, outlined his initial suggestions for amendments to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) during discussions in the European Parliament. Among other things, Warborn proposes to further raise the employee threshold for CSRD reporting requirements uniformly above the currently proposed 1,000 employees and backed the Commission’s proposal to remove the CSDDD’s civil liability (we have previously reported on the Commission’s proposal here). The proposal has sparked strong political divisions in the European Parliament, with some factions pushing to eliminate or delay reporting and due diligence obligations, while others seek to preserve the core objectives of the regulations. The rapporteur is expected to present his final proposal in early June of 2025.
In parallel, the EU’s Sustainability Reporting Board (SRB) has approved a work plan to simplify the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Among the currently envisaged revisions are the removal of less relevant data points for general purpose sustainability reporting (such as detailed biodiversity transition plans and certain non-employee-related disclosures), the downgrading of currently mandatory data points to voluntary reporting and of voluntary data points to guidance, prioritizing quantitative over narrative disclosures, and further alignment with global standards like ISSB. According to the work plan, the process will be continued with a shortened public consultation period this summer and is set to be finalized by October 31, 2025.
- Updates and proposed amendments on European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) published
On April 15, 2025, the European Commission published updates regarding the EUDR, including proposed amendments to Annex I of the EUDR as well as updated guidance and FAQs. The proposed amendments to Annex I include clarifications on in-scope commodities, such as cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood. According to the proposal, the following products shall be excluded: products made from bamboo, rattan and waste materials. The updated guidelines and FAQs clarify certain topics, including regarding re-imported products, local law requirements in Art. 2 (40), trading and packaging of pallets, and qualifications as trader or operator.
- CSRD / Omnibus “Stop-the-clock” directive transposition update
The focus currently is on postponing entry into force of the CSRD reporting requirements by transposing the EU’s Stop-the-clock Directive in member states that already completed the transposition process. While France already published its national “Stop-the-clock” law in the Journal officiel on May 2, 2025, Lithuania has published a proposal for a respective bill to delay reporting by two years. Bulgaria passed a law to delay implementation by one year, which came into effect two days after the Omnibus Simplification Package was officially disclosed.
An overview of the current transposition status of CSRD into national laws and the “Stop-the-clock” process under the Omnibus Simplification Package can be found here.
Other highlights:
- The European Securities and Market Authority published a consultation paper on its new Regulatory Technical Standards under the EU’S ESG Rating Regulation.
- Business Roundtable (BRT) and U.S. Congress address proxy process reforms
On April 23, 2025, BRT published a report recommending reforms to the proxy process. The report argues that the lack of proxy process regulation has “allowed a small but vocal group of activist investors to exploit the proxy system for political purposes,” and includes recommendations aimed at depoliticizing the proxy process and refocusing it “on supporting shareholder interests and long-term value creation.” The report includes recommendations to (i) reform the Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal process and (ii) create accountability for proxy advisory firms.
With regard to the Rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal process, BRT recommends Congress enact legislation that would preclude the inclusion of environmental, social and political shareholder proposals in companies’ proxy statements. If legislation is not enacted, BRT recommends the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amend Rule 14a-8 to exclude environmental, social and political shareholder proposals, (ii) raise submission and resubmission thresholds, (iii) prevent Rule 14a-8 workarounds, including the use of voluntary exempt solicitation filings and universal proxy rules, (iv) restrict co-filers and representatives from being directly or indirectly involved in more than one proposal per company, and (v) amend the SEC review process to include an appeals process for no-action letter decisions and changing the timeline for no-action request responses.
Regarding proxy advisory firms, BRT recommends that Congress and the SEC (i) confirm the SEC’s authority to regulate proxy advisory firms and deem the activities of proxy advisory firms “solicitations” subject to SEC oversight, (ii) prohibit robovoting, (iii) require an economic analysis for proxy advisor recommendations that are contrary to a majority-independent board’s decision, (iv) prohibit conflicts of interests, and (v) limit the ability of proxy advisory firms to impose subjective preferences, including related to executive compensation decisions and prior shareholder support levels.
On May 6, 2025, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) and the Shareholder Rights Group (SRG) sent a letter to BRT, copying the Chairman of the SEC. The letter offered ICCR’s and SRG’s view that BRT’s recommendations would “insulate corporate management and boards, exposing companies and investors to increased risk during a highly volatile economic moment” and requested a dialogue with BRT to discuss the proxy process.
On April 29, 2025, the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets held a hearing to “examine the role and influence of proxy advisory firms . . . in shaping corporate governance and shareholder voting outcomes.” The memorandum related to the hearing included draft legislation proposing, among other things, required proxy advisory firm registration, prohibitions on robovoting for certain votes, and a requirement that the SEC study certain issues related to the shareholder proposal and proxy process.
- Canadian regulator halts mandatory climate reporting requirements
On April 23, 2025, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) announced a pause of its work developing new mandatory climate-related disclosure requirements and diversity-related disclosure rule amendments. The CSA explained the pauses were driven by the desire to support Canadian markets as they adapt to recent U.S. and global developments and resulting uncertainty and competitiveness concerns. The CSA emphasized, though, that Canadian securities laws already require disclosure of any material climate-related risks under existing regulations and that companies are encouraged to voluntarily report under the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board standards that were issued in December 2024.
- Eighth Circuit issues abeyance in SEC climate litigation
After the SEC withdrew from its defense of the climate disclosure rules, 18 states filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance until the SEC takes action to amend or rescind the rules, as discussed in our March 2025 alert. On April 24, 2025, the Eighth Circuit granted the states’ motion and directed the SEC to file a report within 90 days advising whether the SEC intends to review or reconsider the rules.
- President Trump issues executive order focused on state laws and regulations addressing climate and ESG
On April 8, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” directing the U.S. Attorney General (AG) to investigate and identify all state and local laws and regulations that burden the “identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources” that may be unconstitutional or preempted by federal law and to take “all appropriate action” to stop the enforcement of such laws. Under the order, the AG is required to prioritize laws that address climate change, environmental justice, carbon or GHG emissions, carbon penalties or taxes, and ESG initiatives. Within 60 days of the order, the AG is required to submit a report to the President detailing the actions taken and recommending additional presidential or legislative actions as necessary. The executive order highlights laws in New York and Vermont seeking retroactive payments for GHG emissions and California’s cap and trade framework as examples of laws that may be beyond states’ constitutional or statutory authorities.
- Class-action plaintiffs attack sustainability claims by paper-goods companies
Two class-action lawsuits were filed recently in federal court against Amazon and Proctor & Gamble, alleging “greenwashing” claims based on each company’s statements about their paper products such as toilet paper. See Ramos et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (W.D. Wash. Case No. 2:25-cv-00465); Melissa Lowry, et al. v. Proctor & Gamble Company (W.D. Wash. 2:25-cv-00108). The complaints allege that, notwithstanding these companies’ advertised partnerships with groups like Forest Stewardship Council, production of their products leads to deforestation, and thus violates the FTC’s Green Guides and various state consumer-protection laws.
Both cases remain in their early stages. But they represent a new front in the ongoing trend of false-advertising litigation based on sustainability advertising claims, in which class action plaintiffs have already targeted multiple companies based on sustainability claims relating to plastics, emissions reductions, and supply-chain initiatives.
Other highlights:
- On April 21, 2025, the Chamber of Commerce sent a letter asking the Trump Administration to urge the EU to exempt U.S. companies from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which the letter asserts is overly prescriptive and in conflict with U.S. federal and state law.
- As discussed in our recent client alert, on April 21, 2025, Paul Atkins was sworn into office as the 34th Chairman of the SEC.
- On April 11, 2025, the SEC approved the launch of the Green Impact Exchange (GIX), a sustainability-focused stock market in the United States.
- On April 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had terminated a settlement between the DOJ, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Alabama Department of Public Health regarding sanitation risks in an Alabama county arising from inadequate water infrastructure, citing the termination as “another step . . . to eradicate illegal DEI preferences and environmental justice across the government and in the private sector.”
In case you missed it…
The Gibson Dunn DEI Task Force has published its updates for April summarizing the latest key developments, media coverage, case updates, and legislation related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
A collection of our analyses of the legal and industry impacts from the presidential transition is available here.
- South Korea Financial Services Commission (FSC) delays ESG mandatory reporting
On April 23, 2025, the FSC announced after the fifth meeting of the ESG Finance Promotion Task Force that its original plan to begin disclosures in 2025 for large companies listed on the Korea Composite Stock Price Index will be postponed to post-2026, with possible further delays. The FSC explained that the delay to the ESG disclosure roadmap is in response to the evolving global regulatory landscape and increasing pressure for harmonization and highlighted recent moves by global regulators to ease ESG requirements. The Task Force also reviewed other key aspects of the reporting framework, including disclosures on consolidated financial statements, excluding non-material subsidiaries and a proposal to defer Scope 3 emissions reporting due to its complexity and costs involved in tracking the emissions.
- Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issues new guidelines for ESG ratings
On April 22, 2025, the SEBI issued new guidelines that provided flexibility in ESG rating withdrawals, streamlined disclosure requirements, and offered relief to newer ESG ratings providers. Under these new guidelines, ESG ratings providers may withdraw a rating on a company if their business responsibility or sustainability reports are not available. Additionally, a ratings provider may also withdraw the rating if there are no subscribers for the rating. These new guidelines follow a statement made earlier this month by SEBI’s new chief, Tuhin Kanta Pandey, arguing that the ESG disclosures were too onerous.
- China issues its first sovereign green bond
On April 2, 2025, China’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued a sovereign green bond on the London Stock Exchange, making this China’s first green bond and the first bond to be listed on an international market. The MOF originally announced its intention to enter the green bond market in January 2025. The bond has raised $824 million USD ($6 billion RMB). Proceeds from the bonds will be used to support projects and initiatives aimed at achieving environmental objectives. These include climate change mitigation, adapting to utilizing natural resources, and biodiversity conservation.
Other highlights:
- The Taipei Exchange will launch a green securities certification system in 2026 to encourage enterprises to engage in green and sustainable economic activities.
- The Philippine Department of Finance announced its intention to expand the role of the Inter-Agency Technical Working Group on Sustainable Finance.
The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Lauren Assaf-Holmes, Carla Baum, Susy Bullock, Mitasha Chandok, Martin Coombes, Mellissa Duru, Sam Fernandez*, Ferdinand Fromholzer, Saad Khan*, Michelle Kirschner, Julia Lapitskaya, Vanessa Ludwig, Babette Milz, Johannes Reul, Annie Saunders, and Meghan Sherley.
Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any leader or member of the firm’s ESG: Risk, Litigation, and Reporting practice group:
ESG: Risk, Litigation, and Reporting Leaders and Members:
Susy Bullock – London (+44 20 7071 4283, sbullock@gibsondunn.com)
Perlette M. Jura – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7121, pjura@gibsondunn.com)
Ronald Kirk – Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Julia Lapitskaya – New York (+1 212.351.2354, jlapitskaya@gibsondunn.com)
Michael K. Murphy – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8238, mmurphy@gibsondunn.com)
Robert Spano – London/Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, rspano@gibsondunn.com)
*Sam Fernandez and Saad Khan are trainee solicitors in London and not admitted to practice law.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Gibson Dunn is monitoring regulatory developments and executive orders closely. Our attorneys are available to assist clients as they navigate the challenges and opportunities posed by the current, evolving legal landscape.
Introduction
On May 12, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division announced it was “turning a new page” in its approach to white collar and corporate enforcement and issued four foundational guidance documents: a memorandum outlining the new White-Collar Enforcement Plan (“Enforcement Plan”), an update to the Criminal Division Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“Corporate Enforcement Policy”), an update to the Department of Justice Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot program, and an updated memorandum describing the process for implementing monitorships and selecting monitors (collectively, the “May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents”).
Although the Criminal Division is but one litigating component in the larger DOJ and its guidance does not bind prosecutors outside it, it is a bellwether for DOJ-wide initiatives, particularly in white collar enforcement, because of its size, role in administering various criminal statutes, and proximity to DOJ leadership. Below we survey the most significant developments outlined in the Criminal Division’s new guidance, beginning with the key takeaways and continuing with developments under each of the three principles of criminal enforcement—”focus, fairness, and efficiency”—declared by the umbrella Enforcement Plan memorandum.[1]
The May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents were released days after President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at combatting “Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations.” Analysis of that Executive Order can be found here.
Key Takeaways
These policies have immediate implications for the risk profile of certain conduct and the possibility of resolution with the Criminal Division, and potentially other components of the DOJ. Some key takeaways are:
- In an unusual but helpful move, the Criminal Division has now set out a comprehensive strategy for criminal enforcement of white collar cases, providing a roadmap of its priorities with an “America First” and business-friendly emphasis. The Enforcement Plan also explains that the Criminal Division will continue to combat a broad range of white collar crimes to advance the Trump Administration’s law enforcement priorities, some of which have traditionally not been emphasized.
- Like other guidance documents published by government agencies during the Trump Administration, the Enforcement Plan makes clear that overly aggressive government action can “hinder[] innovation.” The Enforcement Plan explicitly instructs prosecutors to consider the impact of their investigations on businesses, rather than simply deterring violations of law. The Enforcement Plan recognizes that the vast majority of American companies act legitimately, and that “it is critical to American prosperity to promote policies that acknowledge law-abiding companies and companies that are willing to learn from their mistakes.”
- The Enforcement Plan begins by emphasizing a focus on the harms to America posed by “dishonest actors [that] exploit government programs” and “[s]chemes that defraud . . . investors and consumers, especially the most vulnerable.”
- The Enforcement Plan also indicates that national security offenses will continue to be a priority of the Criminal Division, supplementing the work of the National Security Division.
- The Criminal Division will continue to prosecute offenses related to foreign corruption, with an emphasis on bribery and money laundering offenses that harm U.S. national security, impact American businesses, and enrich foreign officials.
- The Criminal Division likewise will focus on trade enforcement, including customs fraud and tariff evasion, as well as related money laundering.
- In an exercise of new authority, the Criminal Division will prioritize white collar enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
- The Department of Justice will be particularly focused on offenses related to China, cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and immigration violations.
- The emphasis on the need for expeditious prosecution means that corporations subject to Criminal Division scrutiny can push for efficiency in investigations and faster resolutions, to ensure that investigations do not linger.
- Corporations considering whether to self-disclose will have a clearer understanding of the potential benefits of making a disclosure. Those benefits include declination and higher discounts to any penalties. Prosecutors retain some discretion to conclude there are aggravating factors present that will mean a declination is not assured.
I. “Focus”
Enforcement Priorities
The Enforcement Plan states that the Criminal Division is to be “laser-focused on the most urgent criminal threats to the country[.]” Consistent with previous policy announcements by the Trump Administration, the Enforcement Plan lists ten high-impact areas that the Criminal Division will prioritize investigating and prosecuting to combat those harms.[2] Similarly, the Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which was first announced in August 2024, has been expanded to cover eligible tips in new subject areas that mirror the Criminal Division’s enforcement priorities, including cartels and transnational criminal organizations, violations of the immigration laws, material support of terrorism, sanctions evasion, and fraud involving trade, tariffs, customs and procurement.
Healthcare, Procurement, Investor, and Consumer Fraud
To address “[r]ampant health care fraud and program and procurement fraud,” the Enforcement Plan states that the “Criminal Division will lead the fight in holding accountable those who exploit these programs and harm the public fisc for personal gain.” The focus on health care and procurement fraud aligns with recent Executive Orders of President Trump on these topics.
Foreign Bribery Enforcement
Notwithstanding President Trump’s February 10, 2025 Executive Order pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,[3] the May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents make clear that the Criminal Division will continue to prosecute cases involving foreign bribery. The Enforcement Plan specifically asserts that in doing so the Criminal Division will take a targeted approach to protect American interests, prioritizing offenses that include “[b]ribery and associated money laundering” that affect U.S. national interests, undermine national security, harm U.S. businesses, and enrich corrupt foreign officials.
National Security Offenses
In a memorandum issued on her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi suspended certain requirements for approval by the National Security Division.[4] The May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents prioritize criminal enforcement of national security offenses, including terrorism and sanctions evasion. These documents suggest these offenses will be charged through the Criminal Division or U.S. Attorney’s Offices more often, supplementing the work of the National Security Division.
Tariffs and Customs Enforcement
The May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents make clear that the Criminal Division will prioritize violations of tariff and customs laws. Investigations of such violations are listed as priorities in the Enforcement Plan, and the updated whistleblower program adds such violations as subject areas for whistleblower tips. This adds to other recent indications by the Trump Administration that tariffs enforcement will, unsurprisingly, be heavily emphasized, as Gibson Dunn previously covered here and here.
Bank Secrecy Act Enforcement
Under the principles of the May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents, the Criminal Division will continue to prosecute cases involving violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, with a particular focus on offenses that implicate U.S. sanctions. The Enforcement Plan decries “exploitation of our financial system” that can “enable underlying criminal conduct,” and warns that “[f]inancial institutions, shadow bankers, and other intermediaries aid U.S. adversaries by processing transactions that evade sanctions.” The updated whistleblower program maintains the Department’s focus on violations by financial institutions or their employees for schemes involving money laundering and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.
Fraud Cases with Individual Victim Losses
In line with the Criminal Division’s focus on vindicating the rights of victims impacted by white collar and corporate crime, the Enforcement Plan also tasks the Criminal Division with seeking forfeiture to compensate victims. The Criminal Division is also tasked with “prioritize[ing] schemes involving senior-level personnel or other culpable actors, demonstrable loss, and efforts to obstruct justice.” The Enforcement Plan focuses on certain crimes that defraud victims, including Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, market manipulation, and “fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers.”
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Enforcement
As part of a broader reorganization of the Department—and explained in this Gibson Dunn client alert—it recently was announced that the criminal authorities (and most prosecutors) of Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch would move to the Criminal Division to become a new consumer protection unit of the Fraud Section. Through that move, the Criminal Division has gained authority to lead criminal enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Enforcement Plan makes clear that it intends to exercise that authority and to pursue corporate violations of the Controlled Substances Act.
Focus on China
The Criminal Division will renew its focus on criminal conduct related to China. The Enforcement Plan makes multiple references to criminal conduct involving Chinese-connected companies and entities, including variable interest entities and sophisticated money laundering operations connected to China.
II. “Fairness”
Additional Paths to Avoid or Mitigate Corporate Criminal Enforcement
The Enforcement Plan creates additional opportunities for white collar defense attorneys to advocate for non-criminal resolutions for their corporate clients. The Enforcement Plan states that, in many cases, prosecution of individuals will suffice to “vindicate U.S. interests,” leaving civil or administrative remedies to address misconduct at the corporate level. The Enforcement Plan reiterates that prosecutors should consider certain factors identified in the Justice Manual when determining whether to charge corporations, including whether the company self-reported, the company’s willingness to cooperate with the government, and the company’s actions to remediate the misconduct.
The Enforcement Plan also directs the Fraud and Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Sections to re-review all existing agreements between the Criminal Division and companies and determine whether to terminate those agreements early. Factors that could lead to early termination include the duration of the post-resolution period, a change in a company’s risk profile, the state of the company’s compliance program, and whether the company self-reported the conduct. According to the Enforcement Plan, the Criminal Division has already terminated some agreements early as a result of the new policy.
For future resolutions, the Enforcement Plan suggests that the duration of resolutions will be shorter than before, directing that prosecutors “must impose a term that is appropriate and necessary in light of, among other things, the severity of the misconduct, the company’s degree of cooperation and remediation, and the effectiveness of the company’s compliance program at the time of resolution.” The Enforcement Plan states that these terms are usually not to exceed three years and should be regularly reviewed for the possibility of early termination.
Recognition of Compliance and Law-Abiding Companies
In his May 12 speech at the annual Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference held by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association introducing the new enforcement policies and priorities, Matthew Galeotti, the Head of the Criminal Division, stated that the Criminal Division recognizes “that law-abiding companies are key to a prosperous America [and] [e]conomic security is national security.” In his speech, Galeotti further stated: “[m]ost corporations and financial institutions want to play by the rules and provide value for their shareholders and their customers. And that is what we want them to remain focused on. Excessive enforcement and unfocused corporate investigations stymie innovation, limits prosperity, and reduces efficiency.” The Enforcement Plan similarly recognizes that “it is critical to American prosperity to promote policies that acknowledge law-abiding companies and companies that are willing to learn from their mistakes.”
These messages make clear the importance of corporate compliance and appropriate remediation. In line with this message, the Corporate Enforcement Policy has been revised “[t]o ensure fairness and individualized assessments,” with a focus on benefits for companies that self-disclose and cooperate. Under the new Corporate Enforcement Policy, the Criminal Division is to make a “case-by-case analysis about the appropriate disposition” and consider all forms of corporate criminal resolutions: non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), deferred prosecution agreements, and guilty pleas. In his May 12 remarks, Mr. Galeotti stated that under the new policy, “[s]elf-disclosure is key to receiving the most generous benefits the Criminal Division can offer.” The Corporate Enforcement Policy also preserves prior compliance components in the definition of appropriate remediation, again signaling the importance of compliance.
More Certain Paths to Specific Results
Mr. Galeotti also stated that the new Corporate Enforcement Policy was simplified to allow companies to better anticipate outcomes when self-reporting. Under the updated Corporate Enforcement Policy, the Criminal Division will publicly decline to prosecute a company for criminal conduct when:
- The company voluntarily self-disclosed the misconduct to the Criminal Division. These disclosures qualify so long as “the company had no preexisting obligation to disclose the misconduct to the Department of Justice.” This seems to allow for self-disclosures that were undertaken out of obligation to agencies other than DOJ.
- The company fully cooperates with the Criminal Division’s investigation.
- The company timely and appropriately remediated the conduct.
- There are no aggravating circumstances (which are “the nature and seriousness of the offense, egregiousness or pervasiveness of the misconduct within the company, severity of harm caused by the misconduct, or criminal adjudication or resolution within the last five years based on similar misconduct by the entity engaged in the current misconduct.”). This definition suggests that only criminal resolutions by the same corporation for “similar misconduct” will be considered an aggravating factor, rather than any prior misconduct or by an affiliated entity.[5] Where there are aggravating circumstances, prosecutors can still recommend declination after weighing the severity of the circumstances.
In instances of “near miss self-disclosures” or where there are aggravating circumstances, the guidance requires the Criminal Division provide an NPA (absent egregious or multiple aggravating factors) for a term of less than 3 years without a monitorship, and a 75% reduction off of the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range.
For resolutions in other cases, there is a presumption that any sentencing reduction will be taken from the low end of the Guidelines.
In addition to the updated language of the policy, the Criminal Division has also provided a flowchart illustrating enforcement “paths” in line with the policies summarized above.
III. “Efficiency”
Streamlined Investigations
In his remarks, Mr. Galeotti stated that businesses have been deterred from utilizing benefits of self-reporting misconduct to governmental authorities by the possibility of “lengthy drawn-out investigations that are ultimately detrimental to companies[.]” He argued that this deterrence of self-reporting diverts Department resources away from “tackling the most significant threats facing our country.” The Enforcement Plan instructs the Criminal Division to take all reasonable steps to minimize the length and collateral impact of their investigation and to ensure that “bad actors” are quickly brought to justice. While framed as a novel insight, many prior Administrations have included similar language in guidance documents; any meaningful change will depend on Criminal Division supervisors driving more efficient investigations.
Limited Use of Monitors
In addition to taking reasonable steps to minimize length and impact of investigations, the Enforcement Plan instructs the Criminal Division to utilize independent compliance monitors only when necessary and that use of those monitors should be narrowly tailored.
The Criminal Division also released a memorandum entitled “Memorandum on Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters,” which requires prosecutors to consider four factors when weighing the possibility of imposing a monitorship:
- Risk of recurrence of criminal conduct that significantly impact U.S. interests.
- Availability and efficacy of other independent government oversight.
- Efficacy of the compliance program and culture of compliance at the time of the resolution.
- Maturity of the company’s controls and its ability to independently test and update its compliance program.
Even if a monitor is appropriate, the memorandum requires that prosecutors tailor the monitorship to be cost efficient and effective. The company’s counsel must present three to five monitor candidates for consideration, which is an increase from previous guidance. After a monitor is approved, the Criminal Division must ensure the costs are proportionate to the severity of the underlying conduct, the company’s profits, and the company’s size and risk profile. There will be a cap on hourly rates, and the monitor will be required to submit a budget for the entire monitorship at the time is submits its first work plan to the Criminal Division and company for review. The monitor will also attend at least two additional meetings a year with the company and the government to ensure alignment.
Conclusion
The May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents, taken together, indicate that the Criminal Division will continue to aggressively prosecute violations of law while rewarding compliant companies with non-criminal enforcement alternatives to resolve any misconduct. This development underscores the continued importance for companies to maintain effective compliance programs that address risks relating to government procurement, corruption, money laundering, national security and tariff offenses, sanctions evasion, and other priorities, to mitigate the corresponding liability that may arise under the criminal statutes. Companies therefore will be well served by reviewing their compliance programs and calibrating their compliance-related risk assessments to mitigate against changing risk and enforcement realities.
[1] Guidance documents like these are often issued by the Deputy Attorney General and thus are also applicable to other DOJ components like U.S. Attorney’s Offices. It remains to be seen how the May 12, 2025 Guidance Documents will, if at all, also govern those other DOJ components.
[2] The ten high-impact areas are:
“1. Waste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud that harm the public fisc;
2. Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion;
3. Fraud perpetrated through [variable interest entities], including, but not limited to, offering fraud, “ramp and dumps,” elder fraud, securities fraud, and other market manipulation schemes;
4. Fraud that victimizes U.S. investors, individuals, and markets including, but not limited to, Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, servicemember fraud, and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers;
5. Conduct that threatens the country’s national security, including threats to the U.S. financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by Cartels, TCOs, hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations;
6. Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated Cartels and TCOs;
7. Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs;
8. Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used to create counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies;
9. Bribery and associated money laundering that impact U.S. national interests, undermine U.S. national security, harm the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and enrich foreign corrupt officials; and
10. As provided by the Digital Assets DAG Memorandum: crimes (1) involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers; (2) that use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct; and (3) willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity. Cases impacting victims, involving cartels, TCOs, or terrorist groups, or facilitating drug money laundering or sanctions evasion shall receive highest priority.”
[3] Gibson Dunn’s analysis of that Executive Order can be found at https://www.gibsondunn.com/president-trump-pauses-new-fcpa-enforcement-initiates-enforcement-review-and-directs-preparation-of-new-guidance/.
[4] Gibson Dunn’s analysis of this and other memoranda issued by Attorney General Bondi can be found at https://www.gibsondunn.com/new-memoranda-from-attorney-general-bondi-topics-to-watch-in-corporate-enforcement/.
[5] DOJ policy under the Biden Administration directed prosecutors considering non-prosecution to give the “greatest significance” to “recent U.S. criminal resolutions, and to prior misconduct involving the same personnel or management.” This policy de-emphasized conduct addressed by criminal resolution more than ten years prior, or civil / regulatory resolutions finalized more than five years prior. However, conduct that fell outside of this timeframe could still be considered if it was part of a pattern of behavior indicative of deficient corporate “compliance culture or institutional safeguards.” See Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group (Sept. 15, 2022). See also Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco Delivers Remarks on Corporate Criminal Enforcement (Sept. 15, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-delivers-remarks-corporate-criminal-enforcement.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any leader or member of Gibson Dunn’s White Collar Defense and Investigations practice group:
Washington, D.C.
F. Joseph Warin (+1 202.887.3609, fwarin@gibsondunn.com)
Stephanie Brooker (+1 202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Axelrod – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
John W.F. Chesley (+1 202.887.3788, jchesley@gibsondunn.com)
Daniel P. Chung (+1 202.887.3729, dchung@gibsondunn.com)
M. Kendall Day (+1 202.955.8220, kday@gibsondunn.com)
Stuart F. Delery (+1 202.955.8515, sdelery@gibsondunn.com)
Michael S. Diamant (+1 202.887.3604, mdiamant@gibsondunn.com)
Gustav W. Eyler (+1 202.955.8610, geyler@gibsondunn.com)
Melissa Farrar (+1 202.887.3579, mfarrar@gibsondunn.com)
Amy Feagles (+1 202.887.3699, afeagles@gibsondunn.com)
Scott D. Hammond (+1 202.887.3684, shammond@gibsondunn.com)
George J. Hazel (+1 202.887.3674, ghazel@gibsondunn.com)
Jake M. Shields (+1 202.955.8201, jmshields@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick F. Stokes (+1 202.955.8504, pstokes@gibsondunn.com)
Oleh Vretsona (+1 202.887.3779, ovretsona@gibsondunn.com)
David C. Ware (+1 202.887.3652, dware@gibsondunn.com)
Ella Alves Capone (+1 202.887.3511, ecapone@gibsondunn.com)
Lora Elizabeth MacDonald (+1 202.887.3738, lmacdonald@gibsondunn.com)
Bryan Parr (+1 202.777.9560, bparr@gibsondunn.com)
Pedro G. Soto (+1 202.955.8661, psoto@gibsondunn.com)
New York
Zainab N. Ahmad (+1 212.351.2609, zahmad@gibsondunn.com)
Barry H. Berke (+1 212.351.3860, bberke@gibsondunn.com)
Reed Brodsky (+1 212.351.5334, rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com)
Mylan L. Denerstein (+1 212.351.3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com)
Jordan Estes (+1 212.351.3906, jestes@gibsondunn.com)
Dani R. James (+1 212.351.3880, djames@gibsondunn.com)
Darren LaVerne (+1 212.351.3936, dlaverne@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Martinez (+1 212.351.4076, mmartinez2@gibsondunn.com)
Osman Nawaz (+1 212.351.3940, onawaz@gibsondunn.com)
Karin Portlock (+1 212.351.2666, kportlock@gibsondunn.com)
Mark K. Schonfeld (+1 212.351.2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com)
Orin Snyder (+1 212.351.2400, osnyder@gibsondunn.com)
Sam Raymond (+1 212.351.2499, sraymond@gibsondunn.com)
Dallas
David Woodcock (+1 214.698.3211, dwoodcock@gibsondunn.com)
Denver
Ryan T. Bergsieker (+1 303.298.5774, rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com)
Robert C. Blume (+1 303.298.5758, rblume@gibsondunn.com)
John D.W. Partridge (+1 303.298.5931, jpartridge@gibsondunn.com)
Laura M. Sturges (+1 303.298.5929, lsturges@gibsondunn.com)
Houston
Gregg J. Costa (+1 346.718.6649, gcosta@gibsondunn.com)
Los Angeles
Michael H. Dore (+1 213.229.7652, mdore@gibsondunn.com)
Michael M. Farhang (+1 213.229.7005, mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
Diana M. Feinstein (+1 213.229.7351, dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com)
Douglas Fuchs (+1 213.229.7605, dfuchs@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Poonam G. Kumar (+1 213.229.7554, pkumar@gibsondunn.com)
Marcellus McRae (+1 213.229.7675, mmcrae@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)
Debra Wong Yang (+1 213.229.7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com)
San Francisco
Winston Y. Chan (+1 415.393.8362, wchan@gibsondunn.com)
Jina L. Choi (+1 415.393.8221, jchoi@gibsondunn.com)
Charles J. Stevens (+1 415.393.8391, cstevens@gibsondunn.com)
Palo Alto
Benjamin Wagner (+1 650.849.5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)
London
Patrick Doris (+44 20 7071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Sacha Harber-Kelly (+44 20 7071 4205, sharber-kelly@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle Kirschner (+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Allan Neil (+44 20 7071 4296, aneil@gibsondunn.com)
Philip Rocher (+44 20 7071 4202, procher@gibsondunn.com)
Paris
Benoît Fleury (+33 1 56 43 13 00, bfleury@gibsondunn.com)
Bernard Grinspan (+33 1 56 43 13 00, bgrinspan@gibsondunn.com)
Frankfurt
Finn Zeidler (+49 69 247 411 530, fzeidler@gibsondunn.com)
Munich
Kai Gesing (+49 89 189 33 285, kgesing@gibsondunn.com)
Katharina Humphrey (+49 89 189 33 155, khumphrey@gibsondunn.com)
Benno Schwarz (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Hong Kong
Oliver D. Welch (+852 2214 3716, owelch@gibsondunn.com)
Singapore
Oliver D. Welch (+852 2214 3716, owelch@gibsondunn.com)
Karthik Ashwin Thiagarajan (+65 6507 3636, kthiagarajan@gibsondunn.com)
Ashley Wilson, a recent law graduate in New York, is not admitted to practice law.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Gibson Dunn’s Workplace DEI Task Force aims to help our clients navigate the evolving legal and policy landscape following recent Executive Branch actions and the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Prior issues of our DEI Task Force Update can be found in our DEI Resource Center. Should you have questions about developments in this space or about your own DEI programs, please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of our DEI Task Force or the authors of this Update (listed below).
Key Developments:
As we reported in our January 22 Client Alert, on January 21, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14173, which, among other things, directed the Attorney General, “in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies,” to submit to the White House a report “containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.” The report must contain proposed “strategic enforcement plan[s]” identifying the “most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern.” To facilitate this report, each agency is instructed to identify “up to nine” large companies or non-profits for “potential civil compliance investigations,” as well as “[l]itigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest.” May 21, 2025 marks 120 days since the White House issued EO 14173, and so we expect the Attorney General to submit her report next week. It is unclear whether any aspect of that report will be made public at that time. Stay tuned for further updates from the Gibson Dunn DEI Task Force.
On May 12, it was reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has launched an investigation into Harvard University’s hiring practices under Title VII. According to documents leaked to the Washington Free Beacon, Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas filed a charge against the university on April 25. The charge accuses Harvard of discriminating against “white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants” in hiring, promotion, compensation, and career development programs. The charge also alleges that Harvard violated Title VII in relation to thirteen different fellowships and training programs by prioritizing applicants of color. The charge states that it is “based on publicly available information regarding Harvard, including, but not limited to, documents and information published on Harvard and its affiliates’ public webpages (including archived pages); public statements by Harvard and its leadership; and news reporting.”
On May 12, civil rights membership organization Americans for Equal Opportunity (“AEO”) sent a letter to the EEOC alleging discrimination by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (“SEO”) and 44 law firms. AEO sent the letter on behalf of three AEO members who applied to SEO’s Law Fellowship program, which places incoming law students into paid summer internships at participating law firms. Although eligibility for the SEO Fellowship is not limited by demographic criteria, the letter alleges that the AEO members were rejected from the Fellowship program because they do not come from SEO’s “preferred racial or ethnic backgrounds.” The letter also asserts that the 44 named firms “participate in the SEO Fellowship to satisfy their target quotas of Black, Hispanic, and Native American candidates in proportions that the Sponsor Firms apparently cannot achieve through traditional, merit-based hiring practices.” AEO thus “requests that the EEOC initiate an investigation regarding the recruiting and hiring practices of SEO and its Sponsor Firms.”
On May 8, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan heard arguments on Susman Godfrey LLP’s motion for summary judgment, and the federal government’s motion to dismiss, in a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s April 9th Executive Order titled “Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey.” The EO asserts that Susman Godfrey engages in hiring discrimination and that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” The EO directs agencies to suspend active security clearances held by Susman Godfrey attorneys and limit their access to federal buildings. During oral argument, Judge AliKhan asserted that the government lacked evidence that Susman Godfrey engaged in race or gender discrimination, pointing to language on the firm’s website stating that it does not discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or any other statutorily protected characteristics. Judge AliKhan indicated that she intends to rule on the pending motions soon.
On May 8, U.S. District Judge William G. Young asked the U.S. Department of Justice to provide him the Trump Administration’s definition of the term “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Judge Young presides over a lawsuit brought by a coalition of 16 states against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and certain agencies, which challenges the Administration’s directive requiring that research grant applications and other funding undergo review to determine whether they align with the Administration’s policy goals, including DEI goals. In a hearing regarding whether the states have jurisdiction to sue, Judge Young indicated that it was not clear to him how the Administration defines the term “DEI,” stating “This is healthcare . . . This is research to advance healthcare for all our citizens, so I don’t know what [DEI] means in this circumstance.”
On May 7, President Trump nominated Brittany Bull Panuccio to be a Commissioner on the EEOC. Panuccio, a current Assistant U.S. Attorney in West Palm Beach, Florida, would serve alongside current Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal and Commissioner and Acting Chair Andrea Lucas. Panuccio’s appointment would restore the EEOC’s three-member quorum, allowing the Commission to once again vote on policy and regulatory matters, issue guidance, and authorize certain lawsuits. The Commission has not had a quorum since January 2025.
On May 6, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission Andrew Ferguson stated that the agency will investigate whether companies are colluding on DEI metrics, which he asserted could be a “potential antitrust problem.” Ferguson made the statement while appearing on Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast, “Triggered.” He characterized DEI metrics as “[o]ne of the forms of collusion that affects American workers” about which he is most concerned. He noted, “That’s a potential antitrust problem that the Commission is going to look at very strongly and take very seriously.” Ferguson also stated on May 6 that the FTC would examine corporate ESG initiatives, stating “We’re looking at this right now. It’s really important to us.”
Media Coverage and Commentary:
Below is a selection of recent media coverage and commentary on these issues:
- Law360, “Potential For DEI-Related Suits Vexes Employers, Report Says” (May 7): Patrick Hoff of Law360 reports on a recent survey indicating that, while employers are increasingly concerned about DEI-related litigation risks, few are significantly changing their programs. The survey, which captured the views of nearly 350 C-suite executives from a range of industries, found that 45% of employers are concerned about DEI-related litigation over the next year—up from about 20% in the previous two years—and that over 80% anticipate that the Trump administration’s anti-DEI stance will impact their businesses in the first year of the administration. At the same time, 45% of employers polled said that they are not planning to roll back DEI programs in response to the administration’s Executive Orders and policies, and only 7% state that they plan a full overhaul of DEI policies.
- Washington Post, “‘DEI’ Vanishing from Corporate Filings, Mirroring Business World’s Retreat” (April 30): Eric Lau and Taylor Telford of The Washington Post report that mentions of DEI in companies’ SEC filings have fallen as firms respond to mounting scrutiny and legal threats from conservative activists. In 2024, the average S&P 500 company referenced DEI just four times in their Form 10-K filings, the fewest average mentions of DEI since 2020, and down from a peak of 12.5 in 2022. Lau and Telford quote Andrew Jones, a principal researcher at The Conference Board, as saying that “[t]he number one way that companies have responded to DEI scrutiny and backlash is adjusting language.” Jones noted that while approaches vary, many firms are “being more quiet and discreet, and dropping politically charged terminology.” For example, “inclusion” and “belonging” are now favored over “DEI,” “diversity,” and “equity,” with companies increasingly referencing terms such as “inclusive workplaces” and “diverse perspectives.”
- Reuters, “Trump’s First 100 Days Target Diversity Policies, Civil Rights Protections” (April 30): Bianca Flowers and Disha Raychaudhuri of Reuters report on President Trump’s DEI-related initiatives during his first 100 days in office. The authors highlight, among other things, the Trump administration’s revocation of a longstanding executive order mandating equal employment opportunity, its cancellation of government contracts tied to DEI, and its revocation of federal funding for various projects meant to help women and minorities.
- CNBC, “Corporate Sponsors are Backing Away from LGBTQ+ Pride Organizations” (April 27): Russell Leung of CNBC reports that U.S. corporations are backing away from sponsoring LGBTQ+ pride organizations and events, due to economic uncertainty, political pressure, and changing corporate priorities around DEI. According to Leung, both Seattle Pride and NYC Pride face $350,000 funding deficits, with San Francisco Pride and Minnesota’s Twin Cities Pride reporting $200,000 shortfalls. Other cities’ pride events face similarly tight budgets. Leung also reports that some LGBTQ+ groups are reevaluating their sponsorship relationships in light of their sponsors’ DEI policies. For example, Twin Cities Pride declined a $50,000 sponsorship offer from Target, citing Target’s recent changes to its supplier diversity commitments. Similarly, Cincinnati Pride rejected funding from previous partners after reviewing their nondiscrimination policies.
- Simple Flying, “FAA To Update Airport Grant Requirements: Removing Environmental Protection & DEI Requirements” (April 25): Rytis Beresnevičius, writing for Simply Flying, reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has issued notice that it may update its Airport Improvement Program (“AIP”) grant requirements to incorporate recent legislative provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 and certain DEI-related Executive Orders. Should the notice become final, airports “must agree to comply with certain assurances” to receive AIP grant funding for planning, development, and noise mitigation. Those assurances include rolling back DEI policies in line with recent Executive Orders and ceasing compliance with now-rescinded Executive Orders, such as those imposing affirmative action obligations on government contractors.
- Wall Street Journal, “Paramount in Talks with FCC Over Diversity Policy Concessions for Merger” (April 24): Jessica Toonkel, Josh Dawsey, and Drew FitzGerald of the Wall Street Journal report that the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) may require changes to Paramount Global’s DEI policies as a precondition for approving Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media. The authors report that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has “has urged telecom and media companies to limit their diversity, equity and inclusion policies as a precondition for the agency to consider mergers and acquisitions.”
Case Updates:
Below is a list of updates in new and pending cases:
1. Contracting claims under Section 1981, the U.S. Constitution, and other statutes:
- American Alliance for Equal Rights v. American Airlines, No. 25-125 (N.D. Tex. 2025): On February 11, 2025, the American Alliance for Equal Rights (“AAER”) sued American Airlines and Supplier.io, alleging that American Airlines’s suppler diversity program violates Section 1981. AAER alleges that eligibility for the supplier diversity program unlawfully depends on race, requiring that businesses “be at least 51% owned, operated and controlled by” minorities, women, veterans, service-disabled veterans, disabled individuals, or members of the LGBTQ community. AAER claims that it has members who are ready and able to apply to the program, but do not meet the diversity eligibility requirements.
- Latest update: On May 16, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal after having reached the following agreement: (1) for the later of five years or so long as prohibited by applicable law, American Airlines agrees it not require businesses to be owned or operated by individuals of any particular race or ethnicity in connection with its supplier program or when awarding supplier contracts; (2) for four years after the entry of the stipulation, American Airlines agrees that it will add the following disclaimer to any supplier relationship website it maintains: “Consistent with federal law, American Airlines does not consider race or ethnicity in the award of contracts or in the selection of vendors or suppliers”; (3) Supplier.io agrees it will not require businesses to be owned or operated by individuals of any particular race or ethnicity to register or do business with Supplier.io unless otherwise required by applicable law; and (4) Supplier.io agrees it will add to its website a statement that makes it clear that its portal and platform are open to all registrants, regardless of size or demographic information and must remove statements that only “diverse” suppliers may register for its services.
- American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 24-cv-01209 (N.D. Tex. 2024): On May 20, 2024, AAER filed a complaint against Southwest Airlines, alleging that the company’s ¡Lánzate! Travel Award Program, which awards free flights to students who “identify direct or parental ties to a specific country” of Hispanic origin, unlawfully discriminates based on race. AAER seeks a declaratory judgment that the program violates Section 1981 and Title VI, a temporary restraining order barring Southwest from closing the next application period (set to open in March 2025), and a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the program’s ethnic eligibility criteria. On March 3, 2025, AAER moved for summary judgment. On April 9, Southwest, which no longer operates the challenged program, filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment of $0.01 in nominal damages for AAER.
- Latest update: On May 14, 2025, the court issued an order stating its intent to enter final judgment for AAER because Southwest has “unconditionally surrendered to the entry of judgment for complete relief” in AAER’s favor. The court stated it would not reach a decision on the merits of the case, as doing so would require the parties to continue to litigate, “potentially at great cost,” when Southwest has already agreed to judgment in AAER’s favor. The parties have 14 days to file an opposition.
- Chicago Women in Trades v. President Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:25-cv-02005 (N.D. Ill. 2025): On February 26, 2025, Chicago Women in Trades (“CWIT”), a non-profit organization, sued President Trump, challenging EOs 14151 and 14173. CWIT claims that these EOs violate principles of separation of powers, the First and Fifth Amendments, and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. On April 14, 2025, the court preliminary enjoined enforcement of key provisions of the EOs, including a provision terminating CWIT’s Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act grant, which served as one of five federal sources of funding for the organization. On April 18, 2025, CWIT moved to modify the preliminary injunction to prevent termination of its four other sources of federal funding: (1) a Tradeswomen Building Infrastructure Initiative grant; (2) an Apprenticeship Building America grant; (3) a HUB Apprenticeship USA grant; and (4) an Intermediary Industry Contract. In its motion, CWIT asserted that the court erred by “declining to preliminarily enjoin termination of those grants” because “the [c]ourt’s logic enjoining termination of the [Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act] grant should also preclude termination of CWIT’s other grants.”
- Latest update: On May 7, 2025, the court denied the motion to modify the preliminary injunction, finding “CWIT has not shown a manifest error of law warranting modification of the preliminary injunction to encompass any of CWIT’s other sources of federal funding.” In its opinion, the court noted differences in how Congress funded the four other grants at issue and highlighted the different language used in the legislation creating these funding sources, which do not mandate the funding be used for gender equity-related purposes like the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act grant.
- Do No Harm v. Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons, No. 1:24-cv-03457 (D.D.C. 2024): On December 11, 2024, Do No Harm filed a complaint against the Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons, the U.S. Navy, and the Department of Defense challenging a jointly run scholarship program that allegedly provides funding to female students and students of racial backgrounds that are “underrepresented in orthopaedics.” According to Do No Harm, the program excludes white, male applicants and therefore violates Section 1981 and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. On March 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case and to permit the parties to file a joint status report by April 18, 2025. The parties reported that “they are discussing ways to resolve [the] case without further burdening the [c]ourt.” The parties stated that during the requested stay they “will meet and confer in good faith to explore possible amicable resolution of [the] case.” On March 26, 2025, in a minute order reflected on the case docket, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ joint motion to stay the case. The court granted the motion to stay “to the extent that it seeks to vacate all pending deadlines in [the] case” and denied the motion “in all other respects.” The court ordered that the parties shall appear before the court for a status conference on April 18, 2025.
- Latest update: On April 30, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal. The Society of Military Orthopaedic Surgeons agreed to cancel the program, beginning with the fiscal year 2025 cohort, and removed reference to the program online. The Society also agreed that if the program were later reinstated, it would be equally open to all students. On May 1, 2025, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Landscape Consultants of Texas, Inc. et al. v. City of Houston, Texas et al., No. 4:23-cv-03516 (S.D. Tex. 2023): White-owned landscaping companies challenged the City of Houston’s government contracting set-aside program for “minority business enterprises” under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1981. On November 29, 2024, plaintiffs and defendant Midtown Management District filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Midtown Management argued that the plaintiffs failed to show the unconstitutionality of the programs. The City of Houston filed its own motion for summary judgment on November 30, 2024, contending that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the programs satisfy the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. On February 11, 2025, the court denied all motions for summary judgment in a single page order. On March 11, 2025, the court entered an order delaying setting a briefing schedule until after Houston votes on a new ordinance related to the program. On March 31, 2025, Houston notified the court that the City Council tabled consideration of the ordinance, which would adopt a relevant disparity study, for up to 30 days. On April 9, 2025, the plaintiffs responded that they are “prepared to move forward with trial” and that the delay deprived them of “their day in court.” The plaintiffs also contended that, even if Houston adopted the new ordinance, their constitutional and statutory claims would be unaffected.
- Latest update: On May 5, 2025, Houston submitted a notice to the court stating that the City Council discussed the ordinance at its April 30, 2025, meeting and unanimously voted to refer the ordinance back to the administration to permit business owners and stakeholders to comment. On May 8, Houston submitted a “final notice” to the court, stating that the City Council voted to, among other things, “amend[] various provisions of Chapter 15 of the Code of Ordinances, Houston Texas, relating to Minority, Women, and Small Business participation in City contracting; add[] Article XII establishing a Veteran-Owned Business Enterprise Program; [and] adopt[] City-Wide Goals for the City’s Minority, Women, and Small Business Enterprise Program.”
- Landscape Consultants of Texas, Inc. v. Harris County, Texas et al., No. 4:25-cv-00479 (S.D. Tex.): On February 5, 2025, Landscape Consultants of Texas, Inc. sued Harris County, Texas and the Harris County Commissioners Court (“HCCC”), challenging Harris County’s Minority and Woman-Owned Business Enterprise (“MWBE”) Program. The plaintiff, a non-MWBE landscaping company, claims it “has been at a significant disadvantage when bidding on landscaping contracts” with the County, because a Harris County ordinance requires that the government grant a certain percentage of contracts to MWBEs. The plaintiff alleges that the MWBE Program is racially discriminatory in violation of Section 1981 and the Fourteenth Amendment because it treats companies bidding for public contracts differently based on the race of the company’s owners. On April 14, 2025, the HCCC moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against it, contending that the court “lacks a separate legal existence” from Harris County and cannot “sue or be sued.”
- Latest update: On May 5, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against the HCCC without prejudice.
- National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00333-ABA (D. Md. 2025): On February 3, 2025, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland brought suit against the Trump Administration challenging EOs 14151 and 14173. The plaintiffs contend that the executive orders exceed presidential authority, violate the separation of powers and the First Amendment, and are unconstitutionally vague. On February 13, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the Administration from enforcing the executive orders. On February 21, the Court granted in part the preliminary injunction. On March 14, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction. On March 21, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court to vacate the injunction without prejudice, asserting that they “intend to seek additional relief based on developments that have occurred since the motion for preliminary injunction was filed on February 13, 2025.” The defendants opposed the motion on the ground that the district court lost jurisdiction when the defendants appealed the preliminary injunction order to the Fourth Circuit. The district court heard argument on the motion on April 10. On May 1, 2025, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. Judge Abelson determined he had jurisdiction to rule on the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which permits a party to move to amend a judgment. He then found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that vacatur is appropriate. Specifically, he found that the plaintiffs failed to either demonstrate an intervening change in law, or to invoke an “error of law” or “manifest injustice.” Judge Abelson concluded that the “appropriate course” was to deny the motion and “allow the parties to brief the issues” on appeal.
- Latest update: On May 9, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit, asking the appellate court to either affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction order or, in the alternative, to vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings. The plaintiffs contended that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, because it correctly determined that the EOs at issue violated the First and Fifth Amendments as they were impermissibly vague and would chill speech. The plaintiffs also argued that the district court correctly determined that they have standing to challenge the EOs. The plaintiffs argued in the alternative that the appellate court should vacate the preliminary injunction and remand the matter for further proceedings, at which time they would file an amended complaint with additional information that could potentially aid the court in its decision.
2. Employment discrimination and related claims:
- Gerber v. Ohio Northern University, et al., No. 2023-cv-1107 (Ohio. Ct. Common Pleas Hardin Cnty. 2023): On June 30, 2023, a law professor sued his former employer, Ohio Northern University, for terminating his employment after an internal investigation determined that he bullied and harassed other faculty members. On January 23, 2024, the plaintiff, now represented by America First Legal, filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff claims that his firing was in retaliation for his vocal and public opposition to the university’s stated DEI principles and race-conscious hiring, which he believed were illegal. The plaintiff alleged that the investigation and his termination breached his employment contract, violated Ohio civil rights statutes, and constituted various torts, including defamation, false light, conversion, infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On March 21, 2025, the parties entered a notice of agreed settlement. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to reinstate the plaintiff to his professorship, whereby he will immediately tender a notice of retirement. The Ohio Northern University acknowledged that the plaintiff “provided outstanding teaching, scholarship, and service.” In exchange for these concessions, amongst others, the plaintiff agreed to release all claims against all defendants and will not pursue litigation in the future.
- Latest update: On May 5, 2025, the defendants moved to enforce the settlement order and settlement terms. Because the motion contained “confidential health information,” it was filed under seal. Information about the substance of the settlement agreement is not publicly available. In a combined filing, also under seal, on May 9, 2025, the plaintiff filed his response to the defendants’ motion to enforce settlement and his own motion to enforce settlement on May 9, 2025.
- Dill v. International Business Machines, Corp., No. 1:24-cv-00852 (W.D. Mich. 2024): On August 20, 2024, America First Legal filed a discrimination suit against IBM on behalf of a former IBM employee, alleging violations of Title VII and Section 1981. The plaintiff claims that IBM placed him on a performance improvement plan as a “pretext to force him out of [IBM] due to [its] stated quotas related to sex and race.” The complaint cites to a leaked video in which IBM’s Chief Executive Officer and Board Chairman, Arvind Krishna, allegedly states that all executives must increase representation of underrepresented minorities on their teams by 1% each year to receive a “plus” on their bonuses. On March 26, 2025, the court denied a motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a discrimination claim. On April 9, 2025, IBM answered the complaint, denying that the plaintiff consistently received high scores on the internal employee performance metric. IBM also denied having “executive compensation metrics that include a diversity modifier.” IBM raised 17 affirmative defenses, including (1) failure to state a claim, (2) failure to show the irreparable harm required for injunctive relief, (3) failure to show the plaintiff was treated less well or materially different from other similarly situated employees, and (4) failure to mitigate damages.
- Latest update: On April 30, 2025, IBM filed an amended answer to the complaint, denying the allegations of discrimination and raising 17 affirmative defenses including estoppel, unclean hands, waiver, and failure to mitigate damages.
3. Actions against Educational Institutions:
- Do No Harm et al v. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA et al, No. 2:25-cv-04131 (C.D. Cal. May 08, 2025): On May 8, 2025, Do No Harm, Students for Fair Admissions, and a named individual plaintiff brought a class action lawsuit against the Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and various school officials, claiming the medical school unlawfully considers race and ethnicity in its admissions process in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Title IV, Section 1981, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, an order that the school admit the named plaintiff, disgorgement of federal funds received by the school while allegedly out of compliance with federal antidiscrimination law, and compensatory, punitive, statutory, and nominal damages. The plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: “All individuals who applied to Geffen within the statute of limitations, do not identify as black, paid an application-related fee, and were denied admissions.” They also seek to certify a subclass, defined as “All individuals who are able and ready to apply or reapply to Geffen if the Court order relief that fully stops the school from considering race in admissions and undoes the effect of the school’s prior discrimination, including by enjoining the school’s limitations on transfers and multiple applications.”
- Sullivan v. Howard University, No. 1:24-cv-01924 (D.D.C. 2024): On July 1, 2024, a male administrator at Howard University who was transferred to another department filed suit against the university, bringing claims of sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Section 1981, and sex discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA). On September 16, 2024, Howard University filed a partial motion to dismiss, arguing for the dismissal of both claims brought under Section 1981 because it does not protect against sex-based discrimination, and the hostile work environment claim because the alleged conduct was not severe, pervasive, or even linked to the plaintiff’s sex. The motion did not address the sex discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the DCHRA. On April 18, 2025, the court granted the university’s motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claims, but denied the motion as to the hostile work environment claim.
- Latest update: On May 2, 2025, Howard University filed an answer denying the remaining allegations in the complaint.
4. Board of Director or Stockholder Actions:
- Ardalan v. Wells Fargo, 3:22-cv-03811 (N.D. Cal. 2022): On June 28, 2022, a putative class of Wells Fargo stockholders brought a class action against the bank related to an internal policy requiring that half of the candidates interviewed for positions that paid more than $100,000 per year be from an underrepresented group. The plaintiffs alleged that the bank conducted sham job interviews to create the appearance of compliance with this policy and that this was part of a fraudulent scheme to suggest to shareholders and the market that Wells Fargo was dedicated to DEI principles. On June 4, 2024, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all people and entities who had purchased Wells Fargo stock during the period when the bank allegedly engaged in sham job interviews. The plaintiffs also sought to remove the stay on discovery in order to prove that there are issues of law and fact common to the putative class. On June 25, 2024, the defendants opposed class certification, arguing that plaintiffs had not proved that they affirmatively met the requirements due to the stay. On July 7, the court granted the parties’ motion to continue certain deadlines and set a telephonic case management conference for August 1, 2024.On August 23, 2024, Wells Fargo answered the amended complaint, admitting that the bank had “Diverse Slate Guidelines” to promote diversity but denying the allegations of unlawful conduct. On January 17, 2025, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of Wells Fargo shareholders. On February 14, 2025, the defendants filed an opposition, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a methodology for measuring damages on a classwide basis and that the plaintiffs’ claims are subject to unique arguments and defenses.
- Latest update: On April 25, 2025, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court concluded that class claims and defenses would predominate over individual claims and defenses and that Wells Fargo’s damages arguments did not prevent class certification. The court ordered the parties to provide a joint status report regarding the outcome of mediation by June 10, 2025.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Labor and Employment practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:
Jason C. Schwartz – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com)
Katherine V.A. Smith – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com)
Mylan L. Denerstein – Partner & Co-Chair, Public Policy Group
New York (+1 212-351-3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com)
Zakiyyah T. Salim-Williams – Partner & Chief Diversity Officer
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8503, zswilliams@gibsondunn.com)
Molly T. Senger – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8571, msenger@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Gibson Dunn is monitoring regulatory developments and executive orders closely. Our attorneys are available to assist clients as they navigate the challenges and opportunities posed by the current, evolving legal landscape.
On May 9, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at combatting “overcriminalization in federal regulations.” Reviving an Executive Order that was issued in the last days of the first Trump administration and quickly revoked by President Biden, the new Executive Order seeks to prevent “abuse and weaponization” of criminal regulatory offenses against “unwitting individuals” who lack the “privileges [of] large corporations, which can afford to hire expensive legal teams to navigate complex regulatory schemes and fence out new market entrants.” To advance that goal, the Executive Order is meant to “ease the regulatory burden on everyday Americans and ensure no American is transformed into a criminal for violating a regulation they have no reason to know exists.”
This new Executive Order is likely to lead to fewer U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal investigations and enforcement actions related to whether an individual or corporation acted in violation of a regulation, especially for individuals accused of strict-liability offenses. But the Executive Order, in combination with the reorganization of certain DOJ components, also may result in more aggressive investigations and severe punishments in those criminal regulatory actions that do proceed. As discussed in this alert, companies should closely follow the agency announcements directed by the Executive Order to assess criminal regulatory enforcement risks; engage with agencies to advocate for clearer and reduced enforcement approaches; and address allegations that could give rise to continuing risk under the Executive Order. Further analysis of the broader enforcement landscape, including consideration of DOJ’s recently announced enforcement priorities, can be found in Gibson Dunn’s forthcoming alert.
Policy: The Executive Order states that “it is the policy of the United States” that “[c]riminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored,” except as to “the enforcement of the immigration laws or regulations” or “laws or regulations related to national security or defense.”
“Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses,” the Executive Order explains, “is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm.” Thus, “[p]rosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.”
The Executive Order “disfavor[s]” criminal enforcement of “strict liability offenses” for violations of regulations—a scenario that “allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it”—and states that “agencies should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement” in such instances, “if appropriate.”
The Executive Order also provides that agencies promulgating regulations “should explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to those offenses.”
Directives: Federal agencies are required under the Executive Order to take the following actions:
- Report on Criminal Regulatory Offenses—Each agency must identify in a public report all criminal regulatory offenses enforceable by the agency or DOJ, with the applicable mens rea standards and potential criminal penalties for each offense. The Executive Order “strongly discourages” criminal enforcement of any offense not identified in these reports.
- Promote Regulatory Transparency—In promulgating new rules, agencies must identify any potential criminal implications for a violation of the rule and “explicitly state a mens rea”
- Establish a Default Mens Rea for Criminal Regulatory Offenses—Each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, must “examine the agency’s statutory authorities and determine whether there is authority to adopt a background mens rea standard for criminal regulatory offenses that applies unless a specific regulation states an alternative mens rea.”
- Publish Guidance on Criminal Referrals—By June 23, 2025, agencies are required to publish guidance outlining the factors considered when referring regulatory violations to the DOJ for criminal enforcement. The Executive Order notes that agencies should consider factors such as the harm caused; the defendant’s gain; and whether the defendant had specialized knowledge, licensure, or general awareness of the unlawfulness of his or her conduct.
Historical Context: As noted, the new Executive Order mirrors President Trump’s January 2021 order titled “Protecting Americans from Overcriminalization through Regulatory Reform” (EO 13980),[1] which was intended to shield Americans from “unwarranted criminal punishment for unintentional violations of regulations.” That prior order required agencies to make explicit the mens rea element of criminal offenses and to focus enforcement on individuals who “know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and choose not to comply.” It also similarly stated that strict liability offenses were “disfavored” and that administrative or civil remedies should be pursued instead, “when appropriate.”
The new Executive Order also reflects ongoing legislative debate. Dating back to 2015, various Republican Senators and Representatives have proposed legislation seeking to establish a default mens rea standard for criminal offenses that lack an expressly required state of mind. Most recently, Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ-5) introduced the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2025, H.R. 59, which, like its predecessors, would “establish [ ] a default mens rea standard . . . for federal criminal offenses—statutory and regulatory—that lack an explicit standard.” The bill is currently pending in the House Judiciary Committee.
Potential Enforcement Implications: It is uncertain what effect the new Executive Order will ultimately have on enforcement actions, especially those involving corporations, but we expect that it may result in fewer but more severe regulatory prosecutions.
The specific terms of the Executive Order afford plenty of leeway for corporate enforcement actions. By its terms, the Executive Order is focused on avoiding the prosecution of “unwitting individuals” for violations of regulations “they have no reason to know exist,” and contrasts such individuals with “large corporations” that “can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by [a] regulation.” The Executive Order is also seemingly aimed at reducing the prosecution of conduct that allegedly violates a regulation interpreting or implementing a statute (where the “executive branch . . . write[s] the law, in addition to executing it”), as opposed to conduct that allegedly violates the express terms of a statute. That may be a meaningful distinction in the enforcement of statutes like the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that specify particularized violations and remedies, including strict-liability misdemeanor offenses, and are applied more frequently to corporations than individuals. Indeed, as described in Gibson Dunn’s forthcoming alert, DOJ’s Criminal Division announced, just days after the issuance of the Executive Order, that it “will prioritize investigating and prosecuting. . . . [v]iolations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,” among other areas.[2] The Executive Order’s explicit carveouts for conduct affecting immigration, national security, and defense also exempt a potentially broad range of corporate conduct from its mandates, especially under the administration’s expansive interpretation of those terms to date. And it may not prove challenging for prosecutors to assert that an investigation involving a possible regulatory offense is seeking to identify potentially knowing or intentional misconduct, or that the conduct under investigation “caus[ed] or risk[ed] substantial public harm.”
At the same time, the Executive Order’s clear policy statement is that “[c]riminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored,” and DOJ leadership will presumably assess proposed investigations and enforcement actions with that policy in mind. Such assessments likely will lead to fewer DOJ actions involving alleged regulatory offenses, against both individuals and corporations. The policy also may be achieved, in part, by DOJ leadership’s significant streamlining of DOJ enforcement components that specialized in the enforcement of crimes related to regulated products or services, as well as the reduction (or elimination) of associated regulatory agencies. As a result, we expect that certain regulatory enforcement actions will be less frequent, especially those of the sort pursued by the Biden administration and relating to alleged violations of technical environmental, tax, and agency-reporting regulations.
Although the Executive Order will likely lead to less criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses, it may also increase the severity of allegations and punishments in those matters that do proceed. For example, DOJ has historically charged defendants with stand-alone, strict-liability misdemeanor offenses only in conjunction with a negotiated plea bargain; the offenses are almost never charged in a case that will be litigated. That has particularly been true of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act misdemeanors charged under the “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine” (also known as the “Park Doctrine”), which allows prosecution of individuals without intent, knowledge, or direct participation in the alleged misconduct if they were “responsible corporate officers” who could have prevented it.[3] Park charges are almost exclusively brought in connection with negotiated resolutions, in which an executive accepts responsibility without admitting knowledge of or participation in misconduct in exchange for not being charged with more serious crimes. The predecessor Executive Order that President Trump issued in his first term (EO 13980) acknowledged this reality and included an exception for strict-liability misdemeanor prosecutions concluded via plea agreement. The new Executive Order includes no such exception. As a result, defendants against whom investigations proceed may now have fewer and more severe settlement options, likely encountering demands to plead guilty to a knowing violation or face trial. Yet either option risks significant costs and ramifications, including with respect to a defendant’s ability to contract with the federal government or receive federal funds.
This potential trend toward fewer but more severe regulatory prosecutions may also be accelerated by President Trump’s restructuring of the prosecutors based in DOJ’s Washington, DC, headquarters to consolidate criminal enforcement work in the Criminal Division. That consolidation may lead to more aggressive actions in those prosecutions that advance.
For instance, DOJ leadership has announced that the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch (CPB) will be divided, with its civil work remaining in the Civil Division and its criminal work (and most of its personnel) moving to a consumer protection unit of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. For more than fifty years, CPB attorneys used both civil and criminal tools to enforce laws administered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Drug Enforcement Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. CPB also oversaw all prosecutions by U.S. Attorney’s Offices under consumer protection laws like the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. CPB’s flexibility in remedies and familiarity with complex statutes allowed it to pursue investigations and reach resolutions involving complicated dynamics, often using civil or misdemeanor remedies to secure relief for consumers—collecting more than $20 billion in penalties and restitution since 2017—while allowing defendants to preserve important business functions. Both by their new placement in the Criminal Division and because of the new Executive Order, prosecutors investigating consumer protection matters may have less flexibility moving forward. In addition, criminal resolutions involving such offenses will now track the Criminal Division’s resolution templates and compliance requirements, which are more robust and have less consideration for the role of regulatory agencies than those used in most matters by CPB.
Industry Opportunities: This shifting enforcement landscape presents both opportunities and obstacles for companies. Companies should consider the following actions in the short and long term:
- Monitor Agency Reports: Companies should pay close attention to all agency reports listing which criminal regulatory offenses are enforced by that agency, along with the offense’s mens rea standard. Considering the president’s directive that criminal enforcement of offenses not listed in these reports is “strongly discouraged,” the reports may be important guides for companies seeking to identify areas of enforcement risk.
- Review and Update Compliance Programs: Given the Executive Order’s implication that “large corporations” with “expensive legal teams to navigate complex regulatory schemes” likely “can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by . . . regulation,” it is important for companies to maintain effective internal audit and compliance programs to help demonstrate that any regulatory noncompliance was not “willingly” pursued.
- Advocate for Civil or Administrative Enforcement: Companies under investigation for regulatory offenses should evaluate the applicability of the Executive Order and, if appropriate, advocate for civil or administrative enforcement instead of criminal action. The Executive Order also provides an opportunity for industry to engage with agencies to advocate for reforms on the use of criminal enforcement in the regulatory context.
- Investigate Allegations of Fraud: Following the Executive Order and the restructuring of DOJ components, it is perhaps more likely that regulatory violations may be pursued under fraud theories and statutes. Companies should diligently investigate and address internal and external allegations of wrongdoing, particularly those that could form the basis of a claim of fraud against the government.
Gibson Dunn is monitoring regulatory developments and executive orders closely. Our attorneys are available to assist clients as they navigate the challenges and opportunities posed by the current, evolving legal landscape.
[1] https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-americans-overcriminalization-regulatory-reform/.
[2] Memorandum from Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice to All Criminal Division Personnel re Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime (May 12, 2025).
[3] 421 U.S. 658, 672 (1975).
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any leader or member of Gibson Dunn’s White Collar Defense and Investigations practice group:
Washington, D.C.
F. Joseph Warin (+1 202.887.3609, fwarin@gibsondunn.com)
Stephanie Brooker (+1 202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Axelrod – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
John W.F. Chesley (+1 202.887.3788, jchesley@gibsondunn.com)
Daniel P. Chung (+1 202.887.3729, dchung@gibsondunn.com)
M. Kendall Day (+1 202.955.8220, kday@gibsondunn.com)
Stuart F. Delery (+1 202.955.8515, sdelery@gibsondunn.com)
Michael S. Diamant (+1 202.887.3604, mdiamant@gibsondunn.com)
Gustav W. Eyler (+1 202.955.8610, geyler@gibsondunn.com)
Melissa Farrar (+1 202.887.3579, mfarrar@gibsondunn.com)
Amy Feagles (+1 202.887.3699, afeagles@gibsondunn.com)
Scott D. Hammond (+1 202.887.3684, shammond@gibsondunn.com)
George J. Hazel (+1 202.887.3674, ghazel@gibsondunn.com)
Jake M. Shields (+1 202.955.8201, jmshields@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick F. Stokes (+1 202.955.8504, pstokes@gibsondunn.com)
Oleh Vretsona (+1 202.887.3779, ovretsona@gibsondunn.com)
David C. Ware (+1 202.887.3652, dware@gibsondunn.com)
Ella Alves Capone (+1 202.887.3511, ecapone@gibsondunn.com)
Lora Elizabeth MacDonald (+1 202.887.3738, lmacdonald@gibsondunn.com)
Bryan Parr (+1 202.777.9560, bparr@gibsondunn.com)
Pedro G. Soto (+1 202.955.8661, psoto@gibsondunn.com)
New York
Zainab N. Ahmad (+1 212.351.2609, zahmad@gibsondunn.com)
Barry H. Berke (+1 212.351.3860, bberke@gibsondunn.com)
Reed Brodsky (+1 212.351.5334, rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com)
Mylan L. Denerstein (+1 212.351.3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com)
Jordan Estes (+1 212.351.3906, jestes@gibsondunn.com)
Dani R. James (+1 212.351.3880, djames@gibsondunn.com)
Darren LaVerne (+1 212.351.3936, dlaverne@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Martinez (+1 212.351.4076, mmartinez2@gibsondunn.com)
Osman Nawaz (+1 212.351.3940, onawaz@gibsondunn.com)
Karin Portlock (+1 212.351.2666, kportlock@gibsondunn.com)
Mark K. Schonfeld (+1 212.351.2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com)
Orin Snyder (+1 212.351.2400, osnyder@gibsondunn.com)
Sam Raymond (+1 212.351.2499, sraymond@gibsondunn.com)
Dallas
David Woodcock (+1 214.698.3211, dwoodcock@gibsondunn.com)
Denver
Ryan T. Bergsieker (+1 303.298.5774, rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com)
Robert C. Blume (+1 303.298.5758, rblume@gibsondunn.com)
John D.W. Partridge (+1 303.298.5931, jpartridge@gibsondunn.com)
Laura M. Sturges (+1 303.298.5929, lsturges@gibsondunn.com)
Houston
Gregg J. Costa (+1 346.718.6649, gcosta@gibsondunn.com)
Los Angeles
Michael H. Dore (+1 213.229.7652, mdore@gibsondunn.com)
Michael M. Farhang (+1 213.229.7005, mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
Diana M. Feinstein (+1 213.229.7351, dfeinstein@gibsondunn.com)
Douglas Fuchs (+1 213.229.7605, dfuchs@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Poonam G. Kumar (+1 213.229.7554, pkumar@gibsondunn.com)
Marcellus McRae (+1 213.229.7675, mmcrae@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)
Debra Wong Yang (+1 213.229.7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com)
San Francisco
Winston Y. Chan (+1 415.393.8362, wchan@gibsondunn.com)
Jina L. Choi (+1 415.393.8221, jchoi@gibsondunn.com)
Charles J. Stevens (+1 415.393.8391, cstevens@gibsondunn.com)
Palo Alto
Benjamin Wagner (+1 650.849.5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)
London
Patrick Doris (+44 20 7071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Sacha Harber-Kelly (+44 20 7071 4205, sharber-kelly@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle Kirschner (+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Allan Neil (+44 20 7071 4296, aneil@gibsondunn.com)
Philip Rocher (+44 20 7071 4202, procher@gibsondunn.com)
Paris
Benoît Fleury (+33 1 56 43 13 00, bfleury@gibsondunn.com)
Bernard Grinspan (+33 1 56 43 13 00, bgrinspan@gibsondunn.com)
Frankfurt
Finn Zeidler (+49 69 247 411 530, fzeidler@gibsondunn.com)
Munich
Kai Gesing (+49 89 189 33 285, kgesing@gibsondunn.com)
Katharina Humphrey (+49 89 189 33 155, khumphrey@gibsondunn.com)
Benno Schwarz (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Hong Kong
Oliver D. Welch (+852 2214 3716, owelch@gibsondunn.com)
Singapore
Oliver D. Welch (+852 2214 3716, owelch@gibsondunn.com)
Karthik Ashwin Thiagarajan (+65 6507 3636, kthiagarajan@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
From the Derivatives Practice Group: This week, two CFTC Commissioners announced their departure.
- Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero Makes Statement on Departure from CFTC. On May 16, Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero announced that she intends to step down from the Commission and retire from federal service. Her final day at the Commission will be May 31. [NEW]
- Commissioner Summer K. Mersinger Makes Statement on Departure from CFTC. On May 14, Commissioner Mersinger announced that she intends to step down from her position as Commissioner at the CFTC at the end of the month, to pursue new opportunities. [NEW]
- CFTC Warns Public of Imposter Scam Targeting Fraud Victims. On May 14, the CFTC warned the public about a growing imposter scam involving individuals falsely claiming to represent the agency. According to the CFTC, scammers are contacting members of the public and claiming to represent the CFTC Office of Inspector General and promise to help financial fraud victims recover lost funds from foreign bank accounts. The CFTC Office of Inspector General stated that it will never contact individuals with offers to recover money lost to investment scams. [NEW]
- Acting Chairman Pham Makes Statement on Court Sanctions Against CFTC. On May 13, CFTC Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham made a statement regarding the Federal District Court report and recommendations for sanctions against the CFTC for misconduct in CFTC v. Traders Global Group Inc, highlighting proactive efforts to overhaul the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement and reform culture and conduct, develop staff, and leverage expertise and reduce siloing. [NEW]
- CFTC Staff on Leave Pending Investigation. On May 5, pursuant to the President’s executive orders on lawful governance and accountability, the CFTC placed certain staff on administrative leave for potential violations of laws, government ethics requirements and professional rules of conduct. The CFTC stated it is committed to holding employees to the highest standards, as expected by American taxpayers. Investigations are currently ongoing into these matters and the CFTC has committed to provide updates as appropriate. [NEW]
- SEC Publishes New Market Data, Analysis, and Visualizations. On April 28, the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis has published new data and analysis on the key market areas of public issuers, exempt offerings, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Asset-Backed Securities, money market funds, and security-based swap dealers in an effort to increase transparency and understanding of our capital markets amongst the public.
New Developments Outside the U.S.
- ESMA Delivers Technical Advice on Market Abuse and SME Growth Markets as Part of the Listing Act. On May 7, ESMA published its advice to the European Commission to support the Listing Act’s goals to simplify listing requirements, enhance access to public capital markets for EU companies, and improve market integrity. In relation to Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the advice covers: protracted processes, identifying key moments for public disclosure; delayed public disclosure, listing situations where delays are not allowed; and Cross-Market Order Book Mechanism, indicating the methodology for the identification of trading venues with significant cross-border activity.
- ESMA Consults on Rules for ESG Rating Providers. On May 2, ESMA published a Consultation Paper on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (“RTS”) under the Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) Rating Regulation. The draft RTS cover the following aspects that apply to ESG rating providers: the information that should be provided in the applications for authorization and recognition; the measures and safeguards that should be put in place to mitigate risks of conflicts of interest within ESG rating providers who carry out activities other than the provision of ESG ratings; the information that they should disclose to the public, rated items and issuers of rated items, as well as users of ESG ratings.
- ESMA Publishes the Annual Transparency Calculations for Non-equity Instruments and Bond Liquidity Data. On April 30, ESMA, the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published the results of the annual transparency calculations for non-equity instruments and new quarterly liquidity assessment of bonds under MiFID II and MiFIR.
- ESMA Report Shows Increased Data Use Across EU and First Effects of Reporting Burden Reduction Efforts. On April 30, ESMA published the fifth edition of its Report on the Quality and Use of Data. The report reveals how the regulatory data collected has been used by authorities in the EU and provides insight into actions taken to ensure data quality. The document presents concrete cases on data use ranging from market monitoring to supervision, enforcement and policy making. The report also highlights ESMA’s Data Platform and ongoing improvements to data quality frameworks as key advancements in tools and technology for data quality.
- ESMA Issues Supervisory Guidelines to Prevent Market Abuse under MiCA. On April 29, ESMA published guidelines on supervisory practices to prevent and detect market abuse under the Market in Crypto Assets Regulation (“MiCA”). Based on ESMA’s experience under MAR, the guidelines intended for National Competent Authorities include general principles for effective supervision and specific practices for detecting and preventing market abuse in crypto assets. They consider the unique features of crypto trading, such as its cross-border nature and the intensive use of social media.
New Industry-Led Developments
- IOSCO Concludes its 50th Annual Meeting. On May 15, IOSCO concluded its 50th Annual Meeting, which was hosted by the Qatar Financial Markets Authority (“QFMA”) in Doha. IOSCO welcomed near 500 participants over the course of three days, followed by the QFMA public conference. The IOSCO Annual Meeting brings all 130 member jurisdictions together to discuss the most relevant issues and risks with regard to global financial markets, and how to assist regulators in implementing standards through capacity building. [NEW]
- ISDA Publishes Paper Exploring Use of Generative AI to Extract and Digitize CSA Clauses. On May 15, ISDA published a whitepaper that shows generative artificial intelligence can be used to accurately and reliably extract, interpret and digitize key legal clauses from ISDA’s credit support annexes, showing how this technology could increase efficiency, cut costs and reduce risks in derivatives processes that have traditionally been highly manual and resource intensive. [NEW]
- ISDA Margin Survey Shows Leading Derivatives Firms Collected $1.5 Trillion of Margin at Year-end 2024. On May 14, ISDA published its latest annual margin survey, which shows that initial margin (“IM”) and variation margin collected by leading derivatives market participants for their non-cleared derivatives exposures increased by 6.4% to $1.5 trillion at the end of 2024. The 32 responding firms included all 20 phase-one entities (the largest derivatives dealers subject to regulatory IM requirements in the first implementation phase), five of the six phase-two firms and seven of the eight phase-three entities. [NEW]
- ISDA Extends Digital Regulatory Reporting to Support Revised Canadian Reporting Rules. On May 13, ISDA extended its Digital Regulatory Reporting solution to cover new reporting rules in Canada and has made it compatible with a trade reporting messaging format used for North America reporting to maximize the benefit of adoption by those firms subject to the rules. The revisions are being implemented by the Canadian Securities Administrators and are scheduled for implementation on July 25, 2025. [NEW]
- ISDA Publishes Governance Committee Proposal for CDS Determinations Committees. On May 8, ISDA published a proposal for a new governance committee for the CDS Determinations Committees (“DCs”), the first in a series of amendments to improve the structure of the DCs and maintain their integrity in changing economic and market conditions. The governance committee would be responsible for taking market feedback and adopting rule changes affecting the structure and operations of the DCs to ensure their long-term viability and meet market expectations for efficiency and transparency in credit event determinations.
- ISDA Presents Proposed Charter for the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee. On May 8, ISDA presented the proposed Charter for the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee and accompanying DC Rule changes to implement. Pursuant to the announcement made in 2024, an ISDA working group formed from ISDA’s Credit Steering Committee has worked on producing the Governance Committee solution. ISDA views the Governance Committee as the first step in implementing the other recommended changes from the Linklaters’ report as part of an independent review on the composition, functioning, governance and membership of the DCs.
- ISDA Responds to FASB Proposal on KPIs for Business Entities. On April 30, ISDA submitted a response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) proposal on financial key performance indicators (“KPIs”) for business entities. In the response, ISDA addressed the implications of KPI standardization, its potential impact on financial reporting and risk management, and the broader cost-benefit considerations for preparers and investors. Based on proprietary analysis, ISDA does not view financial KPI standardization or the proposed disclosures as urgent priorities for the FASB at this time.
- CPMI-IOSCO Assesses that EU has Implemented Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures for Two FMI Types. On April 28, CPMI-IOSCO released a report that assessed the completeness and consistency of the legal, regulatory and oversight framework in place as of October 30, 2019. The report finds that the implementation of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures is complete and consistent for all Principles for payment systems. The legal, regulatory and oversight frameworks in the EU for central securities depositories and securities settlement systems are complete and consistent with the Principles in most aspects. However, the assessment identified some areas for improvement, particularly in aspects where implementation was broadly, partly, or not consistent, including risk and governance principles.
The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this update: Jeffrey Steiner, Adam Lapidus, Marc Aaron Takagaki, Hayden McGovern, Karin Thrasher, and Alice Wang.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Derivatives practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:
Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)
Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Darius Mehraban, New York (212.351.2428, dmehraban@gibsondunn.com)
Jason J. Cabral, New York (212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)
Adam Lapidus, New York (212.351.3869, alapidus@gibsondunn.com )
Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com )
David P. Burns, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Marc Aaron Takagaki, New York (212.351.4028, mtakagaki@gibsondunn.com )
Hayden K. McGovern, Dallas (214.698.3142, hmcgovern@gibsondunn.com)
Karin Thrasher, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3712, kthrasher@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
On May 14, 2025, the Governor of Texas signed SB 29 into law which introduced significant amendments to the Texas Business Organizations Code affecting Texas corporations, limited partnerships and limited liability companies.
Overview
On May 14, 2025, the Governor of Texas signed into law significant amendments to the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC). The new laws introduce consequential changes affecting governance, governing authority liability, shareholder rights, and internal management of corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and other entities organized under the TBOC. We have summarized the most significant changes reflected in the amendments below. These changes became effective on May 14, 2025.
Director, Officer, and Managerial Duties: New Presumptions and Protections
A central feature of the amendments is the codification of the business judgement rule. Specifically, the amendments codify the presumption that directors, officers, and other managerial officials of corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships acted in compliance with their duties. The presumptions apply to entities that are publicly traded or that affirmatively opt in.
For corporations, the actions of directors and officers are presumed to be taken in good faith, on an informed basis, in the best interests of the corporation, and in obedience to the law and the corporation’s governing documents. To prevail in a cause of action claiming a breach of duty, the claimant must rebut one or more of these presumptions and prove (i) the act or omission was a breach of the person’s duties as a director or officer and (ii) the breach involved fraud, intentional misconduct, ultra vires acts, or knowing violations of law. These protections are in addition to any existing statutory or common law defenses.
For limited liability companies and limited partnerships, these amendments also clarify that governing documents may expand, restrict, or eliminate fiduciary duties and related liabilities, including the duties of loyalty, care and good faith.
Limitation on Derivative Actions
Publicly traded corporations or corporations that (i) have 500 or more shareholders and (ii) have made an affirmative election to opt in to the statutory presumptions that directors and officers acted in compliance with their duties, may institute a minimum ownership threshold for shareholders to bring derivative actions. The amendment allows such corporations to set a minimum ownership threshold of up to 3% of the outstanding shares of the corporation to initiate such proceedings.
Attorney Fee Awards
The amendments provide limitations on awards of attorney fees in derivative proceedings through limiting what is considered a substantial benefit to an entity. The amendments provide that substantial benefits to a corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company do not include additional or amended disclosures made to shareholders, limited partners, or members respectively.
Independence of Committees Reviewing Related Party Transactions
Boards of publicly traded corporations[1] may petition the Texas Business Court (or any other district court with proper jurisdiction, if the corporation’s principal place of business is not located in an operating division of the Texas Business Court) to make a determination on the independence of the committee of directors formed to review and approve transactions involving controlling shareholders, directors, or officers. After expedited proceedings to determine appropriate legal counsel to represent the corporation and its shareholders (other than any relevant controlling shareholder), the court will hold an evidentiary hearing and render a binding determination regarding the independence of the directors on the committee. The finding is “dispositive” absent facts not presented to the court.
Jury Trial Waivers and Exclusive Forum Selection
The amendments expressly permit entities to include, in their governing documents, waivers of the right to a jury trial for any internal entity claims. Under Texas law, internal entity claims include claims of any nature such as derivative claims that are based on (i) rights, powers, and duties of its governing authority, governing persons, officers, owners, and members; and (ii) matters relating to its membership or ownership interests. This includes, for example, claims of breach of fiduciary duties by directors of corporations. Such waivers are enforceable even if not individually signed by members, owners, officers or governing persons. A person is considered to have knowingly waived the right to a jury trial if the person voted for or ratified the document containing the waiver or acquired stock in the entity at, or continued to hold stock in a particular entity after, a time in which the waiver was included in the governing documents. Also, in their governing documents, entities may choose an exclusive Texas forum and venue for internal entity claims.
Inspection Rights
The amendments clarify and, in some respects, limit the ability of shareholders, members and partners to inspect records. Notably, emails, text messages, and social media communications are excluded from entity records, unless those records effectuate an action by the corporation, limited liability company or limited partnership. Furthermore, for publicly traded corporations or corporations that affirmatively elect to opt in to the statutory presumptions that directors and officers acted in compliance with their duties, inspection demands by a requesting holder with ongoing or expected litigation involving the corporation or derivative proceedings may be denied. However, these changes do not impair the right to obtain discovery of records from the corporation in an active or pending lawsuit.
Conclusion
Texas is a notable forum for corporate activity and innovation. These amendments provide enhanced protections for directors and officers of Texas entities and should reduce litigation risks, particularly for publicly traded Texas entities. The changes also impose new limitations on shareholders, especially regarding inspection and derivative actions. Additional proposed amendments to the TBOC are currently proceeding through the legislative system. Gibson Dunn will publish a later update summarizing these amendments as they become law.
Texas corporations should update their training for boards of directors and review their organizational documents, internal procedures, and compliance practices to carefully assess the impact of these changes. Gibson Dunn’s Texas lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these developments.
[1] This section of the code also applies to corporations that opt in to the statutory presumptions that directors and officers acted in compliance with their duties.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these developments. To learn more, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm’s Securities Regulation & Corporate Governance practice group, or the authors in Houston:
Gerry Spedale (+1 346.718.6888, gspedale@gibsondunn.com)
Hillary H. Holmes (+1 346.718.6602, hholmes@gibsondunn.com)
Jason Ferrari (+1 346.718.6736, jferrari@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
The Civil Transactions Law codifies the rules governing liquidated damages clauses under Saudi law. This client alert outlines key considerations for contracting parties when adopting such clauses, and how courts may approach them in practice.
How Liquidated Damages Clauses are Recognized in Saudi Arabia
The Saudi legal framework recognizes liquidated damages as pre-agreed estimates of losses incurred by one party due to the other party’s breach of contract, including non-performance or delay in fulfilling contractual obligations.
Historical Context
Even prior to the Civil Transactions Law, Saudi courts recognized liquidated damages clauses based on Sharia principles. Such clauses have been upheld as valid and enforceable, except in cases where:
- the breaching party had a legitimate excuse for non-performance or delay; or
- the agreed amount was deemed excessively high, amounting to financial coercion, in which cases courts have assessed excessiveness based on prevailing customs and practices.[1]
How Liquidated Damages Operate Today
- Validity:Parties can agree on liquidated damages, either in the original contract or a later agreement.[2]
- Simplified Burden of Proof:Liquidated damages clauses render the occurrence of damages presumed. To enforce such a clause, the aggrieved party is not required to prove damage or causation – merely that a breach has occurred.[3]
- Avoiding Liquidated Damages:A party may avoid liability under a liquidated damages clause by proving either:
- that the other party did not suffer any damage;[4] or
- that the damage was not caused by the party’s breach, but rather by the other party’s acts, omissions, or a force majeure event.
- Reducing Liquidated Damages:The breaching party may be successful in reducing the sum of liquidated damages by proving either:
- that the pre-agreed amount is grossly exaggerated, thereby allowing the court to rule in accordance with the general principles of liability under Saudi law;[5] or
- that the breaching party has partially performed their obligations, thereby allowing the court to assess the extent of unperformed obligations and apply the liquidated damages clause accordingly.[6]
- Court Discretion:Courts cannot freely adjust liquidated damages clauses. Their discretion is limited to:
- reducing the amount in cases of gross exaggeration or partial performance. A mere discrepancy between the damages incurred and the agreed sum is insufficient to warrant reduction[7]; or
- increasing the sum if the non-breaching party proves that deceit or gross negligence by the debtor caused the damage to exceed the agreed sum.[8]
- Prohibition on Payment Obligations:In line with Saudi Arabia’s strict prohibition of interest payments[9], it is impermissible as a matter of public policy for liquidated damages to apply to payment obligations.[10]
- How Saudi Arabia Compares to Neighboring Jurisdictions:Saudi Arabia’s approach towards liquidated damages clauses shares similarities with the approaches of UAE and Egypt, but there are some differences. For example:
| Element | Saudi Arabi | UAE | Egypt |
| Default position on prior notice of imposition | No prior notice required.[11] | Prior notice required.[12] | Prior notice required.[13] |
| Court discretion to adjust liquidated damages | Relatively limited.[14] | Relatively broad.[15] | Relatively limited.[16] |
Points to Consider When Drafting a Liquidated Damages Clause
- Be specific. Clearly define what triggers the liquidated damages (delays, quality issues, etc.).
- Consider industry benchmarks. Base estimates on market standards or historical data to avoid claims of exaggeration.
- Expressly address partial performance. Specify how damages will be calculated if some of the triggering obligations are met.
- Follow notice requirements. While Saudi law does not by default require notice to enforce liquidated damages, your specific contract might.
- Understand burden of proof requirements. Know who bears the burden of proof in different scenarios to claim or defend tactically.
- Consider all available remedies and seek them tactically. Parties may be precluded from enforcing liquidated damages clauses in conjunction with other contractual remedies.
[1] Resolution No. 25 dated 31/08/1394H by the Council of Senior Scholars: “The Council unanimously decides that the penalty clause stipulated in contracts is valid and legally binding, and must be upheld unless there is a legitimate excuse for the breach of the obligation that justifies it under Sharia. In such a case, the excuse nullifies the obligation until it ceases. If the penalty clause is, by customary standards, excessive to the extent that it serves as a financial threat and deviates significantly from the principles of Sharia, then fairness and equity must prevail, based on the actual loss of benefit or incurred harm.” Cases in which Saudi courts upheld the Council of Senior Scholar’s Resolution No. 25 include the General Court’s Decision No. 1 of 1439H: “The liquidated damages clause included in contracts is a valid and enforceable condition which must be upheld, unless there is a legitimate excuse for breaching the obligation that is recognized under Shari’a, in which case the excuse suspends the obligation until it ceases. If the amount of liquidated damages is excessive by customary standards, to the point that it constitutes financial coercion and departs from the principles of Shari’a, then recourse must be had to justice and fairness, based on the actual harm incurred or the benefit lost. The determination of such matters in case of dispute is to be made by the competent court with the assistance of experts and professionals.”
[2] Civil Transactions Law, Article 178: “The contracting parties may specify in advance the amount of compensation whether in the contract or in a subsequent agreement, unless the subject of the obligation is a cash amount. The right to compensation shall not require notification.”
[3] For example: Board of Grievance’s decision in Case No. 20 of 1430H (predating the enactment of the Civil Transactions Law): “…and the administrative authority is not required to prove that it has suffered harm, given that [the liquidated damages] constitute an agreed-upon compensation for presumed harm, including harm resulting merely from delay.” Commercial Court in Riyadh’s decision in Case No. 4530906759 of 1445H: “The Law expressly provides that liquidated damages are not due to the creditor if the debtor proves that the creditor has suffered no harm. This is specifically stated in paragraph (1) of Article (179) of the same Law mentioned above,” presuming that liquidated damages are initially owed to the creditor upon breach, and it is the debtor’s burden to rebut this presumption by proving the absence of harm. This position is consistent with the literature of leading scholars in the region. For example, A. Sanhouri, ‘Al Waseet on the Explanation of the Civil Code’, Part Two, p. 817, concerning a similarly formulated legal provision in Egypt’s Civil Code: “[…] the presence of a Liquidated Damages Clause renders the occurrence of damage presumed, and the creditor would not be required to prove it. Therefore, if the debtor alleges that the creditor has not incurred damage, it is he who would bear the burden of proof, and not the creditor.”
[4] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179: “Compensation that is contractually agreed upon by the parties shall not be payable if the debtor proves that the creditor has sustained no harm.”
[5] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(2): “The court may, upon a petition by the debtor, reduce the compensation if the debtor establishes that the agreed-upon compensation was excessive or that the original obligation was partially performed.” A. Almarjah, ‘Explanation of the Saudi Civil Transactions law,’ 1445H, Part One, p. 297: “Judicial intervention is limited to removing exaggeration in the liquidated damages clause, not to assessing its proportionality to the actual harm. Accordingly, if the agreed liquidated damages exceed the actual harm, but the excess is not deemed gross, the judge may not reduce the amount.”
[6] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(2): “The court may, upon a petition by the debtor, reduce the compensation if the debtor establishes that the agreed-upon compensation was excessive or that the original obligation was partially performed.”
[7] A. Sultan, ‘A Brief on the General Theory of Obligation’, 1983, Section 2, p. 78, concerning a similarly formulated legal provision in Egypt’s Civil Code: “…if there is excess in the quantification, but it is not exaggerated, it is impermissible to reduce it, as the fundamental principle is that the Judge orders in accordance with what has been agreed-upon by the parties, and absent one of the conditions of the exception, it is obligatory to resort to the fundamental principle.” A similar opinion has been given by a Saudi scholar; A. Almarjah, ‘Explanation of the Saudi Civil Transactions law,’ 1445H, Part One, p. 297: “Judicial intervention is limited to removing exaggeration in the liquidated damages clause, not to assessing its proportionality to the actual harm. Accordingly, if the agreed liquidated damages exceed the actual harm, but the excess is not deemed gross, the judge may not reduce the amount.”
[8] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(3): “The court may, upon a petition by the creditor, increase the amount of compensation to the extent necessary to cover the harm if the creditor establishes that an act of fraud or gross negligence by the debtor is what caused the harm to exceed the agreed-upon compensation.”
[9] Commercial Court in Jeddah, Case No. 4531041638 of 1445H: “…it is impermissible to agree on compensation where the subject of the obligation is a monetary amount. Given that this Article pertains to public order (public policy), the parties may not contract out of or override its provisions…”
[10] See, Resolution No. (109) (12/3) of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy: “It is permissible to stipulate a penalty clause in all financial contracts, except in contracts where the primary obligation is a debt, as this would constitute explicit riba (usury),” upheld by the Commercial Court in Jeddah in Case No. 433665897 of 1443H.
[11] Civil Transactions Law, Article 178: “The contracting parties may specify in advance the amount of compensation […] The right to compensation shall not require notification.”
[12] UAE’s Civil Transactions Law, Article 387: “Compensation is not due without the debtor being notified, unless otherwise provided by law or agreed upon in the contract.”
[13] Egypt’s Civil Code, Article 218: “Unless otherwise specified, compensation is not due without the debtor being notified.”
[14] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(2): “The court may, upon a petition by the debtor, reduce the compensation if the debtor establishes that the agreed-upon compensation was excessive or that the original obligation was partially performed.” Id, Article 179(3): “The court may, upon a petition by the creditor, increase the amount of compensation to the extent necessary to cover the harm if the creditor establishes that an act of fraud or gross negligence by the debtor is what caused the harm to exceed the agreed-upon compensation.”
[15] There are some inconsistent court decisions noted across and within each of the jurisdictions. UAE’s Civil Transactions Law, Article 390(2): “The judge may, in all cases, at the request of one of the parties, amend such an agreement, in order to make the amount assessed equal to the damage. Any agreement to the contrary is void.”
[16] Egypt’s Civil Code, Article 224: “(1) Damages fixed by agreement are not due, if the debtor establishes that the creditor has not suffered any loss. (2) The judge may reduce the amount of these damages, if the debtor establishes that the amount fixed was grossly exaggerated or that the principal obligation has been partially performed. (3) Any agreement contrary to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs is void.”
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s International Arbitration, Judgment and Arbitral Award Enforcement, or practice groups, or the following authors in Riyadh:
Mahmoud Abdel-Baky (+966 55 056 6323, mabdel-baky@gibsondunn.com)
Rashed Z. Khalifah (+966 55 236 0511, rkhalifah@gibsondunn.com)
*Hamzeh Zu’bi is a trainee associate in Riyadh and not admitted to practice law.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Please join us for a presentation that focuses on the latest developments in two key markets: the UK and the Middle East. As regulatory landscapes and investor expectations evolve, companies seeking to go public in these markets should ensure that they are alive to the opportunities and challenges.
The session provides valuable insights for companies and shareholders preparing for IPOs, highlighting key IPO readiness steps that companies should be considering, and offering a strategic understanding of how to navigate regulatory complexities and market expectations.
MCLE CREDIT INFORMATION:
This program has been approved for credit in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 credit hour may be applied toward the areas of professional practice requirement. This course is approved for transitional/non-transitional credit.
Attorneys seeking New York credit must obtain an Affirmation Form prior to watching the archived version of this webcast. Please contact CLE@gibsondunn.com to request the MCLE form.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 hour in the General Category.
California attorneys may claim “self-study” credit for viewing the archived version of this webcast. No certificate of attendance is required for California “self-study” credit.
PANELISTS:
Jade Chu is a partner in the Dubai office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he is a member of the Mergers & Acquisitions practice group.
He has significant experience advising corporates, government-related entities, sponsors and financial institutions on a wide range of corporate transactions (including cross-border public and private M&A, JVs and equity capital markets) and general corporate advisory matters.
Marwan Elaraby is the partner in charge of the Dubai office where he is a member of the Mergers & Acquisitions and Capital Markets Practice Groups.
Marwan advises clients on M&A and private equity transactions, as well as governments on strategic and regulatory matters. He also advises both issuers and underwriters on equity and debt securities offerings.
Chris Haynes is a corporate partner in the London office of Gibson Dunn.
Chris has extensive experience in equity capital markets transactions and mergers and acquisitions including advising corporates, investment banks and shareholders on initial public offerings (including multi-track processes), rights issues and other equity offerings as well as on public takeovers, private company M&A and joint ventures. He also advises on corporate and securities law and regulation.
Ibrahim Soumrany is a partner in the Dubai and Riyadh offices of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and is a member of the firm’s Capital Markets practice group.
Ibrahim’s capital markets experience includes advising public and private issuers and investment banks on a broad range of capital markets transactions including equity offerings (IPOs and secondary offerings) and debt offerings (conventional and Islamic). Ibrahim has extensive experience advising on transactions across a number of jurisdictions in the Middle East, the US and Europe. Ibrahim also regularly advises on public M&As as well as companies and their boards on listing requirements, securities and corporate governance matters and reporting obligations.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
On May 12, 2025, the United States and China announced that each country would reduce tariff rates on the goods of the other country by 115%, marking a significant breakthrough in the rapidly escalated trade war.
On May 12, 2025, the White House released a Joint Statement with the People’s Republic of China, accompanied by a Fact Sheet, announcing a significant step back from the high tariff rates each country had imposed on the goods of the other since the beginning of April. On the same day, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Modifying Reciprocal Tariff Rates to Reflect Discussions with the People’s Republic of China” (“May 12 Order”), directing relevant U.S. agencies to implement reduced tariffs on goods from China. This alert provides an overview of the impactful commitments made in the Joint Statement by the United States and China, where both governments recognized “the importance of the critical bilateral economic and trade relationship between both countries and the global economy” and committed to take certain actions by May 14, 2025, to substantially reduce the previously imposed tariffs.
The Joint Statement marks a significant breakthrough, signaling that both the United States and China have pulled back from the brink of a more serious trade war and a potential collapse in bilateral economic relations. As noted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the United States does “not want a generalized decoupling from China.” While the Joint Statement involves mutual concessions, it remains expressly a temporary measure rather than a comprehensive or lasting resolution. While much remains to be negotiated, the Joint Statement represents a hopeful step forward.
I. U.S. Reduces Tariffs on Chinese Goods Imposed under IEEPA to 30% for the
Initial Period of 90 Days
The May 12 Fact Sheet notes that the United States and China will each lower tariffs by 115% while retaining an additional 10% tariff. Consistent with this statement, effective May 14, 2025, Chinese goods, including those originating in Hong Kong and Macau, will be subject to a total of 30% tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for an “initial period of 90 days.” These emergency tariffs will be applied in addition to any other applicable tariffs, including tariffs imposed under Section 232, Section 301, or “most favored nation” duties. Specific breakdowns are provided below.
10% So-Called “Reciprocal” Tariffs
Pursuant to Section 2 of the May 12 Order, effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 14, 2025, all articles imported into the United States from China, including Hong Kong and Macau, will be subject to an additional ad valorem tariff of 10% under the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs imposed by Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025. The prior April 2 executive order had imposed broad-reaching so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on all U.S. trading partners except for Mexico and Canada. The original country-specific rate for goods from China announced in that order was 34%. Under the May 12 Order, 24 percentage points are “suspended” for 90 days and replaced by the 10% duty. The May 12 Order removes the retaliatory tariff rates announced in subsequent executive orders of early April, notably the increased tariffs imposed by Executive Order 14259 (increasing the rate to 84%) and Executive Order 14266 (increasing the rate to 125%).
As a consequence of the May 12 Order, if a new deal is not reached during the initial period of 90 days, it appears that the United States may raise the “reciprocal” duty rate on Chinese goods to the originally announced 34%.
20% IEEPA-Fentanyl Tariffs and Other Tariffs that Continue to Apply
The May 12 Fact Sheet clarifies that the United States will retain all duties imposed on China prior to April 2, 2025, including: (i) Most Favored Nation tariffs; (ii) tariffs imposed under Section 301; (iii) industry-sector tariffs imposed under Section 232; and (iv) tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA related to the fentanyl-related national emergency announced and expanded in Executive Order 14195.
By way of background, on February 1, 2025, President Trump issued an executive orderimposing an additional 10% ad valorem rate of duty to all articles that are products of China or of Hong Kong, citing a national emergency with respect to illegal drugs entering the United States and China’s alleged failure to arrest, seize or otherwise intercept chemical precursor suppliers and money launderers connected to the illegal drug trade. President Trump subsequently increased such duties on China to 20%, effective March 4, 2025, citing China’s continued failure to adequately respond to the emergency. Thus, the total IEEPA-related tariffs imposed on goods from China is now 30%.
In addition, the Section 301 tariffs, imposed during the first Trump Administration in response to certain technology transfer practices in China, generally range from 7.5% to 25%, with certain products subject to higher duties up to 100%. Consequently, the effective average rate of duty for goods from China is approximately 40%-55%.
De Minimis Tariffs Adjustments
Section 4 of the May 12 Order decreases the tariff rate applicable to low-value imports from China (i.e., goods previously eligible for duty-free treatment under the de minimis exclusion) from 120% to 54%.
By way of background, the de minimis statutory exemption allows many shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the United States duty-free. Section 2(c)(i) of Executive Order 14256 of April 2, 2025 (Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports) eliminated the de minimis exception for China imports, effective May 2, 2025. Subsequently, Executive Order 14259 and Executive Order 14266 increased the duty rate on such goods.
The May 12 Order decreases the ad valorem rate of duty for low-value shipments from China and Hong Kong from 120% to 54% (this is still higher than the originally proposed low-value shipment rate of 30%). However, the May 12 Order retains the alternative “specific duty” option for low-value shipments delivered to the United States from China or Hong Kong via the international postal network at $100 per postal item, though this rate is no longer subject to the automatic increase originally scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 2025.
While the de minimis exclusion has been removed for goods from China and Hong Kong, it is still presently in place for imports that originate in other jurisdictions. However, President Trump has previously directed the Secretary of Commerce to develop mechanisms to collect IEEPA-based duties on low-value shipments from other jurisdictions.
II. Chinese Actions and Consultation Mechanism
China Lowers Tariffs on U.S. Goods to 10%
Pursuant to the Joint Statement, China issued an Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 7 of 2025 on May 13, 2025, local time, that suspends the prior 34% tariff on goods from the United States originally announced on April 4, 2025, for a matching 90 days, while retaining a parallel 10% tariff during the period of the pause.
China to Remove Non-Tariff Barriers
In the Joint Statement and accompanying Fact Sheet, China committed to “adopt all necessary administrative measures to suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025.”
By way of background, China announced a range of non-tariff retaliatory measures on April 4, 2025, including the following:
- China’s Ministry of Commerce added 11 U.S. companies to its list of so-called “unreliable entities,” which bars them from engaging in all import and export activities in China and making new investments in China.
- Beijing added 16 U.S. entities to its export control list, which prohibits exports of dual-use items to the listed firms. Nearly all of the firms so targeted operate in the defense and aerospace industries.
- The Ministry of Commerce announced the launch of an anti-dumping probe into imports of certain medical computed tomography tubes from the United States and India.
- Beijing launched an anti-monopoly investigation into the PRC subsidiary of a major U.S. chemical company.
- Beijing announced export controls on seven types of rare earth minerals to the United States, which are vital to end uses ranging from electric cars to defense. Notably, the United States imports its rare earth materials predominantly from China, which produces approximately 90% of the world’s supply.
Parties to Establish a Consultation Mechanism
The Joint Statement also promises that the U.S. and China “will establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations,” and that such discussions may be conducted alternately in China and the United States, or a third country upon agreement of the parties.
Conclusion
These developments involving the critical bilateral trading relationship between the United States and China, a relationship valued at an estimated $582 billion worth of annual goods trade, underscores the ongoing fluidity in global trade policy. We will continue to closely monitor developments related to tariffs and the progress of this and other anticipated trade deals. Gibson Dunn lawyers are prepared to help clients navigate this evolving landscape.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. For additional information about how we may assist you, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or the following leaders and members of the firm’s International Trade Advisory & Enforcement practice group:
United States:
Ronald Kirk – Co-Chair, Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Donald Harrison – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8560, dharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Axelrod – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
Amanda H. Neely – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9566, aneely@gibsondunn.com)
Samantha Sewall – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3509, ssewall@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle A. Weinbaum – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8274, mweinbaum@gibsondunn.com)
Roxana Akbari – Orange County (+1 949.451.3850, rakbari@gibsondunn.com)
Karsten Ball – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9341, kball@gibsondunn.com)
Hugh N. Danilack – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9536, hdanilack@gibsondunn.com)
Hui Fang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9577, hfang@gibsondunn.com)
Mason Gauch – Houston (+1 346.718.6723, mgauch@gibsondunn.com)
Chris R. Mullen – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8250, cmullen@gibsondunn.com)
Sarah L. Pongrace – New York (+1 212.351.3972, spongrace@gibsondunn.com)
Anna Searcey – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3655, asearcey@gibsondunn.com)
Audi K. Syarief – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8266, asyarief@gibsondunn.com)
Scott R. Toussaint – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3588, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com)
Lindsay Bernsen Wardlaw – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9475, lwardlaw@gibsondunn.com)
Shuo (Josh) Zhang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8270, szhang@gibsondunn.com)
Asia:
Kelly Austin – Denver/Hong Kong (+1 303.298.5980, kaustin@gibsondunn.com)
David A. Wolber – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3764, dwolber@gibsondunn.com)
Fang Xue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8687, fxue@gibsondunn.com)
Qi Yue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8534, qyue@gibsondunn.com)
Dharak Bhavsar – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3755, dbhavsar@gibsondunn.com)
Arnold Pun – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3838, apun@gibsondunn.com)
Europe:
Attila Borsos – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 10, aborsos@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 207 071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner – London (+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Penny Madden KC – London (+44 20 7071 4226, pmadden@gibsondunn.com)
Irene Polieri – London (+44 20 7071 4199, ipolieri@gibsondunn.com)
Benno Schwarz – Munich (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Nikita Malevanny – Munich (+49 89 189 33 224, nmalevanny@gibsondunn.com)
Melina Kronester – Munich (+49 89 189 33 225, mkronester@gibsondunn.com)
Vanessa Ludwig – Frankfurt (+49 69 247 411 531, vludwig@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Pohl v. Cheatham, No. 23-0045 – Decided May 9, 2025
On May 9, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas’s civil barratry statute doesn’t apply to soliciting legal-services contracts outside Texas.
“We reaffirm our longstanding presumption that a civil statute does not have extraterritorial effect unless the Legislature makes clear that such effect is intended.”
Justice Huddle, writing for the Court
Background:
Two Texas lawyers entered into legal-services contracts with clients in Louisiana and Arkansas to represent those clients in personal-injury cases filed in courts outside Texas. After those cases settled, the clients sued the Texas lawyers under Texas’s civil barratry statute, seeking to void their legal-services contracts. The clients alleged that the lawyers directed and financed out-of-state case runners to solicit clients, and that the lawyers coordinated and funded these efforts from their Texas offices.
The Texas lawyers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Texas’s civil barratry statute doesn’t apply because the alleged solicitation occurred outside Texas. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed. It held that applying Texas’s civil barratry statute wouldn’t be impermissibly extraterritorial because some of the lawyers’ acts, such as financing the out-of-state runners, occurred in Texas.
Issue:
Does Texas’s civil barratry statute apply to acts of solicitation that occurred outside Texas?
Court’s Holding:
No. Nothing in the civil barratry statute’s text overcomes the strong presumption against extraterritoriality. Applying the statute to the clients’ claims in this case would be impermissible because the statute’s focus is on the acts that procured the legal-services contracts—all of which occurred outside Texas.
What It Means:
- The Court reaffirmed the strong presumption against extraterritoriality: “[T]he Legislature generally legislates with Texas concerns in mind, and Texas legislation therefore is meant to apply only within Texas’s borders.” Op. 15. The decision makes clear that defendants can challenge a plaintiff’s statutory claim on the ground that it seeks to give the statute an impermissible extraterritorial effect.
- The Court rejected the position that a civil statute should be applied extraterritorially “merely because some or any conduct related to the violation occurs in Texas,” explaining that “the presumption would be meaningless if any domestic conduct could defeat it.” Op. 21–22. Instead, the Court stressed that courts must “home in on the core conduct the Legislature sought to address—the object of the statute’s solicitude—and determine where that conduct occurred.” Op. 22.
- Relying heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s extraterritoriality precedents, the Court adopted a two-step framework for analyzing the extraterritoriality of Texas statutes. First, Texas courts consider whether the statutory text expresses a clear intent to overcome the “strong presumption against extraterritorial application of a Texas statute.” Op. 17–18. If not, courts must then assess whether applying the statute to the plaintiff’s claim would be an impermissible extraterritorial application. To do so, courts must “identify the ‘focus’ of the Legislature’s concern underlying the provision at issue” and “ask whether the conduct relevant to that focus occurred within or outside Texas.” Op. 21.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Texas Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
| Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Texas General Litigation
| Trey Cox +1 214.698.3256 tcox@gibsondunn.com |
Collin Cox +1 346.718.6604 ccox@gibsondunn.com |
Gregg Costa +1 346.718.6649 gcosta@gibsondunn.com |
| Mike Raiff +1 214.698.3350 mraiff@gibsondunn.com |
Russ Falconer +1 214.698.3170 rfalconer@gibsondunn.com |
This alert was prepared by Texas of counsels Ben Wilson and Kathryn Cherry and Texas associates Elizabeth Kiernan, Stephen Hammer, and Andrew Mitchell.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
A new CFIUS “fast-track” pilot program—designed to streamline the investment process for foreign investors from allied and partner countries—aims to enhance efficiencies in the CFIUS review process while maintaining robust national security protections.
On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in its capacity as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), announced plans to establish a “fast-track” pilot program to expedite its review of investments from allied and partner countries. This program will include a first of its kind “Known Investor” portal, where CFIUS can collect information from foreign investors pre-filing with the aim of accelerating the review process. Treasury will launch this initiative as a pilot program with plans to refine it over time, though further details have not been provided at this time.
This development closely tracks President Trump’s America First Investment Policy (the “Policy”) issued on February 21, 2025, which outlined a dual policy goal: making the United States “the world’s greatest destination for investment dollars,” while also enhancing the “ability to protect the United States from new and evolving threats that can accompany foreign investment.” The Policy announced that the U.S. would create a “fast-track” process to facilitate greater investment from “specified allies and partner sources” based on “objective standards,” though a formal list of qualifying jurisdictions was not released. At the same time, the announcement underscored that CFIUS would maintain rigorous scrutiny on non-passive investments by the People’s Republic of China.
Looking forward, the “Known Investor” program could be particularly valuable for European and Middle Eastern investors, particularly for transactions with minimal national security risks. At this stage, it remains unclear whether the implementation will follow a notice and comment procedure via the Federal Register or whether guidance will be issued directly through the CFIUS website. The exact timeline for implementation also remains unclear.
Our team at Gibson Dunn is closely monitoring this new development and is actively advising clients on preparing for the new program.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. For additional information about how we may assist you, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or the following leaders and members of the firm’s International Trade Advisory & Enforcement or Sanctions & Export Enforcement practice groups:
United States:
Ronald Kirk – Co-Chair, Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Donald Harrison – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8560, dharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Axelrod – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
Amanda H. Neely – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9566, aneely@gibsondunn.com)
Samantha Sewall – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3509, ssewall@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle A. Weinbaum – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8274, mweinbaum@gibsondunn.com)
Roxana Akbari – Orange County (+1 949.451.3850, rakbari@gibsondunn.com)
Karsten Ball – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9341, kball@gibsondunn.com)
Hugh N. Danilack – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9536, hdanilack@gibsondunn.com)
Mason Gauch – Houston (+1 346.718.6723, mgauch@gibsondunn.com)
Chris R. Mullen – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8250, cmullen@gibsondunn.com)
Sarah L. Pongrace – New York (+1 212.351.3972, spongrace@gibsondunn.com)
Anna Searcey – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3655, asearcey@gibsondunn.com)
Audi K. Syarief – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8266, asyarief@gibsondunn.com)
Scott R. Toussaint – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3588, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com)
Lindsay Bernsen Wardlaw – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9475, lwardlaw@gibsondunn.com)
Shuo (Josh) Zhang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8270, szhang@gibsondunn.com)
Asia:
Kelly Austin – Denver/Hong Kong (+1 303.298.5980, kaustin@gibsondunn.com)
David A. Wolber – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3764, dwolber@gibsondunn.com)
Fang Xue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8687, fxue@gibsondunn.com)
Qi Yue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8534, qyue@gibsondunn.com)
Dharak Bhavsar – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3755, dbhavsar@gibsondunn.com)
Arnold Pun – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3838, apun@gibsondunn.com)
Europe:
Attila Borsos – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 10, aborsos@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 207 071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner – London (+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Penny Madden KC – London (+44 20 7071 4226, pmadden@gibsondunn.com)
Irene Polieri – London (+44 20 7071 4199, ipolieri@gibsondunn.com)
Benno Schwarz – Munich (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Nikita Malevanny – Munich (+49 89 189 33 224, nmalevanny@gibsondunn.com)
Melina Kronester – Munich (+49 89 189 33 225, mkronester@gibsondunn.com)
Vanessa Ludwig – Frankfurt (+49 69 247 411 531, vludwig@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Europe
04/28/2025
CJEU | Fact Sheet | Case Law on Personal Data Protection
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has updated its “case law fact sheet” on personal data protection which compiles its key rulings in the field.
For further information: CJEU Website
04/23/2025
European Data Protection Board | 2024 Annual Report
The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has published its annual report for 2024.
The report provides an overview of the EDPB work in 2024 and highlights key achievements such as the adoption of the 2024-2027 strategy and an increase in the consistency opinions under Article 64(2) GDPR (e.g., on “Consent or Pay” models, the use of personal data to train AI models). The report also emphasizes the EDPB’s contribution to cross-regulatory cooperation for new pieces of legislation such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the AI Act.
For further information: EDPB Website
04/14/2025
European Data Protection Board | Guidelines | Personal data and blockchain
The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has published Guidelines 02/2025 on processing of personal data through blockchain technologies, open to public consultation until 9 June 2025.
The guidelines describe the blockchain technologies and provide a framework for organizations considering their use. They outline key GDPR considerations for processing activities (e.g., data retention periods, data subjects’ rights), and clarify the responsibilities of different actors involved in a blockchain related processing.
For more information: EDPB Website
04/11/2025
European Commission | Public Consultation | EU Cybersecurity Act
The European Commission has opened a public consultation on the evaluation and revision of the 2019 EU Cybersecurity Act.
The EU Commission is seeking stakeholders’ feedback on key areas for the contemplated revision, including the mandate of the European Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), the European Cybersecurity Framework, challenges related to ICT supply chain security, and the simplification of cybersecurity measures. The public consultation is open until 20 June 2025.
For more information: European Commission Website
04/10/2025
European Commission | Guidelines | Generative AI in Research
The European Commission has updated its Living Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research.
The guidelines provide recommendations for researchers and organizations to ensure they promote and support responsible use of generative AI in their research activities. They are regularly updated to reflect the technological developments in the field.
For more information: European Commission Website, Guidelines
04/10/2025
European Data Protection Board | Report | Large Language Models
The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has published a report on AI Privacy Risks and Mitigations Large Language Models (“LLMs”).
The report provides a risk management methodology to help developers and users of LLMs identify, assess and mitigate privacy risks in the development and use of LLM systems. As such, it complements the Data Protection Impact Assessment process (Art. 35 GDPR) and supports requirements regarding data protection by design and by default (Art. 25 GDPR) and security of personal data (Art. 32 GDPR).
For more information: EDPB Website
04/02/2025
European Commission | Report | B2B Data Sharing & EU Data Act
The European Commission’s Expert Group has issued its final report on B2B data sharing and cloud computing contracts under the EU Data Act.
The report contains model contractual terms (MCTs) covering different data sharing scenarios (e.g., data holder to user, user to data recipient), as well as standard contractual clauses (SCCs) for cloud computing contracts.
For more information: European Commission Website
03/27/2025
European Commission | DORA Directive | Infringement Procedures
The European Commission has launched infringement procedures against 13 Member States (including France, Spain, and Belgium) for failing to fully transpose the Digital Operational Resilience Act (“DORA”) Directive within the given deadline (17 January 2025).
The Member States have two months to complete their transposition and notify the adopted measures to the Commission.
For more information: European Commission Website
France
04/29/2025
French Supervisory Authority | Annual Report | Enforcement
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has released its 2024 annual report, recording 17,772 complaints, 87 sanctions, and over €55 million in fines.
The CNIL has stepped up enforcement efforts with 331 corrective actions and observed an increase in the use of simplified procedures. It has also strengthened its response to growing cybersecurity threats and expanded its oversight on AI and digital innovation.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/24/2025
French Supervisory Authority | Public Consultation | Multi-terminal Consent
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has launched a public consultation for its draft recommendation on multi-terminal consent across various devices.
The draft recommendation concerns stakeholders which intend to collect multi-terminal consent when users are authenticated on an account. They offer concrete recommendations on how to validly collect multi-terminal consent. The public consultation will end on 5 June 2025.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/23/2025
French Supervisory Authority | Publication | Data Breach
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has published a fictional data breach use case to help professionals better understand and prevent risks related to unauthorized access to data handled by processors.
The use case outlines a typical data breach based on a real-life incident that was reported to the CNIL.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/14/2025
French Supervisory Authority | 2025-2028 European and International Strategy
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has released its European and international strategy for 2025-2028.
The strategy focuses on three priorities: improving European cooperation, promoting high international data protection standards while supporting innovation, and reinforcing CNIL’s global influence.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/09/2025
French Supervisory Authority | Public Consultation | Session Recording and Replay Tools
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has launched a public consultation on browsing session recording and replay tools.
These tools, which capture detailed user interactions, raise significant privacy concerns due to their potential to collect sensitive personal data without users’ awareness. The goal of the consultation is to develop practical recommendations to help tool providers and website editors ensure GDPR compliance and better protect user privacy.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/08/2025
French Supervisory Authority | Guidelines | Mobile Applications
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has published an updated version of its recommendations on mobile applications recommendations.
The CNIL has published an updated version of its recommendations on mobile applications, originally adopted in July 2024 and released in September 2024. The revised version includes corrections and clarifications in response to stakeholder feedback, and an annotated version is available to highlight the updates.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/01/2025
French Supervisory Authority | Guidelines | Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has published a recommendation on the implementation of multi-factor authentication (“MFA”) to help online services implement privacy-compliant cybersecurity solutions.
The guidance aims to support controllers and solution providers in aligning MFA practices with the GDPR—covering legal bases, data minimization, retention periods, and the appropriate use of authentication factors such as biometrics, SMS codes, and employee devices.
For more information: CNIL Website [FR]
04/01/2025
ANSSI | Cybersecurity | Information System Security Accreditation
The French National Cybersecurity Agency (“ANSSI”) has published updated guidance on the security accreditation of information systems.
This publication details the steps and documentation required to accredit an information system, including risk assessment, security objectives, and verification processes. It aims to ensure a structured and high-assurance approach to system security within both public and private organizations. The guidance forms part of ANSSI’s broader efforts to promote cybersecurity resilience and regulatory compliance in France.
For more information: ANSSI Website [FR]
Germany
04/29/2025
Hamburg Supervisory Authority | Data Act | Guidance
The Hamburg Supervisory Authority (“HmbBfDI”) has published guidance on the new European Data Act, which will apply from 12 September 2025.
The HmbBfDI’s guidance provides an overview of the new obligations for companies under the Data Act, in particular in relation to data sharing obligations applicable to manufacturers of connected devices. The guidance also identified the key steps companies should take to prepare for the application of the Data Act (e.g., data mapping, updating contracts, marking trade secrets). Since the Data Act applies without prejudice to the GDPR, the guidance analyses the interactions between obligations related to personal data under the GDPR and those related to personal data under the Data Act. Finally, the HmbBfDI has highlighted the responsibilities of supervisory authorities.
For further information: HmbBfDI Website [DE]
04/24/2025
Hamburg Supervisory Authority | Compliance Review | Third Party Services
The Hamburg Supervisory Authority (“HmbBfDI”) has reviewed 1.000 websites for data protection compliance regarding the use of third-party cookies and services and identified deficiencies in 185 of them.
The HmbBfDI found that although most of the websites reviewed met the data protection requirements, deficiencies were found for approximately 185 websites. Most violations result from the fact that certain tracking technologies are activated immediately when the page is first accessed, with the result that users are tracked before consent is obtained.
For more information: HmbBfDI Website [DE]
04/24/2025
Hamburg Supervisory Authority | Q&A | Tracking
The Hamburg Supervisory Authority (“HmbBfDI”) has published FAQs on tracking via third-party services on websites.
The HmbBfDI emphasises that tracking is only permitted with the explicit consent of the respective data subject. The authority included guidance on the design of consent banners, emphasising the need to implement a “reject all” option on the same level as an “accept all” button. The guidance highlights the importance of complying with the requirements of the ePrivacy Directive (transposed into national law) in relation to tracking, alongside the provisions of the GDPR.
For more information: HmbBfDI Website [DE]
04/10/2025
Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information | Annual Report
The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) has published its annual report.
The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information is responsible for monitoring data protection at federal public bodies and at companies that provide telecommunications and postal services. The report shows that most proceedings are related to information and transparency obligations.
For more information: BfDI Website [DE]
04/09/2025
New German Government | Coalition Agreement | Future of Data Protection
The new German Government consisting of the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany/Christian Social Union of Germany) and SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) have published their coalition agreement.
The new German government intends to liberalize data protection law at both national and EU level and work towards “data utilization”, “data sharing” and a “data economy”. It is planned to bundle the data protection authorities of the individual federal states into a nationwide authority. At EU level, the coalition intends to exclude low-risk data processing activities as well as small and medium-sized enterprises from the scope of the GDPR.
For more information: SPD Website [DE]
02/20/2025
Federal Labour Court | Judgement | Right to Compensation
The Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled in a recently published decision that a delay in providing information under Art. 15 GDPR does not by itself justify a claim for compensation.
According to the BAG, a delayed provision of information under Article 15 GDPR by a former employer does not by itself constitute non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82(1) GDPR. The BAG held that a mere delay, absent specific and substantiated fears of data misuse or an actual loss of control over personal data, does not give rise to a claim for damages. Subjective emotional responses such as worry, annoyance, or nervousness are not sufficient unless they are objectively substantiated by a real risk of data misuse.
For more information: Official Court Website [DE]
Greece
04/08/2025
Greek Supervisory Authority | Guidance | AI and GDPR
The Greek Supervisory Authority (“HDPA”) offers training sessions on AI and GDPR.
The HDPA published educational materials and provides training programs developed by external experts from the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”). It notably offers a Data Protection Officers and Privacy Professionals Program, as well as a program for ICT Professionals. The material covers various topics such as core concepts of AI, Data Protection and Large Language Models, and Transparency.
For more information: HDPA Website [GR]
Netherlands
04/16/2025
Dutch Supervisory Authority | Survey | Algorithmic Data Processing
The Dutch Supervisory Authority (“AP”) has published survey results showing that many companies feel unprepared to manage algorithms processing personal data. Businesses often lack clarity on whether and how such algorithms are used.
The AP plans to provide guidance and practical tools, as well as and collect best practices to improve responsible algorithm procurement and use. More specifically, the AP is currently developing a checklist for businesses to adequately deal with the rights of people who are subject to algorithmic decision-making.
For more information: AP Press release [NL]
United Kingdom
04/29/2025
CPPA & Information Commissioner’s Office | International Cooperation | Privacy Enforcement
The California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) signed a declaration of cooperation to strengthen international collaboration on data protection.
The agreement will enable joint research, best practice sharing, and coordinated enforcement efforts. It marks the CPPA’s third international partnership, following agreements with Korea’s PIPC and France’s CNIL, and reflects its broader commitment to global privacy cooperation.
For more information: CPPA Press release
The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Ahmed Baladi, Vera Lukic, Kai Gesing, Joel Harrison, Thomas Baculard, Billur Cinar, Hermine Hubert, Christoph Jacob, and Yannick Oberacker.
Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have about these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any leader or member of the firm’s Privacy, Cybersecurity & Data Innovation practice group:
Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Data Innovation:
United States:
Abbey A. Barrera – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8262, abarrera@gibsondunn.com)
Ashlie Beringer – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5327, aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
Ryan T. Bergsieker – Denver (+1 303.298.5774, rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com)
Keith Enright – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5386, kenright@gibsondunn.com)
Gustav W. Eyler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8610, geyler@gibsondunn.com)
Cassandra L. Gaedt-Sheckter – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5203, cgaedt-sheckter@gibsondunn.com)
Svetlana S. Gans – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8657, sgans@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren R. Goldman – New York (+1 212.351.2375, lgoldman@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Natalie J. Hausknecht – Denver (+1 303.298.5783, nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com)
Jane C. Horvath – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8505, jhorvath@gibsondunn.com)
Martie Kutscher Clark – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5348, mkutscherclark@gibsondunn.com)
Kristin A. Linsley – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8395, klinsley@gibsondunn.com)
Timothy W. Loose – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7746, tloose@gibsondunn.com)
Vivek Mohan – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5345, vmohan@gibsondunn.com)
Rosemarie T. Ring – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8247, rring@gibsondunn.com)
Ashley Rogers – Dallas (+1 214.698.3316, arogers@gibsondunn.com)
Sophie C. Rohnke – Dallas (+1 214.698.3344, srohnke@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)
Benjamin B. Wagner – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)
Frances A. Waldmann – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7914,fwaldmann@gibsondunn.com)
Debra Wong Yang – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com)
Europe:
Ahmed Baladi – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, abaladi@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 20 7071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Kai Gesing – Munich (+49 89 189 33-180, kgesing@gibsondunn.com)
Joel Harrison – London (+44 20 7071 4289, jharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Lore Leitner – London (+44 20 7071 4987, lleitner@gibsondunn.com)
Vera Lukic – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, vlukic@gibsondunn.com)
Lars Petersen – Frankfurt/Riyadh (+49 69 247 411 525, lpetersen@gibsondunn.com)
Christian Riis-Madsen – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 05, criis@gibsondunn.com)
Robert Spano – London/Paris (+44 20 7071 4000, rspano@gibsondunn.com)
Asia:
Connell O’Neill – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3812, coneill@gibsondunn.com)
Jai S. Pathak – Singapore (+65 6507 3683, jpathak@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
From the Derivatives Practice Group: This week, the CFTC placed certain staff on administrative leave pending ongoing investigations.
New Developments
- CFTC Staff on Leave Pending Investigation. On May 5, pursuant to the President’s executive orders on lawful governance and accountability, the CFTC placed certain staff on administrative leave for potential violations of laws, government ethics requirements and professional rules of conduct. The CFTC stated it is committed to holding employees to the highest standards, as expected by American taxpayers. Investigations are currently ongoing into these matters and the CFTC has committed to provide updates as appropriate. [NEW]
- SEC Publishes New Market Data, Analysis, and Visualizations. On April 28, the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (“DERA”) has published new data and analysis on the key market areas of public issuers, exempt offerings, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (“CMBS”), Asset-Backed Securities (“ABS”), money market funds, and security-based swap dealers (“SBSD”) in an effort to increase transparency and understanding of our capital markets amongst the public.
- Paul S. Atkins Sworn in as SEC Chairman. On April 21, Paul S. Atkins was sworn into office as the 34th Chairman of the SEC. Chairman Atkins was nominated by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, 2025. Prior to returning to the SEC, Chairman Atkins was most recently chief executive of Patomak Global Partners, a company he founded in 2009. Chairman Atkins helped lead efforts to develop best practices for the digital asset sector. He served as an independent director and non-executive chairman of the board of BATS Global Markets, Inc. from 2012 to 2015.
- CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment Regarding Perpetual Contracts in Derivatives Markets. On April 21, the CFTC issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of perpetual contracts in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates (“Perpetual Derivatives”). This request seeks comment on the characteristics of perpetual derivatives, including those characteristics which may differ across products. as well as the implications of their use in trading, clearing and risk management. The request also seeks comment on the risks of perpetual derivatives, including risks related to the areas of market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading.
- CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading. On April 21, the CFTC issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of trading on a 24/7 basis in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates. This request seeks comment on the implications of extending the trading of CFTC-regulated derivatives markets to an effectively 24/7 basis, including the potential effects on trading, clearing and risk management which differ from trading during current market hours. The request also seeks comment on the risks of 24/7 trading, and the associated clearing systems, including risks related to the areas of market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading.
New Developments Outside the U.S.
-
- ESMA Delivers Technical Advice on Market Abuse and SME Growth Markets as Part of the Listing Act. On May 7, ESMA published its advice to the European Commission to support the Listing Act’s goals to simplify listing requirements, enhance access to public capital markets for EU companies, and improve market integrity. In relation to Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the advice covers: protracted processes, identifying key moments for public disclosure; delayed public disclosure, listing situations where delays are not allowed; and Cross-Market Order Book Mechanism, indicating the methodology for the identification of trading venues with significant cross-border activity. [NEW]
- ESMA Consults on Rules for ESG Rating Providers. On May 2, ESMA published a Consultation Paper on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (“RTS”) under the ESG Rating Regulation. The draft RTS cover the following aspects that apply to ESG rating providers: the information that should be provided in the applications for authorization and recognition; the measures and safeguards that should be put in place to mitigate risks of conflicts of interest within ESG rating providers who carry out activities other than the provision of ESG ratings; the information that they should disclose to the public, rated items and issuers of rated items, as well as users of ESG ratings. [NEW]
- ESMA Publishes the Annual Transparency Calculations for Non-equity Instruments and Bond Liquidity Data. On April 30, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published the results of the annual transparency calculations for non-equity instruments and new quarterly liquidity assessment of bonds under MiFID II and MiFIR.
- ESMA Report Shows Increased Data Use Across EU and First Effects of Reporting Burden Reduction Efforts. On April 30, ESMA published the fifth edition of its Report on the Quality and Use of Data. The report reveals how the regulatory data collected has been used by authorities in the EU and provides insight into actions taken to ensure data quality. The document presents concrete cases on data use ranging from market monitoring to supervision, enforcement and policy making. The report also highlights ESMA’s Data Platform and ongoing improvements to data quality frameworks as key advancements in tools and technology for data quality.
- ESMA Issues Supervisory Guidelines to Prevent Market Abuse under MiCA. On April 29, ESMA published guidelines on supervisory practices to prevent and detect market abuse under the Market in Crypto Assets Regulation (“MiCA”). Based on ESMA’s experience under Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the guidelines intended for National Competent Authorities (“NCAs”) include general principles for effective supervision and specific practices for detecting and preventing market abuse in crypto assets. They consider the unique features of crypto trading, such as its cross-border nature and the intensive use of social media.
- ESMA Assesses the Risks Posed by the Use of Leverage in the Fund Sector. On April 24, ESMA published its annual risk assessment of leveraged alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) and its first analysis on risks in UCITS using the absolute Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) approach. Both articles represent ESMA’s work to identify highly leveraged funds in the EU investment sector and assess their potential systemic relevance.
New Industry-Led Developments
- ISDA Presents Proposed Charter for the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee. On May 8, ISDA presented the proposed Charter for the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee and accompanying DC Rule changes to implement. Pursuant to the announcement made in 2024, an ISDA working group formed from ISDA’s Credit Steering Committee has worked on producing the Governance Committee solution. ISDA views the Governance Committee as the first step in implementing the other recommended changes from the Linklaters’ report as part of an independent review on the composition, functioning, governance and membership of the DCs. [NEW]
- ISDA Publishes Governance Committee Proposal for CDS Determinations Committees. On May 8, ISDA published a proposal for a new governance committee for the CDS Determinations Committees (“DCs”), the first in a series of amendments to improve the structure of the DCs and maintain their integrity in changing economic and market conditions. The governance committee would be responsible for taking market feedback and adopting rule changes affecting the structure and operations of the DCs to ensure their long-term viability and meet market expectations for efficiency and transparency in credit event determinations. [NEW]
- ISDA Responds to FASB Proposal on KPIs for Business Entities. On April 30, ISDA submitted a response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) proposal on financial key performance indicators (“KPIs”) for business entities. In the response, ISDA addressed the implications of KPI standardization, its potential impact on financial reporting and risk management, and the broader cost-benefit considerations for preparers and investors. Based on proprietary analysis, ISDA does not view financial KPI standardization or the proposed disclosures as urgent priorities for the FASB at this time.
- CPMI-IOSCO Assesses that EU has Implemented Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures for Two FMI Types. On April 28, CPMI-IOSCO released a report that assessed the completeness and consistency of the legal, regulatory and oversight framework in place as of October 30, 2019. The report finds that the implementation of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures is complete and consistent for all Principles for payment systems. The legal, regulatory and oversight frameworks in the EU for central securities depositories and securities settlement systems are complete and consistent with the Principles in most aspects. However, the assessment identified some areas for improvement, particularly in aspects where implementation was broadly, partly, or not consistent, including risk and governance principles.
- ISDA/IIF Responds to EC’s Consultation on the Market Risk Prudential Framework. On April 22, ISDA and the Institute of International Finance (“IIF”) submitted a joint response to the EC’s consultation on the application of the market risk prudential framework. The associations believe the capital framework should be risk-appropriate and as consistent as possible across jurisdictions to ensure a level playing field without competitive distortions due to divergent rules.
- ISDA and FIA Respond to Consultation on Commodity Derivatives Markets. On April 22, ISDA and FIA submitted a joint response to the EC’s consultation on the functioning of commodity derivatives markets and certain aspects relating to spot energy markets. In addition to questions on position management, reporting and limits and the ancillary activities exemption, the consultation also addressed data and reporting and certain concepts raised in the Draghi report, such as a market correction mechanism to cap pricing of natural gas and an obligation to trade certain commodity derivatives in the EU only.
The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this update: Jeffrey Steiner, Adam Lapidus, Marc Aaron Takagaki, Hayden McGovern, Karin Thrasher, and Alice Wang.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Derivatives practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:
Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)
Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Darius Mehraban, New York (212.351.2428, dmehraban@gibsondunn.com)
Jason J. Cabral, New York (212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)
Adam Lapidus, New York (212.351.3869, alapidus@gibsondunn.com )
Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com )
David P. Burns, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Marc Aaron Takagaki, New York (212.351.4028, mtakagaki@gibsondunn.com )
Hayden K. McGovern, Dallas (214.698.3142, hmcgovern@gibsondunn.com)
Karin Thrasher, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3712, kthrasher@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
We are pleased to provide you with the April edition of Gibson Dunn’s digital assets regular update. This update covers recent legal news regarding all types of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, CBDCs, and NFTs, as well as other blockchain and Web3 technologies. Thank you for your interest.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
UNITED STATES
- Oregon Attorney General Sues Coinbase
On April 18, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a lawsuit in state court against Coinbase alleging that the crypto exchange offers unregistered securities under Oregon law. The lawsuit largely parrots the theories the SEC recently abandoned in dismissing its enforcement action against Coinbase. In a blog post, Coinbase stated that “Oregon’s lawsuit, like the SEC’s, is meritless, and Coinbase will do whatever is required to beat it.” Coinbase Blog; Bloomberg Law; Complaint. - Long Island Man Gets 18-Year Term For $6 Million Crypto-Investor Fraud
On April 23, a federal court in the Southern District of New York sentenced Long Island resident Eugene William Austin, Jr. to 18 years in prison after a jury convicted him of fraud-related offenses, in connection with a scheme to defraud cryptocurrency investors. The court also ordered forfeiture of roughly $6 million and imposed restitution in an amount to be determined. Press Release. - FinCEN Identifies Cambodia-Based Huione Group as Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern; Issues New Rule
On May 1, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a proposed rule that would prohibit U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent or payable-through accounts for or on behalf of Cambodia-based Huione Group because it has laundered illicit proceeds from cybercrimes. FinCEN said that Huione Group has been critical for laundering proceeds of cyber heists by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and for convertible virtual currency scams conducted by transnational criminal organizations in Southeast Asia. FinCEN. - SEC and DOJ File Charges Against Founder of Purported Crypto Investment Platform
On April 22, the SEC and federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia filed parallel cases against Ramil Palafox, founder of PGI Global, a purported Bitcoin investment platform, alleging that he misappropriated over $57 million of investor funds. The SEC’s complaint and the indictment allege that from January 2020 to October 2021, Palafox sold “membership” packages promising high returns from cryptocurrency investments but spent the money on luxury items instead. The complaint and the indictment further allege that Palafox ran a multilevel-marketing scheme, using remaining funds to pay other investors until the company’s collapse. Press Release; Law360. - SEC Dismisses Suit Against Dragonchain
On April 24, the SEC agreed to dismiss its enforcement action against blockchain platform Dragonchain and founder Joseph J. Roets. The SEC filed a joint stipulation in the U.S. District Court of Western District of Washington, citing the January 2025 launch of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force and its efforts to develop a regulatory framework for digital assets. The case was dismissed on April 25. The lawsuit, filed in August 2022, had alleged that Dragonchain sold unregistered securities via its DRGN tokens. Law360; CoinTelegraph. - SEC and Ripple File Joint Motion to Pause Appeals in XRP Case
On April 10, the SEC and Ripple Labs asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to pause their respective appeals in the agency’s ongoing enforcement action against the company. The Second Circuit granted the motion on April 16, holding the appeal in abeyance and requiring a status report from the SEC within 60 days. Joint Letter; CoinTelegraph; CoinDesk; Reuters. - SEC and Gemini Request Pause in Suit Over Gemini Earn Program
On April 1, the SEC and crypto exchange Gemini asked the district court for a 60-day stay of the regulator’s enforcement action while the parties discuss a potential resolution. The court granted the motion on April 2 and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on May 31. The SEC filed the action against Gemini and Genesis Global Capital, LLC in January 2023 alleging they offered unregistered securities; Genesis later agreed to a consent judgment in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. CoinTelegraph; Joint Letter. - Judge Denies SafeMoon CEO’s Motion to Dismiss Criminal Fraud Case
On April 18, U.S. District Court Judge Eric R. Komitee of the Eastern District of New York denied former SafeMoon CEO Braden Karony’s motion to dismiss his indictment, stating that a jury should assess his arguments regarding whether the charged conduct is extraterritorial and therefore not subject to U.S. law and whether SafeMoon’s token is a security. Karony faces charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Trial is set for May 6. The indictment alleges that Karony, SafeMoon’s co-founder Kyle Nagy and former CTO Thomas Smith conspired to commit securities and wire fraud and money laundering in defrauding investors through a digital asset called SafeMoon. Former CTO Thomas Smith has pleaded guilty to related charges. Law360; Coin Telegraph. - Crypto Casino Founder Charged with Fraud and Misappropriation of Investor Funds
On April 13, Richard Kim, founder of cryptocurrency casino Zero Edge, was charged in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York with securities fraud and wire fraud for allegedly stealing millions from investors between March 2024 and July 2024. According to the complaint, Kim raised $4.3 million from investors, promising to develop an online casino with on-chain games and a new cryptocurrency called “$RNG”, but instead allegedly used the investor funds for speculative cryptocurrency trades and gambling. He was arrested and released on a $250,000 bond. CoinDesk; Complaint. - Nova Labs Settles SEC Lawsuit Over False Client Claims
On April 23, Nova Labs, Inc., the creator of a decentralized wireless network known as the Helium Network, agreed to pay $200,000 to settle an SEC lawsuit filed in January 2025. The suit alleged that Nova Labs falsely claimed client relationships with various prominent businesses to sell preferred stock in a private placement. Nova Labs neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations in its settlement. CoinDesk; Law360; Final Judgment. - CLS Global Sentenced for Running Fraudulent Wash Trading Scheme
On April 2, United Arab Emirates-based financial services firm CLS Global FZC LLC was sentenced in Massachusetts federal court for allegedly running a fraudulent “wash trading” scheme. The firm pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit market manipulation and wire fraud and wire fraud in January. Additionally, CLS Global was ordered to pay approximately $428,059 in fines and seized cryptocurrency, and sentenced to three years of probation during which CLS Global cannot participate in U.S. cryptocurrency markets. CLS Global also entered into a separate agreement with the SEC over related civil claims. Press Release; Law360
INTERNATIONAL
- ADGM Cancels HAYVN Licence, Imposes USD 8.85 Million Fine
On April 17, the ADGM Financial Services Regulatory Authority (“FSRA”) initiated an enforcement action against the HAYVN Group, a digital asset-focused financial institution, and its former CEO for regulatory breaches, including unlicensed virtual asset activity. The FSRA cancelled HAYVN ADGM’s license, banned the former CEO from ADGM’s financial sector, and imposed USD $8.85 million in fines across four related parties for misconduct including unlicensed virtual asset activity, AML failures such as not recording all of its client relationships and allowing client transactions to be routed through unregulated accounts, and providing false information to banks and the FSRA. ADGM.
REGULATION AND LEGISLATION
UNITED STATES
- GOP Lawmakers Introduce Draft of Crypto Market-Structure Bill
On May 5, Republican lawmakers released a discussion draft of a bill that seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets. The bill provides for joint rulemaking by the SEC and CFTC, a pathway for digital-asset developers to raise funds under the SEC’s jurisdiction and a process for market participants to register with the CFTC for digital commodity trading. The bill would require digital-asset developers to provide accurate disclosures including relating to their digital asset’s operation, ownership and structure. Press Release; The Block. - New Hampshire Passes ‘Strategic Bitcoin Reserve’ Bill
On May 6, New Hampshire passed legislation allowing the state to invest up to 5% of the state’s public funds in precious metal and digital assets with a market cap of over $500 billion – a threshold that currently only permits Bitcoin. Business Insider. - President Trump Signs Resolution to Nullify Expanded IRS Crypto Broker Rule
On April 11, President Trump signed into law a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that nullifies a Treasury Department and IRS rule that would have subjected DeFi participants to onerous tax-reporting requirements for digital-asset transactions (the “DeFi Broker Rule”). The resolution not only effectively repeals the DeFi Broker Rule but also will prohibit the U.S. Treasury and the IRS from issuing a new rule that is “substantially the same” as the repealed rule absent new legislation. The resolution does not repeal the IRS’s July 2024 broker rule applicable to custodial digital asset trading platforms. Reuters; Bloomberg; CoinTelegraph; CoinDesk. - Paul Atkins Confirmed as SEC Chairman
On April 9, Paul Atkins was confirmed as the next Chairman of the SEC. Atkins served as an SEC commissioner under President George W. Bush and previously worked at the Commission during both Republican and Democratic administrations. Atkins founded a financial services consulting firm in 2008, Patomak Global Partners, which has advised clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including issues related to digital assets. Atkins was sworn in on April 21. SEC; New York Times. - SEC Staff Says Certain Reserve-Backed Stablecoins Are Not Securities
On April 4, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance stating that the offer and sale of certain reserve-backed dollar stablecoins are not securities transactions. To qualify as a “Covered Stablecoin” under the guidance, the stablecoin’s value must be pegged to the U.S. dollar, and the stablecoin must be backed by dollars or other low-risk, liquid assets and be redeemable one-for-one for U.S. dollars at any time and in unlimited amounts, among other requirements. As is typical, the guidance states that it is nonbinding and does not have Commission-level approval. SEC. - SEC Staff Statement Urges Detailed Crypto Disclosures
On April 10, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued a staff statement providing the Division’s views about the application of certain disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws to offerings and registrations of securities in the digital-asset markets. The statement recommends that companies describe their business operations without overly relying on technical jargon and specify the business activity, “such as operating or developing a network or application, and the current stage of development” and how the issuer expects to generate revenue. With respect to risk factors for offerings and registrations of securities in the crypto asset markets, the guidance provides examples such as risks relating to technology and cybersecurity, price volatility, liquidity issues and potential registration requirements under state and federal laws. The statement also emphasizes that it “does not address all material disclosure items, and the disclosure topics addressed … may not be relevant for all issuers.” As is typical, the guidance states that it is nonbinding and does not have Commission-level approval. SEC; Coindesk. - DOJ Publishes Memorandum Announcing Shift in Enforcement Priorities and Disbandment of Crypto Enforcement Unit
On April 7, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum (the “Blanche Memo”) announcing a shift in the Department of Justice’s enforcement priorities concerning digital assets. According to the memo, the DOJ “will no longer pursue litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets while President Trump’s actual regulators do this work outside the punitive criminal justice framework.” Instead, the focus will be on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.” The memo also announced the disbandment of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. DOJ; Reuters; CoinDesk; New York Times. - Acting Chairman Pham Lauds DOJ Policy Ending Regulation by Prosecution of Digital Assets Industry and Directs CFTC Staff to Comply with Executive Orders
On April 8, CFTC Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham praised the Blanche Memo, and directed CFTC staff to comply with the President’s executive orders and Administration policy. Consistent with the DOJ’s enforcement priorities, Pham has refocused the CFTC’s enforcement resources on cases involving combatting fraud and manipulation rather than regulating by enforcement. Specifically, Pham has directed CFTC staff not to charge regulatory violations in cases involving digital assets unless there is evidence that the defendant knew of the licensing or registration requirement at issue and willfully violated such requirement. CFTC. - Federal Reserve Retracts Crypto-Related Guidance for Banks
On April 24, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it withdrew guidance for banks related to their digital-asset and dollar-tokens activities. The agency rescinded a 2022 supervisory letter requesting state member banks to provide advance notification of digital-asset activities and a 2023 supervisory letter regarding the supervisory nonobjection process for state member bank engagement in dollar-token activities. These actions follow earlier comments from Fed Chair Jerome that the Fed does not intend to limit the bank sector’s interaction with digital assets. Federal Reserve; Cryptoslate; WSJ. - Illinois Lawmakers Advance Crypto Fraud Protection Measure
On April 10, Illinois state senators passed out of committee Senate Bill 1797, which requires crypto firms to register with the state and provide disclosures to protect consumers. It also empowers the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to set and enforce guidelines for crypto companies. Sen. Mark Walker, one of the bill’s sponsors, emphasized the need for standards to prevent bankruptcy, fraud, and deceptive practices in the crypto industry. Illinois State Assembly; Cointelegraph. - Hidden Road Receives Broker-Dealer License Following Ripple Acquisition
On April 17, prime brokerage platform Hidden Road announced it received a broker-dealer license from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), shortly after Ripple Labs agreed to acquire the firm for $1.25 billion. The license allows Hidden Road to offer FINRA-compliant prime brokerage, clearing, and financing services in fixed income assets. CoinDesk; Press Release. - CFTC Seeks Comments on 24/7 Trading and Perpetual Derivatives
On April 21, the CFTC issued a request for comment on the implications of extending the trading of CFTC-regulated derivatives markets to an effectively 24/7 basis, including the potential effects on trading, clearing and risk management which differ from trading during current market hours. 24/7 trading is already prevalent in digital assets markets. On the same day, the CFTC also requested comment on the characteristics of perpetual derivatives, the implications of their use in trading, clearing and risk management and the risks of such derivatives risks in connection with market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading. Perpetual derivatives are commonly traded on offshore digital asset exchanges. CFTC 24/7 Trading; CFTC Perpetual Derivatives.
INTERNATIONAL
- European Securities and Markets Authority Publishes Official Translations of its Guidelines on Conditions for Qualification of Crypto Assets as Financial Instruments Under MiCA
On March 19, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) published the official translations of its guidelines on the conditions and criteria for the qualification of crypto assets as financial instruments (ESMA75453128700-1323) under Article 2(5) of MiCA. The guidelines clarify when MiCA or other rules apply to crypto assets. They are effective starting on May 18, 2025, and relevant authorities are required to update ESMA. ESMA. - Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Monetary Authority Issue Circulars on Providing Virtual Asset Staking Services
On April 7, the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) issued circulars to SFC-licensed virtual asset trading platform (“VATP”) operators and authorized institutions to permit the offering of staking services. VATPs must obtain the SFC’s prior approval and agree to be bound by the SFC’s ‘Terms and Conditions for Staking Services’ before offering staking services. Broadly, other requirements to offer staking services include that VATPs must (i) maintain possession or control over all mediums through which clients’ virtual assets may be withdrawn from the staking service, (ii) implement policies, internal controls and operational rules to ensure that staked virtual assets are adequately safeguarded and (iii) manage operational risks and conflicts of interest. VATPs must also exercise skill, care and diligence when selecting a blockchain protocol for their staking service and when selecting its arrangement for participating in the validation process. VATPs must also ensure adequate disclosure of additional staking risks to their clients and obtain their written acknowledgement before providing them with staking services. SFC; HKMA. - Hong Kong SFC Revises Circular on SFC-Authorized Funds to Engage in Staking Activities Through VATPs and AIs
On April 7, the SFC revised an existing circular that was originally issued on December 22, 2023 delineating the requirements for authorizing investment funds with exposure to virtual assets of more than 10% of their net asset value for public offerings in Hong Kong. The fund manager must obtain the SFC’s prior approval before it can engage in staking activities for its managed SFC-authorized virtual asset fund, and the staking activities must be conducted through an SFC-licensed VATP or authorized institution, subject to a cap to manage fund liquidity. The fund manager must also ensure that the staking activities are consistent with the fund’s investment objective and strategy. SFC. - Monetary Authority of Singapore Consults on Prudential Treatment and Disclosure of Crypto Asset Exposures for Banks
On March 27, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published a Consultation Paper seeking feedback on proposed amendments aimed at implementing standards promulgated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”) on prudential treatment and disclosure of crypto asset exposures for banks. Specifically, the MAS has proposed to amend relevant MAS notices relating to capital, liquidity, large exposures and disclosure frameworks for banks to implement the BCBS’ standards on prudential treatment and disclosures for crypto asset exposures for banks. MAS. - Monetary Authority of Singapore Proposes Amendments to Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Laws
On April 8, the MAS published a Consultation Paper seeking feedback on proposed amendments to MAS Notices on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism to take into account the latest money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing developments. The amendments apply across the financial sector and are relevant to financial institutions including banks, insurers, capital markets intermediaries, payment service providers (including digital payment token or crypto asset service providers). Broadly, the proposed amendments reference the latest revised standards set by the Financial Action Task Force and cover topics ranging from risk assessments to the clarification of regulatory expectations on the filing of suspicious transaction reports. MAS. - Dubai Financial Services Authority Opens Tokenization Regulatory Sandbox for Expressions of Interest
On March 17, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (“DFSA”) called for expressions of interest to join its new Tokenization Regulatory Sandbox, with a deadline of April 24, 2025. The initiative forms part of the DFSA’s Innovation Testing Licence program and is aimed at firms offering tokenized financial products and services, including equities, bonds, sukuk, and fund units. The sandbox provides a controlled environment for testing tokenized investment solutions, offering a structured path to full regulatory authorization. DFSA. - Abu Dhabi Global Market and Chainlink Forge Alliance to Advance Tokenization Frameworks
On March 24, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with decentralized network Chainlink to promote compliant tokenization and enhance blockchain innovation. The partnership will support projects under the ADGM Registration Authority by leveraging Chainlink’s technical expertise in blockchain interoperability and verifiable data solutions. Chainlink’s infrastructure has enabled over $19 trillion in transaction value globally and is trusted by leading financial institutions. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, ADGM and Chainlink will collaborate on regulatory dialogue and host educational initiatives focusing on blockchain, AI and tokenization. ADGM.
SPEAKER’S CORNER
- New York Attorney General Letitia James Sends Letter to Congress Proposing Crypto Regulatory Framework
On April 10, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter to congressional leaders warning that the lack of strong federal regulations on cryptocurrencies and digital assets increases the risk of fraud, criminal activity, and financial instability. She argued that federal regulations would bolster America’s national security, strengthen its financial markets and protect investors from cryptocurrency scams. James’s letter called for protections including “i) onshoring stablecoins to protect the U.S. dollar and the treasuries market, ii) requiring platforms to only conduct business with anti-money laundering compliant platforms, iii) providing for the registration of issuers and intermediaries to ensure accountability, transparency and basic protections to the public, iv) protecting against conflicts of interest, v) promoting price transparency, vi) requiring platforms and intermediaries to actively identify and prevent fraud and scams, and vii) disallowing digital assets in retirement accounts.” NY; Reuters.
OTHER NOTABLE NEWS
- SoftBank, Tether and Cantor Fitzgerald Launch Twenty One Capital
On April 23, stablecoin issuer Tether, Bitfinex, SoftBank, and Cantor Fitzgerald announced the launch of Twenty One Capital, Inc., a Bitcoin investment vehicle. CCN. - HM Treasury and the UK Debt Management Office Publish Policy Paper on Pilot Digital Gilt Instrument
On March 18, HM Treasury and the UK Debt Management Office (“DMO”) released a policy paper detailing their pilot Digital Gilt Instrument (“DIGIT”). DIGIT is a new, short-dated, transferable security that will be held on a Distributed Ledger Technology (“DLT”) platform and issued within the Digital Securities Sandbox, operating independently from the Government’s standard debt issuance processes. The policy paper outlines the initial features of DIGIT and seeks input from financial sector firms to gauge investor demand and design preferences for further development. Additionally, it requests information from potential DLT suppliers to explore available technology options and the scope of services required for DIGIT issuance. Stakeholders are invited to submit their responses by April 13, 2025. HM Treasury.
The following Gibson Dunn lawyers contributed to this issue: Jason Cabral, Kendall Day, Jeff Steiner, Sara Weed, Sam Raymond, Nick Harper, Emma Li, Michelle Lou, Zachary Montgomery, Aliya Padhani, Henry Rittenberg, Nicholas Tok, and Apratim Vidyarthi.
FinTech and Digital Assets Group Leaders / Members:
Ashlie Beringer, Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5327, aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com)
Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
Jason J. Cabral, New York (+1 212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)
Ella Alves Capone, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3511, ecapone@gibsondunn.com)
M. Kendall Day, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8220, kday@gibsondunn.com)
Sébastien Evrard, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3798, sevrard@gibsondunn.com)
William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com)
Nick Harper, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3534, nharper@gibsondunn.com)
Martin A. Hewett, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8207, mhewett@gibsondunn.com)
Sameera Kimatrai, Dubai (+971 4 318 4616, skimatrai@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Stewart McDowell, San Francisco (+1 415.393.8322, smcdowell@gibsondunn.com)
Hagen H. Rooke, Singapore (+65 6507 3620, hhrooke@gibsondunn.com)
Mark K. Schonfeld, New York (+1 212.351.2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com)
Orin Snyder, New York (+1 212.351.2400, osnyder@gibsondunn.com)
Ro Spaziani, New York (+1 212.351.6255, rspaziani@gibsondunn.com)
Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde, Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)
Benjamin Wagner, Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)
Sara K. Weed, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8507, sweed@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
The coalition agreement includes noteworthy planned changes in the area of white collar and international trade law that identify trends that will shape the near-term future of businesses operating in Germany and the EU.
On May 6, Friedrich Merz was elected Germany’s new Chancellor, marking the start of the new legislative period. The incoming government – formed by a coalition of the center left and right parties CDU, CSU, and SPD – recently published its coalition agreement.[1]
The coalition agreement outlines the common legislative goals of the German Government for the next four years.
Enforcement proceedings in money laundering cases shall become more efficient
- In the area of financial crime, federal-level competencies will be consolidated. Cooperation and information exchange between the federal and state governments, as well as with national and international organizations, the EU, and the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), are to be improved.[2]
- Improvements in anti-money laundering efforts are planned, particularly in light of the upcoming evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).[3] These plans are not entirely new initiatives, as they had already been put forward by the previous government in light of Germany’s poor FATF assessment.
- Gaps in the German Transparency Register, which is a central database that records information on the beneficial owners of legal entities, are to be closed.[4]
- Legal transactions by legal entities exceeding a net amount of EUR 10,000 may not be carried out by parties subject to anti-money laundering obligations if one or more beneficial owners cannot be identified.[5]
Lowering the thresholds for asset seizures shall help fighting organized crime
- An administrative procedure for asset investigation is to be introduced, with the aim of securing suspicious high-value assets where a legal origin cannot be clearly demonstrated.[6]
- Existing asset seizure instruments are to be further developed and supplemented by a procedure for confiscating assets of unclear origin.[7]
- The fight against organized crime is to be intensified by fully reversing the burden of proof in the confiscation of assets of unclear origin.[8]
EU-Directives on Corporate Crimes shall be implemented, but initiatives to reform German law relating to Corporate Crimes will not be pursued
- Unlike the previous coalition agreements[9], the new agreement includes neither plans to regulate internal investigations nor to introduce any legal framework for corporate criminal law. However, it is likely that the EU Anti-Corruption Directive will have to be implemented during this legislative period, which may result in relevant changes in these two areas.
Supply Chain Due Diligence Requirements shall be brought in line with updated EU-Directives and the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act will be repealed
- The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) is to be repealed. It is planned to replace it with a new “International Corporate Responsibility Act” designed to implement the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in a low-bureaucracy and enforcement-friendly manner.[10]
- The reporting obligations under the LkSG are to be abolished immediately and permanently.[11]
- It is planned that existing due diligence obligations will not be sanctioned, except for severe human rights violations, until the new law comes into force.[12]
FDI and Export Control topics will remain high on the agenda, while making processes more efficient
- The German Foreign Trade Act is to be revised. Screening and licensing procedures are to be made faster, simpler, and more practical. Foreign investments that conflict with national interests – particularly in critical infrastructure and strategic sectors – are to be effectively blocked.[13]
- The effective national implementation of sanctions due to Russia’s war of aggression is to continue to be ensured. The EU’s plans to impose tariffs on fertilizer imports from Russia and Belarus are to be endorsed.[14]
- Export licensing procedures are to be simplified and accelerated, with the aim of a paradigm shift in German international trade law. Comprehensive checks are to be replaced by targeted checks on a random basis, supported by heavy penalties for violations. Within the scope of this system, prior export authorizations would no longer be required.[15]
- Germany’s China Strategy is to be revised in accordance with the principle of “de-risking”.[16]
To what extent these plans will be implemented in detail remains to be seen in the next few months.
[1] Coalition Agreement of the 21st legislative period, can be found on the websites of the three parties CDU: here; CSU: here; SPD: here; and the German Bundestag: here.
[2] Coalition Agreement of the 21st legislative period, para. 1548 et. seq.
[3] Ibid., para. 1545 et. seq.
[4] Ibid., para. 1550.
[5] Ibid., para. 1550 et seq.
[6] Ibid., para. 1553 et seq.
[7] Ibid., para. 1556 et seq.
[8] Ibid., para. 2261 et seq.
[9] Coalition Agreement of the 19th legislative period, p. 126; Coalition Agreement of the 20th legislative period, p. 111.
[10] Coalition Agreement of the 21st legislative period, para. 1909 et. seq.
[11] Ibid., para. 1911 et seq.
[12] Ibid., para. 1913 et seq.
[13] Ibid., para. 275 et seq.
[14] Ibid., para. 287 et seq.
[15] Ibid., para. 290 et seq.
[16] Ibid., para. 297 et seq.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. If you wish to discuss any of the matters set out above, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any leader or member of Gibson Dunn’s White Collar Defense & Investigations or International Trade Advisory & Enforcement practice groups, or the authors in Munich:
Benno Schwarz (+49 89 189 33 210, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Katharina Humphrey (+49 89 189 33 217, khumphrey@gibsondunn.com)
Nikita Malevanny (+49 89 189 33 224, nmalevanny@gibsondunn.com)
Karla Böltz (+49 89 189 33 219, kboeltz@gibsondunn.com)
Annabel Dornauer* (+49 89 189 33 463, adornauer@gibsondunn.com)
*Annabel Dornauer is a trainee attorney in Munich and is not admitted to practice law.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Gibson Dunn’s Workplace DEI Task Force aims to help our clients navigate the evolving legal and policy landscape following recent Executive Branch actions and the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Prior issues of our DEI Task Force Update can be found in our DEI Resource Center. Should you have questions about developments in this space or about your own DEI programs, please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of our DEI Task Force or the authors of this Update (listed below).
Key Developments:
On May 2, Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia permanently enjoined enforcement of Executive Order 14230, which, among other things, ordered federal agencies to suspend security clearances for employees of the law firm Perkins Coie, restrict their access to federal buildings, restrict communications by government officials with Perkins lawyers and employees, terminate government contracts with the law firm, and review the government contracts of Perkins Coie’s clients, and directed the Acting Chair of the EEOC to investigate the DEI practices of large law firms. In a 102-page order, the Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint, granted Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment, and concluded that the EO “violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.” The Court observed that, “[n]o American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue,” adding, “In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’ . . . Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”
The Court held that the EO violates the First Amendment by retaliating against the law firm for protected activity—specifically, the firm’s statements and viewpoint in favor of DEI as well as its association with and advocacy on behalf of the President’s opponents in the 2016 and 2020 elections. The Court also held that the EO violates the firm’s clients’ Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel and First Amendment associational rights, denies the firm Equal Protection, and violates Due Process. The Court also invalidated the EO as void for vagueness, in part because the EO directs adverse action against Perkins Coie purportedly in response to the firm engaging in illegal discrimination through its DEI policies, without explaining which of the firm’s policies violate the law or otherwise clarifying what conduct of Perkins Coie’s is unlawful. The Court noted “The terms diversity, equity, and inclusion . . . could refer to a wide range of actions and programs, formal or informal, as well as basic thoughts and beliefs. The Order provides no definition or guidance as to what form of program possibly described by these terms is considered unlawful discrimination by the Trump Administration, leaving plaintiff to guess at what is and is not permissible in the government’s view, while already facing the threat of adverse actions during the guessing.” The government identified two alleged acts of illegal discrimination in which Perkins Coie engaged: (1) participating in the Sponsors for Education Opportunity (“SEO”) summer fellowship program and (2) adopting the “Mansfield Rule.” The Court rejected the government’s arguments as to both, reasoning that (a) the firm’s summer fellowship was “open to all” and does “not contain discriminatory requirements,” and (b) the Mansfield Rule “does not establish any hiring quotas or other illegally discriminatory practices, requiring only that participating law firms consider attorneys from diverse backgrounds for certain positions.” The Court concluded that neither was evidence of unlawful discrimination.
With respect to the EO’s provision directing the Acting Chair of the EEOC to “review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms,” the Court said that “no authority is identified by the government—and the Court is aware of none—empowering the President to direct the EEOC to target specific businesses or individuals for an investigation,” and that the EEOC’s investigative authority is generally limited to formal charges filed with the agency. Addressing specifically the investigative letter the EEOC sent Perkins Coie requesting information about its hiring and employment practices, the Court held that “By not following its own procedures, the EEOC has undermined the legitimacy of its own investigation, revealing this investigation . . . to be a product of the retaliation ordered by EO 14230 rather than any legitimate investigative activity.”
On April 23, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” seeking to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.” The executive order directs the repeal or amendment of certain regulations that impose disparate-impact liability on recipients of federal funding under Title VI, such as universities, nonprofits, and certain contractors. It also directs the Attorney General, “in coordination with the heads of all other agencies,” to review “all existing regulations, guidance, rules, or orders that impose disparate-impact liability or similar requirements,” and to “detail agency steps for their amendment or repeal.” The order likewise directs all federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability.” This would include Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Finally, the executive order instructs all heads of federal agencies to “assess” or “evaluate” all pending proceedings relying on disparate-impact theories and “take appropriate action” within 45 days, and to conduct a similar review of “consent judgments and permanent injunctions” within 90 days. For more analysis on this executive order, please see our April 25 client alert.
On April 24, 2025, federal district courts in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington D.C. granted preliminary injunctions in three separate cases challenging recent actions by the U.S. Department of Education in relation to DEI. The challenged actions include the Department’s February 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter, which purported to “clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance” and instructed educational institutions to “(1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.” The cases also challenge the Department’s February 28 guidance document entitled “Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” which addressed a range of issues relating to DEI initiatives in educational institutions, including by providing examples of DEI programming that the Administration might find discriminatory. Finally, the cases challenge the Department’s April 3, 2025 letter requiring state and local officials to certify their compliance with the administration’s interpretation of Title VI in relation to DEI. For more information on these agency actions, please see our February 19, March 5, and April 21 Task Force Updates.
The plaintiffs in these three lawsuits challenged the Department’s actions under the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). While all three courts granted the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions, each ruled on different—and at times, conflicting—grounds.
In American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Department of Education, et al., 1:25-cv-00628 (D. Md. 2025), Judge Stephanie Gallagher concluded that the Dear Colleague letter constitutes a “legislative rule” prescribing “new law and policy”—and not merely an “interpretive rule” providing guidance on existing law—because it extends the existing reach of Title VI, substantively alters the legal landscape, and has the force and effect of law. Accordingly, Judge Gallagher concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their procedural challenge to the Dear Colleague letter because the Department failed to follow the procedural requirements for legislative rules as set forth in the APA. Judge Gallagher also concluded that the Dear Colleague letter likely violated the APA because the Education Department likely exceeded its statutory authority, failed to explain its change of position, failed to produce any facts to support its position, failed to consider the reliance interests of educators, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in publishing the letter. Judge Gallagher also concluded that the Dear Colleague letter likely violated the First Amendment by preemptively prohibiting speech. The court declined to enjoin the letter establishing a certification requirement because the plaintiffs had not adequately challenged it in their complaint.
In National Education Association, et al. v. Department of Education, et al., 1:25-cv-00091 (D.N.H. 2025), Judge Landya McCafferty similarly held that the Dear Colleague letter is a legislative rule because it imposes new, substantial obligations on schools. Accordingly, Judge McCafferty concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their procedural challenge due to the Department’s failure to follow the procedural requirements that the APA imposes on legislative rules. Judge McCafferty also concluded that the Dear Colleague letter was likely impermissibly vague in violation of the Due Process Clause, and that the Frequently Asked Questions document “does not ameliorate” the letter’s vagueness “but rather, exacerbates it.” Judge McCafferty also concluded that the agency actions likely violated the First Amendment by targeting speech based on viewpoint.
In NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education, et al., 1:25-cv-01120 (D.D.C. 2025), by contrast, Judge Dabney Friedrich concluded that the challenged Department actions were not legislative rules but rather interpretive rules intended to provide guidance on existing obligations, rather than impose new obligations. Accordingly, Judge Friedrich concluded that they did not violate the APA’s procedural requirements, nor were they arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. Judge Friedrich also concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the agency’s actions on First Amendment grounds. However, she agreed with the other courts in finding that agency actions were likely void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment because they “fail[ed] to provide an actionable definition of what constitutes ‘DEI.’” Judge Friedrich also concluded that the “shortened timeframe for certifying compliance further exacerbate[d] vagueness concerns.”
On April 21, 2025, Harvard University sued to prevent the freezing of more than $2 billion in federal funding to the university after it refused to comply with policy change demands from the Trump Administration. Naming as defendants numerous federal officials and agencies, the complaint alleges violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Harvard argues that the Administration’s actions—including the demand that Harvard discontinue all DEI practices—are unconstitutional government interference with a private actor’s speech. The funding freeze, Harvard argues, is an unlawful use of legal sanction by the Administration seeking to suppress disfavored speech. Harvard also alleges that the Administration violated the APA by failing to follow the prescribed procedures under Title VI before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. Harvard asks the court to undo the funding freeze and declare it unconstitutional.
On April 21, the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) issued guidance stating that recipients of NIH grant funding must not “operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.” Relatedly, the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) announced on April 18 a shift in funding priorities, including that “[r]esearch projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities.” In its announcement, NSF also stated that “[r]esearchers may recruit or study individuals based on protected characteristics when doing so is (1) intrinsic to the research question (e.g., research on human physiology), (2) not focused on broadening participation in STEM on the basis of protected characteristics, and (3) aimed to fill an important gap in [science and engineering] knowledge. For example, research on technology to assist individuals with disabilities may be supported even when the research subject recruitment is limited to those with disabilities.”
Media Coverage and Commentary:
Below is a selection of recent media coverage and commentary on these issues:
- New York Times, “‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal” (April 25): Teddy Rosenbluth of the New York Times reports that the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, has sent letters to various medical and scientific journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, regarding their selection of papers for publication. According to Rosenbluth, the letters suggest the publications are “partisan in various scientific debates” and ask whether the journals “accept submissions from scientists with ‘competing viewpoints,” what they do if authors “may have misled their readers,” and whether they are “transparent about influence from ‘supporters, funders, advertisers, and others.’” The letters also ask what role the NIH plays “in the development of submitted articles.” Rosenbluth reports that it is “unclear how many journals have received these letters or the criteria that Mr. Martin used to decide which publications to target.”
- NPR, “Trump Signs Executive Actions on Education, Including Efforts to Rein in DEI,” April 24): NPR’s Elissa Nadworny reports on a series of executive actions taken by the White House on April 23 aimed at educational institutions and relating to DEI. The first instructs Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “overhaul” the college accreditation system and recognize new accreditors. The second provides that universities may lose federal grants unless they complete “full and timely disclosures of foreign funding.” The third calls for changes in disciplinary policies in K-12 schools, including by prohibiting use of “racially preferential discipline practices” and abandonment of disparate impact analyses of discipline.
- Law.com, “Companies Toning Down ‘DEI’ References but Not Necessarily Ditching It, Analysis Reveals” (April 24): Law.com’s Chris O’Malley reports on an analysis of financial reports from 10 leading S&P 500 companies which found that companies are “‘recalibrating’ how they present diversity, equity and inclusion in their regulatory filings.” The study found a “measurable decline in explicit DEI mentions” in these reports. Nevertheless, “substantive commitments persist through neutral phrasing,” including “diversity of thought” and “global workforce composition.” Moreover, O’Malley notes that the study found some exceptions to the trend exist, including major companies with unchanging usage of DEI-related language in their reports year over year.
- Law360, “How Proxy Advisory Firms Are Approaching AI And DEI” (April 21): Writing for Law360, Javier Ortiz, Geoffrey Liebmann, and Trevor Lamb report that proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis & Co. LLC (“Glass Lewis”) have both issued updated proxy voting policy guidelines relating to DEI. ISS will cease to consider the gender, racial, or ethnic diversity of a company’s board when making voting recommendations for the election or re-election of directors at U.S. companies. Glass Lewis, by contrast, will continue to recommend votes against nominating committee members for companies where Glass Lewis believes the board lacks sufficient diversity. However, Glass Lewis will inform clients when its recommendation concerns diversity, and it will provide two recommendations in those instances, including one that excludes gender or community diversity considerations. Glass Lewis will apply the same policy to shareholder proposals. For more information, please see our February 2025 client alert.
Case Updates:
Below is a list of updates in new and pending cases:
1. Challenges to statutes, agency rules, and regulatory decisions:
- American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Ivey, No. 2:24-cv-00104 (M.D. Ala. 2024): On February 13, 2024, AAER filed a complaint against Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, challenging a state law that requires the governor to ensure there are no fewer than two individuals “of a minority race” on the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board. The Board has nine seats, including one for a member of the public with no real estate background, which has been unfilled for years. Because there was only one minority member among the Board at the time of filing, AAER asserts that state law requires that the open seat go to a person with a minority background. AAER states that one of its members applied for this final seat, but was denied on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On March 29, 2024, Governor Ivey answered the complaint, admitting that the Board quota is unconstitutional and will not be enforced. On March 19, 2025, AAER moved to substitute Laura Clark, whom AAER had referred to as “Member A” in its complaint, as the plaintiff. On April 2, 2025, Governor Ivey responded to the motion to substitute, arguing that AAER lacked good cause for the substitution, and that the motion was merely an attempt by AAER to “resist discovery.”
- Latest update: On April 17, 2025, the court denied AAER’s motion to substitute because AAER failed to show “good cause” for the substitution and could have substituted Ms. Clark as named plaintiff before the deadline to amend the pleadings, but chose not to do so.
- California et al. v. U.S. Department of Education et al., No. 1:25-cv-10548 (D. Mass. 2025): On March 6, 2025, the states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin (collectively, “the Plaintiff States”) sued the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that it arbitrarily terminated previously awarded grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership (“TQP”) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (“SEED”) programs in violation of the APA. On March 6, 2025, the Plaintiff States filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Department of Education from “implementing, giving effect to, maintaining, or reinstating under a different name the termination of any previously-awarded TQP and SEED grants.” The Plaintiff States argued that the “abrupt and immediate” termination of the TQP and SEED programs threatened imminent and irreparable harm. The court issued a TRO on March 10, 2025, concluding that the Plaintiff States were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim, that they adequately demonstrated irreparable harm absent temporary relief, and that the balance of the equities weighed in their favor. The government appealed the order the next day, arguing, among other things, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Department of Education’s decisions on how to allocate funds because the APA does not permit judicial review of “agency action” that “is committed to agency discretion by law.” On April 4, 2025, the United States Supreme Court stayed the TRO, concluding that the government was likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the TRO under the Administrative Procedure Act
- Latest update: On April 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report. The government indicated it intends to move to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds by May 12, its deadline to answer the complaint. The plaintiffs asked the court to order “expedited production of the administrative record to assist the court in resolving the jurisdictional arguments that the government is expected to make in its motion to dismiss.” The government opposed expedited discovery and instead contended “that the proper and most efficient approach” would be for it to file the administrative record in conjunction with its answer, should the court deny the forthcoming motion to dismiss. On April 16, the court issued an order stating that it would assess the request for expedited production of the administrative record after reviewing the forthcoming motion to dismiss.
- De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 2:23-cv-02281 (E.D. Pa. 2023): A white male professor sued his employer, Penn State University, claiming that university-mandated DEI trainings, discussions with coworkers and supervisors about race and privilege in the classroom, and comments from coworkers about his “white privilege” created a hostile work environment that led him to quit his job. He claimed that after he reported this alleged harassment and published an opinion piece objecting to the impact of DEI concepts in the classroom, the university retaliated against him by investigating him for bullying and aggressive behavior towards his colleagues. The plaintiff alleged harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of Title VI, Title VII, Section 1981, Section 1983, the First Amendment, and Pennsylvania civil rights laws. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 6, 2025, the court granted summary judgment to the university on the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims. The court found that the behaviors complained of by the plaintiff, including “campus wide emails” pertaining to racial injustice, “being invited to review scholarly materials,” and “conversations about harassment levied by and against [the plaintiff],” could not reasonably be found to rise to the level of severe harassment. As to the “pervasive” conduct prong, the court explained that of the 12 incidents in the complaint, no “racist comment” was directed at the plaintiff and “only a few” involved actions that were directed at the plaintiff at all. On March 20, 2025, the plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in support of his remaining claims, arguing that these claims should proceed to trial. He presented what he asserted were undisputed facts to support his claims, including that he was reported for “micro aggressions” after objecting to racial harassment, that colleagues lodged false claims against him, and that he faced retaliatory disciplinary action and salary claw backs. On March 27, 2025, the university filed its own supplemental brief in support of summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s putative Title VII and PHRA retaliation claims failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot prove the university took adverse employment action against him, or there is no causal link between his alleged protected activity and adverse actions taken by the university.
- Latest update: On April 17, 2025, the court granted summary judgment for the university on the plaintiff’s remaining retaliation claims, concluding that none of the alleged acts by the university constituted adverse employment action.
- Nat’l Urban League et al., v. President Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00471 (D.D.C. 2025): On February 19, 2025, the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago sued President Donald Trump challenging EO 14151, EO 14168, EO 14173, and related agency actions, as ultra vires and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs allege that these orders penalize them for expressing viewpoints in support of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, and transgender people. They also claim that, because of these orders, they are at risk of losing federal funding. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment holding that the EOs at issue are unconstitutional, as well as a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of these EOs. On February 28, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Latest update: On May 2, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to challenge provisions of the EOs that are intra-governmental and “not aimed at them.” For the remaining challenged provisions of the executive orders—including provisions mandating certification by government contractors that they do not operate unlawful DEI and terminating grants relating to DEI and gender ideology—the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood that they would succeed on the merits.
2. Employment discrimination and related claims:
- Beneker v. CBS Studios, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-01659 (C.D. Cal. 2024): On February 29, 2024, a heterosexual, white male writer sued CBS, alleging that the company’s de facto hiring policy discriminated against him on the bases of sex, race, and sexual orientation. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that CBS violated Section 1981 and Title VII by refusing to hire him as a staff writer on the TV show “Seal Team,” instead hiring several black writers, female writers, and a lesbian writer. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that CBS’s de facto hiring policy violates Section 1981 and Title VII, an injunction barring CBS from continuing to violate Section 1981 and Title VII, an order requiring CBS to offer the plaintiff a full-time producer job, and damages. CBS moved to dismiss the complaint on June 24, 2024, arguing that the First Amendment protects its hiring choices and that two of the plaintiff’s Section 1981 claims were untimely.
- Latest update: On April 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The stipulation did not reveal whether the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice on April 21, 2025.
3. Contracting claims under Section 1981, the U.S. Constitution, and other statutes:
- Do No Harm v. Nat’l Assoc. of Emergency Medical Technicians, No. 3:24-cv-00011 (S.D. Miss. 2024): On January 10, 2024, Do No Harm challenged the diversity scholarship program operated by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (“NAEMT”), an advocacy group representing paramedics, EMTs, and other emergency professionals. NAEMT awards up to four $1,250 scholarships annually to students of color hoping to become EMTs or paramedics. Do No Harm requested a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction to prevent the continued operation of the program. On January 23, 2024, the court denied Do No Harm’s motion for a TRO, and NAEMT moved to dismiss Do No Harm’s amended complaint on March 18, 2024. On March 31, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding Do No Harm had standing and plausibly alleged a prima facie Section 1981 violation.
- Latest update: On April 17, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, indicating that the defendant will “revise” its scholarship program to remove eligibility requirements and preferences based on race or ethnicity.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Labor and Employment practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:
Jason C. Schwartz – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com)
Katherine V.A. Smith – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com)
Mylan L. Denerstein – Partner & Co-Chair, Public Policy Group
New York (+1 212-351-3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com)
Zakiyyah T. Salim-Williams – Partner & Chief Diversity Officer
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8503, zswilliams@gibsondunn.com)
Molly T. Senger – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8571, msenger@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
A recent declination by the U.S. Department of Justice offers one example of enforcement agencies’ expectations for how companies should respond to potential criminal export control violations.
Executive Summary
On April 30, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had declined to prosecute Universities Space Research Association (USRA), a nonprofit research firm and NASA contractor, for export control violations committed by a former employee. The case was jointly investigated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the FBI. The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California prosecuted the case.
USRA is the second company to receive a declination of prosecution under NSD’s Enforcement Policy for Business Organizations (the “Policy”). As discussed in greater detail below, this case highlights steps companies can take to minimize – or avoid altogether – criminal exposure stemming from the export control violations of employees or agents. Those steps include maintaining robust compliance programs with rigorous due diligence, oversight, and auditing capabilities to detect and address misconduct. If wrongdoing nevertheless occurs, companies can consider taking advantage of the Policy by immediately conducting internal investigations, identifying root causes of the compliance violations, taking appropriate corrective actions, and promptly self-reporting.
Factual Background
According to the press release issued by DOJ, USRA contracted with NASA in 2016 to license and distribute aeronautics-related and military-owed flight control software. Between April 2017 and September 2020, Jonathan Soong, a former USRA program administrator responsible for performing due diligence on prospective purchasers, willfully exported flight control and optimization software to Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (a.k.a. “Beihang” or “Beihang University”) in the People’s Republic of China. Since May 2001, Beihang has been listed on the Commerce Department’s Entity List due to its involvement in developing military rocket and unmanned aerial vehicle systems. Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), a license from the Department of Commerce is required to export the software, developed by the U.S. Army and licensed by NASA, to parties on the Entity List.
Soong’s illegal scheme continued until USRA began to investigate based on an inquiry from NASA about the sales of software licenses to China-based purchasers. Soong initially attempted to conceal his action by lying to USRA and fabricating evidence of due diligence on the purchasers. He was later confronted by USRA’s counsel and eventually admitted to knowing that Beihang was on the Entity List and that a license was required when he exported the software.
According to the Declination Letter (the “Letter”), USRA self-disclosed the violations to NSD within days of Soong’s admission of misconduct and before the completion of the internal investigation. Soong was charged with willfully violating the EAR by exporting U.S. Army-developed aviation software to Beihang. He pleaded guilty in January 2023, admitting to willfully exporting software without a license, using an intermediary to complete the transfer and export to avoid detection, and separately embezzling at least $161,000 in software license sales by directing purchasers to make payment to his personal account. Soong was sentenced to 20 months in prison.
Multiple Theories of Liability Arising From The Same Facts
Companies should be aware that corporate criminal liability results from the illegal actions of employees or agents. In the USRA case, former employee Jonathan Soong exported unlicensed software to an entity subject to EAR restrictions, diverted license payments to his personal accounts, defrauded the government in connection with a federal contract, and presented false statements and falsified documentation during or in connection with a federal proceeding. According to the Letter, DOJ could have prosecuted USRA based on Soong’s misconduct for potential violations of multiple federal criminal statutes:
- violations of the EAR and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) predicated on export-related violations;
- violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) predicated on export-related violations;[1]
- violations of the False Claims Act predicated on a federal contractor’s knowing submission of fraudulent claims to the U.S. government with the intent to receive payment or approval;
- violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 predicated on knowingly making false statements in “any matter within the jurisdiction” of the federal government;
- violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 predicated on using the U.S. electronic communication wires to deceive or defraud; and
- violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 predicated on obstruction of justice during a federal proceeding.
Mitigating Factors
A declination of prosecution is a discretionary decision by NSD not to prosecute, guided by the evaluative factors set forth in the Policy. Here, by showing that it had initially lacked knowledge of the misconduct but then responded swiftly and transparently through a robust internal investigation, USRA reinforced its status as a good corporate actor and thus earned itself a declination.
Specifically, the Letter cited to a number of mitigating factors as reasons for the declination, including USRA’s “timely and voluntary” self-disclosure of misconduct, “exceptional and proactive” cooperation with the government, and “timely and appropriate” remediation measures, such as terminating the employment of Jonathan Soong, disciplining supervisory personnel, enhancing internal compliance controls, reimbursing NASA of Soong’s salary, and compensating the U.S. Treasury for financial losses resulting from Soong’s criminal embezzlement of $161,000 in sales. The government also considered the nature and seriousness of the offense to be a contributing mitigating factor given that only four unlicensed exports of software were made and the software was based on publicly available information. Furthermore, the government determined that USRA did not obtain any unlawful gains from Soong’s offenses.
Broader Context: NSD’s Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy and MilliporeSigma
VSD Policy
NSD is responsible for criminal enforcement of U.S. export control and sanctions laws, among other matters related to national security. To qualify for the Policy, companies should make prompt disclosure directly to NSD of all potentially criminal violations of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778), the Export Control Reform Act (50 U.S.C. § 4819), or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1705), as well as potential violations of other criminal statutes that affect national security when they arise out of or relate to enforcement of export control and sanctions laws.
When a company:
- voluntarily self-discloses to NSD potentially criminal violations arising out of or relating to the enforcement of export control or sanctions laws,
- fully cooperates, and
- timely and appropriately remediates the underlying causes of the violation,
absent aggravating factors, NSD generally will not seek a guilty plea, and there is a presumption that the company will receive a non-prosecution agreement and will not pay a fine. NSD also has the discretion to issue a declination when warranted by the principles of federal prosecution. See Justice Manual § 9-27.000.
A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) or guilty plea may result if the following aggravating factors are present:
- pervasive and egregious conduct, including repeat violations;
- concealment or involvement by upper management;
- significant profit from misconduct;
- involvement with Foreign Terrorist Organizations or Specially Designated Global Terrorists;
- exports of items controlled for nonproliferation or missile technology reasons; or
- exports of WMD components or military items to countries of concern.
Even when a DPA or guilty plea is required, though, companies can still benefit from VSDs, as they are eligible for up to a 50% reduction in criminal fines if they receive full cooperation and remediation credit.
Recent Example: MilliporeSigma Declination
USRA is only the second declination NSD has issued under the Policy. In May 2024, NSD declined to prosecute MilliporeSigma in a factually analogous case where a company employee shipped biochemical products to a Chinese customer using falsified export documents. Notably, the MilliporeSigma case shares many common factors with USRA, including prompt disclosure of misconduct after retaining counsel and before the internal investigation concluded, proactive and full cooperation, effective remediation, and lack of corporate gain or involvement. In addition, NSD considered the limited quantities of biochemical exports as a mitigating factor.
Key Takeaways
Maintain a Robust Compliance Program
The USRA case once again underscores the importance for companies, especially those consistently dealing with sensitive or controlled technologies, to maintain robust compliance programs. An effective compliance framework should implement thorough due diligence procedures, a strong oversight mechanism, and routine audits capable of detecting potentially unauthorized activities. Although companies can work to mitigate enforcement outcomes – as USRA successfully did here – through extensive post-violation cooperation with the enforcement authorities, stronger internal control and supervisory oversight can help detect and address employee misconduct involving illicit exports and embezzlement internally and thus further reduce the serious legal and reputational risks.
Conduct an Internal Investigation
Upon uncovering the misconduct, companies are well advised to acknowledge the seriousness and urgency of the violation and promptly undertake a thorough internal investigation. USRA’s response was crucial in demonstrating to NSD that the company was effectively a defender of corporate compliance integrity, rather than an enabler of the employee’s criminal actions. The comprehensive nature of USRA’s internal investigation, coupled with its full and prompt cooperation, voluntary self-disclosure, disciplinary measures, and updates to internal controls contributed to DOJ’s successful prosecution of the employee and convinced DOJ to decline charges against the company itself.
Carefully Weigh Voluntary Self-Disclosure Considerations
The Letter recognized USRA’s timely VSD to NSD as having a significant impact on DOJ’s decision to not to bring charges against the company. By choosing to self-disclose early – within days of the employee’s admission of wrongdoing and before completing its internal investigation – USRA earned significant VSD credit under the Policy. While each voluntary self-disclosure decision is dependent on individual facts and circumstances, this case, like MilliporeSigma, showcases how voluntary and timely disclosures to DOJ has the potential to substantially reduce corporate criminal exposure by demonstrating to the government corporate responsibility and commitment to compliance.
We have decades of experience conducting investigations and supporting clients with disclosures before the Department of Commerce, State, Treasury, Justice, and other international trade regulatory and enforcement agencies of the United States. We also have the deep experience advising clients on how to construe and implement trade regulation in their business operations, which is critical to mounting the most effective defense to resulting enforcement actions when they arise. Our team includes key architects of U.S. export control enforcement policies at both the Department of Justice and Department of Commerce. David P. Burns, a co-chair of Gibson Dunn’s National Security practice group, previously held senior positions within both the Criminal Division and National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice prior to rejoining the firm. David served at NSD during the pivotal 2019 update to its corporate enforcement policy. Mathew S. Axelrod, a co-chair of Gibson Dunn’s newly established Sanctions and Export Enforcement practice group, recently joined the firm following his tenure at the Department of Commerce’s BIS as Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement. While at BIS, Matt overhauled a number of the agency’s enforcement policies, including those on voluntary self-disclosures. Matt brings valuable firsthand insights to help clients navigate complex export enforcement issues.
[1] The export control system created pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, a statute that expired in 2001, was continued by a presidential declaration of a national emergency and the invocation of IEEPA until the passage of the ECRA in 2018.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. For additional information about how we may assist you, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or the following leaders and members of the firm’s Sanctions & Export Enforcement, International Trade Advisory & Enforcement, and National Security practice groups:
United States:
Matthew S. Axelrod – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Ronald Kirk – Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Donald Harrison – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8560, dharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
Amanda H. Neely – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9566, aneely@gibsondunn.com)
Samantha Sewall – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3509, ssewall@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle A. Weinbaum – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8274, mweinbaum@gibsondunn.com)
Karsten Ball – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9341, kball@gibsondunn.com)
Hugh N. Danilack – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9536, hdanilack@gibsondunn.com)
Mason Gauch – Houston (+1 346.718.6723, mgauch@gibsondunn.com)
Chris R. Mullen – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8250, cmullen@gibsondunn.com)
Sarah L. Pongrace – New York (+1 212.351.3972, spongrace@gibsondunn.com)
Anna Searcey – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3655, asearcey@gibsondunn.com)
Audi K. Syarief – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8266, asyarief@gibsondunn.com)
Scott R. Toussaint – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3588, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com)
Lindsay Bernsen Wardlaw – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9475, lwardlaw@gibsondunn.com)
Shuo (Josh) Zhang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8270, szhang@gibsondunn.com)
Asia:
Kelly Austin – Denver/Hong Kong (+1 303.298.5980, kaustin@gibsondunn.com)
David A. Wolber – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3764, dwolber@gibsondunn.com)
Fang Xue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8687, fxue@gibsondunn.com)
Qi Yue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8534, qyue@gibsondunn.com)
Dharak Bhavsar – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3755, dbhavsar@gibsondunn.com)
Arnold Pun – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3838, apun@gibsondunn.com)
Europe:
Attila Borsos – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 10, aborsos@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 207 071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner – London (+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Penny Madden KC – London (+44 20 7071 4226, pmadden@gibsondunn.com)
Irene Polieri – London (+44 20 7071 4199, ipolieri@gibsondunn.com)
Benno Schwarz – Munich (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Nikita Malevanny – Munich (+49 89 189 33 224, nmalevanny@gibsondunn.com)
Melina Kronester – Munich (+49 89 189 33 225, mkronester@gibsondunn.com)
Vanessa Ludwig – Frankfurt (+49 69 247 411 531, vludwig@gibsondunn.com)
*Soo-Min Chae, a visiting attorney based in Washington, D.C., is not admitted to practice.
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In a transformative step to enhance and better protect its business environment, Saudi Arabia has enacted a new Trade Name Law, which was published in the Official Gazette (Um AlQura) on October 4, 2024, and has come into effect on April 3, 2025.
Introduction
The law came into effect on April 3, 2025, replacing the previous legislation that had been in force since November 23, 1999. The implementing regulations were published on March 30, 2025, and took effect concurrently with the new law.
This law reform marks yet another significant step in the modernization of Saudi’s legal framework, streamlining processes and fostering a transparent, efficient business landscape. Below, we outline the key features of the new law and its practical implications in Saudi Arabia.
Key Features of the New Trade Name Law
1. Simplified Trade Name Selection
The updated Trade Name Law offers businesses greater flexibility in reserving and registering trade names. Trade names can be reserved for an initial period of 60 days, with the possibility of extending for an additional 60 days. Further extensions may be granted but are subject to specific registration circumstances. Given the exclusivity associated with registered/reserved trade names, there is a greater practical need to register desired trade names ahead of time. If the reservation period expires and the procedures for the issuance of a commercial register certificate are not complete, the reservation will lapse, and the trade name will become available for reservation by any person. All reservations and extensions will be subject to payment of fees.
2. Linguistic Flexibility
The old trade names regime was renowned for its strict restrictions on the use of foreign trade names with only a few exceptions being permitted for certain foreign companies or as determined on a case-by-case basis by the Minister of Commerce. The new Trade Name Law ushers in a new era as trade names can now be registered in Arabic, transliterated Arabic (i.e., Arabic words or text that have been written using the Latin (Roman) alphabet instead of the Arabic script), English, or combinations of letters and numbers (with a maximum of 9 digits).
It is recommended that all businesses ensure linguistic consistency in branding to maximize recognition. Foreign investors will need to ensure that the foreign trade name is writable in English and is capable of being translated into Arabic.
3. Independent Trade Name Ownership
Trade names are capable of being owned, sold, or assigned to other persons, which enhances their commercial value. Given that trade names are exclusive and cannot be replicated, registering and owning a trade name provides businesses with a potentially valuable asset.
What Else Has Changed? A Deeper Look at the New Trade Name Law
Trade Name Registration Process
Article 5 of the new law provides a clearer process regarding the trade name application process, including clearer decision-making timelines of up to 10 days from the date of submission of the application, compared to the old timeline which took up to 30 days (see Article 7 of the old regulation). The decision timeline is extendable in certain cases to 30 days when external approval of a trade name is required.
The Ministry of Commerce has integrated the trade name reservation service into the Saudi Business Center portal, which now manages all trade name applications. After a trade name application is accepted, publication is now mandatory, with applicants bearing associated costs.
Priority is given to the first applicant i.e. first in time to submit an application, if multiple applications for the same name exist. If the registrar rejects an application, applicants will have 60 days to appeal to the Ministry.
Trade Name Protection Against Unauthorized Use
The new law, under its Article 6, strengthens protection against unauthorized use such that no person is entitled to use a trade name registered that belongs to someone else. A fine of SAR 10,000 is now imposed as per Article 15 of the implementing regulations to strengthen adherence to the law and limit unauthorized use of registered or reserved trade names. Businesses with registered names in the Commercial Register have the right to seek compensation for damages caused by unauthorized use. This means that the commercial register serves as proof of ownership, and any person who makes any unauthorized use of a registered trade name will have committed a violation and may be liable to pay compensation to the registered owner of the trade name.
Prohibited Trade Names
Article 7 of the new law outlines the following prohibitions:
- Trade names must not violate public order or morality.
- Names that are misleading, deceptive, or resemble an already registered trade name (regardless of activity type) are not allowed.
- Names similar to famous trademarks are restricted unless owned by the applicant.
- Names containing political, military, or religious references are prohibited.
- Trade names must not resemble symbols of local, regional, or international organizations.
The Ministry of Commerce will also maintain and update a public list of prohibited names regularly, for transparency. Some of the prohibitions introduced by the Trade Names Law are quite broad in nature (particularly the prohibitions relating to “public order or morality” and “famous trademarks”).
It remains unclear how broadly these prohibitions will be interpreted and applied by the Registrar, and the practical challenges such prohibitions may create for applicants wishing to register their trade names. It also remains to be seen whether other restrictions will be unilaterally imposed by the Ministry by way of practice or by way of circumstance and how far the Ministry may go in enforcing these restrictions. To date, the Ministry has already started to reject applications containing the word “company” or that otherwise include a description of an ordinary business activity such as “regional headquarter”.
Monetary Fees for Name Reservations
Article 14 of the implementing regulation introduces the following new fee structure for trade name reservations:
- SAR 200 for an Arabic trade name.
- SAR 500 for an English trade name.
- SAR 100 to extend reservation duration.
- SAR 100 to dispose of the trade name.
New Guidelines for Trade Names Similarity Criteria
Article 5 of the implementing regulation stipulates a formal set of criteria and guidelines that will be used to determine whether a trade name is deemed too similar to an existing one, reducing ambiguity. Under these guidelines, a trade name will be considered like another if its written form closely resembles that of a registered, famous, or reserved trade name. This includes:
- Identical spelling with different word arrangements.
- Identical spelling with a one-letter difference.
- Identical spelling with minor changes, such as adding, removing, or altering pronouns, definite articles, pluralization, or diminutives.
- Identical pronunciation despite differences in spelling or numbers replacing letters, and vice versa.
Criteria mentioned above shall apply to English trade names and their corresponding wording with the use of Arabic letters.
Use of ‘Saudi’ or names of Saudi Cities and Regions in Trade Names
As per Article 4 of the implementing regulation, businesses can now reserve names containing ‘Saudi’ or the name of a Saudi city or region, subject to the following conditions:
- The name must not be identical or similar to any governmental entity.
- The main component or essential element of the name must not be ‘Saudi’ or a Saudi city or region.
- The name must not be used in a manner that would cause harm to the reputation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
- For both Makkah and Madinah regions, approval from the Royal Commission for Makkah and the Holy Sites or the Madinah Development Authority is required.
Practical Considerations for Businesses
Saudi Arabia’s new Trade Name Law enhances transparency, secures commercial identities, and increases business interests in Saudi. In line with this, businesses should consider the following:
- Ensure Distinctiveness: With stricter rules on name similarity and given the relative ease of reserving/registering a trade name, applicants should conduct comprehensive trade name searches and check the Ministry’s prohibited names list before applying to avoid getting rejected.
- Understand New Protections: Trade names are now valuable commercial assets—businesses should actively monitor for unauthorized use and take prompt legal action if necessary.
- Consider Linguistic Strategy: With increased linguistic flexibility, businesses can choose names that enhance global branding while remaining compliant with local regulations.
For Tailored Legal Guidance
For expert legal advice on trade name registration and compliance, contact our team below.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these developments. To learn more, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or the authors in Riyadh:
Mohamed A. Hasan (+966 55 867 5974, malhasan@gibsondunn.com)
Hadeel Tayeb (+966 53 944 3329, htayeb@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
In the context of M&A agreements, the choice-of-law decision between Delaware and Texas could impact the interpretation and applicability of several common provisions. Below is a brief overview of distinctions and similarities that sellers and buyers should consider when negotiating the governing law provision.
Introduction
In large M&A transactions, sophisticated parties historically default to Delaware law to govern M&A agreements. This default treatment stems from more than just habit; it also applies in light of Delaware’s specialized business court – the Court of Chancery – decades of legal precedent, a sophisticated, business-minded judicial bench, and business-favorable statutory law, all of which combine to provide greater predictability regarding how M&A provisions will be interpreted in the event of a dispute.
However, several other states have recently renewed efforts to lure entities to incorporate in their states. In particular, Texas has created a new business court and is reforming its statutory law in an effort to encourage more companies to be formed in Texas and adjudicate their business disputes in specialized Texas business courts. If more companies choose to incorporate in Texas, and a fulsome, more predictable body of case law develops in respect of M&A disputes adjudicated in Texas, M&A counterparties may seek to supplant the standard Delaware governing law provision in their M&A agreements with a Texas governing law provision.
Below is a summary of the treatment of common M&A provisions under Delaware and Texas law and considerations for deal participants in selecting the governing law to apply to their M&A agreements.
Non-Reliance
In negotiating a non-reliance provision in an M&A agreement, the question is whether a seller can be liable for fraud for representations made outside of the transaction agreement. In Delaware, parties cannot contractually limit liability for fraud contained within the transaction agreement. However, parties can include a clear and specific non-reliance provision in the transaction agreement wherein the buyer agrees that it is not relying on representations made outside the transaction agreement. Such provisions effectively waive an essential element of a fraud claim, reliance, as it pertains to representations outside the M&A agreement, such as the confidential information memorandum.
In Texas, courts will similarly uphold clear non-reliance provisions to limit a seller’s liability for statements made outside the M&A agreement; similar to Delaware, a merger clause or a provision that states that the parties have not made representations outside the M&A agreement are insufficient to foreclose fraud liability. Consequently, carefully crafted non-reliance provisions should operate to eliminate liability for fraud outside the four corners of the M&A agreement under both Delaware and Texas law.
Sandbagging
“Sandbagging” refers to a buyer seeking indemnification for breaches of representations and warranties that it knew to be false prior to closing. Under Delaware law, if the contract is silent with respect to the ability of the buyer to recover for breaches of which it had pre-closing knowledge, a buyer can recover damages for breach of a representation even if the buyer had knowledge pre-closing that the representation was false. In other words, the buyer’s pre-closing knowledge of the breach does not matter. The policy behind this approach is that the parties negotiated for the specific terms of the contract, including the division of risk between the buyer and seller, and knowledge of the buyer should not undermine this allocation of risk.
In Texas, practitioners commonly state that reliance on the seller’s representations is required for a buyer to bring a claim for indemnification. In other words, the buyer’s knowledge does matter if the contract is silent with respect to the buyer’s ability to recover for breaches of which it had pre-closing knowledge. The policy behind this approach is that the buyer did not rely on the representation to its detriment by closing the transaction if the buyer knew the representation was false prior to closing. However, the case law in Texas addressing sandbagging is less than clear. While there is nothing in the case law suggesting that Texas follows Delaware’s view, there is not a modern case specifically accepting the proposition that the “default” in Texas is that pre-closing knowledge matters in the context of sandbagging.
Parties to agreements governed by either Delaware or Texas law can include contractual provisions specifically allowing or disallowing sandbagging. But if Texas governing law applies, it would be particularly advisable to allow or disallow sandbagging explicitly rather than remaining silent because there is some uncertainty in how Texas courts would address the issue.
Statute of Limitations
In the context of an M&A agreement, a state’s statute of limitations governs the deadline by which a party must bring a claim for breach of contract. In Delaware, the statute of limitations for non-Article 2 claims is three years. However, parties can contractually agree to lengthen the statute of limitations to up to twenty years so long as the contract is in writing and involves at least $100,000. The statute of limitations in Texas for non-Article 2 transactions is four years. In contrast to Delaware, parties may not contractually agree to lengthen the statute of limitations beyond the four-year statutory period. As a result, Delaware affords parties more flexibility than Texas to negotiate a longer contractual survival period for breach claims.
Material Adverse Effect
An M&A agreement will often allow a buyer to walk away from a deal in the interim period between signing and closing if the seller’s business suffers a significant negative impact. This concept is contained within a material adverse effect (MAE) closing condition. Whether a particular occurrence constitutes an MAE can be a source of negotiation and disagreement.
There is a long line of Delaware cases interpreting the meaning of MAE clauses. In general, under this line of cases, the buyer must show that the negative change is long-term, unforeseen, and will have a substantial impact on the seller’s business. The negative impact must be seller-specific; industry-wide downturns are generally insufficient even if the impact on the seller’s business is severe. Even in Delaware courts, where MAE cases are commonly litigated, judicial determinations that an event constituted an MAE are extremely rare. A commonly repeated industry rule-of-thumb is that the seller’s financial results must decline at least 20% to trigger an MAE walk-away right.
In contrast to Delaware, very little case law in Texas exists interpreting MAE clauses. As in Delaware, whether an event is an MAE will likely depend upon the contractual language and the facts. Because the breadth of case law in Delaware provides parties a higher degree of predictability, parties signing M&A agreements governed by Texas law should be aware that in the event of future litigation, there is greater uncertainty regarding the ultimate interpretation of the MAE clause. This uncertainty may weigh in favor of including more precise contractual language in the M&A agreement describing the parties’ intent regarding what constitutes an MAE.
Lost Premium Damages
In an M&A deal where the target is a public company, the counterparties often negotiate what damages the target company can obtain in the event of a termination of the deal due to the buyer’s breach. A potential measure of damages is the diminution in the target’s share price caused by the deal failing to close, otherwise known as lost premium damages. Whether lost premium damages are an appropriate measure of damages has been hotly contested because the recovery, theoretically paid to compensate the shareholders, is retained by the target company. Some argue in favor of lost premium damages because of the practical difficulty in calculating damages without using the diminution in share price, because buyers would otherwise lack incentives to close the deal, and because the shareholders’ interests in the transaction closing closely mirror the target’s interest. Others argue against awarding lost premium damages because the shareholders, who were neither party to the M&A agreement nor third-party beneficiaries thereunder, cannot recover the damages themselves.
Following the latter reasoning, courts in Delaware historically have been reluctant to allow lost premium damages. In response to this reluctance, the Delaware General Corporation Law was amended in 2024 to specifically allow lost premium damages so long as the transaction agreement contains a provision allowing loss in shareholder value to be used as a measure of damages. Courts in Texas have not yet addressed the issue of lost premium damages. Given the debate outlined above, how Texas courts would view these provisions is uncertain.
If lost premium damages are a desired remedy, parties to M&A agreements governed by Delaware and Texas law should include a clause in the agreement specifically allowing lost premium damages. However, in the case of M&A agreements governed by Texas law, practitioners should consider additional contractual protections in the event that the lost premium provision is not upheld in court.
Successor Liability in Asset Purchases
Buyers in asset purchases typically do not inherit the seller’s obligations that are not specifically assumed liabilities in the deal. However, buyers can be liable for the seller’s debts and obligations, also termed successor liability, under several common law theories. First, the buyer expressly or impliedly assumes the liability under the transaction. Second, the transaction is a de facto merger under state law. Third, the transaction is fraudulent or was entered into to defraud creditors. Fourth, the buyer is a mere continuation of the seller.
Courts in Delaware mostly reject the traditional theories of successor liability and only impose liability on the buyer if the buyer expressly assumes the liability or if not allowing a creditor to recover from the buyer would be unjust given the circumstances. There is limited case law upholding successor liability under the traditional theories, but Delaware courts construe these narrowly. As a result, successor liability is relatively uncommon in Delaware.
In contrast, Texas’ successor liability law is governed by statute and is more restrictive than Delaware. Under the Texas Business Organizations Code, a buyer is not subject to successor liability unless required by statutory law or unless the buyer expressly assumes the liability under the transaction. This approach rejects the common law theories wholesale and provides parties with more certainty regarding whether a buyer can be held liable post-closing for a liability of the seller. In determining whether to subject the M&A agreement to Texas or Delaware governing law in the context of an asset purchase transaction, particularly in a transaction where the buyer wants to exclude particularly significant liabilities from the transaction, the buyer should weigh the treatment of successor liability issues under Delaware common law versus Texas’ statutory regime.
Conclusion
Delaware law is the default governing law for many M&A agreements due to its decades of case law, sophisticated bench, and business-friendly statutory law, which provide a high degree of certainty regarding the likely outcome of disputed matters. While Texas continues to build out its body of case law, there will be, in some respects, greater uncertainty for M&A agreements governed by Texas law. However, by being informed of the subtle differences in the relevant Delaware and Texas law, utilizing clear language that has been upheld in other jurisdictions, and contracting in the alternative so that protections are in place regardless of judicial interpretation, parties seeking to subject their M&A agreements to Texas governing law can help bridge the uncertainty gap.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or the leaders or members of the firm’s Mergers & Acquisitions or Private Equity practice groups:
Mergers & Acquisitions:
Robert B. Little – Dallas (+1 214.698.3260, rlittle@gibsondunn.com)
Saee Muzumdar – New York (+1 212.351.3966, smuzumdar@gibsondunn.com)
George Sampas – New York (+1 212.351.6300, gsampas@gibsondunn.com)
Private Equity:
Richard J. Birns – New York (+1 212.351.4032, rbirns@gibsondunn.com)
Ari Lanin – Los Angeles (+1 310.552.8581, alanin@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Piazza – Houston (+1 346.718.6670, mpiazza@gibsondunn.com)
John M. Pollack – New York (+1 212.351.3903, jpollack@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
From the Derivatives Practice Group: This week, ESMA was active, publishing various reports and guidelines concerning non-equity instruments, liquidity assessments of bonds, and data usage.
New Developments
- SEC Publishes New Market Data, Analysis, and Visualizations. On April 28, the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (“DERA”) has published new data and analysis on the key market areas of public issuers, exempt offerings, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (“CMBS”), Asset-Backed Securities (“ABS”), money market funds, and security-based swap dealers (“SBSD”) in an effort to increase transparency and understanding of our capital markets amongst the public. [NEW]
- Paul S. Atkins Sworn in as SEC Chairman. On April 21, Paul S. Atkins was sworn into office as the 34th Chairman of the SEC. Chairman Atkins was nominated by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, 2025. Prior to returning to the SEC, Chairman Atkins was most recently chief executive of Patomak Global Partners, a company he founded in 2009. Chairman Atkins helped lead efforts to develop best practices for the digital asset sector. He served as an independent director and non-executive chairman of the board of BATS Global Markets, Inc. from 2012 to 2015.
- CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment Regarding Perpetual Contracts in Derivatives Markets. On April 21, the CFTC issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of perpetual contracts in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates (“Perpetual Derivatives”). This request seeks comment on the characteristics of perpetual derivatives, including those characteristics which may differ across products. as well as the implications of their use in trading, clearing and risk management. The request also seeks comment on the risks of perpetual derivatives, including risks related to the areas of market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading.
- CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading. On April 21, the CFTC issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of trading on a 24/7 basis in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates. This request seeks comment on the implications of extending the trading of CFTC-regulated derivatives markets to an effectively 24/7 basis, including the potential effects on trading, clearing and risk management which differ from trading during current market hours. The request also seeks comment on the risks of 24/7 trading, and the associated clearing systems, including risks related to the areas of market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading.
- CFTC Staff Issues Advisory on Referrals to the Division of Enforcement. On April 17, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division, the Division of Clearing and Risk, and the Division of Market Oversight (“Operating Divisions”) and the Division of Enforcement (“DOE”) issued a staff advisory providing guidance on the materiality or other criteria that the Operating Divisions will use to determine whether to make a referral to DOE for self-reported violations, or supervision or non-compliance issues. According to the CFTC, this advisory furthers the implementation of DOE’s recent advisory, issued February 25, 2025, addressing its updated policy on self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation.
- CFTC Staff Issues No-Action Letter Regarding the Merger of UBS Group and Credit Suisse Group. On April 15, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division (“MPD”) and Division of Clearing and Risk (“DCR”) issued a no-action letter in response to a request from UBS AG regarding the CFTC’s swap clearing and uncleared swap margin requirements. The CFTC said that the letter is in connection with a court-supervised transfer, consistent with United Kingdom laws, of certain swaps from Credit Suisse International to UBS AG London Branch following the merger of UBS Group AG and Credit Suisse Group AG. The no-action letter states, in connection with such transfer and subject to certain specified conditions: (1) MPD will not recommend the Commission take an enforcement action against certain of UBS AG London Branch’s swap dealer counterparties for their failure to comply with the CFTC’s uncleared swap margin requirements for such transferred swaps; and (2) DCR will not recommend the Commission take an enforcement action against UBS AG or certain of its counterparties for their failure to comply with the CFTC’s swap clearing requirement for such transferred swaps.
- CFTC Staff Issues Interpretation Regarding U.S. Treasury Exchange-Traded Funds as Eligible Margin Collateral for Uncleared Swaps. On April 14, MPD issued an interpretation intended to clarify the types of assets that qualify as eligible margin collateral for certain uncleared swap transactions under CFTC regulations. CFTC Regulation 23.156 lists the types of collateral that covered swaps entities can post or collect as initial margin (“IM”) and variation margin (“VM”) for uncleared swap transactions. The CFTC indicated that the regulation, which includes “redeemable securities in a pooled investment fund” as eligible IM collateral, aims to identify assets that are liquid and will hold their value in times of financial stress. Additionally, MPD noted that the interpretation clarifies its view that shares of certain U.S. Treasury exchange-traded funds may be considered redeemable securities in a pooled investment fund and may qualify as eligible IM and VM collateral subject to the conditions in CFTC Regulation 23.156. According to MPD, swap dealers, therefore, (1) may post and collect shares of certain UST ETFs as IM collateral for uncleared swap transactions with any covered counterparty and (2) may also post and collect such UST ETF shares as VM for uncleared swap transactions with financial end users.
New Developments Outside the U.S.
- ESMA Publishes the Annual Transparency Calculations for Non-equity Instruments and Bond Liquidity Data. On April 30, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published the results of the annual transparency calculations for non-equity instruments and new quarterly liquidity assessment of bonds under MiFID II and MiFIR. [NEW]
- ESMA Report Shows Increased Data Use Across EU and First Effects of Reporting Burden Reduction Efforts. On April 30, ESMA published the fifth edition of its Report on the Quality and Use of Data. The report reveals how the regulatory data collected has been used by authorities in the EU and provides insight into actions taken to ensure data quality. The document presents concrete cases on data use ranging from market monitoring to supervision, enforcement and policy making. The report also highlights ESMA’s Data Platform and ongoing improvements to data quality frameworks as key advancements in tools and technology for data quality. [NEW]
- ESMA Issues Supervisory Guidelines to Prevent Market Abuse under MiCA. On April 29, ESMA published guidelines on supervisory practices to prevent and detect market abuse under the Market in Crypto Assets Regulation (“MiCA”). Based on ESMA’s experience under Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the guidelines intended for National Competent Authorities (“NCAs”) include general principles for effective supervision and specific practices for detecting and preventing market abuse in crypto assets. They consider the unique features of crypto trading, such as its cross-border nature and the intensive use of social media. [NEW]
- ESMA Assesses the Risks Posed by the Use of Leverage in the Fund Sector. On April 24, ESMA published its annual risk assessment of leveraged alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) and its first analysis on risks in UCITS using the absolute Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) approach. Both articles represent ESMA’s work to identify highly leveraged funds in the EU investment sector and assess their potential systemic relevance.
- ESAs Publish Joint Annual Report for 2024. On April 16, the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA – ESAs) published its 2024 Annual Report. The main areas of cross-sectoral focus in 2024 were joint risk assessments, sustainable finance, operational risk and digital resilience, consumer protection, financial innovation, securitisation, financial conglomerates and the European Single Access Point (“ESAP”). Among the Joint Committee’s main deliverables were policy products for the implementation of the Digital Operational Resilience Act (“DORA”) as well as ongoing work related to the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation.
- EC Publishes Consultation on the Integration of EU Capital Markets. On April 15, the European Commission (“EC”) published a targeted consultation on the integration of EU capital markets. This forms part of the EC’s plan to progress the Savings and Investment Union (“SIU”) strategy, published in March. According to the EC, the objective of the consultation is to identify legal, regulatory, technological and operational barriers hindering the development of integrated capital markets. Its focus includes barriers related to trading, post-trading infrastructures and the cross-border distribution of funds, as well as barriers specifically linked to supervision. The deadline for responses is June 10, 2025.
- Japan’s Financial Services Agency Publishes Explanatory Document on Counterparty Credit Risk Management. On April 14, Japan’s Financial Services Agency (“JFSA”) published an explanatory document on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s Guidelines for Counterparty Credit Risk Management. The document, co-authored with the Bank of Japan, indicates that it was published to facilitate better understanding of the Basel Committee’s guidelines and is available in Japanese only.
New Industry-Led Developments
- ISDA Responds to FASB Proposal on KPIs for Business Entities. On April 30, ISDA submitted a response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) proposal on financial key performance indicators (“KPIs”) for business entities. In the response, ISDA addressed the implications of KPI standardization, its potential impact on financial reporting and risk management, and the broader cost-benefit considerations for preparers and investors. Based on proprietary analysis, ISDA does not view financial KPI standardization or the proposed disclosures as urgent priorities for the FASB at this time. [NEW]
- CPMI-IOSCO Assesses that EU has Implemented Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures for Two FMI Types. On April 28, CPMI-IOSCO released a report that assessed the completeness and consistency of the legal, regulatory and oversight framework in place as of October 30, 2019. The report finds that the implementation of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures is complete and consistent for all Principles for payment systems. The legal, regulatory and oversight frameworks in the EU for central securities depositories and securities settlement systems are complete and consistent with the Principles in most aspects. However, the assessment identified some areas for improvement, particularly in aspects where implementation was broadly, partly, or not consistent, including risk and governance principles. [NEW]
- ISDA/IIF Responds to EC’s Consultation on the Market Risk Prudential Framework. On April 22, ISDA and the Institute of International Finance (“IIF”) submitted a joint response to the EC’s consultation on the application of the market risk prudential framework. The associations believe the capital framework should be risk-appropriate and as consistent as possible across jurisdictions to ensure a level playing field without competitive distortions due to divergent rules.
- ISDA and FIA Respond to Consultation on Commodity Derivatives Markets. On April 22, ISDA and FIA submitted a joint response to the EC’s consultation on the functioning of commodity derivatives markets and certain aspects relating to spot energy markets. In addition to questions on position management, reporting and limits and the ancillary activities exemption, the consultation also addressed data and reporting and certain concepts raised in the Draghi report, such as a market correction mechanism to cap pricing of natural gas and an obligation to trade certain commodity derivatives in the EU only.
- ISDA Submits Letter on Environmental Credits. On April 15, ISDA submitted a response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) consultation on environmental credits and environmental credit obligations. ISDA said that the response supports the FASB’s overall proposals to establish clear and consistent accounting guidance for environmental credits, but highlights that clarification is needed in certain areas, including those related to recognition, derecognition, impairment and hedge accounting impacts.
The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this update: Jeffrey Steiner, Adam Lapidus, Marc Aaron Takagaki, Hayden McGovern, Karin Thrasher, and Alice Wang.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Derivatives practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:
Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)
Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Darius Mehraban, New York (212.351.2428, dmehraban@gibsondunn.com)
Jason J. Cabral, New York (212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)
Adam Lapidus, New York (212.351.3869, alapidus@gibsondunn.com )
Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)
William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com )
David P. Burns, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Marc Aaron Takagaki, New York (212.351.4028, mtakagaki@gibsondunn.com )
Hayden K. McGovern, Dallas (214.698.3142, hmcgovern@gibsondunn.com)
Karin Thrasher, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3712, kthrasher@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.