Podcasts about burling llp

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

Jason is a key advisor at Great Gray Trust Company, specializing in CIT eligibility and investment-related matters. He negotiates agreements with plans, subadvisors, and service providers. Previously, Jason spent 13 years at Covington & Burling LLP, focusing on ERISA investing and policy issues. Committed to retirement policy, he has a proven track record of legislative and policy changes. Jason holds a JD from Columbia University and a BA from the University of Pennsylvania. He serves on the Pension Rights Center Board and frequently speaks at industry events, shaping the future of retirement planning.In this episode, Eric and Jason Levy discuss:The growing popularity of CITsRegulations involving CITsCIT availability Why fiduciaries should consider CITs Key Takeaways:Collective Investment Trusts (CITs) are growing in popularity as a cost-effective alternative to mutual funds for retirement plans, offering similar investment strategies at lower costs.CITs are regulated under a regime tailored specifically for retirement plans, providing enhanced investor protections compared to mutual funds.Historically, CITs were only accessible to the largest retirement plans, but minimum investment requirements have decreased, making them available to smaller and mid-sized plans as well.Plan fiduciaries and advisors should consider adding CITs to their investment lineups, as the cost savings can significantly impact participant retirement outcomes over time.“Even in the small plan market, CITs are available, even the smallest plans through those aggregators would be able to access CITs. Regardless of the size of your plan, CIT should be on your radar.” - Jason LevyConnect with Jason Levy:Website: https://greatgray.com/ Email: jason.levy@greatgray.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-levy-19783a17/ Great Gray Trust Company, LLC Collective Investment Funds (“Great Gray Funds”) are bank collective investment funds; they are not mutual funds. Great Gray Trust Company, LLC serves as the Trustee of the Great Gray Funds and maintains ultimate fiduciary authority over the management of, and investments made in, the Great Gray Funds. Great Gray Funds and their units are exempt from registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Securities Act of 1933, respectively.Investments in the Great Gray Funds are not bank deposits or obligations of and are not insured or guaranteed by Great Gray Trust Company, LLC, any bank, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, or any other governmental agency. The Great Gray Funds are commingled investment vehicles, and as such, the values of the underlying investments will rise and fall according to market activity; it is possible to lose money by investing in the Great Gray Funds.Connect with Eric Dyson: Website: https://90northllc.com/Phone: 940-248-4800Email: contact@90northllc.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/401kguy/ The information and content of this podcast is general in nature and is provided solely for educational and informational purposes. It is believed to be accurate and reliable as of the posting date but may be subject to change.It is not intended to provide a specific recommendation for any type of product or service discussed in this presentation or to provide any warranties, investment advice, financial advice, tax, plan design or legal advice (unless otherwise specifically indicated). Please consult your own independent advisor as to any investment, tax, or legal statements made.The specific facts and circumstances of all qualified plans can vary and the information contained in this podcast may or may not apply to your individual circumstances or to your plan or client plan-specific circumstances.

Stuart Eizenstat, Chief White House Domestic Policy Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter biographer, and Senior Counsel in Covington and Burling LLP, joins the show to discuss the life and legacy of the former President and some of the common misconceptions surrounding his time in office.

In the second hour Chris and Amy are joined by Eli Hoff, Mizzou Athletics Writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch talks about Mizzou bowl game against Iowa. Amy couldn't walk the blank playing virtual reality. KMOX Sports Open Line Host Matt Pauley joins to talk about Winter Classic tomorrow and the passing of Greg Gumbel. Stuart Eizenstat, Chief White House Domestic Policy Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter biographer, currently Senior Counsel in Covington and Burling LLP's joins to talk about the life of Jimmy Carter and why do we view his presidency the way we do.

Today on the Chris and Amy show; Amy quizzes Chris about what year it happened in Peter Kastor, Professor of History and American Culture Studies at Washington University joins to talk about the presidency of Jimmy Carter and why he came to St. Louis area as much as he did. Eli Hoff, Mizzou Athletics Writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch talks about Mizzou bowl game against Iowa. KMOX Sports Open Line Host Matt Pauley joins to talk about Winter Classic tomorrow and the passing of Greg Gumbel. Stuart Eizenstat, Chief White House Domestic Policy Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter biographer, currently Senior Counsel in Covington and Burling LLP's joins to talk about the life of Jimmy Carter and why do we view his presidency the way we do. Top 5 front offices in the 4 major sports

Welcome back to the Alt Goes Mainstream podcast.Today's podcast illustrates just how far private markets have come. We dive into the world of GP stakes with Sean Ward, Senior Managing Director from Blue Owl's GP Strategic Capital Platform, where he was a founding partner and is responsible for helping to oversee the firm that has done the lion's share of GP stakes investing.Blue Owl's GP Strategic Capital business, which started out as Dyal Capital Partners, has accounted for over 61% of the total capital raised in the GP stakes space, closing on over $33.3B across their 7 funds and managing $57.8B AUM. They've taken minority ownership stakes in many of the industry's leading alternative asset managers, accounting for 85%+ of all GP stakes deals $600M or greater in size.Sean is a Senior Managing Director of Blue Owl Capital, Inc. and a member of the firm's Board of Directors. He also serves as a member of the GP Strategic Capital Investment Team. Prior to joining Dyal Capital Partners, the predecessor firm to Blue Owl's GP Strategic Capital platform, Sean was a Vice President at Lehman Brothers and held several roles at Neuberger Berman after it became an independent firm, including Senior Counsel for Neuberger's alternatives business. Sean was also a lawyer at Covington & Burling LLP and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.Sean and I had a fascinating conversation about the evolution of private markets through the parallel evolution of the GP stakes space.  We discussed:The early days of the GP stakes industry.What it was like to convince GPs and LPs why stakes made sense.How the $1B GP commitment by Bain Capital in their fund post-GFC really opened everyone's eyes to the need to tap into financing as firms grew their fund size and their business.A “cash in” rather than a “cash out.” Why GP stakes investing is mainly about positive selection since managers are choosing to sell a stake in their business.How alternative asset management has evolved as a business.How GP stakes investments have elements of bond-like coupons from cashflows due to management fees and option value from the upside of carry.Why GP stakes investments are “the most diversified single line item investment one can make in private markets.”Where allocators bucket GP stakes investments.What makes a great GP stakes investor.The power of permanent capital.The different paths to liquidity in GP stakes investments.Thanks Sean for coming on the show to share your views and wisdom on private markets. We hope you enjoy.A word from AGM podcast sponsor, Ultimus Fund SolutionsThis episode of Alt Goes Mainstream is brought to you by Ultimus Fund Solutions, a leading full-service fund administrator for asset managers in private and public markets. As private markets continue to move into the mainstream, the industry requires infrastructure solutions that help funds and investors keep pace. In an increasingly sophisticated financial marketplace, investment managers must navigate a growing array of challenges: elaborate fund structures, specialized strategies, evolving compliance requirements, a growing need for sophisticated reporting, and intensifying demands for transparency.To assist with these challenging opportunities, more and more fund sponsors and asset managers are turning to Ultimus, a leading service provider that blends high tech and high touch in unique and customized fund administration and middle office solutions for a diverse and growing universe of over 450 clients and 1,800 funds, representing $500 billion assets under administration, all handled by a team of over 1,000 professionals. Ultimus offers a wide range of capabilities across registered funds, private funds and public plans, as well as outsourced middle office services. Delivering operational excellence, Ultimus helps firms manage the ever-changing regulatory environment while meeting the needs of their institutional and retail investors. Ultimus provides comprehensive operational support and fund governance services to help managers successfully launch retail alternative products.Visit www.ultimusfundsolutions.com to learn more about Ultimus' technology enhanced services and solutions or contact Ultimus Executive Vice President of Business Development Gary Harris on email at gharris@ultimusfundsolutions.com.We thank Ultimus for their support of alts going mainstream.Show Notes00:00 Introduction and Sponsor Message01:17 Podcast Opening and Theme02:00 Guest Introduction: Sean Ward from Blue Owl GP Strategic Capital04:21 Sean Ward's Career Journey05:14 The Evolution of GP Stakes Investing06:23 The Start of GP Stakes at Blue Owl06:57 Raising the First Fund07:09 The Growth of Blue Owl's GP Stakes07:31 The Importance of Legal Background in GP Stakes09:48 Convincing LPs and GPs11:14 The Importance of GP Commitments15:23 Strategic Value Beyond Capital24:45 Succession Planning in Private Equity26:02 Impact of Market Conditions on GP Stakes29:26 Underwriting and Returns in GP Stakes36:33 Cash Flow and Diversification in GP Stakes Investments37:48 Understanding the Trade-offs in GP Stakes Investing38:35 Narrow Distribution of Potential Outcomes40:09 The Importance of Diverse Professional Backgrounds40:45 Collaborative Partnerships in GP Stakes41:34 Traits of a Great Alternative Asset Manager43:49 The Next Frontier: Private Wealth45:13 Middle Market Strategy and Partnerships49:34 The Evolution and Future of Private Markets53:19 Liquidity in GP Stakes Investments58:26 The Power of Permanent Capital01:00:28 Is GP Stakes Better Than SaaS?01:02:43 Exemplary Models for Growth in Asset Management01:05:47 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

This week, we're joined by Brian Corbin, Vice President of Legal Solutions and Operational Excellence at QuisLex, an alternative legal services provider that specializes in managed document review, contract management, compliance services, legal spend management, and legal operations consulting. Brian started his career at the moment in time when the federal rules of civil procedure changed, revolutionizing the eDiscovery process. As senior staff attorney at Covington & Burling LLP, Brian managed teams of document review attorneys on high-profile intellectual property litigation and federal regulatory matters for Fortune 500 clients. Later, he observed the rise of legal offshoring, so he decided to work for Clutch Group in Bengaluru as associate vice president of legal services. Brian then went to JPMorgan Chase, where he worked various roles involving eDiscovery, ultimately becoming executive director and assistant general counsel at the company. Today, at QuisLex, he is part of a team of attorneys, process experts, legal technologists, statisticians, and linguists working closely with clients to reduce cost, mitigate risk, and maximize efficiency. In our conversation, Brian talks about the "long and winding road" to his job at QuisLex, what it was like to work in different countries, how he addresses the fear around legal tech and change management, and what we can learn from the eDiscovery revolution as it applies to generative AI.

The numbers are in, and it's clear that Americans of all political stripes – Democrats, independents, and both MAGA and non-MAGA Republicans – want America to be engaged and leading on the world stage. The Reagan Institute's new summer survey shows that the vast majority of Americans want a strong military; support defending NATO allies; and continue to support Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. But hidden in the crosstabs is an important finding: The myth of MAGA isolationism and Republican support for Russia is just that, a myth. Self-identified “MAGA Republicans” were more internationalist than “non-MAGA Republicans” on every issue and the number of Democrats and Republicans who want Russia to win over Ukraine is a statistical tie.Roger Zakheim serves as the Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. He previously practiced law at Covington & Burling LLP where he led the firm's Public Policy and Government Affairs practice group. Before joining Covington he was General Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee where he managed the passage of the annual National Defense Authorization Act. He was also the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.Read the transcript here. Find the Reagan Institute's summer survey here.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim sits down with Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat who is the former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and currently serves as the Special Advisor for Holocaust Issues, and is Senior Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP. They discuss modern diplomacy in America ranging from Vietnam to the JCPOA, Henry Kissinger's diplomatic legacy, and his new book entitled, The Art of Diplomacy.

Join America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with the Honorable Stuart E. Eizenstat, Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. The conversation with Ambassador Eizenstat focuses on the rise of anti-Semitism in America, the significance of US leadership on the world stage as isolationism grows from within, combined with an emboldened axis of resistance led by Iran and its proxies, including China and Russia, undermining the West's rule of law civilization. The discussion highlights Ambassador Eizenstat's soon to be released book — “The Art of Diplomacy: How American Negotiators Reached Historic Agreements That Changed the World.” The book's foreword was written by Henry A. Kissinger and a preface presented by James A. Baker III. We cover the importance of America's leadership on the vital fronts of trade, peace and security. Ambassador Eizenstat speaks about the on-going efforts to engage European governments to restitute Jewish property confiscated during WWII and compensate Holocaust victims and their descendants. According to the Associated Press (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/one-third-of-israeli-holocaust-survivors-live-in-poverty-advocates-say): "Yet among Israel's estimated 165,000 survivors, roughly one in three lives in poverty, according to a survivors' advocacy group." An Axis report states (https://www.axios.com/2024/01/24/holocaust-survivors-worldwide-study-israel-us): Details: About 245,000 Holocaust survivors are living across more than 90 countries, according to a report released Tuesday by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference). The vast majority (95%) are child survivors born between 1928 and 1946. The median age of survivors is 86, and around 61% are women. Roughly half of the survivors live in Israel, while 16% reside in the United States, the country with the second largest percentage, the study found. Around a third of the survivors in the U.S. are living in poverty, Greg Schneider, executive vice president of the Claims Conference, tells Axios. Zoom in: 40% of survivors worldwide access or have accessed social welfare services from over 300 agencies that receive grants administered by the Claims Conference. Services include home care, food, medicine and transportation, among others. Brief bio: Stuart E. Eizenstat of Washington, DC, is Chair of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. He previously served as a member from 2001–2004. He is a senior member of Covington & Burling LLP's international practice. During his public service in four administrations, Ambassador Eizenstat served as chief White House domestic policy adviser to President Carter and held a number of key roles in the Clinton Administration, including Ambassador to the European Union; Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade; Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs; and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He served as a member of the White House staff for President Johnson. He has made Holocaust justice and memory a major part of his career. During the Carter Administration, Ambassador Eizenstat recommended a President's Commission on the Holocaust chaired by Elie Wiesel and helped draft the legislation authorizing creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Full bio (https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council/eizenstat) americasrt.com (https://americasrt.com/) https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 Twitter: @ileaderssummit @AmericasRT @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio program - a strategic initiative of International Leaders Summit, focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 65 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

Artificial intelligence enabled devices are changing the landscape of medical devices and are subject to evolving regulation. Listen back to a replay of our webinar from late last year as team of lawyers from Covington & Burling LLP discuss key considerations for the AI-enabled medical device space, including current best practices for industry participants seeking to take advantage of this powerful new technology.Panelists from Covington included:Andrew MentPam ForrestAdrian PerryTo watch a video replay of the webinar, you can find it on Medical Alley's YouTube page.Follow Medical Alley on social media on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Advancements in technology and the need for continued advocacy don't take a pause just because it is an election year. It just means we have fewer legislative days to do the work that keeps our industry up with the times and protects the future of cryptocurrency. This week, episode 198 of the Tech Intersect™ Podcast is about navigating the legal and regulatory landscape of the crypto economy!POWERED BY ADVANTAGE EVANS™ ACADEMY Navigate your way from cash to crypto with Digital Money Demystified. Dive into the definitive guide on crypto myths and truths by Professor Tonya M. Evans. This isn't just a book; it's a roadmap to the decentralized web's future of work, wealth, and creativity. Head over to DigitalMoneyDemystified.com and embark on your crypto journey today! Marisa Coppel is the Head of Legal at Blockchain Association. In her role Marisa helps develop and advocate for policy positions on behalf of the crypto industry as well as manages long-term legal projects and strategic litigation. Prior to joining the Association, Marisa represented corporate clients in regulatory enforcement actions, internal investigations, and civil litigation matters at Covington & Burling LLP. Marisa earned her B.A. from Brandeis University, and her J.D. from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.Topics Marisa and I go over in this episode include:Concerns about FinCEN's proposed rule on CVC (convertible virtual currency) mixing, arguing it could stifle innovation and target valid and illicit activity.The Custodian Bank vs. Federal Reserve case's significant impact on the crypto industry. Courts play a crucial role in maintaining balance in the regulatory system, providing clarity for the industry.CONNECT WITH MARISA COPPEL:LinkedInX (Twitter)Blockchain AssociationCONNECT WITH DR. TONYA M. EVANS:Questions and requests: hello@techintersectpodcast.com Follow: Twitter @AtTechIntersect | Instagram @TechIntersect Web: Tech Intersect Podcast  Connect for exclusive content: https://advantageevans.activehosted.com/f/6 RESOURCES:Buy the Book + Leave 5 Star Review Digital Money DemystifiedConsulting, Courses and Community: AdvantageEvans.comDigital Money Demystified Investor + Professional Digest: Subscribe to My SubstackLINKS MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:Coin CenterDeFi Education FundStart separating crypto fact from fiction today. Get your copy of , Digital Money Demystified, and start learning so you can earn safely, legally and confidently. https://digitalmoneydemystified.comRegulate & The Rabbit Hole by Notty Prod licensed via Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Produced by Tonya M. Evans for Advantage Evans, LLC

Two years ago, at the start of the war in Ukraine, $300 billion in Russian assets were frozen in Western banks. The assumption behind Western economic pressure on Russia was that sanctions and seizures of oligarchs' funds would have a chilling effect on both Russia's economy and the pursuit of the war in Ukraine. They have not. As a result, for only the second time in history, the United States is considering seizing Russian assets. Congress, in the lead, has brought the Biden administration around. The President needs new authorities to move forward. But seizing the frozen $300 billion – only $5 billion of which is in the United States – and re-distributing it to Ukraine for reconstruction and other reparation efforts is fraught. Will the Euros go along? Will this radical change affect how states approach seizing aggressors' assets? Perhaps more importantly, is the Biden administration's signal of approval for the policy just talk, or will Washington finally pull together measures that hit Russia where it hurts?Stephen Rademaker, currently Senior of Counsel at Covington and Burling LLP, has wide-ranging experience working on national security issues in the White House, the State Department, and the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Serving as an Assistant Secretary of State from 2002 through 2006, he headed at various times three bureaus of the State Department, including the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. Previously, he served as General Counsel of the Peace Corps, Associate Counsel to the President in the Office of White House Counsel, and as Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council. Download the transcript here.Read the WTH Substack here.

Andrew Jaquith, former CISO at Covington & Burling LLP, is a Board Advisor at SecurityScorecard. In this episode, he joins host Steve Morgan to discuss cybersecurity metrics and KPIs, as well as how companies can determine security posture and reduce risk, and more. SecurityScorecard is the leading security rating company, used by more than 2,500 top companies. To learn more about our sponsor, visit https://securityscorecard.com

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court's 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.Featuring: Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & BargerAllyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPHon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East TimorMark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

The Pharmacy Benefit Manger (PBM) industry, which is a critical player in transactions that facilitate the pricing and reimbursement of prescription drugs, has experienced a high level of vertical integration and aggregation of market power. Rujul Desai, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP, and Kendra Roberson, Partner, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, discuss the rise of PBMs and their role in drug pricing and the increasing scrutiny of the industry at the federal and state levels. Rujul and Kendra are co-authors of AHLA's brand-new publication, Market Access, Pricing, and Reimbursement of Drugs and Devices: Legal Principles and Practice.Watch the conversation here.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

With the incessant politicization of real foreign policy issues, sometimes it is helpful to go back to the numbers. And in this case, the numbers are detached from the reality that anti-Ukraine Republicans are trying to sell. In fact, a new summer survey from the Reagan Institute finds that a 76% supermajority of Americans, including 71% of Republicans, agree that it is important to the US that Ukraine wins the war. This is not the “Ukraine fatigue” story we have been told. Moreover, support for aid increases substantially when respondents are given more information – where aid to Ukraine is going, how Ukraine has performed on the field. Knowing this, why are our leaders failing to give the America First case for aid to Ukraine?Roger Zakheim serves as the Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. He previously practiced law at Covington & Burling LLP where he led the firm's Public Policy and Government Affairs practice group. Before joining Covington he was General Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee where he managed the passage of the annual National Defense Authorization Act. He was also the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense.Download the transcript here.

This week Peter Hutt, partner at Covington & Burling LLP, joins Off the Shelf for an in-depth discussion of the False Claims Act, including the basics of the law and its impact in the government contracts market. Hutt lays out the history of the law, including liability standards, potential damages and penalties, and the role of qui tam plaintiffs/relators. Each year DOJ releases key statistics on the FCA and Hutt highlights key trends in enforcement activity found in the data. Over the last year there has been an increase in activity but a reduction in recoveries. Hutt notes the types of cases he is seeing and the current priorities of the DOJ. Durin g the interview, Hutt also analyzes two recent Supreme Court cases: U.S. ex rel Schutte V. Supervalu (Supervalu) and U.S. ex rel Polansky v Executive Health Resources (Polansky). Supervalu is significant, holding that the scienter standard refers to a defendant's contemporaneous knowledge and subjective beliefs, not what an objectively reasonable person may have believed. Polansky addresses the timing and ability of DOJ to intervene in a qui tam and then seek dismissal. Hutt unpacks both decisions, providing clear, concise analysis on what contractors need to know and what the decisions mean for the future.

This week Peter Hutt, partner at Covington & Burling LLP, joins Off the Shelf for an in-depth discussion of the False Claims Act, including the basics of the law and its impact in the government contracts market.Hutt lays out the history of the law, including liability standards, potential damages and penalties, and the role of qui tam plaintiffs/relators.Each year DOJ releases key statistics on the FCA and Hutt highlights key trends in enforcement activity found in the data. Over the last year there has been an increase in activity but a reduction in recoveries. Hutt notes the types of cases he is seeing and the current priorities of the DOJ.Durin g the interview, Hutt also analyzes two recent Supreme Court cases: U.S. ex rel Schutte V. Supervalu (Supervalu) and U.S. ex rel Polansky v Executive Health Resources (Polansky). Supervalu is significant, holding that the scienter standard refers to a defendant's contemporaneous knowledge and subjective beliefs, not what an objectively reasonable person may have believed. Polansky addresses the timing and ability of DOJ to intervene in a qui tam and then seek dismissal.Hutt unpacks both decisions, providing clear, concise analysis on what contractors need to know and what the decisions mean for the future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

EPISODE 1508: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to the CEO and President of Democracy Forward, Skye Perryman, about the existential crisis of American Democracy and what we can do to save it Skye Perryman is a lawyer, advocate, and leader with a track record of taking on and winning critical fights that advance democratic values, stop abuses of power, and improve the wellbeing of people and communities. She was named President and CEO of Democracy Forward Foundation in June 2021, returning to the organization where she was on the founding litigation team. She most recently served as the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where she oversaw its broad portfolio of legal, policy, and public affairs work and led a number of groundbreaking initiatives that enhanced access and equity in health care. Prior to ACOG, Skye was a Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward Foundation where, as one of the organization's founding litigators, she developed and filed some of the first cases challenging unprecedented and unlawful executive action in the post-2016 era. Skye began her legal career at Covington & Burling LLP and later practiced at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr (WilmerHale). In private practice, she handled complex and high-stakes matters at the intersection of law and policy for clients across industries, while maintaining a robust pro bono practice dedicated to vindicating the civil and constitutional rights of people. Earlier in her career, Skye coordinated programs for underserved youth in Central Texas public schools. She was also part of early efforts to build coalitions between labor and environmental stakeholders supporting investment in renewable energy infrastructure and good jobs. Skye volunteers her time as a mentor and serves on the boards of several organizations, including the First Shift Justice Project, the Atlas Performing Arts Center, and the Interfaith Alliance. She teaches courses at American University and is an active alumna of Baylor University, where she helped to initiate a thousands-strong alumni movement calling on the University to change its restrictive policies regarding LGBTQ+ student organizations. Skye grew up in Texas and is a proud product of its public schools. She holds a Juris Doctor with honors from the Georgetown University Law Center and a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude from Baylor University where she is a member of the Board of Advocates for the College of Arts and Sciences. She has received numerous accolades, including being named a four-time Washington Rising Star by SuperLawyers, a Top 40 Under 40 Trailblazer by the Leadership Center for Excellence, the Baylor Line Foundation's Outstanding Young Alumna, a Harry S. Truman Scholar, and a Chuck F. C. Ruff Pro Bono Lawyer of the Year. Her work has been covered in outlets such as The New York Times, National Public Radio, NBC News, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, and Teen Vogue. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this month's very special episode of Repast, Michael and Diana talk with Peter Barton Hutt, who is one of the premier figures in the modern development of food and drug law, and who has significantly shaped the field.  Hutt is senior counsel at Covington and Burling LLP; he was Chief Counsel for the Food and Drug Administration from 1971 to 1975; he is co-author of Food and Drug Law: Cases and Materials (Foundation Press, 1st edition 1980, 2d edition 1991, 3d edition 2007, 4th edition 2014, 5th edition 2022); he has taught Food and Drug Law annually at Harvard Law since 1994; and he is the author of more than 175 book chapters and articles on Food and Drug Law and on health policy.  Here, Miuchael, Diana, and Peter discuss Hutt's leadership at FDA and some of the major obstacles and milestones he encountered, his teaching and his impact on his many students, his scholarship and how it has shaped the world of food and drug law, and his practice.  Peter Barton Hutt is a senior counsel in the Washington, DC law firm of Covington & Burling LLP.Michael T. Roberts is the Executive Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law.Diana Winters is the Deputy Director of the Resnick Center for Food Law & Policy at UCLA Law. You can find Mr. Hutt's bio and representative publications here.  You can find the latest version of his Food and Drug Law casebook here.

As a function, legal marketing is becoming increasingly more important and plays a core role in creating impact. With this evolution, there is a greater opportunity for legal marketers to have more impact on one of the world's largest and most critical industries. Ed Lovatt is lucky to welcome someone creating meaningful change in her legal marketing career to the CMO Series. On this episode, Ed has the pleasure of talking to Deirdre Christin, Chief Marketing Officer at Covington and Burling LLP about how legal marketers can have more impact on their firm.  Deirdre and Ed cover: How Deirdre came to her role at Covington and when she first recognised that ‘impact' was so critical  Why finding the right firm that aligns with your values is so important What marketers should be looking for during a recruitment process to find the right firm When the firm/marketer fit is right, how marketers can go about finding the right opportunity at their firm that will have an impact How marketers can approach buy-in within the firm when they have an impactful idea How to identify when something has made an impact  

Episode Number: 91 Series: Strategies LIVE! Episode Description: For law firms looking to improve their business relationships while also grow their business, they need to modernize their technology and have key stakeholders start being strategic, data-driven decision makers. In this episode of Strategies LIVE!, James Barclay (Passle Inc) and Michelle Woodyear (Covington & Burling LLP) discuss Woodyear's implementation of a new CRM at her firm, including her process, timeline and approach for an easy-to-use system. Speakers: James Barclay, CEO, Passle Inc (Host) Michelle Woodyear, Director of Digital Marketing, Covington & Burling LLP Series Description: The LMA Strategies LIVE! podcast series examines subject matters and issues affecting legal marketers and the work that we do. This podcast series expands on Strategies & Voices content and elevates expert insights advancing legal marketing.

Webcast URL: https://knowledgewebcasts.com/know-portfolio/standard-essential-patents-latest-trends-and-developments-cle/ The rising technological advancements have led President Biden's administration to continuously rethink and reshape its patent-related efforts. Among its initiatives is the review and revamp of the standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing regulation – a step that would amend the 2019 guidance, particularly on concerns related to the issuance of injunctive relief in SEP cases and the proposed recommendations for alleged misconduct. Listen as experienced patent litigators Brian R. Nester (Covington & Burling LLP) and William Wray (Allen & Overy LLP) provide an in-depth discussion of the latest trends and developments surrounding standard-essential patents (SEP). Speakers will also provide the audience with practical litigation strategies in this rapidly evolving legal climate. For any more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.

A year into the Biden Administration's tenure in office, seemingly little has changed in U.S.-China trade dynamics. The Trump-era tariffs remain, the Phase One Trade Agreement remains largely unrealized, the United States continues to embrace an increasingly restrictive approach to its trade and investment relationship with China, and virtually all of the core issues apparently remain “stuck” and largely unresolved. With the Biden Administration's trade policy still under view more than a year into this term, some have characterized the Biden Administration's approach to trade with China as, in essence, a fifth year of Trump Administration policies. As we enter the second year of President Biden's term, where does the U.S.-China relationship appear to be going?Host David Firestein, President and CEO of the Bush China Foundation, is joined by guest Tim Stratford to explore these questions.Tim Stratford is managing partner in Covington & Burling LLP's Beijing office. His practice is focused on advising international clients doing business in China and assisting Chinese companies seeking to expand their businesses globally. As a former Assistant United States Trade Representative (USTR) responsible for trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, Mr. Stratford is the most senior former U.S. official working as a member of the U.S. business community in China.  Except for the five years he spent in Washington at USTR, Mr. Stratford has lived and worked continuously in the greater China region since 1982, including as minister-counselor for Commercial Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and as general counsel for General Motors China operations.

With the Securities Regulation Institute's 49th Annual Conference underway, Vcheck Global's Seth Harlan speaks with Mellissa Duru, Special Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP and former Sr. Special Counsel at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Highlights from this RiskWatch podcast episode include Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) benchmarking standards and disclosures forecasting, tips for starting an ESG program, and the impact of ESG issues on cryptocurrency investment.Learn more at https://vcheckglobal.com. 

In this episode of DarshanTalks Podcast, the host Darshan Kulkarni Pharm.D, MS, Esq. and Guest Speaker Lewis A. Grossman discuss the Right to Therapeutic Choice. Lewis A. Grossman's recently launched book "Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America" on the freedom of medicine in the USA. Lewis Grossman, Author, Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP (https://www.cov.com/) and Professor of Law at American University, Washington College of Law, had spoken about government interference in the 19th century on the healthcare industry. The conversation started off with the expert explaining his newly launched book based on freedom of therapeutic choices in America that is affected in American law and policy. The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expressions, this was discussed with compelled action which initially the host gave an example of how cigarette advertisements portray and mention that cigarettes are injurious to health whilst asking the expert to share his insights over this topic. He explains his constitutional law perspective on this subject that what government can make you do and what it cannot, he also mentioned about commercial speech is not protected as supposed to political speech or artistic speech. The conversation also included an interesting topic of off-labeling drugs and ancient drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin used to treat Covid-19. Furthermore, if the branded company would have endorsed or used these drugs the implications are discussed in this podcast. Also, the subject of monoclonal antibodies was discussed, monoclonal antibodies are proteins created in a lab. The proteins mimic your immune system and are meant to make COVID-19 disease milder in patients who are already sick. As per the expert, the monoclonal antibodies are disseminated by EUA and not FDA approved, highly expensive. They talked about the history of sciences, pharma history, and much more differentiating with the bio-hacking, monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin being in the same spectrum. In the mid-segment, what constitutes to be bad-advertisements and how the FDA now is disseminating about bad-ad to the medical industry. Previous Podcast with Lewis A. Grossman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTRKF... Connect with Lewis A. Grossman: On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lewis-a-g... Email: lewisg@wcl.american.edu Lewis A. Grossman book link: https://global.oup.com/academic/produ... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190612754/... Connect with us: Website: http://www.darshantalks.com Law Firm: http://www.kulkarnilawfirm.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/darshantalks ---- Disclaimers: 1. This discussion is merely an oral discussion and should not be relied upon solely on its own to support any conclusion of law or fact. 2. The discussion does not and should not reflect any individual products status as safe, efficacious, adulterated, or misbranded or meeting or not meeting expectations at a local, state, federal, or international agency or organization. 3. The discussion should not be construed to be complete advice that is right for you and may not necessarily represent a specific product. 4. This discussion is provided for general educational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice, regulatory advice, or medical advice. 5. This does not create an attorney-client relationship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of DarshanTalks Podcast, the host Darshan Kulkarni Pharm.D, MS, Esq. and Guest Speaker Lewis A. Grossman discuss the Right to Therapeutic Choice. Lewis A. Grossman's recently launched book "Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in America" on the freedom of medicine in the USA. Lewis Grossman, Author, Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP (https://www.cov.com/) and Professor of Law at American University, Washington College of Law, had spoken about government interference in the 19th century on the healthcare industry. The conversation started off with the expert explaining his newly launched book based on freedom of therapeutic choices in America that is affected in American law and policy. The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expressions, this was discussed with compelled action which initially the host gave an example of how cigarette advertisements portray and mention that cigarettes are injurious to health whilst asking the expert to share his insights over this topic. He explains his constitutional law perspective on this subject that what government can make you do and what it cannot, he also mentioned about commercial speech is not protected as supposed to political speech or artistic speech. The conversation also included an interesting topic of off-labeling drugs and ancient drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin used to treat Covid-19. Furthermore, if the branded company would have endorsed or used these drugs the implications are discussed in this podcast. Also, the subject of monoclonal antibodies was discussed, monoclonal antibodies are proteins created in a lab. The proteins mimic your immune system and are meant to make COVID-19 disease milder in patients who are already sick. As per the expert, the monoclonal antibodies are disseminated by EUA and not FDA approved, highly expensive. They talked about the history of sciences, pharma history, and much more differentiating with the bio-hacking, monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin being in the same spectrum. In the mid-segment, what constitutes to be bad-advertisements and how the FDA now is disseminating about bad-ad to the medical industry. Previous Podcast with Lewis A. Grossman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTRKF... Connect with Lewis A. Grossman: On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lewis-a-g... Email: lewisg@wcl.american.edu Lewis A. Grossman book link: https://global.oup.com/academic/produ... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190612754/... Connect with us: Website: http://www.darshantalks.com Law Firm: http://www.kulkarnilawfirm.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/darshantalks ---- Disclaimers: 1. This discussion is merely an oral discussion and should not be relied upon solely on its own to support any conclusion of law or fact. 2. The discussion does not and should not reflect any individual products status as safe, efficacious, adulterated, or misbranded or meeting or not meeting expectations at a local, state, federal, or international agency or organization. 3. The discussion should not be construed to be complete advice that is right for you and may not necessarily represent a specific product. 4. This discussion is provided for general educational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice, regulatory advice, or medical advice. 5. This does not create an attorney-client relationship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Some musicians are finding NFTs irresistible, seeing them as a new way to connect with fans, make money – and sell slices of their music rights. It seems very easy to sell a small percentage of, for instance, your master recording copyright – with potentially huge rewards. But, warns this week's special guest, there are many ways you could get caught in a tricky situation that you may not have considered – including anti-money laundering laws, securities laws, international tax issues, and the highly volatile nature of cryptocurrency itself. Adrian Perry is partner and co-chair of Covington & Burling LLP's Music Industry practice, and is eager to help musicians and rights owners understand these hidden legal risks. He's no NFT-sceptic, and is enthusiastic about the space – so he helped Music Ally's editor Joe Sparrow understand the associated risks, and how to navigate them. Here's more info on Adrian: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/p/adrian-perry

In the Moment, April 8, 2021 Show 1023 Tribes who share the geography of the state of South Dakota have weathered the pandemic alongside their neighbors. Tonight's South Dakota Focus explores checkpoints, vaccination, and protection of elders in tribal communities. Host Jackie Hendry joins us with a preview. South Dakota's economy is bouncing back quickly from the disruption of COVID-19. What did we sacrifice to stay "Open for Business?" Callum Williams, senior economics writer at "The Economist" talks about international attention on the state's pandemic response. For today's "You and Your Democracy," Chuck Parkinson asks the question, "Why does foreign policy matter in South Dakota?" He talks with Tim Stratford, managing partner in Covington & Burling LLP’s Bejing office; Chairman Emeritus of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, former USTR Assistant Trade Representative; and most senior former U.S. trade official working as a member of the U.S. business community in China

In "Black Lawyers Speak: Stories of the Past, Hopes for the Future," we have looked at how the current focus on diversity and inclusion in Big Law is playing out. We have heard from key players at law firms, law schools and corporations about how issues or diversity and inclusion are being treated in the wake of last summer's police shootings and protests. In episode five, we turn our attention to the issue of diversity in the federal judiciary. We speak with former judges and legal scholars as well as advocacy groups about what role diversity should play in court appointments, and how it impacts the perception of the courts' legitimacy by the communities they serve. In episode five, Bloomberg Law interviews: Eric H. Holder Jr., former United States Attorney General and partner at Covington & Burling LLP. Janai Nelson, Associate Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF). Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve School of Law. Trina Jones, Jerome M. Culp Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law. Catherine Smith, professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Stephen Robinson, of counsel at Skadden Arps and former federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lena Zwarensteyn, Fair Courts Campaign Director for the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights. "Black Lawyers Speak: Stories of the Past, Hopes for the Future," a five-episode podcast series, is part of [Un]Common Law, Bloomberg Industry Group’s new home for audio documentaries.

Jennifer Saperstein is an Anti-Corruption and White Collar Partner and the Vice Chair of the Anti-Corruption Practice Group at Covington and Burling LLP. She joins Vince Walden to discuss why companies need to be smart about resourcing, compliance technology trends, and the compliance industry post-COVID. Having a risk-based documented plan for effective compliance programs before consulting any external advisory service is beneficial for companies. Being able to demonstrate where they have focused their limited resources is always helpful. It is now even more important for companies to make smart, risk-based decisions about where to spend their time due to the current pandemic.  A recent survey of over 30 companies revealed that in the last 10 years, there has been a significant transformation in compliance technology trends. Almost 70% of respondents say they use technology for third-party due diligence and 100% saying they use an LMS system to train employees. However, many companies still rely on manual processes for certain parts of their compliance programs.  Resources Jennifer Saperstein on LinkedIn  Cov.com

SPEAKERS Theodore Voorhees, Jr. Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP; Author, The Silent Guns of Two Octobers: Kennedy and Khrushchev Play the Double Game In Conversation With George Hammond Author, Conversations With Socrates In response to the Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak, this program took place and was recorded live via video conference, for an online audience only, and was live-streamed by The Commonwealth Club of California from San Francisco on October 12th, 2020. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Andrew and Scott speak with Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009. Secretary Chertoff is now senior counsel at Covington & Burling LLP and Chairman of the Chertoff Group, a cybersecurity consultancy. He shares his views on the post-Covid world, including how changed patterns of work may place new demands on infrastructure and cybersecurity. We also discuss disaster preparedness, election security, and countering disinformation. Reading Notes: When do we dial back the coronavirus red alert? Michael Chertoff writes that the costs of an extended lock down are real and substantial, and fall disproportionately on less privileged members of our society. Will your 2020 vote actually get counted? Michael Chertoff argues that election security is a national challenge, and not one that a single spending bill can fix. 

OPEN MEMORANDUM To: Barack Hussein Obama From: Sidney Powell www.SidneyPowell.com https://freestateofv.com/flynn-call-intercepted-illegally-at-request-of-obama-white-house/ Date: May 13, 2020 Re: Your Failure to Find Precedent for Flynn Dismissal Regarding the decision of the Department of Justice to dismiss charges against General Flynn, in your recent call with your alumni, you expressed great concern: “there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free. That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.” Here is some help—if truth and precedent represent your true concern. Your statement is entirely false. However, it does explain the damage to the Rule of Law throughout your administration. First, General Flynn was not charged with perjury—which requires a material false statement made under oath with intent to deceive.1 A perjury prosecution would have been appropriate and the Rule of Law applied if the Justice Department prosecuted your former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for his multiple lies under oath in an investigation of a leak only he knew he caused. McCabe lied under oath in fully recorded and transcribed interviews with the Inspector General for the DOJ. He was informed of the purpose of the interview, and he had had the benefit of counsel. He knew he was the leaker. McCabe even lied about lying. He lied to his own agents—which sent them on a “wild-goose-chase”—thereby making his lies “material” and an obstruction of justice. Yet, remarkably, Attorney General Barr declined to prosecute McCabe for these offenses. Applying the Rule of Law, after declining McCabe’s perjury prosecution, required the Justice Department to dismiss the prosecution of General Flynn who was not warned, not under oath, had no counsel, and whose statements were not only not recorded, but were created as false by FBI agents who falsified the 302. Second, it would seem your “wingman” Eric Holder is missing a step these days at Covington & Burling LLP. Indelibly marked in his memory (and one might think, yours) should be his Motion to Dismiss the multi-count jury verdict of guilty and the entire case against former United States Senator Ted Stevens. Within weeks of Mr. Holder becoming Attorney General, he moved to dismiss the Stevens prosecution in the interest of justice for the same reasons the Justice Department did against General Flynn—egregious misconduct by prosecutors who hid exculpatory evidence and concocted purported crimes.

Peter Barton Hutt, senior counsel with Covington & Burling LLP, said DSHEA has improved “the credibility and reliability of the industry.”

In part one of this podcast, veteran lawyer Peter Barton Hutt of Covington & Burling LLP reflects on FDA’s role over the decades in regulating dietary supplements and efforts to impose restrictions that were stymied time and again.

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Opening Remarks: Hon. Donald McGahn, White House CounselMr. Philip K. Howard, Senior Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP and Founder & Chair, Common GoodProf. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityMs. Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PCMr. Bill Valdez, President, Senior Executives AssociationModerator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Who to suspend during any Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation is always a delicate question to answer. Unfortunately there is never an easy answer. As the Volkswagen (VW) emission-testing scandal continues to reverberate, it continues to bring up some very knotty questions, which have bedeviled the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner in many areas. Today there is an example around internal investigations. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) entitled “Scope of VW Suspensions Grows”, William Boston reported on the ongoing internal investigation by the company’s outside counsel Jones Day. Boston noted that VW had “suspended a larger number of engineers than previously acknowledged, following a recommendation from the law firm conducting” the investigation. The article went on to state, “Jones Day urged suspension of anyone who could have been involved in the scam - from high level decision makers to ordinary engineers – to prevent possible perpetrators from tampering with the evidence”.  This final statement emphasizes a key consideration in a FCPA investigation, which is to tie down the evidence. Former Arnold & White partner Mara Senn has said that “probably from the government's perspective, the most important aspect of setting up an investigation in a way that makes them feel comfortable, is ensuring that all data is locked down.” However, if you are worried about evidence tampering you may have a bigger problem on your hands.  Pointing up the difficulties in making such a blanket sweep an un-named source, who provided this information to Boston, was quoted in the WSJ piece as saying “We had to suspend everyone in this area to get them out of the way of this process. This is necessary for the investigation, but it’s really hard for us because we are now missing their professional knowledge and experience.”  This issue brings up another point that Senn has discussed, around when to suspend or discipline an employee during an internal investigation. Senn related, “That is a very case-by-case difficult question to answer, but in general, I think it’s better to keep them around for as long as you may need them. Once they’ve been fired or otherwise disciplined, really, even if you keep them around, they’re going to be less cooperative with you and possibly, if you fire them, not cooperative at all. You can require them to be cooperative in the termination agreement, but obviously in practice, cooperation can mean a lot of different things.”  In view of the Schrems decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), I also wonder how the investigation will fair with the German based employees? Obviously there will be data that in the US would be deemed company-owned but in Europe it may well be private to the employee being investigated. This problem became even greater with the recent decision by Privacy Regulators from 28 EU nations that backed the ECJ’s Schrems decision that invalidated the Safe Harbor regime. As reported by Jo Sherman in the FCPA Blog, “that closed the legal pipeline by which data has flowed freely from the EU to the U.S. for the last 15 years. The rationale for the court decision and the subsequent backing of the EU Data Protection Authorities is that the surveillance powers of the U.S. government are considered to be too excessive and disproportionate, and can override the data protections for EU citizens under the Safe Harbor framework.”  Lanny Breuer, the former number two at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and now a partner at Covington and Burling LLP, raised an interesting concern in the context of the Justice Department’s FCPA Pilot Program. It is around what Breuer terms “de-confliction”. This involves the government asking a company to halt its own investigation for the government to be the first to interview witnesses. At the FCPA Blog Conference, Breuer said that if “de-confliction” is required as cooperation to gain the benefits of the pilot program, such a request from the DOJ would be “an extraordinary request, in my view” because it “could lead companies to be unable to disclose to other agencies or to shareholders, and it could keep a board in the dark about the alleged wrongdoing.” Breuer added, “In general, publicly traded companies can’t just stand down from doing an investigation when such an allegation comes in.” He also commented that “he’d been asked to do so a couple of times.”     Breuer raised four questions during his presentation which every investigator must consider in the area of de-confliction. (1) Would complying with the request be consistent with directors’ and corporate officers’ fiduciary duty of oversight?; (2) How can a company make decisions without speaking with its employees?; (3) How will a delay affect the company’s other regulatory obligations?; and (4) How can external counsel advise a company without knowing the facts? Companies hire external counsel to conduct thorough investigations, evaluate their clients’ conduct, and provide informed legal advice. These tasks can be difficult if not impossible to accomplish where external counsel have their hands tied behind their backs.  Clearly the DOJ could have a broader remit or be involved with other ongoing investigations where they might make such requests. However, such ‘de-confliction’ could stop a company from engaging in a root cause analysis or even robust investigation. At the same conference, an earlier panelist, Gerald Kral, the Chief Ethics and & Compliance Officer (CECO) of Brown-Forman, said on his panel that his company did an extensive root cause analysis of every claim or incident so it can not only understand what happened but put sufficient risk management protections in place to try and make sure it does not happen again.  Three Key Takeaways The decision on whom to discipline and when are critical decisions during any investigation. You should take a case-by-case approach. The de-confliction question can be quite troubling during an internal investigation.               Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations” by David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, partners in the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP posited seven considerations to facilitate a successful board investigation. Consider whether you need independent outside counsel  The appearance of partiality undermines the objectivity and credibility of an investigation. That means you should not use your regular counsel. The authors cite to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) analysis of how independent board members truly are to explain the need for independent counsel. They state, “the SEC considers the following criteria when determining whether (and how much) to credit self-policing, self-reporting, remediation and cooperation” which will consist of the following factors: Did management, the board or committees consisting solely of outside directors oversee the review? Did company employees or outside persons perform the review? If outside persons, have they done other work for the company? If the review was conducted by outside counsel, had management previously engaged such counsel? How long ago was the firm’s last representation of the company? How often has the law firm represented the company? How much in legal fees has the company paid the firm?  Consider hiring an experienced “investigator” to lead the internal investigation  Jim McGrath has written and spoken about the need to utilize specialized counsel in any serious investigation. If a board is leading an investigation, I would submit by definition it is serious. Your investigation needs to lead by a lawyer with significant experience in conducting internal investigations; a strong background in criminal or SEC enforcement; and has substantive experience in the particular area of law at issue.  Consider the need to retain outside experts  In any FCPA or other anti-corruption investigation, there will be the need for a wider variety of subject matter experts (SME’s) than a compliance professional. If there are accounting issues, forensic accountants might be needed. In this day and age, an electronic discovery consultant is often required, and can be a cost effective option for gathering and processing electronic data for review.  Analyze potential conflicts of interest at the outset and during the investigation  There are two types of conflicts of interest that may come to light during an investigation. First is the one which comes up when the law firm or lawyers conducting the inves­tigation are those whose prior legal advice has some bearing on the matters being investigated because a company’s regular outside lawyers represent the company. During an internal investigation, however, the lawyers may be hired by, and represent, the board or its committee. The second occurs when a lawyer or law firm jointly represents the board and employees at the company as regulators have become increasingly concerned with joint representations. The trickier question is what to do when there simply is a risk that representing one client could limit the lawyers’ duties to the other. So in these situations, joint representation may not be appropriate.  Carefully evaluate Whistleblower allegations  Whistleblowers have become more important and taking their allegations seriously is paramount. This does not mean trying to find out who the whistleblowers might be to punish or stifle them, even if they are located outside the United States and therefore do not have protections under these laws. They can still get hefty bounties. Regulators are very wary of boards that do not satisfactorily evaluate a whistleblower’s complaint based on a perception of the whistleblower himself, as opposed to the substance of the complaint.  Request regular updates from outside counsel, without limiting the investigation  These types of investigations are long and very costly. They can easily spin out of cost control. But, by trying to manage these costs, a board might be perceived as placing improper limits on the investigation. The “goal is to strike the right balance between the cost of the investigation and its thoroughness and credibility.” To do so, flexibility is an important ingredient. The scope of what to investigate is not a static, one-time decision. It can, and usually does, evolve.  Consider whether an oral report at the conclusion of the investigation is sufficient While there may be instances in which, due to complexity and the nature of allegations involved, a written report is necessary, there may be times when an oral report delivered to a board is better than a written report for “a written report may be easier to follow and appear to be the logical conclusion to an investigation, it is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor, and it comes with great risk.” The authors indicate three reasons for this position.  The authors conclude their piece by stating, “By keeping in mind the issues addressed above, the board will be better prepared for the investigation and readily able to exercise good judgment throughout the review. A well-conducted investigation by the board may spare the company further disruption and costs associated with follow-on investigations by the regulators, or at the very least minimize the company’s exposure.”  Three Key Takeaways Retain the right counsel. Consider conflicts and appearance. Carefully evaluate all whistleblower allegations and reject retaliation. Consider receiving oral reports on an ongoing basis and one lengthy oral report at the end of the investigation.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many companies have an investigation protocol in place when a potential Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) or other legal issue arises? However, many Boards of Directors do not have the same rigor when it comes to an investigation, which should be conducted or led by the Board itself. The consequences of this lack of foresight can be problematic, because if a Board of Directors does not get an investigation which it handles right, the consequences to the company, its reputation and value can all be quite severe. The SEC considers a variety of factors around corporate investigations including: Did management, the board or committees consisting solely of outside directors oversee the review? Did company employees or outside persons perform the review? If outside persons, have they done other work for the company? There is also role of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in internal investigations, most particularly for audit committees. Section 301 establishes certain requirements for Audit Committees, including: (1) Procedures for receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints received by the issuer regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters; (2) Procedures regarding the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the issuer of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters; (3) Authority to engage independent counsel and other advisers, as it determines necessary to carry out its duties; and (4) Funding to engage advisors as it deems appropriate.  In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations” by David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, partners in the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP write about five key goals that any investigation led by a Board of Directors must meet. They are:  Thoroughness - The authors believe that one of the key, and most critical, questions that any regulator might pose is just how thorough is an investigation; to test whether they can rely on the facts discovered without hav­ing to repeat the investigation themselves. Regulators tend to be skeptical of investigations where limits are placed (expressly or otherwise) on the investigators, in terms of what is investigated, or how the investigation is conducted. This question can be an initial deal-killer particularly if the regulator involved views an investigation insuf­ficiently thorough, its credibility is undermined. And, of course, it can lead to the dreaded ‘Where else’ question. Objectivity - Here the authors write that any “investigation must follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of the conse­quences. This includes how the findings may impact senior management or other company employees. An investigation seen as lacking objectivity will be viewed by outsiders as inadequate or deficient.” I would add that in addition to the objectivity requirement in the investigation, the same must be had with the investigators themselves. If a company uses its regular outside counsel, it may be viewed with some askance, particularly if the client is a high volume client of the law firm involved, either in dollar amounts or in number of matters handled by the firm. Accuracy - As in any part of a best practices anti-corruption compliance program, the three most important things are Document, Document and Document. This means that the factual findings of an investiga­tion must be well supported. For if the developed facts are not well supported, the authors believe that the investigation is “open to collateral attack by skeptical prosecutors and regulators. If that happens, the time and money spent on the internal investigation will have been wasted, because the government will end up conducting its own investigation of the same issues.” This is never good and your company may well lose what little credibility and good will that it may have engendered by self-reporting or self-investigating. Timeliness - Certainly in the world of FCPA enforcement, an internal investigation should be done quickly. This has become even more necessary with the tight deadlines set under the Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower provisions. But there are other considerations for a public company such as an impending Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quarterly or annual report that may need to be deferred absent as a timely resolution of the matter. Lastly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) or SEC may view delaying an investigation as simply a part of document spoliation. So timeliness is crucial. Credibility - One of the realities of any FCPA investigation is that a Board of Directors led investigation is reviewed after the fact by not only skeptical third parties but also sometimes years after the initial events and investigation. So not only is there the opportunity for Monday-Morning Quarterbacking but quite a bit of post event analysis. So the authors believe that any Board of Directors led investigation “must be (and must be perceived as) credible as to what was done, how it was done, and who did it. Otherwise, the board’s work will have been for naught.”  Dan Chapman, Chief Compliance Officer at Vimpelcom, has said this is the time for a very frank conversation with your Board about what such an investigation will entail. Costs must be adequately discussed to set proper expectations. These include both direct costs and, what Chapman believes may be even more important, a discussion of indirect costs to the company. He noted that “the biggest cost to a company during an investigation is the diversion of management resources” and, as he further explained, “kind of everything stops to focus on the investigation.” This indirect cost comes through largely the time commitment of senior management. He further explained, “if senior management has to commit 20% of their time, that’s 20% that’s not going towards revenue generating, shareholder value protecting activities.”  Finally Jonathan Marks, a partner at Marcum LLC has noted after notification of serious allegations, Boards should take the following steps: Consider creating a Special Committee to conduct the investigation; Establish a committee charter; Preserve the electronic and hardcopy documentation environment; Communicate with external auditors; and Plan potential communication with the SEC, DOJ, and the relevant stock exchange.  Marks also notes that while a special committee might be necessary in certain rare circumstances, the board should try to avoid forming a special investigative committee to oversee the investigation if its audit committee is composed of independent and disinterested directors that are suited for the task. A special committee must be disbanded at some point (usually once the investigation is completed and before the restatement process begins), and the disbanding could become a complicated news item.  Conversely, if the audit committee oversees the investigation, then, once the investigation is complete, the audit committee can pivot back to its normal role, which would include overseeing the actual restatement process. Investigations overseen by the audit committee also benefit from the positive relationship that the audit committee chair usually has with the audit partner of the company’s external auditor.   Three Key Takeaways The Board should have a written protocol for investigations prepared in advance. Any Board led investigation must be both credible and objective. The investigation must be thorough but the Board can be cost effective.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations” by David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, partners in the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP posited seven considerations to facilitate a successful board investigation.  Consider whether you need independent outside counsel  The appearance of partiality undermines the objectivity and credibility of an investigation. That means you should not use your regular counsel. The authors cite to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) analysis of how independent board members truly are to explain the need for independent counsel. They state, “the SEC considers the following criteria when determining whether (and how much) to credit self-policing, self-reporting, remediation and cooperation” which will consist of the following factors: Did management, the board or committees consisting solely of outside directors oversee the review? Did company employees or outside persons perform the review? If outside persons, have they done other work for the company? If the review was conducted by outside counsel, had management previously engaged such counsel? How long ago was the firm’s last representation of the company? How often has the law firm represented the company? How much in legal fees has the company paid the firm?  Consider hiring an experienced “investigator” to lead the internal investigation  Jim McGrath has written and spoken about the need to utilize specialized counsel in any serious investigation. If a board is leading an investigation, I would submit by definition it is serious. Your investigation needs to lead by a lawyer with significant experience in conducting internal investigations; a strong background in criminal or SEC enforcement; and has substantive experience in the particular area of law at issue.  Consider the need to retain outside experts  In any FCPA or other anti-corruption investigation, there will be the need for a wider variety of subject matter experts (SME’s) than a compliance professional. If there are accounting issues, forensic accountants might be needed. In this day and age, an electronic discovery consultant is often required, and can be a cost effective option for gathering and processing electronic data for review.  Analyze potential conflicts of interest at the outset and during the investigation  There are two types of conflicts of interest that may come to light during an investigation. First is the one which comes up when the law firm or lawyers conducting the inves­tigation are those whose prior legal advice has some bearing on the matters being investigated because a company’s regular outside lawyers represent the company. During an internal investigation, however, the lawyers may be hired by, and represent, the board or its committee. The second occurs when a lawyer or law firm jointly represents the board and employees at the company as regulators have become increasingly concerned with joint representations. The trickier question is what to do when there simply is a risk that representing one client could limit the lawyers’ duties to the other. So in these situations, joint representation may not be appropriate. Carefully evaluate Whistleblower allegations  Whistleblowers have become more important and taking their allegations seriously is paramount. This does not mean trying to find out who the whistleblowers might be to punish or stifle them, even if they are located outside the United States and therefore do not have protections under these laws. They can still get hefty bounties. Regulators are very wary of boards that do not satisfactorily evaluate a whistleblower’s complaint based on a perception of the whistleblower himself, as opposed to the substance of the complaint.  Request regular updates from outside counsel, without limiting the investigation  These types of investigations are long and very costly. They can easily spin out of cost control. But, by trying to manage these costs, a board might be perceived as placing improper limits on the investigation. The “goal is to strike the right balance between the cost of the investigation and its thoroughness and credibility.” To do so, flexibility is an important ingredient. The scope of what to investigate is not a static, one-time decision. It can, and usually does, evolve. Consider whether an oral report at the conclusion of the investigation is sufficient While there may be instances in which, due to complexity and the nature of allegations involved, a written report is necessary, there may be times when an oral report delivered to a board is better than a written report for “a written report may be easier to follow and appear to be the logical conclusion to an investigation, it is an expensive and time-consuming endeavor, and it comes with great risk.” The authors indicate three reasons for this position.  The authors conclude their piece by stating, “By keeping in mind the issues addressed above, the board will be better prepared for the investigation and readily able to exercise good judgment throughout the review. A well-conducted investigation by the board may spare the company further disruption and costs associated with follow-on investigations by the regulators, or at the very least minimize the company’s exposure.”  Three Key Takeaways Retain the right counsel. Consider conflicts and appearance. Carefully evaluate all whistleblower allegations and reject retaliation. Consider receiving oral reports on an ongoing basis and one lengthy oral report at the end of the investigation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many companies have an investigation protocol in place when a potential Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA) or other legal issue arises? However, many Boards of Directors do not have the same rigor when it comes to an investigation, which should be conducted or led by the Board itself. The consequences of this lack of foresight can be problematic, because if a Board of Directors does not get an investigation which it handles right, the consequences to the company, its reputation and value can all be quite severe.  In an article in the Corporate Board magazine, entitled “Successful Board Investigations” by David Bayless and Tammy Albarrán, partners in the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP write about five key goals that any investigation led by a Board of Directors must meet. They are:  Thoroughness - The authors believe that one of the key, and most critical, questions that any regulator might pose is just how thorough is an investigation; to test whether they can rely on the facts discovered without hav­ing to repeat the investigation themselves. Regulators tend to be skeptical of investigations where limits are placed (expressly or otherwise) on the investigators, in terms of what is investigated, or how the investigation is conducted. This question can be an initial deal-killer particularly if the regulator involved views an investigation insuf­ficiently thorough, its credibility is undermined. And, of course, it can lead to the dreaded ‘Where else’ question. Objectivity - Here the authors write that any “investigation must follow the facts wherever they lead, regardless of the conse­quences. This includes how the findings may impact senior management or other company employees. An investigation seen as lacking objectivity will be viewed by outsiders as inadequate or deficient.” I would add that in addition to the objectivity requirement in the investigation, the same must be had with the investigators themselves. If a company uses its regular outside counsel, it may be viewed with some askance, particularly if the client is a high volume client of the law firm involved, either in dollar amounts or in number of matters handled by the firm. Accuracy - As in any part of a best practices anti-corruption compliance program, the three most important things are Document, Document and Document. This means that the factual findings of an investiga­tion must be well supported. For if the developed facts are not well supported, the authors believe that the investigation is “open to collateral attack by skeptical prosecutors and regulators. If that happens, the time and money spent on the internal investigation will have been wasted, because the government will end up conducting its own investigation of the same issues.” This is never good and your company may well lose what little credibility and good will that it may have engendered by self-reporting or self-investigating. Timeliness - Certainly in the world of FCPA enforcement, an internal investigation should be done quickly. This has become even more necessary with the tight deadlines set under the Dodd-Frank Act Whistleblower provisions. But there are other considerations for a public company such as an impending Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quarterly or annual report that may need to be deferred absent as a timely resolution of the matter. Lastly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) or SEC may view delaying an investigation as simply a part of document spoliation. So timeliness is crucial. Credibility - One of the realities of any FCPA investigation is that a Board of Directors led investigation is reviewed after the fact by not only skeptical third parties but also sometimes years after the initial events and investigation. So not only is there the opportunity for Monday-Morning Quarterbacking but quite a bit of post event analysis. So the authors believe that any Board of Directors led investigation “must be (and must be perceived as) credible as to what was done, how it was done, and who did it. Otherwise, the board’s work will have been for naught.”  Three Key Takeaways The Board should have a written protocol for investigations prepared in advance. Any Board led investigation must be both credible and objective. The investigation must be thorough but the Board can be cost effective. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Struggling to control the mounting costs of document review? On this April edition of The ESI Report, host Kelly Kubacki, Staff Attorney in the Legal Technologies division at Kroll Ontrack welcomes Gary Feldon and Maureen Japha, Associates with Covington & Burling LLP and Beth Koehler, Legal Consultant with Kroll Ontrack, to discuss how automated review technology can significantly improve the speed, consistency and defensibility of the entire review process while cutting costs. In the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Laura Tushaus, Kroll Ontrack Legal Correspondent, discusses the recent case of Green v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc.

As part of Data Privacy Day 2009, the Center for Internet and Society is hosting a Privacy Policy Workshop, sponsored by Covington & Burling LLP.