Insights | Kobre & Kim — Disputes and Investigations

The U.S. Department of Justice announced a new policy promising companies leniency if they report uncovered misconduct within six months of a merger or acquisition.
Though this may at first appear to be “good news,” it demonstrates the DOJ’s increasing aggressiveness to companies – including non-U.S. companies – that did not commit any wrongdoing.
We look at why companies should be wary of cooperation, and how they can approach the DOJ more prudently.

Ultra-high-net-worth individuals embroiled in onshore government, commercial or family disputes may find their offshore trusts a vulnerable target.
These often-aggressive attacks set up a complex clash of onshore and offshore law, and demand an equally aggressive and comprehensive response.
There are steps UHNWIs and their advisors can take to reduce their risk exposure and respond to attacks on their wealth.

Recent comments by top U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials seem to signal an emphasis on leniency programs for companies cooperating on corruption and bribery investigations.
However, non-U.S. companies should not let their guard down – the DOJ continues to stretch the bounds of its jurisdiction to aggressively prosecute companies beyond the U.S.
We unpack counteroffensive strategies at-risk companies should consider to stand up to DOJ overreach and drive successful outcomes.

Judgment and award debtors often hold assets in offshore jurisdictions such as the BVI – but these places are notoriously creditor- and enforcement-friendly.
When cornered by a creditor, debtors often find few – if any – legal avenues to challenge the claim against them.
However, a recent Kobre & Kim victory in the BVI demonstrates that, through deep familiarity of and ability to connect both offshore and foreign law, debtors can defy conventional wisdom and succeed.

U.S. government regulators are ramping up enforcement actions against traders for alleged market manipulation and spoofing.
Exchanges and self-regulatory organizations are piling on, subjecting traders to their own investigations.
Traders should not be afraid to stand up to these entities, and there are effective counteroffensive measures that can drive successful outcomes.

The U.S. Department of Justice has released new guidelines that signal their aggressive prosecution of individuals and companies outside the U.S.
At-risk non-U.S. companies must understand the potential implications of the DOJ’s new position.
Our global Government Enforcement Defense team explains why internationally based former U.S. government lawyers are best positioned to address the issues.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has quietly increased scrutiny of digital currency markets, focusing on spoofing.
Successful traders normally do not run from risk in their trading activities, yet they often do exactly that in the face of unfamiliar regulatory risks, leading to worse outcomes.
Targets of regulatory enforcement should therefore consider a range of aggressive measures before responding to inquiries from enforcement authorities.

When a debt comes due, standing up to a global institutional lender can seem daunting for Indian debtors, especially if disputes scatter overseas.
Regardless of whether a lender feels generous or not, however, there are steps debtors can take to increase their leverage and fortify their defenses.
These include fighting for better terms, buying more time and holding lenders accountable.

Section 1782 discovery in the United States is a powerful tool to access information and gain an edge in foreign proceedings.
However, the power of this tool and the ease in which it is granted invites parties to use it in service of goals completely unrelated to ongoing proceedings, such as a negative PR campaign.
Defeating a 1782 application is not easy, but there are counterarguments and cross-border tools available to fight back and turn the tables on an unscrupulous adversary.

The U.S. government has made its intentions clear that it will investigate and prosecute PRC-based companies and individuals that it believes employ illegal tactics to compete with U.S. companies in key sectors.
Future U.S. actions could come from any number of directions.
Whatever action comes next, a cross-border perspective and willingness to represent PRC-side clients against the U.S. government will be essential to an effective response.