On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court published its opinion in Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909, 605 U.S. __ (2025), holding that one who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even without the intent to cause the victim economic loss. In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the validity of federal fraud convictions when the defendants delivered the full economic value of the deal. This breaks a trend of recent Supreme Court decisions that have more generally limited the government’s ability to prosecute fraud and corruption cases.

On May 6, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a plan to expand its use of unannounced inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities that produce foods, essential medicines and other medical products intended for American consumers and patients. The FDA stated that this new inspection strategy will ensure that foreign manufacturers receive the…

On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Deputy Attorney General announced its new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which aims to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to investigate and pursue claims against entities that tolerate antisemitism, allow men to enter women’s spaces or compete in female athletic competitions, or engage in unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices.

There has been much speculation that States will fill the void created by the Trump Administration’s drastic scaling back of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congress authorized both state attorneys general and state regulators (like New York’s Department of Financial Services and California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), except against national banks and federal savings associations.[1] Under that authority, States may enforce the CFPA’s prohibition on engaging in UDAAPs,[2] and they may also have authority to enforce the CFPA’s separate prohibition on violating “Federal consumer financial law,” a term that the statute defines to include “the enumerated consumer laws”: TILA, FCRA, the FDCPA, EFTA, RESPA, and others.[3]

On April 16, 2025, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts,” which establishes the Administration’s policy of procuring “commercially  available products and services, including those that can be modified to fill agencies’ needs, to the maximum extent practicable.” This includes procurements made pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (“FASA”).  This comes one day after the release of another Executive Order titled “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” which McGuireWoods has previously covered.  Both Executive Orders are among the first of the Administration’s major policy positions as pertaining to reform of the federal government’s procurement process.

In a major policy address delivered yesterday at the Security Industry and Financial Markets Association’s (SIFMA) Anti-Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Conference in Washington, D.C., Matthew Galeotti, Head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, announced a significant shift in how DOJ approaches white collar enforcement. The changes reflect a broader recalibration toward “focus, fairness, and efficiency,” and emphasize DOJ’s intent to partner with law-abiding companies rather than punish them indiscriminately.

On May 7, 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) issued a follow up to its July 2020 Interpretative Letter 1170, which allowed national banks to provide cryptocurrency custody services to their customers.[1] The May 7 letter (Interpretive Letter 1184)[2] further clarified that banks can buy and sell cryptocurrency at the custody customer’s direction and outsource cryptocurrency custody and execution services.[3] But in contrast to the OCC’s clear confirmation that banks can provide cryptocurrency custody services, the guidance for safe and sound practices for those services remains murky.

Today, large swaths of the globe stand at the brink of political violence and armed conflict with some areas in active warfare.  Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, Israel’s armed conflicts against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the simmering tensions regarding China’s territorial claim to Taiwan and other disputed territories in the South China Sea are just a few international conflicts that grab daily international headlines.  Turmoil in the global markets stemming from the imposition of tariffs between the U.S. and some its trading partners has raised concerns of a global recession that could further destabilize governments and currency in emerging markets.  But in this period of uncertainty in the international order, companies with substantial international investments or operations may face increased risks of expropriation, currency instability and political violence in jurisdictions previously thought stable.  Indeed, insurance company Allianz considers about 100 countries to be at “high or extreme risk of civil unrest.” 

LLR Partners has announced the close of a new fund.

The fund — LLR Equity Partners VII — closed at $2.45 billion.

LLR, founded in 1999 and based in Philadelphia, makes majority and minority investments in lower middle market technology and healthcare businesses. Within healthcare, the firm pursues investments in healthcare IT, outsourced healthcare…