In a pro-policyholder ruling, the North Carolina Supreme Court recently held that a homeowner’s claims against an insurance agent for negligence and gross negligence, seeking punitive damages, survived a motion to dismiss based on the insurance agency’s course of dealing with the homeowner. The decision, Jones v. J. Kim Hatcher Insurance Agencies, Inc., et al., is a win for policyholders and demonstrates how the North Carolina Supreme Court is willing to balance the normal expectation that a person must read what he signs with an insurance agency’s role in inducing the policyholder to do otherwise.

In a recent speech, Acting Director of the SEC’s Division of Examinations (Exams) Keith Cassidy reminded SEC registrants of the new requirements imposed by the amendments to Regulation S-P. He noted that the dates for compliance are approaching and provided information about how Exams intends to proceed. The bottom line on compliance preparedness is that…

On May 12, 2025, the United States Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Criminal Division released a major policy memorandum outlining its enforcement priorities for the upcoming year. Unsurprisingly, the number one priority for the Division was investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes related to waste, fraud, and abuse—and particularly healthcare fraud. This emphasis on prosecuting healthcare fraud reflects the current administration’s broader goals of eliminating waste in federal programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively.

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.