• |

    Jul. 1, 2026

Ultra Electronics: A Private Equity Investor Cleans Up

Ultra Electronics Holdings Ltd (UEH) and its subsidiaries’ recent settlement of bribery allegations with the SFO, illustrate how a failed, outdated compliance program can be overhauled post-acquisition to meet SFO expectations and result in a DPA with limited penalties. This second article in a two-part series dissecting the settlement examines UEH’s compliance failures and the significant remediation efforts it undertook after its acquisition. The first part analyzed the background of the case, the behaviors that brought UEH under scrutiny and its cooperation with the SFO. See our two-part series on the SFO’s Co-Operation Guidance: “A Hard Sell for Self-Reporting” (May 21, 2025), and “Investigation Expectations” (Jun. 4, 2025).

Compliance Reps and Warranties: Adapting to Emerging Risks

Compliance representations (reps) and warranties can be an underestimated element of a merger, acquisition or third-party contract, often reduced to boilerplate afterthoughts. However, in a moment of rapid political, cultural and technological change, cut-and-paste language runs the risk of being woefully out of date by the time a deal closes. This fourth article in a series about compliance reps and warranties covers how language in third-party contracts has evolved as supply chain issues represent a larger portion of companies’ risk profiles, and how reps and warranties should shift in response to other geopolitical, technological and regulatory shifts. The first article in the series reported on the continuing relevance of compliance reps and warranties, the second article suggested negotiation strategies and the third article addressed their verification and enforcement. See our four-part series on risk assessments in Trump 2.0: “Back to Basics” (Aug. 27, 2025), “Reassessing in the Great American Reset” (Sep. 24, 2025), “Who and When” (Nov. 5, 2025), and “Employing Data and Emerging Technologies” (Dec. 31, 2025).

What Questions to Ask About Compliance Based on Global Enforcement Signals

The first half of 2026 has seen two very different settlements of bribery and corruption allegations, one with Balt SAS in both the U.S. and France, and another with Ultra Electronics Holdings Ltd in the U.K. While the particulars of each case differ, both highlight some common questions that companies should be asking about their compliance programs. In this guest article, Paul Cadwallader, the governance, risk and compliance (GRC) strategy director at CoreStream GRC, analyzes how each case illuminates some of the common elements of compliance programs and suggests five questions companies should be able to answer about their programs. See our two-part series on emerging global compliance standards: “DOJ, OECD and World Bank Guidance” (Oct. 22, 2025), and “AFA, SFO and Eight Common Compliance Elements” (Nov. 5, 2025).

AlixPartners Survey Finds Companies’ Risk Readiness Lags Awareness

Many U.S. companies are not prepared to face several key business risks, even as compliance teams are aware of them, according to AlixPartners’ 2026 U.S. Risk Survey (Survey). The Survey found that the absence of prescriptive federal rules on AI is exacerbating risks, and that financial crime and corporate disputes are on the rise, but companies are not mitigating their exposure effectively. Lisa Osofsky, a partner with the firm who was among the Survey’s authors, spoke to the Anti-Corruption Report about the Survey results and what lessons companies should take away from the findings. This article distills insights from the Survey along with her comments. See “Cybersecurity and AI Are Top Global Business Challenges Identified in Kroll Study” (Jul. 16, 2025).

Colorado and Connecticut AI Laws: Mapping Scope and Core Provisions

Amid a rapidly expanding patchwork of state AI laws, Colorado Governor Jared Polis recently signed a bill that shifts the state’s approach from broad AI regulation to a targeted focus on automated decision-making technologies and their potential to materially affect consequential decisions across sectors. Two weeks later, Connecticut enacted an AI law with a broader framework addressing a wide range of AI-related issues, including employment uses, AI companions and synthetic content watermarking. With insights from experts at Ballard Spahr, DLA Piper, Fisher Phillips, Holland & Knight and the senator who sponsored the Connecticut law, this first article in a two-part series summarizes and contrasts the two new laws. Part two will provide practical compliance guidance. See “Staying Compliant After State AI Laws EO Introduces Regulatory Uncertainty” (Jan. 28, 2026).

Jeffrey Lehtman Joins Barnes & Thornburg, Will Chair New Latin America Practice Group

Barnes & Thornburg welcomed Jeffrey Lehtman as a partner in Washington, D.C., in February 2026, and has now announced that he will co-chair the firm’s newly launched Latin America practice group. For commentary from Lehtman, see our two-part series on insights on negotiating with the DOJ: “How the Process Has Changed” (Jun. 24, 2020), and “The Filip Factors and Compliance Presentations” (Aug. 5, 2020).

Most-Read Articles