by Pablo Varas

The abandoned transaction between Novant Health (Novant) and Community Hospital System (CHS) for two North Carolina (NC) hospitals received substantial attention from the media, lawyers, and economists. Even though an initial district court ruling rejected FTC’s preliminary injunction request, a subsequent court decision pushed the parties to abandon the deal. This case was not a plain-vanilla deal. Some features made the antitrust discussion and the first instance ruling of particular interest, particularly for economic analysis of hospital mergers and considering deal-specific factors.

In February 2023, Novant agreed to purchase Lake Norman Regional Medical Center (LNR) and Davis Regional Psychiatric Hospital (Davis) from CHS. Novant is one of the largest health systems in NC, operating multiple facilities across the state. On the other hand, CHS is a national for-profit health system, and the LNR and Davis facilities represent CHS’s most important assets in NC. CHS wanted to sell LNR because the facility needed substantial capital investments, which CHS was not willing to make. The Davis facility was a former acute care hospital that, due to its poor performance and investment needs, was repurposed as a psychiatric facility. The transaction between Novant and CHS aimed to improve Novant’s competitive edge relative to Atrium Health (Atrium), NC’s largest health system.

The FTC decided to challenge the transaction in January 2024, initiating an administrative procedure and subsequently filing a complaint to block the deal in the US District Court for the Western District of NC. The FTC argued that LNR and Novant’s nearby hospital are head-to-head competitors and the main hospital options in the Eastern Lake Norman area, the relevant geographic market for the transaction. As such, LNR exerts competitive pressure on Novant, limiting Novant’s ability to increase prices, the FTC argued.

In June 2024, the district court ruled in favor of CHS and Novant by rejecting FTC’s preliminary injunction request. However, the FTC appealed at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which, in a divided decision, reverted the district court’s decision and granted the request to enjoin the CHS-Novant deal. Following this setback, the parties abandoned the deal. The appeals court’s ruling does not explain why the district court decision had to be reverted, with the dissenting judge explicitly agreeing with the district court that the injunction is not in the best public interest.

Three features make this case of particular interest for antitrust economic analysis. First, one of the parties, CHS, had decided to exit the market and stopped actively competing. Second, the transaction seemed to have meaningful potential pro-competitive effects. Third, the buyer, Novant, committed not to increase prices for three years after the transaction.

The economic analysis of a standard hospital merger assumes that if the deal is blocked, the parties will continue operating. Hence, the analysis focuses on the competitive effects of the deal compared to the status quo. However, in this particular transaction, CHS stated its plan to exit the market and stop investing additional capital in LNR. There have been several hospital transactions where the parties have put forward the failing firm argument to support the deal. A recent example is John Muir Health’s failed takeover of San Ramon Regional Medical Center in California. The possibility that, in the near future, one of the parties may exit the market changes the but-for-world when evaluating the effect of the merger on consumers. That is, in these situations, the economic analysis must consider a scenario where the likely-exiting hospital is not available to consumers.

Importantly, CHS ended up selling LNR and Davis to Iredell Health System, another NC-based hospital system, in early 2025. The fact that there was another potential buyer for CHS’s assets in NC poses a challenge for future hospital merger deals claiming the failing firm argument. The FTC, and likely the courts, may increase the bar to consider the closing of a hospital, and the lack of alternative buyers, a credible threat when assessing a proposed transaction.   

A second feature of the CHS-Novant deal was the potential pro-competitive effects of the transaction. LNR had experienced an overall deteriorating process and CHS has no interest in continuing to invest in this facility. As such, the transaction was likely to enhance LNR’s competition pressure and increase Novant’s competitive edge against Atrium, the dominant health system in NC. Stronger competition between the state’s two largest health systems was a factor to consider in evaluating the antitrust effects of Novant’s acquisition of LNR. Even if the transaction would increase concentration in the local geographic market, there is value in the competition effect in the broader market. This factor gained relevance given the alleged declining status of LNR and its lack of ability to effectively compete with Atrium’s facilities.

A final interesting feature of the CHS-Novant proposed deal is the expected hospital price increases following the acquisition. Economic analysis of a hospital merger involving head-to-head competitors is likely to find that prices would increase if the merger took place. Potential price increases are the main concerns regarding any hospital merger. The underlying reasoning is that the combined entity would increase its bargaining leverage when negotiating contract terms with health insurance companies, allowing the merged system to push for higher prices. Novant’s management committed to maintaining current LNR prices during the three years after the acquisition, posing a challenge to the consideration of the merger’s price effect. In a way, the empirical analysis may conclude that the merged entity would have the incentives and ability to meaningfully increase prices; however, deals’ features or market realities, like Novant’s management commitment, may assuage one of the critical concerns about any hospital merger. How credible such commitments are is subject to judges’ and courts’ consideration.

The appeals court ruling unfortunately offers no clues as to the arguments that supported its decision to enjoin the transaction. Notably, the district court and the dissenting appeal judge sided with the parties on the relevance of the failing firm factor, the pro-competitive effects of the transaction, and the no-price increase commitment. Those factors and considerations will likely get more attention in the economic analysis of future proposed hospital transactions.

This article is featured in the Fall 2025 issue of Economists Ink.

Secretariat is pleased to share that 87 of our experts have been named in the Lexology Index 2025 Consulting Expert Reports series, achieving recognition as global industry leaders across several key categories: 

  • Competition Economists 
  • Construction – Quantum, Delay & Technical 
  • Financial Advisory and Valuation – Quantum of Damage 
  • Forensic Accountants 

Lexology’s 2025 Consulting Expert Reports identify the premier litigation consulting experts in the global market, determined through their rigorous research process as well as nominations from clients and peers.   

Secretariat’s continued inclusion in Lexology’s prestigious rankings underscores our firm’s credibility, technical excellence, and expert leadership across consulting sectors. 

Read Lexology’s full 2025 Consulting Expert reports here.  

Competition Economists 

Recommended Consulting Experts  

USA  
  • David Argue is a distinguished competition economist renowned for his expert analysis and compelling testimony in complex healthcare merger reviews and antitrust litigation. 
  • John Morris is a leading authority in the competition market, with over 20 years of experience analysing mergers and investigating abuse of dominance matters in the US energy sector. 
  • Philip Nelson is a leading authority in antitrust economics, widely respected for combining rigorous academic insight with high-impact regulatory experience from his senior role at the FTC. 
  • With more than 40 years of experience, Robert Stoner stands out as a leading authority for delivering first-rate expert testimony in landmark merger and monopolisation cases and providing strategic guidance on complex class actions. 
  • Su Sun is a clear leader in the field of competition economics, with deep expertise in merger review, price fixing and abuse of dominance matters. His experience spans antitrust investigations and litigation across the US and China. 
  • Keith Waehrer comes highly recommended by peers and clients, thanks to his brilliant work on major mergers and anti-monopoly disputes in the telecoms, financial services and aviation industries, among others. 
  • Lexology Index says: Matthew Wright earns plaudits for his deep understanding of competition economics involving monopolisation, damages estimation and merger analysis across an array of industries, including transport, pharmaceuticals and consumer goods, among others. 

Construction – Quantum, Delay & Technical 

Recommended Consulting Experts  

Australia 
  • Jonathan Brown is a highly respected director with experience in quantum expert services, known for his meticulous and pragmatic approach to quantity surveying, valuation of prolongation costs, disruption, and loss of productivity. 
  • Joel Glover is a distinguished chartered quantity surveyor with over 18 years of experience in cost consulting and dispute resolution. He is praised for his “quality of written work,” which sets him apart in the field of quantum experts. 
  • Charmy Patel earns widespread praise for her vast experience providing quantum analysis on disputes arising from major infrastructure projects, both domestically and abroad. 
  • With a focus on dispute resolution, Paul Roberts provides expert quantum opinions to clients in the construction industry. His experience spans a wide range of projects, making him a trusted adviser in complex matters. 
  • Les Ross is an accomplished expert with a well-developed quantum practice, possessing over four decades of experience in high-stakes construction disputes. He is widely held to be a leading authority in the field, regularly advising on complex claims across infrastructure, energy and natural resources projects. 
Canada 
  • With over three decades of experience, Christopher Larkin is singled out for his top-tier practice navigating complex cross-border delay and quantum matters arising from major construction and infrastructure projects.
  • Robert Poole has built an impressive reputation as a top-tier expert witness and is touted for his “ability to quickly distil the facts” and analyse “voluminous materials”. 
England 
  • Oliver Barnes is a well-known name in global construction disputes, with nearly 30 years’ experience. He earns praise for his incisive delay analysis, pragmatism and unparalleled scheduling expertise. 
  • Sena Gbedemah is a well-regarded delay expert who takes a “hands-on approach” to high-value construction disputes in the transport, energy and technology sectors. Sources say, “He communicates in a calm and effective way to ensure the right approach is taken.” 
  • Described as “razor-sharp” and “excellent on the stand,” quantum expert Terry Hawkins is praised for his diligent approach to complex construction disputes, both domestically and abroad. 
  • Liam Holder is “an outstanding construction expert,” recognised for his extensive experience in quantifying damages. His involvement in high-stakes international disputes highlights his capabilities in evaluating complex concepts, making him a valuable asset in the construction sector. 
  • Celebrated for his forensic precision in resolving complex construction disputes, Mehmet Karakoc is a leading delay expert who advises global infrastructure and energy clients across 35 countries. 
  • Nicolas Noyer possesses over 25 years of experience in the construction industry, specialising in quantum analysis and has provided expert advice on projects across the Americas and EMEA region, covering sectors such as oil and gas and infrastructure. 
  • Rhiann Storey commands a spectacular reputation in the construction industry, particularly in dispute resolution. She is praised for her ability to “communicate very well with clients,” ensuring clarity in complex matters. Her dual qualifications as a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators enhance her expertise. 
  • George Taft is acknowledged as a “leading expert” in quantum claims, with extensive experience in international arbitration. His “approachable nature and strong analytical skills” make him a valuable asset in high-stakes construction disputes. 
  • Mark Vaughan-Jones is a trusted expert in programming and delay, valued for his rigorous forensic approach and dual expertise in quantum and scheduling across high-stakes construction disputes in the UK, Europe, and the Middle East. 
Hong Kong 
  • With over three decades of experience in quantity surveying and quantum analysis, Mike Allen is sought after internationally for his “precision and accuracy” in complex valuations. 
  • Ben Burley is a highly regarded delay expert with a strong international presence across the APAC and EMEA regions. He is lauded by peers and clients alike for his “ability to foresee issues and advise on strategies to tackle them ahead of time”. 
  • With a unique expertise in the programming and planning in the construction sector, Alex Ho remains a trusted advisor for complex matters and disputes involving a delay element in Hong Kong. 
  • Jeffrey Wong possesses over 25 years of experience providing loss of profits and valuations analysis in domestic and international construction and infrastructure disputes. 
Singapore 
  • With over 10 years of experience, Brian Bowie is a favourite with peers and clients for his expertise in delay and productivity analysis for complex construction projects. His work includes offshore oil & gas, tunnelling, and wastewater treatment. 
  • Amit Garg is widely recognised as one of the foremost authorities in quantum delay analysis and construction disputes, with industry leaders praising him as “amongst the best experts in the industry”. 
  • Matthew Wills is a key name when it comes to complex quantum and delay matters in the infrastructure projects internationally in a variety of sectors, including energy and oil. 
  • John Lancaster was also recognized as Recommended consulting expert in Lexology’s report.  
UAE 
  • Manus Bradley is a highly regarded delay expert, known for his sharp forensic analysis and decades of hands-on experience resolving complex scheduling disputes on major construction and engineering projects worldwide. 
  • Ian Greenhough is highly recommended by sources who praise his “detailed understanding of all quantum-related matters” and further highlight that he is “easy to work with, fair and has a common-sense approach”. 
  • Taoufik Lachheb is a distinguished expert in delay and quantum analysis, with over 25 years’ experience in the engineering and construction market. He is known for his skilled and collaborative approach to disputes across oil and gas, shipbuilding and infrastructure sectors worldwide. 
  • Mike Saulsbury is “a stand-out delay expert” who brings “meticulous attention to detail and deep understanding of construction schedules and project timelines” to large-scale disputes. 
  • Kagan Aktas was also recognized as Recommended consulting expert in Lexology’s report.  
USA 
  • Bryan Byrd is an internationally sought-after cost and scheduling expert with a wealth of experience in construction, engineering and procurement projects, where he assists in a range of matters, including risk analysis and cost control. 
  • Dan Clark is highly commended by market leaders thanks to “his ability to drill down through a complex amount of data and identify key points that are useful to the claim”. 
  • Thomas Fertitta is a longstanding fixture in the construction market, with over three decades of experience advising on complex commercial projects. He is highly regarded for his ability to foresee project risks and craft strategic and persuasive analyses in high-stakes disputes. 
  • Tom Gaines is a globally recognised authority in claim pricing, cost analysis and delay assessment for construction projects. With over two decades of experience, he has delivered expert testimony in high-stakes disputes involving airports, healthcare facilities and major infrastructure developments. 
  • Nelson Gallardo is a renowned testifying expert witness specialising in delay and damages issues, who enjoys a strong reputation for his work in high-value construction disputes across Latin America and the United States. 
  • Neil Gaudion receives widespread praise from sources as being a “sharp, detail-oriented and well-prepared” practitioner who possesses decades of experience serving as an expert witness for major energy-related construction projects and disputes. 
  • With over 25 years of experience, Don Harvey has acted in some of the most complex and high-profile construction disputes. His meticulous approach and sharp insights have earned him the spot among top-notch expert witnesses in the field. 
  • Wayne Kalayjian is extremely well-known for his deep expertise in domestic and international design and construction projects across the energy, transport and healthcare industries. 
  • Clients applaud Michael Kling for his deep expertise in skilfully navigating complex construction disputes involving quantum, delay and technical issues. One source highlights his “thorough research skills”. 
  • Ted Scott is a “well-rounded and well-spoken expert” who wins praise in the market for his “unparalleled technical evaluations” and “excellent testifying skills”. 
  • Chris Sullivan is a specialist in schedule delay and quantum analysis, assisting clients in complex construction projects across sectors ranging from healthcare and utilities to energy and infrastructure. 
  • Thanks to his over two decades of experience as a quantum and delay expert, Brian Triche impresses peers and clients alike with his propensity for “organisation, strategic thinking and effective presentation” when handling high-stakes construction disputes. 
  • With a strong background in project management, Meera Wagman is a sought-after expert for delay and disruption analyses in global, high-profile construction projects. 
  • Chris Brindisi was also recognized as Recommended consulting expert in Lexology’s report.  

Future Leaders 

Canada 
  • Etienne Berge is a “diligent and detail-oriented” delay and quantum expert with over 15 years of experience providing services to project owners and contractors in Canada and internationally. He is praised for his ability to “quickly understand the issues and the client’s requirements” and ” impressive ability to review and analyse large quantities of data”. 
England 
  • Tosh Masson is a rising star in construction disputes, with a sharp focus on delay analysis. He is praised for being “truly on top of the detail,” delivering “excellent report writing and analytics” across complex infrastructure and engineering claims. 
  • Gareth McDermott is praised for his “methodical and meticulous approach” to valuing construction claims. His nearly 20 years of experience in international projects make him an exemplary expert witness in quantum matters. 
  • Michael Pogue commands presence in the construction disputes arena, known for his expertise in complex quantum matters. He “consistently demonstrates professionalism, precision and a strategic approach,” with analysis that is “meticulous”. 
  • Kaz Rozputynski is a trusted expert in the construction and engineering industries, offering exceptional services related to programming and scheduling of complex construction projects. He has garnered acclaim from peers for his “responsiveness and attention to detail in his delay analysis”. 
Singapore 
  • Yasir Kadhim enjoys a fantastic reputation in the market, with peers and clients praising him for the quality of his reports. He is often involved in complex disputes concerning delay claims in the construction sector. 
  • Vivienne Li earns plaudits on the market for her “remarkably skilled, practical and well-reasoned approach to delay analysis” and “consistently clear and logically structured explanations”. 
USA 
  • Kelsey Bishop is a first-rate construction specialist who comes highly recommended for her delay analysis and contract review experience across a wealth of projects across an array of industries, including energy and transport to property and utilities. 
  • A fast-rising name in the construction disputes space, Madison Clark brings exceptional clarity and analytical depth to delay analysis. She is recognised for her “detailed and qualified analysis of project schedules” and ability to “identify the causes and consequences of changes” with precision. 
  • Described as “a pleasure to work with,” Zackery Kilgore excels in providing expert advice on complex construction matters, particularly on programming and scheduling for major projects worldwide. 
UAE 
  • Stuart Allan was recognized as a Future Leader consulting expert in Lexology’s report.  

Financial Advisory and Valuation – Quantum of Damages 

Global Elite Thought Leaders 

Canada 
  • Chris Milburn is a distinguished damages and valuations expert with deep expertise navigating major financial investigations and disputes arising from the energy and natural resources, financial services and property sectors, among others. 
  • With over four decades of experience, Howard Rosen is “amongst the best in the industry and well-liked by clients,” thanks to his deep knowledge of business valuations and damages quantification in high-stakes international arbitrations. 
USA 
  • Kiran Sequeira is described as “simply the best in the industry,” with over 20 years of experience providing quantum analysis in international disputes. His ability to “anchor discussions on key points” makes him a highly regarded expert witness in complex cases. 

Recommended Consulting Experts  

Canada 
  • Julius Koo is a pre-eminent business valuation and damages quantification expert who is celebrated in the market for his “diligent approach and levelheadedness” to high-value arbitration and litigation proceedings. 
England 
  • Liam Holder is among the world’s foremost quantum experts. With over 30 years of experience, he has strong technical expertise, which he leverages when working on disputes concerning large, complex multinational projects. 
  • Mark Taylor is a respected name in the market, with over two decades of experience providing damages analysis and financial advice in complex investigations and arbitrations. 
  • Travis Taylor enjoys a spectacular reputation in the forensic accounting field. He is adept at handling fraud investigations and seamlessly dispenses expert opinions from the witness box. 
Germany 
  • Alexander Demuth is a well-regarded expert with deep expertise in quantifying damages in complex international disputes, including post-M&A, investor-state and commercial claims arising from the automotive, energy and pharmaceutical industries. 
Singapore 
  • Chaitanya Arora brings extensive experience providing quantum valuations in expert witness roles. His work in assessing damages issues positions him as a leading figure in the disputes landscape across Asia. 
USA 
  • Bryan D’Aguiar earns plaudits for his “deep technical expertise, impressive quantum analysis and in-depth understanding of the funds industry”. He is praised by market sources who “highly recommend him”. 
  • With over 25 years of experience, Don Harvey has acted in some of the most complex and high-profile construction disputes. His meticulous approach and sharp insights have earned him the spot among top-notch expert witnesses in the field. 
  • With three decades of experience, Paul Marcus is widely perceived as a stellar valuation expert thanks to his compelling witness testimony in complex domestic and international construction disputes. 
  • Described as “simply outstanding,” Garrett Rush brings “all of the skills you need in an expert witness” to complex multi-jurisdictional disputes in the real estate, financial services and transport sectors, among others. 
  • Jennifer Vanderhart consistently earns acclaim from market commentators for her exceptional expertise in damage quantification and her deep understanding of employment and IP-related claims. 
  • Mike Allen is also recognized as a Recommended consulting expert in Lexology’s report.  

Future Leaders 

Canada 
  • Eddie Tobis is widely respected for his precision and depth in quantum, delay, and technical analysis. He is sought after by clients for his “meticulous and accurate arguments that are very precise, yet presented in an easily understandable way”. 
USA 
  • Gigi Cantalupo is a rising star, commended for “her ability to digest large volumes of information and get on top of highly complex issues in no time”. Her deep expertise in quantifying damages makes her an asset in highly complex commercial and investment disputes. 
  • Stuart Dekker is a managing director known for clear, expert testimony on damages and valuation in over 50 major international arbitrations. Praised for flawless reports and sharp insights, he advises Fortune 500 firms, governments, and multilateral institutions globally. 

Forensic Accountants 

Global Elite Thought Leaders 

USA
  • A seasoned testifying expert, Peter Resnick is recognized as a world-leading professional in forensic accounting, with more than 30 years of robust experience in forensic accounting, financial consulting, accounting matters, valuations, and fraud investigations. 

Recommended Consulting Experts 

Germany 
  • Alexander Demuth is widely recognised as one of the leading names in forensic accounting and is adept at providing expert testimony in high-stakes arbitration and litigation proceedings. 
USA 
  • Rob Hutchins is a well-established expert in forensic accounting, focusing on a range of financial issues, including breach of contract and fraud allegations. His experience spans various industries, making him a trusted source of guidance for clients seeking highly tailored solutions in complex litigation and financial investigations. 
  • Lexology Index says: Gary Kleinrichert has over 30 years’ experience in forensic accounting, focusing on complex investigations and expert testimony. He has worked on high-profile cases involving fraud, embezzlement, and antitrust violations. 
  • Eric Poer has over 25 years of experience as a forensic accountant across a variety of matters, including in large investigations and disputes. Our market sources describe him as “an amazing expert” and “a go-to for forensic work”. 
  • Edward Westerman is one of the leading forensic accountants in the market with over 25 years of experience in complex international matters concerning white collar crime, regulatory enquiries, and corruption and bribery. 

Shalabh Gupta and Amran Nawaz, Associate Directors in Secretariat’s Global Sports Consulting practice, were recently quoted in an S&P Global article discussing sports team acquisition and valuation trends.

Sports team deal values are reaching record highs in 2025 with no sign of slowing, catalyzed by the growing role of private equity investors in the sports investment landscape. While revenues are steadily increasing, valuations are growing even more rapidly—prompting questions about whether this historic growth is sustainable. In the article, Gupta and Nawaz discuss how strategic operational improvements introduced through PE investments and new ownership models could justify rising sports team valuations beyond traditional revenue metrics.

“We are seeing growing interest from a new profile of investors who view the sports industry as an untapped market with significant potential to provide returns,” Nawaz shares in the article.

Likewise, Gupta states that one particular appeal for investors is the revenue opportunities, which expand beyond team merchandise or traditional media rights. He notes, “…stadiums are increasingly being used for concerts and other sporting events, as clubs look to generate revenue during the [about] 300 days a year when the venue would otherwise sit idle.”

As the influence of private equity investments continues to transform the economics of sports, the definition of winning is shifting—from season records to margins and monetization.

Read the full article here.

Managing Director Tamika Tremaglio was featured in a recent article in The Washington Post explaining the ongoing WNBA collective bargaining agreement negotiations and the “unprecedented leverage” possessed by the league’s players union to explore new financial structures that go beyond revenue sharing, like equity. She added that, thanks to the name, image and likeness (NIL) era of college sports, younger players understand their value more than ever. If negotiations don’t end the way the players want, she said, they may seek unprecedented alternatives.

“Many people with tremendous wealth are asking the question of, ‘Should we start our own league?’” Tamika said. “People are holding their breath [watching these negotiations]. A lot of what’s being thought about is really dependent on what happens in the CBA — not only here in the U.S. but I think globally.”

Read Tamika’s full quotes in The Washington Post here (subscription may be required).

By Norman Harrison and Michael Koenig1

Since the election in November 2024, there have been many changes to DOJ’s enforcement policies. Earlier this year, now-Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Matthew R. Galeotti, announced at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), that going forward prosecutors and investigators would primarily focus on “the most egregious white-collar crime” to better “incentivize [companies] to come forward, come clean, reform, and cooperate with the government.”[2]

That same day, the Criminal Division released two companion memoranda authored by Galeotti, each signaling significant shifts in white-collar enforcement. The first, titled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime”[3] (the Galeotti Enforcement Memorandum), outlines procedural reforms and case resolution standards intended to streamline investigations and strengthen individual accountability. The second, “Selection of Monitors in Criminal Division Matters”[4] (the Galeotti Monitor Memorandum), updates internal guidance for determining when and how DOJ prosecutors should impose corporate compliance monitors, emphasizing proportionality and efficiency.

Together, these memoranda signal a significant effort to harmonize white-collar enforcement practices with the Administration’s priorities while ostensibly reinforcing DOJ’s commitment to its core principles. The new guidance redefines how individual accountability will be pursued, restructures the use of corporate resolution tools, and recalibrates the role that cooperation will play in making charging decisions and determining remedies. As the Galeotti Enforcement Memorandum[5] explains, the revised policies are rooted in three guiding principles:

  • Focus: prioritizing high-impact offenses,
  • Fairness: holding individuals accountable while rewarding compliant companies, and
  • Efficiency: shortening investigations, limiting the use of independent monitors, and reducing costs and collateral impact.

Revised Criminal Division Priorities and Guidelines

The Galeotti Enforcement Memorandum provides that DOJ will target individuals and enterprises that exploit taxpayer-funded programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs, as well as defense procurement fraud.

Other priority areas include investment fraud, money laundering, and evasion of sanctions and tariffs, all of which are viewed by the Administration as threats to U.S. economic security, competitiveness, or national security.

DOJ will also prioritize digital asset crimes that harm investors or consumers, enable broader criminal schemes, or involve deliberate misuse to fuel significant illegal activity, to “ensure that American businesses are competing on a level playing field in global trade and commerce.”[6]

In pursuit of that goal, DOJ appears to be creating a Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit within the Fraud Section by combining the Market Integrity and Major Fraud Unit with part of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch. The new unit will focus on, among other things, tariff evasion, making good on the Galeotti memoranda’s commitment to targeting such crimes.

Additionally, the scope of the DOJ’s whistleblower program, which previously covered specific categories of offenses including foreign and domestic corruption, healthcare fraud, and certain financial crimes,[7] has been expanded to include several new categories of criminal offenses, notably: corporate sanctions offenses; trade, tariff, and customs fraud by corporations; and corporate procurement fraud. 

The Galeotti Enforcement Memorandum further updates DOJ’s corporate enforcement policy to ensure that companies that voluntarily self-disclose, fully cooperate, and promptly remediate wrongdoing are less likely to face criminal charges. Even in cases involving allegations of serious wrongdoing, prosecutors may still decline prosecution if a company demonstrates full cooperation and effective remediation. In cases lacking voluntary self-disclosure, or where aggravating factors are present, companies that do not qualify for a full declination may still benefit under the DOJ’s revised enforcement approach. The Criminal Division emphasizes holding individual wrongdoers accountable while encouraging corporate compliance, recognizing that not all corporate misconduct warrants prosecution. The Galeotti Enforcement Memorandum affirms that prosecutors must weigh factors such as disclosure, cooperation, and remediation in determining an appropriate resolution, whether through a non-prosecution agreement, deferred prosecution agreement, or guilty plea.

Revised Approach to Monitor Appointments

The Galeotti Monitor Memorandum updates both the criteria for requiring appointment of an independent monitor and the process by which monitors are selected and overseen.[8] Prosecutors must clearly explain why a monitor is necessary, tailor the scope of monitorship to address the specific risk of recurrence of the crime and never impose a monitor as a punitive gesture. Under the new guidance, in determining the structure and duration of monitorship, DOJ will emphasize proportionality by ensuring costs of the monitorship align with the severity of and profits derived from the misconduct, taking into account the company’s size and risk profile.

If a company is already under robust regulatory oversight that meets DOJ’s compliance goals, a separate monitorship may be unnecessary. The more proactive a company is in addressing misconduct, such as firing wrongdoers, updating internal controls, and improving compliance systems, the more likely it is to avoid or shorten a monitorship.

In line with the DOJ’s new monitorship policy, the Criminal Division recently reviewed ongoing monitorships and took decisive action, demonstrating real-world application of its revised standards. Notably, the department formally announced the early termination of Glencore’s monitorship, previously imposed after its guilty plea for bribery and market manipulation, citing its “sole discretion under the plea agreement” and a careful “assessment of the facts and circumstances.”[9] Albemarle Corporation also announced the early termination of a monitorship earlier this year.[10] These moves align precisely with DOJ’s new guidance that monitor appointments must be justified, tailored, and cost proportionate.

The only pending independent compliance consultant requirement is included in a Non-Prosecution Agreement recently concluded between DOJ and the Boeing Company (which was originally a deferred prosecution agreement that included a requirement to appoint an independent compliance monitor). The matter is still under consideration by a federal district court, so the outcome remains uncertain.

Implications for Companies and the C-Suite

To summarize, companies may now secure more favorable resolutions, reduced penalties and shorter oversight periods by self-reporting, cooperating in good faith in DOJ’s investigations, strengthening compliance and embracing transparency.

In response to the revised guidance, companies should reassess key elements of their risk assessment, compliance policies, and controls. As examples, it may be prudent to:

  • Undertake proactive investigations to identify misconduct and foster a proactive government-reporting culture to capture the benefits of cooperation credit;
  • Ensure that whistleblower policies encourage reporting, protect against retaliation, and are backed by robust internal investigative procedures;
  • Reexamine enterprise risk assessment frameworks, to reflect DOJ’s revised priorities;
  • Ensure that compliance policies, procedures and internal controls – and periodic internal testing protocols – are modified, if necessary to be fully adapted to the revised criminal enforcement regime; and
  • Evaluate the sufficiency of counterparty due diligence tools and practices, to better protect against potential fallout arising from commercial dealings with high-risk entities.

[1] The authors express appreciation to Giya Sahni, an intern in Secretariat’s Global Investigations & Disputes practice, for her assistance in the preparation of this article.
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/head-criminal-division-matthew-r-galeotti-delivers-remarks-sifmas-anti-money-laundering
[3] https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400046/dl?inline
[4] https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400036/dl?inline
[5] https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400046/dl?inline
[6] Id., 3
[7] https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-division-corporate-
[9] United States v. Glencore Int’l A.G., No. 22 Cr. 297 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.)
[10] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000915913/000091591325000084/alb-20250331.htm

Dr. Keith Waehrer joins hosts Anant Raut and Jennifer Dixton, along with Joe Jerome (DuckDuckGo) on the American Bar Association’s Trust and Trade podcast in the episode “Are IP Remedies in Big Tech Cases Going Too Far?”. In this episode they examine whether Big Tech companies should be required to open up their intellectual property when they break antitrust laws. It considers whether these remedies reduce incentives to innovate or are necessary to restore competitive balance, addressing how far is too far and what is at stake for digital markets.

Listen on Spotify | Apple

Secretariat, the leading global expert and advisory firm, is thrilled to celebrate the mid-year promotion of 21 individuals across 11 global offices.

“Our mid-year promotions reflect Secretariat’s ongoing dedication to celebrating our wealth of expertise and growing capabilities across the globe,” said Managing Director Don Harvey. “These professionals have demonstrated an exceptional commitment to upholding the exceptional quality and culture that define our firm.”

We are thrilled to congratulate these individuals, whose contributions and impact continue to accelerate growth across our firm and drive Secretariat’s global success.

Director

Associate Director

Manager

  • Alex Gisquet (San Diego)
  • Reed Hasson (New York)
  • Eric Mah (Toronto)
  • Meera Ravikumar (New York)
  • Cheong Wei Ren (Singapore)

Senior Associate

  • Ayush Aggarwal (Atlanta)
  • Andrew Cohen (New York)
  • Alex Davies-Morris (San Francisco)
  • John Hutchison (Los Angeles)
  • Brad Koziol (New York)
  • Basheer Matar (Philadelphia)
  • Taidgh McManus (Chicago)
  • Majd Nasrallah (London)
  • Aarif Qurashe (Atlanta)
  • Mikhail Reshotkin (Dubai)

Corporate

  • Monika Singh, Senior Manager (Atlanta)
  • Molly Andrews, Revenue Operations Senior Coordinator (London)

Secretariat has earned the top position in the Lexology Index Thought Leaders – Arbitration 2025 report, with the most experts listed in the rankings, and highest number of Global Elite Thought Leaders.  

The Lexology Index Thought Leaders – Arbitration report is a highly respected publication that spotlights the world’s foremost arbitrators, legal counsel, and expert witnesses, selected based on feedback from counsel, clients, and peers. This year’s report features in-depth Q&As and client testimonials, offering insight into the experience and impact of those shaping the global arbitration landscape. 

Secretariat’s leading number of experts included in Lexology’s report reflects our global impact across the Americas, EMEA, and Asia-Pacific, and our continued leadership in international arbitration, complex dispute resolution, and expert consulting and advisory services. 

Read the full report to learn more about each expert’s deep knowledge and technical expertise.

Global Elite Thought Leaders:  

Thought Leaders: 

Director Jason Albert provided pivotal testimony in Roberto Vázquez-Ramos, et al. v. Triple-S Salud, et al., which examined allegations of unfair competition and monopolistic practices involving exclusive provider arrangements under Puerto Rico’s government health plan.

In May 2019, the Plaintiffs—a group of urologists in Puerto Rico’s Western Region—alleged that Triple-S Salud (“Triple-S”), the region’s government health plan insurer, and MSO of Puerto Rico, LLC (“MSO”), entered into exclusive dealing agreements with a competing urology group, Urologics LLC (“Urologics”), in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs claimed the contracts unlawfully constrained trade, monopolized the market, and restricted access to care for patients under the island’s government health plan (GHP).

In 2015, as part of the competitive bidding process, Triple-S considered proposals from both the Puerto Rico Urology Group, Inc. (PRUG), affiliated with Plaintiffs, and Urologics, affiliated with Defendants. The court noted that “Plaintiffs competed and lost. That is the essence of competition.”1

The Federal District Court of Puerto Rico initially dismissed the case. In 2022, the First Circuit Court reinstated the federal antitrust claims related to Triple-S/Urologics exclusive dealing while dismissing claims involving MSO. The case then focused on whether the exclusive contract harmed consumer access or restricted market competition.

Dr. Albert was retained by Defendants to opine on these claims. He submitted expert written and deposition testimony on liability and damages, concluding that the exclusive contract to Urologics by Triple-S was competitively awarded and did not reduce access to care.

On July 15, 2025, Judge Silvia Carreño-Coll of the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice, citing Dr. Albert’s testimony throughout the decision, noting his analysis “suggests that GHP patients in Western Puerto Rico did not have limited access to urological services and procedures.”2 As of this writing, the matter remains subject to potential appeal.

“I am thrilled to have had the opportunity to provide testimony that was helpful for the court,” said Dr. Albert. “I am grateful for the help of my fantastic support team.”

Dr. Albert was supported by team members Pablo Varas, Jessica Serody, Belkys Arbizu, and Mia Sharpe.

Read the Full Opinion
  1. Roberto Vázquez-Ramos, et al. v. Triple-S Salud, et al., No. 3:19-cv-01527-SCC-MEL (D.P.R. July 15, 2025), slip op. at 18 ↩︎
  2. Vázquez-Ramos, et al., slip op. at 20 ↩︎

Former NBPA Executive Director brings transformational leadership as sports industry growth creates surge in demand for specialized advisory services.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 14, 2025 – Secretariat is excited to announce the addition of Tamika Tremaglio as a Managing Director in the Washington, D.C. office, where she’ll help drive the strategic expansion of the firm’s Global Sports Consulting capabilities. The former executive director of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), Tamika is a globally renowned leader with more than 30 years of experience advising Fortune 500 companies, leading law firms, and prominent sports industry organizations, executives, and athletes.

“I’ve had the privilege of knowing Tamika for more than 25 years, and I am thrilled to welcome her to Secretariat,” said Secretariat Managing Director Don Harvey. “Her robust expertise, strategic vision, and transformative impact not only align with our core values of quality and culture—they will also be instrumental in amplifying our reputation in sports consulting through highly visible engagements across sports communities and ecosystems. With the sports industry undergoing generational transformation and exponential market growth, there has never been more of a need for sophisticated advice and expertise.”

Tremaglio has advised leaders in sports for more than 15 years across football, soccer, women and men’s basketball, table tennis, fishing and more. At the NBPA, Tremaglio led the historic negotiation of a groundbreaking $50 billion collective bargaining agreement and unlocked unprecedented value for NBA players. Her collective bargaining expertise also extended to advising on the 2020 WNBPA collective bargaining agreement. She has advised global sovereign sports ministries, as well as private sector, venture, and sports organizations seeking to maximize their competitive advantages, including work in the Middle East to reimagine sports in the region. Before the NBPA, she served as Managing Principal for the Greater Washington Area at Deloitte, their largest office in the country.

“To join a group of such talented people during a momentous time in the industry is thrilling,” Tremaglio said. “One of the incredible things about sports is the ability to see something new every game, every season, even every play. The same applies to the global sports industry. With monumental changes happening to the industry everywhere you look, it’s so exciting to jump in and help define the next era of sports and business.”

The global sports market is projected to grow from $485 billion in 2023 to $651 billion by 2028, with over $50 billion in private equity and sovereign wealth fund investments in the past two years alone. The ever-increasing flow of funds presents new commercial opportunities for all stakeholders worldwide.

Secretariat’s Global Sports Consulting practice draws on the firm’s extensive capabilities across litigation and disputes; capital projects and infrastructure; data, AI and analytics; economics and business valuations; forensic accounting; intellectual property; M&A and transaction advisory; and regulatory compliance and investigations. This integrated, multidisciplinary approach positions Secretariat as an immediate market leader ready to address the complex, sports-specific challenges facing leagues, teams, investors, and other stakeholders. With a strong foundation, experienced leadership, and aligned vision, Secretariat has distinct capabilities to influence and guide the future of sports.

Tremaglio joins a global team of specialized experts, including Associate Directors Shalabh Gupta and Amran Nawaz, who have spearheaded Secretariat’s growing sports industry reputation through expanded relationships with prominent organizations, including LawinSports and the Sports Lawyer Association.

“Leaders like Tamika don’t come around often,” Secretariat President Joseph Blanco said. “Her impact on both the international level and in her local communities is profound. Thanks to her unique combination of boardroom fluency, athlete trust, global connectivity, and leadership, she has the rare ability to shape the future of sports business and innovation across multiple sectors and continents.”

Tamika earned her law degree from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, her master’s degree from the University of Baltimore, and her undergraduate degree from Mount St. Mary’s University.

This article originally appeared on Law360 on June 24, 2025.

In a recent article published by Law360, Managing Director Rick Eichmann explores the economic reasoning behind the U.S. District Court’s decision in Haptic Inc. v. Apple Inc. and why prelitigation funding forecasts should not be conflated with royalty analyses in patent litigation.

Eichmann explains how models developed for litigation funding reflect strategic, forward-looking estimates shaped by asymmetric information, not neutral assessments of patent value. The court’s decision underscores the need to distinguish between economic models based on their function, context, and intended use in legal proceedings.

The article offers practical insights for attorneys and experts navigating damages modeling, discovery boundaries, and litigation finance. It further explains why the purpose and informational context of economic models matter — and how misapplying them can distort legal outcomes.

Download the Full Article

Secretariat has been named as one of Consulting Magazine’s Best Firms to Work For in 2025, earning this prestigious recognition for the second consecutive year.  

This award is especially meaningful because it’s based entirely on employee feedback, reflecting their experiences across key areas such as culture, career development, client engagement, compensation & benefits, and firm leadership.  

Secretariat is proud to celebrate our steadfast commitment to our people, remarkable growth, and continued global recognition. In 2025 alone, we have achieved several major milestones:  

“When people ask what sets Secretariat apart, I always come back to two things: quality and culture,” says Don Harvey, Managing Director. “Quality earns our clients’ trust. Culture makes this an extraordinary place to work. I’m deeply grateful for the energy, care, and commitment that each individual brings to our firm.” 

As we continue to grow and expand our global impact, being recognized as a Best Firm to Work For reaffirms the strength of our culture and the shared purpose that drives our success.  

View the full listing here: 2025 Winners: Consulting Best Firms to Work For 2025