Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Edward J. Heath is the chair of our firm’s Business Litigation group and co-leads the Government Enforcement + White Collar Defense and Internal Investigations + Corporate Compliance teams. He is also a member of our firm’s six-member Managing Committee and former co-chair of the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion + Belonging Committee. Benchmark Litigation has named Ed as a Local Litigation Star in the area of Commercial Litigation since 2020.

Resolution of Business Disputes

Over the last 25 years, Ed has helped businesses across the globe resolve their disputes. An experienced trial lawyer, he has pursued or defended numerous nine- and eight-figure cases, which includes obtaining a full defense jury verdict following a multi-month trial for an institutional client facing $100 million in contract and business tort claims. He has been effectively defending companies against class action claims for over a decade, such as securing the dismissal of a proposed nationwide class action brought against an manufacturing company without the need for any payment to the plaintiff, potential class members, or plaintiff's counsel.

Government Enforcement + Corporate Compliance

Ed routinely advises institutional clients in connection with civil and criminal government investigations and enforcement activities, including with respect to issues involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and federal and state False Claims Acts. This work has involved federal agencies such as the United States Attorney's Office, the Office of Special Counsel, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as various state attorneys general and other administrative agencies.

As a result of this experience, Ed is often called upon to conduct internal investigations for companies and organizations, domestically as well as in Europe and Asia, and to provide guidance on matters of corporate compliance and litigation risk.

His clients have included technology companies; industrial and consumer product manufacturers; financial institutions and financial services firms; health care entities; educational, charitable, and religious organizations; professional associations, such as law and accounting firms; municipalities; judges; and media personalities.

Pro Bono Service

Ed has a strong commitment to pro bono work. From 2019 to 2024, he served as the president of Greater Hartford Legal Aid, and he has been a board member of that organization since 2011. He is also a board member of the Connecticut Bar Foundation, where he serves on the Executive Committee. By appointment of the Chief United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, Ed is Counsel to Federal Grievance Committee.

For many years, Ed served as chair of Robinson+Cole's Pro Bono Committee, during which time our firm as well as individual lawyers, including Ed, received more than a dozen awards or other forms of recognition for pro bono work. For example, Ed was recognized for co-developing a firm program that for the last several years has provided free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence and harassment seeking restraining orders for protection. Ed also previously served on the Connecticut Judicial Branch's Pro Bono Committee, and he was a founding member of the Hartford Advisory Board of the Pro Bono Partnership, an organization that provides legal services to nonprofit organizations in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York.

  • University of Notre Dame (Juris Doctor)
  • Florida Atlantic University (Bachelors, with honors)
    • B.A., History

  • State of Connecticut
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Selected to the Lawdragon 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management List

Named to the Lawdragon 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management list for 2026 and 2025

Robinson+Cole Diversity, Equity, Inclusion + Belonging Award, 2024

Listed in Benchmark Litigation as a Local Litigation Star for Connecticut in the area of General Commercial since 2020

Selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© in the area of Commercial Litigation Law for 2026 and 2025

Named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2015 to 2025

Named a Rising Star in the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2009 to 2014

Hartford Business Journal, 2010 "40 Under Forty" Inductee

Connecticut Bar Association Pro Bono Award, 2012

Connecticut Law Tribune, recognized in 2012 New Leaders in the Law Yearbook

Connecticut Law Tribune, Pro Bono Award, 2013

Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, "First 100," 2013

Robinson+Cole Mentor of the Year Award, 2017

Robinson+Cole Community Service Award recipient, 2019

Connecticut Bar Foundation
Vice President, Board of Directors
Member, Board of Directors
James W. Cooper Fellow, Board of Director

American Bar Foundation
Fellow

Federal Bar Association
Member (2001 - Present)

American Bar Association
Section of Litigation, Business Torts Litigation Committee

Connecticut Bar Association
Member (1999 - Present)

University of Connecticut School of Law
Adjunct Professor (2004 - 2015)

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Counsel, Federal Grievance Committee

Experience


Represented MD Labs in First Circuit Victory for Clinical Lab in False Claims Act Appeal

Successfully represented MD Labs and its owners in defending against False Claims Act allegations in U.S. ex rel. Omni Healthcare Inc. v. MD Spine Solutions LLC et al., securing summary judgment in the District of Massachusetts and a unanimous affirmation by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This landmark decision clarified that clinical laboratories may rely on doctor’s orders to show that the test is “reasonable and necessary” and confirmed that commissions to independent contractors are not per se illegal — setting an important precedent for clinical laboratories nationwide.

Read More
Represented MD Labs in First Circuit Victory for Clinical Lab in False Claims Act Appeal

Business Litigation: Breach of Contract Claims

Successfully defended entity in arbitration involving multimillion-dollar breach of contract claims. The arbitration concluded after several days of evidence, and the three arbitrators thereafter issued a unanimous award in favor of our client.

Read More

Business Litigation: Breach of Contract + Unfair Trade Practices

Represented institutional client in a breach of contract and unfair trade practices lawsuit against an international services provider. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, we negotiated a recovery for our client of several million dollars.

Read More


Publications


After U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Court of International Trade Orders Path Forward teaser
March 6, 2026

After U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Court of International Trade Orders Path Forward

Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives: Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories teaser
November 17, 2025

Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives: Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories

The ColLABorative Brief
March 24, 2025

Here’s how commercial contracts can ease the cost burden of new tariffs impacting manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal

Commercial contracts tend to be full of “boilerplate provisions” that, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s assessment of classic novels, everyone knows are important, but no one actually reads. When COVID-19 struck, manufacturers learned all about the significance of one particular boilerplate provision — force majeure. This type of provision can excuse or postpone contractual performance in the face of a materially unforeseen event beyond the party’s control. It was a pivotal tool for countless manufacturers seeking relief from their contractual burdens because of severe operational challenges brought on by the global pandemic. This boilerplate provision may become critical again as manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad face the increasing threat of new federal tariffs. Triggering events Force majeure translates as “superior force.” Arising from the Napoleonic Code, or French Civil Code, which was established in France in 1804 and remains in amended use today, this legal concept excused a commercial party from damages liability under a contract if their nonperformance (e.g., the product was not delivered) was “by consequence of a superior force or of a fortuitous occurrence.” Force majeure provisions have been part of American commercial contracting since at least the 19th century, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized their validity in a case called The Tornado. Like the pandemic, tariffs may present a new severe operational challenge for manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components or equipment. “A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico threatens to upend the very supply chains that have made U.S. manufacturing more competitive globally,” according to Jay Simmons, the president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. “The ripple effects will be severe, particularly for small and medium-sized manufacturers that lack the flexibility and capital to rapidly find alternative suppliers, or absorb skyrocketing energy costs,” he added. This begs the question: Could these new federal tariffs constitute a force majeure event that excuses, or at least delays performance under a commercial contract? The answer depends on the specific language used in the contract. A provision’s heading is generally irrelevant to the parties’ rights, so merely including the words “force majeure” in a contract is unlikely to provide relief. Facing serious supply chain problems in 2020, many manufacturers were disappointed to learn that the force majeure provisions in their contracts listed a series of triggering events, such as acts of God, natural disasters and war, but said nothing about pandemics. The COVID-19 case law was not a model of consistency when it came to whether these provisions are interpreted narrowly, but some courts have been reluctant to imply that “pandemics” were meant to be covered when they were not expressly listed in the provision. The options may be better for manufacturers this time around. Force majeure provisions often list “government action” as a triggering event, and a tariff could qualify as such an action. If tariffs are not specifically listed, however, the rule of narrow interpretation might lead to a contrary result. The outcome will depend on the applicable state law and precise contract language. Additionally, force majeure provisions sometimes include requirements that the triggering event must be unanticipated and/or make performance impossible. Lawyers might argue that tariffs were not unanticipated events, particularly for contracts drafted since January 2025, or that substantially increased costs make performance “unprofitable” or “very difficult,” but not impossible. The development of a new commercial contract, or the renewal or amendment of an existing one, presents an ideal opportunity to mitigate uncertainty around this point. Manufacturers may want to evaluate whether (or not) a contract needs a force majeure provision excusing performance because of tariffs, and insist on language that explicitly includes (or excludes) tariffs and identifies the circumstances under which they may (or may not) qualify as a triggering event. The details matter here. Read the article.

After U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Court of International Trade Orders Path Forward teaser
March 6, 2026

After U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Court of International Trade Orders Path Forward

Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives: Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories teaser
November 17, 2025

Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives: Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories

The ColLABorative Brief
March 24, 2025

Here’s how commercial contracts can ease the cost burden of new tariffs impacting manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal

Commercial contracts tend to be full of “boilerplate provisions” that, to paraphrase Mark Twain’s assessment of classic novels, everyone knows are important, but no one actually reads. When COVID-19 struck, manufacturers learned all about the significance of one particular boilerplate provision — force majeure. This type of provision can excuse or postpone contractual performance in the face of a materially unforeseen event beyond the party’s control. It was a pivotal tool for countless manufacturers seeking relief from their contractual burdens because of severe operational challenges brought on by the global pandemic. This boilerplate provision may become critical again as manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad face the increasing threat of new federal tariffs. Triggering events Force majeure translates as “superior force.” Arising from the Napoleonic Code, or French Civil Code, which was established in France in 1804 and remains in amended use today, this legal concept excused a commercial party from damages liability under a contract if their nonperformance (e.g., the product was not delivered) was “by consequence of a superior force or of a fortuitous occurrence.” Force majeure provisions have been part of American commercial contracting since at least the 19th century, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized their validity in a case called The Tornado. Like the pandemic, tariffs may present a new severe operational challenge for manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components or equipment. “A 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico threatens to upend the very supply chains that have made U.S. manufacturing more competitive globally,” according to Jay Simmons, the president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. “The ripple effects will be severe, particularly for small and medium-sized manufacturers that lack the flexibility and capital to rapidly find alternative suppliers, or absorb skyrocketing energy costs,” he added. This begs the question: Could these new federal tariffs constitute a force majeure event that excuses, or at least delays performance under a commercial contract? The answer depends on the specific language used in the contract. A provision’s heading is generally irrelevant to the parties’ rights, so merely including the words “force majeure” in a contract is unlikely to provide relief. Facing serious supply chain problems in 2020, many manufacturers were disappointed to learn that the force majeure provisions in their contracts listed a series of triggering events, such as acts of God, natural disasters and war, but said nothing about pandemics. The COVID-19 case law was not a model of consistency when it came to whether these provisions are interpreted narrowly, but some courts have been reluctant to imply that “pandemics” were meant to be covered when they were not expressly listed in the provision. The options may be better for manufacturers this time around. Force majeure provisions often list “government action” as a triggering event, and a tariff could qualify as such an action. If tariffs are not specifically listed, however, the rule of narrow interpretation might lead to a contrary result. The outcome will depend on the applicable state law and precise contract language. Additionally, force majeure provisions sometimes include requirements that the triggering event must be unanticipated and/or make performance impossible. Lawyers might argue that tariffs were not unanticipated events, particularly for contracts drafted since January 2025, or that substantially increased costs make performance “unprofitable” or “very difficult,” but not impossible. The development of a new commercial contract, or the renewal or amendment of an existing one, presents an ideal opportunity to mitigate uncertainty around this point. Manufacturers may want to evaluate whether (or not) a contract needs a force majeure provision excusing performance because of tariffs, and insist on language that explicitly includes (or excludes) tariffs and identifies the circumstances under which they may (or may not) qualify as a triggering event. The details matter here. Read the article.

Health Law Diagnosis teaser
February 27, 2025

Health Law Diagnosis

Legal Update: Key Takeaways: HHS and DOJ’s Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report teaser
December 10, 2024

Legal Update: Key Takeaways: HHS and DOJ’s Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

November 7, 2024

A Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs

Corporate Counsel

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently updated the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) to direct prosecutors who are considering charges or resolutions to assess how a company addresses, among other topics, disruptive technologies and AI, self-disclosure initiatives, and the compliance function's access to corporate data. This enhanced guidance follows a pattern for ECCP amendments and reveals a trend toward an expectation of more proactive compliance efforts as a predicate for credit from prosecutors. Compliance stakeholders, therefore, can use this update as a blueprint for high-value program enhancements. Since 2017, the ECCP has been prosecutors' formal tool to judge compliance program adequacy. Largely presented as questions rather than prescriptions, the original ECCP provided "some important topics and sample questions that the [DOJ] … has frequently found relevant in evaluating a corporate compliance program." In 2019, the DOJ reorganized the ECCP into three topics—program design, implementation, and efficacy—and better aligned the questions with policies and priorities. In 2020, the DOJ substantively expanded the ECCP to address the compliance function's data use, role in M&A, and resourcing. In March 2023, the DOJ made two significant changes to address the data preservation and corporate compensation programs. AI and Disruptive Technologies. Beginning in early 2024, the DOJ previewed anticipated ECCP changes addressing AI (defined in OBM Memo M-24-10) and new technologies. It announced the Justice AI Initiative to accelerate DOJ's understanding and use of AI and noted the "promise" and "peril" of AI and its anticipated robust enforcement and accompanying stiffer penalties for offenses involving AI. The ECCP update, developed in consultation with compliance executives with AI expertise, examines how a company addresses these technologies in its compliance life cycle. Prosecutors will ask questions such as: How do the business and compliance function use technology? Is "management of risks related to use of AI and other new technologies integrated into" risk assessments? What actions is the company taking to "curb[] any potential negative or unintended consequences" and to "mitigat[e] the potential for deliberate or reckless misuse of technologies"? What "controls [are] in place to monitor and ensure [technologies'] trustworthiness, reliability, and use"? DOJ expects a company to thoroughly inventory its use of technology—being mindful of the broad definition of AI—across the entirety of the enterprise so that the organization knows everywhere it uses AI and how it uses AI. In addition, the business should assess its exposure to the malign use of AI against it. With this context, a company is expected to assess risks associated with internal use and external misuse of technology. (A company needing guidance on an AI-focused risk assessment can look to the NIST's AI Risk Management Framework.) The next step is the adoption of appropriate controls to mitigate these risks and proactively monitor the use of these technologies. Finally, the ECCP suggests the compliance function consider leveraging AI and other new technologies as part of its compliance work and self-assessment. Developments in Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) Initiatives. The DOJ seized upon this ECCP update to further publicize significant new policies encouraging the reporting of misconduct.  Speak Up Programs.The ECCP's section on whistleblower programs and protections now aligns with the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program (CWA), announced in August 2024, and other recent VSD initiatives. Under the CWA, the DOJ provides financial rewards to non-culpable whistleblowers who report misconduct to the government. Similarly, the DOJ's other VSD programs aim to entice self-reporting in exchange for more lenient treatment. The CWA and VSD initiatives expect robust speak up mechanisms and anti-retaliation regimes. In this regard, prosecutors will ask whether a "company encourage[s] and incentivize[s] reporting" or "chill[s] such reporting," how a company evaluates employee comfort with reporting, and how comprehensive a company's whistleblower and anti-retaliation training is. The ECCP places a premium on proactive efforts to support speaking up and no longer appears to offer full credit for a purely reactive program. The ECCP now looks at what a company does to affirmatively encourage and incentivize reporting. This, coupled with the CWA, appears to be the strongest suggestion to date that the DOJ is amenable to a company providing financial rewards to its own whistleblowers who report substantiated claims. Regardless, a company cannot merely rely on reporting metrics to determine efficacy of a speak up program and must instead find other means to assess whether employees are comfortable raising concerns. Finally, this version of the ECCP includes the most directive guidance on training. No longer will the DOJ look only at a company's training on speak up policies and mechanisms and the applicable anti-retaliation laws, prosecutors will examine whether the company trains its employees about external reporting mechanisms, like the CWA. Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy. The M&A Safe Harbor Policy announced in October 2023, provides that the DOJ presumptively will decline to charge an acquiring company that voluntarily discloses and remediates, in a timely manner, misconduct discovered during pre- or post-acquisition diligence. This policy embodies the DOJ's goal of encouraging effective diligence and integration. Relatedly, the ECCP now directs prosecutors to ask what role "compliance and risk management functions play[ed] … in designing and executing the integration strategy" and whether the integration strategy is reasonably designed "to ensure appropriate compliance oversight of the new business." To meet DOJ expectations, a company that engages in M&A activity should fully integrate the risk and compliance functions in its M&A processes to help with early identification, assessment, and remediation of compliance matters. Further, the company should invest in timely remediation to preserve options if misconduct is identified at an acquired company. The compliance function needs to be fully engaged to meet the M&A Safe Harbor Policy's strict deadlines on reporting and remediation to qualify for a declination. Compliance Access to Data. The DOJ has been increasingly focused on leveraging data in the compliance function to detect and prevent misconduct—the word "data" appears 12 times in the 2023 ECCP and more than 20 times in the 2024 ECCP. The 2024 ECCP makes clear that the DOJ will no longer ask if compliance has access to corporate data; it will ask what data compliance has access to. Accordingly, compliance should inventory available data sources across the enterprise and its access to them. The amended ECCP directs prosecutors to measure a company's commitment to such data usage. Prosecutors will now ask questions such as: Do "compliance personnel have knowledge of and means to access all relevant data sources … to create efficiencies … and measure the effectiveness of … compliance programs"? How do "the assets, resources, and technology available to compliance and risk management compare to those available elsewhere in the company"? The ECCP also clarifies that access to data alone is not sufficient; what compliance does with the data and what skilled resources are enlisted to assist with those tasks also matter. As a result, compliance needs access to staffing and other resources to permit effective use of data to assess both compliance with company policies and efficacy of the compliance program itself. The updated ECCP reflects both the DOJ's priorities and expanding expectations regarding compliance programs. Although the ECCP update covers additional topics, those addressed here offer opportunities for a strong return on the investment of compliance budget and effort. David E. Carney and Edward J. Heath are partners with Robinson+Cole and focus their practices on government enforcement, internal investigations, and corporate compliance programs. Reprinted with permission from the November 7, 2024 edition of Corporate Counsel© 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com

January 19, 2024

Health Care Transactions and Civil Investigative Demands: What Third Parties Need to Know

Health Law Weekly

The article analyzes mergers and acquisitions (M&A) trends in health care markets, the increased scrutiny transactions face from the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (collectively, the Agencies), and the Agencies’ use of civil investigate demands (CIDs) and their impact on the M&A process. “With the expected increase in health care merger activity comes the likelihood of greater investigatory scrutiny by government authorities,” they write, “Given the potentially significant implications of non-compliance or insufficient compliance, recipients of CIDs and subpoenas would do well to take those demands seriously and act promptly and comprehensively, including by engaging experienced counsel. To read the article, click here.

Legal Update: DOJ Announces Extension of Voluntary Self-Disclosure Guidance for Misconduct Discovered Through M&A Due Diligence teaser
October 6, 2023

Legal Update: DOJ Announces Extension of Voluntary Self-Disclosure Guidance for Misconduct Discovered Through M&A Due Diligence



Health Law Diagnosis teaser
February 27, 2025

Health Law Diagnosis

Legal Update: Key Takeaways: HHS and DOJ’s Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report teaser
December 10, 2024

Legal Update: Key Takeaways: HHS and DOJ’s Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program Report

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About teaser
November 14, 2024

Manufacturing Industry Team Out + About

November 7, 2024

A Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs

Corporate Counsel

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently updated the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) to direct prosecutors who are considering charges or resolutions to assess how a company addresses, among other topics, disruptive technologies and AI, self-disclosure initiatives, and the compliance function's access to corporate data. This enhanced guidance follows a pattern for ECCP amendments and reveals a trend toward an expectation of more proactive compliance efforts as a predicate for credit from prosecutors. Compliance stakeholders, therefore, can use this update as a blueprint for high-value program enhancements. Since 2017, the ECCP has been prosecutors' formal tool to judge compliance program adequacy. Largely presented as questions rather than prescriptions, the original ECCP provided "some important topics and sample questions that the [DOJ] … has frequently found relevant in evaluating a corporate compliance program." In 2019, the DOJ reorganized the ECCP into three topics—program design, implementation, and efficacy—and better aligned the questions with policies and priorities. In 2020, the DOJ substantively expanded the ECCP to address the compliance function's data use, role in M&A, and resourcing. In March 2023, the DOJ made two significant changes to address the data preservation and corporate compensation programs. AI and Disruptive Technologies. Beginning in early 2024, the DOJ previewed anticipated ECCP changes addressing AI (defined in OBM Memo M-24-10) and new technologies. It announced the Justice AI Initiative to accelerate DOJ's understanding and use of AI and noted the "promise" and "peril" of AI and its anticipated robust enforcement and accompanying stiffer penalties for offenses involving AI. The ECCP update, developed in consultation with compliance executives with AI expertise, examines how a company addresses these technologies in its compliance life cycle. Prosecutors will ask questions such as: How do the business and compliance function use technology? Is "management of risks related to use of AI and other new technologies integrated into" risk assessments? What actions is the company taking to "curb[] any potential negative or unintended consequences" and to "mitigat[e] the potential for deliberate or reckless misuse of technologies"? What "controls [are] in place to monitor and ensure [technologies'] trustworthiness, reliability, and use"? DOJ expects a company to thoroughly inventory its use of technology—being mindful of the broad definition of AI—across the entirety of the enterprise so that the organization knows everywhere it uses AI and how it uses AI. In addition, the business should assess its exposure to the malign use of AI against it. With this context, a company is expected to assess risks associated with internal use and external misuse of technology. (A company needing guidance on an AI-focused risk assessment can look to the NIST's AI Risk Management Framework.) The next step is the adoption of appropriate controls to mitigate these risks and proactively monitor the use of these technologies. Finally, the ECCP suggests the compliance function consider leveraging AI and other new technologies as part of its compliance work and self-assessment. Developments in Voluntary Self-Disclosure (VSD) Initiatives. The DOJ seized upon this ECCP update to further publicize significant new policies encouraging the reporting of misconduct.  Speak Up Programs.The ECCP's section on whistleblower programs and protections now aligns with the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program (CWA), announced in August 2024, and other recent VSD initiatives. Under the CWA, the DOJ provides financial rewards to non-culpable whistleblowers who report misconduct to the government. Similarly, the DOJ's other VSD programs aim to entice self-reporting in exchange for more lenient treatment. The CWA and VSD initiatives expect robust speak up mechanisms and anti-retaliation regimes. In this regard, prosecutors will ask whether a "company encourage[s] and incentivize[s] reporting" or "chill[s] such reporting," how a company evaluates employee comfort with reporting, and how comprehensive a company's whistleblower and anti-retaliation training is. The ECCP places a premium on proactive efforts to support speaking up and no longer appears to offer full credit for a purely reactive program. The ECCP now looks at what a company does to affirmatively encourage and incentivize reporting. This, coupled with the CWA, appears to be the strongest suggestion to date that the DOJ is amenable to a company providing financial rewards to its own whistleblowers who report substantiated claims. Regardless, a company cannot merely rely on reporting metrics to determine efficacy of a speak up program and must instead find other means to assess whether employees are comfortable raising concerns. Finally, this version of the ECCP includes the most directive guidance on training. No longer will the DOJ look only at a company's training on speak up policies and mechanisms and the applicable anti-retaliation laws, prosecutors will examine whether the company trains its employees about external reporting mechanisms, like the CWA. Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy. The M&A Safe Harbor Policy announced in October 2023, provides that the DOJ presumptively will decline to charge an acquiring company that voluntarily discloses and remediates, in a timely manner, misconduct discovered during pre- or post-acquisition diligence. This policy embodies the DOJ's goal of encouraging effective diligence and integration. Relatedly, the ECCP now directs prosecutors to ask what role "compliance and risk management functions play[ed] … in designing and executing the integration strategy" and whether the integration strategy is reasonably designed "to ensure appropriate compliance oversight of the new business." To meet DOJ expectations, a company that engages in M&A activity should fully integrate the risk and compliance functions in its M&A processes to help with early identification, assessment, and remediation of compliance matters. Further, the company should invest in timely remediation to preserve options if misconduct is identified at an acquired company. The compliance function needs to be fully engaged to meet the M&A Safe Harbor Policy's strict deadlines on reporting and remediation to qualify for a declination. Compliance Access to Data. The DOJ has been increasingly focused on leveraging data in the compliance function to detect and prevent misconduct—the word "data" appears 12 times in the 2023 ECCP and more than 20 times in the 2024 ECCP. The 2024 ECCP makes clear that the DOJ will no longer ask if compliance has access to corporate data; it will ask what data compliance has access to. Accordingly, compliance should inventory available data sources across the enterprise and its access to them. The amended ECCP directs prosecutors to measure a company's commitment to such data usage. Prosecutors will now ask questions such as: Do "compliance personnel have knowledge of and means to access all relevant data sources … to create efficiencies … and measure the effectiveness of … compliance programs"? How do "the assets, resources, and technology available to compliance and risk management compare to those available elsewhere in the company"? The ECCP also clarifies that access to data alone is not sufficient; what compliance does with the data and what skilled resources are enlisted to assist with those tasks also matter. As a result, compliance needs access to staffing and other resources to permit effective use of data to assess both compliance with company policies and efficacy of the compliance program itself. The updated ECCP reflects both the DOJ's priorities and expanding expectations regarding compliance programs. Although the ECCP update covers additional topics, those addressed here offer opportunities for a strong return on the investment of compliance budget and effort. David E. Carney and Edward J. Heath are partners with Robinson+Cole and focus their practices on government enforcement, internal investigations, and corporate compliance programs. Reprinted with permission from the November 7, 2024 edition of Corporate Counsel© 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com

January 19, 2024

Health Care Transactions and Civil Investigative Demands: What Third Parties Need to Know

Health Law Weekly

The article analyzes mergers and acquisitions (M&A) trends in health care markets, the increased scrutiny transactions face from the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (collectively, the Agencies), and the Agencies’ use of civil investigate demands (CIDs) and their impact on the M&A process. “With the expected increase in health care merger activity comes the likelihood of greater investigatory scrutiny by government authorities,” they write, “Given the potentially significant implications of non-compliance or insufficient compliance, recipients of CIDs and subpoenas would do well to take those demands seriously and act promptly and comprehensively, including by engaging experienced counsel. To read the article, click here.

Legal Update: DOJ Announces Extension of Voluntary Self-Disclosure Guidance for Misconduct Discovered Through M&A Due Diligence teaser
October 6, 2023

Legal Update: DOJ Announces Extension of Voluntary Self-Disclosure Guidance for Misconduct Discovered Through M&A Due Diligence


News


March 6, 2026

Ed Heath and Seth Orkand Selected to the Second Annual 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management List

Government Enforcement + White-Collar Defense team co-chairs Edward Heath and Seth Orkand have once again been selected to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management list. The second annual guide honors attorneys who lead their clients through sensitive investigations, navigate high-stakes deals and trials, and deliver strategic guidance in complex, multi-dimensional situations. Selection is based on thousands of submissions evaluated through rigorous journalistic research and editorial review. Learn more.

Lawdragon
December 4, 2025

Health Care Enforcement Team Secures First Circuit Win for Clinical Lab in False Claims Act Appeal

November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
March 6, 2026

Ed Heath and Seth Orkand Selected to the Second Annual 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management List

Government Enforcement + White-Collar Defense team co-chairs Edward Heath and Seth Orkand have once again been selected to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management list. The second annual guide honors attorneys who lead their clients through sensitive investigations, navigate high-stakes deals and trials, and deliver strategic guidance in complex, multi-dimensional situations. Selection is based on thousands of submissions evaluated through rigorous journalistic research and editorial review. Learn more.

Lawdragon
December 4, 2025

Health Care Enforcement Team Secures First Circuit Win for Clinical Lab in False Claims Act Appeal

November 6, 2025

Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Super Lawyers®

Recognition spans key regions and highlights the firm’s seasoned practitioners and emerging leaders in many business transactions and litigation practices
Robinson+Cole Commends 62 Attorneys Recognized in 2025 <i>Super Lawyers</i>® teaser
August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
July 1, 2025

Ed Heath and Seth Orkand Selected to the Inaugural Lawdragon 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management List

Lawdragon
May 9, 2025

Ed Heath Appointed Vice President of the Connecticut Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors

March 25, 2025

Ed Heath Authors Article on Use of Force Majeure to Lessen Impact of Tariffs on Manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal
January 27, 2025

Health Care Enforcement Team Wins Summary Judgment in Groundbreaking False Claims Act Litigation

Law.com, Law360, G2 Intelligence, The Dark Report, Laboratory Economics, and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
November 18, 2024

David Carney and Ed Heath Author Corporate Counsel Article Discussing Corporate Compliance Programs


August 26, 2025

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026

Firm receives top listing in Connecticut lawyer count in national peer review survey
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2026 teaser
July 1, 2025

Ed Heath and Seth Orkand Selected to the Inaugural Lawdragon 500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management List

Lawdragon
May 9, 2025

Ed Heath Appointed Vice President of the Connecticut Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors

March 25, 2025

Ed Heath Authors Article on Use of Force Majeure to Lessen Impact of Tariffs on Manufacturers

Hartford Business Journal
January 27, 2025

Health Care Enforcement Team Wins Summary Judgment in Groundbreaking False Claims Act Litigation

Law.com, Law360, G2 Intelligence, The Dark Report, Laboratory Economics, and Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
November 18, 2024

David Carney and Ed Heath Author Corporate Counsel Article Discussing Corporate Compliance Programs


Events


Past

The First 48 Hours: Crucial Decisions and Actions During the Critical First Hours of a Government Investigation

Apr 30 2025
HCCA 29th Annual Compliance Institute
Past

Are you Prepared for ICE on Your Jobsite?

Apr 16 2025
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts (AGC MA) Webinar
Past

The First 48 Hours: Crucial Decisions and Actions During the Critical First Hours of a Government Investigation

Apr 30 2025
HCCA 29th Annual Compliance Institute
Past

Are you Prepared for ICE on Your Jobsite?

Apr 16 2025
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts (AGC MA) Webinar
Past

Are You Ready? Navigating ICE Raids and Immigration Enforcement in Healthcare

Feb 11 2025
R+C Hosted Webinar
Past

Top 5 Trends and Takeaways of the Takedown

Sep 11 2024
Quadax, Inc.
Past

The Practice of Law in Connecticut and the United States

02/10/2021
Collaboration Between the Bar of Rome, Italy (Ordine Degli Avvocati Di Roma) And The Hartford County Bar Association
Past

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

6/4/2020
U.S. Commercial Service's Export Compliance Webinar Series
Past

Are You Ready? Navigating ICE Raids and Immigration Enforcement in Healthcare

Feb 11 2025
R+C Hosted Webinar
Past

Top 5 Trends and Takeaways of the Takedown

Sep 11 2024
Quadax, Inc.
Past

The Practice of Law in Connecticut and the United States

02/10/2021
Collaboration Between the Bar of Rome, Italy (Ordine Degli Avvocati Di Roma) And The Hartford County Bar Association
Past

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

6/4/2020
U.S. Commercial Service's Export Compliance Webinar Series

Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider


Below is an excerpt of Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog posts authored by Edward.

Businesses rejoice but poster beware: Yelp ordered to identify anonymous reviewer

Many business have suffered the misery and frustration of a harshly negative, anonymous online review. That anonymity, critics argue, frees the reviewer from worries about the need for accuracy and, worse yet, encourages the spiteful posting of false accusations designed to drive away customers. In competitive markets, the targeted business has no choice but to... Continue Reading

Visit Blog

The Facebook Warrant Decision

Last week a New York state appeals court recognized that “Facebook users share more intimate personal information through their Facebook accounts than may be revealed through rummaging about one’s home.” Nonetheless, the court held that online providers and their users are powerless to stop the government from obtaining details about the users’ online activities once... Continue Reading

Visit Blog

FTC says self-reporting is likely to result in more favorable resolution

Last week, the FTC encouraged companies to self-report data breaches with the promise of more likely favorable treatment.  The statement comes in a blog post, authored by Mark Eichorn, an Assistant Director in the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection.  Although the post provides a general overview of an FTC investigation... Continue Reading

Visit Blog

Connecticut AG forms new privacy and data security department

On March 13, 2015, the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office announced that it has created a privacy and data security department to focus on data breach and consumer privacy investigations and litigation. Attorney General George Jepsen said, When I took office in January 2011, it became immediately clear that data privacy and security were growing concerns... Continue Reading

Visit Blog