by David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, Aline R. Flodr, and Michael W. Holt
From left to right: David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, Aline R. Flodr, and Michael W. Holt. Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
In a time of rapid and continuing change in DOJ enforcement priorities and policy, with some observers reporting an apparent retreat by DOJ from bringing white-collar prosecutions, many companies understandably find it hard to gauge how and when DOJ will act. It is equally challenging for companies to responsibly design compliance programs in this new environment. We believe the best response to these conditions is to avoid generalizations and instead carefully study the specific decisions DOJ is actually making. Consistent with that approach, we previously reported that DOJ continues to issue declinations under the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”) announced in March 2026. As a further proof point reflecting its current thinking, DOJ announced last week yet another declination – this time involving Campus Eye Management, a New Jersey health-care management services organization. Campus Eye’s founder allegedly caused Medicare and other insurers to pay approximately $3.7 million for duplicative and medically unnecessary diagnostic eye tests procured through kickbacks to referring ophthalmologists. Campus Eye agreed to pay $1 million in victim compensation after DOJ determined that payment of the full amount of falsely obtained funds would substantially threaten the company’s continued viability. The same day, DOJ unsealed a seven-count indictment against the company’s founder, who had served as its chief executive.
DOJ’s simultaneous announcement of the corporate declination and the founder’s indictment demonstrates its focus on individual accountability. Under the CEP, a company seeking full cooperation credit must disclose relevant facts about the individuals involved in misconduct, regardless of their position, status or seniority. DOJ credited Campus Eye with doing so and with retrieving and analyzing historical data identifying affected beneficiaries and the insurers that paid the claims. The company also agreed to continue cooperating with related investigations and prosecutions, including by making officers, employees and agents available for interviews and testimony as determined by the government.
For companies weighing whether to voluntarily disclose misconduct, a significant factor to consider is that full cooperation credit under the CEP will be earned only by disclosing the misconduct and helping DOJ pursue the individuals responsible. A company that discloses the misconduct but hesitates to identify those responsible risks forfeiting the benefit it sought. And of course, companies must continue to implement robust compliance programs, as the first step toward earning a declination under the CEP is spotting potentially reportable misconduct in the first place.
David B. Anders is a Partner, John F. Savarese is Of Counsel, and Aline R. Flodr and Michael W. Holt are Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post first appeared as Memo for the firm.
The views, opinions and positions expressed within all posts are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York University School of Law. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this site and will not be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author(s) and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with the author(s).
by David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, Aline R. Flodr, and Michael W. Holt
From left to right: David B. Anders, John F. Savarese, Aline R. Flodr, and Michael W. Holt. Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
In a time of rapid and continuing change in DOJ enforcement priorities and policy, with some observers reporting an apparent retreat by DOJ from bringing white-collar prosecutions, many companies understandably find it hard to gauge how and when DOJ will act. It is equally challenging for companies to responsibly design compliance programs in this new environment. We believe the best response to these conditions is to avoid generalizations and instead carefully study the specific decisions DOJ is actually making. Consistent with that approach, we previously reported that DOJ continues to issue declinations under the Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”) announced in March 2026. As a further proof point reflecting its current thinking, DOJ announced last week yet another declination – this time involving Campus Eye Management, a New Jersey health-care management services organization. Campus Eye’s founder allegedly caused Medicare and other insurers to pay approximately $3.7 million for duplicative and medically unnecessary diagnostic eye tests procured through kickbacks to referring ophthalmologists. Campus Eye agreed to pay $1 million in victim compensation after DOJ determined that payment of the full amount of falsely obtained funds would substantially threaten the company’s continued viability. The same day, DOJ unsealed a seven-count indictment against the company’s founder, who had served as its chief executive.
DOJ’s simultaneous announcement of the corporate declination and the founder’s indictment demonstrates its focus on individual accountability. Under the CEP, a company seeking full cooperation credit must disclose relevant facts about the individuals involved in misconduct, regardless of their position, status or seniority. DOJ credited Campus Eye with doing so and with retrieving and analyzing historical data identifying affected beneficiaries and the insurers that paid the claims. The company also agreed to continue cooperating with related investigations and prosecutions, including by making officers, employees and agents available for interviews and testimony as determined by the government.
For companies weighing whether to voluntarily disclose misconduct, a significant factor to consider is that full cooperation credit under the CEP will be earned only by disclosing the misconduct and helping DOJ pursue the individuals responsible. A company that discloses the misconduct but hesitates to identify those responsible risks forfeiting the benefit it sought. And of course, companies must continue to implement robust compliance programs, as the first step toward earning a declination under the CEP is spotting potentially reportable misconduct in the first place.
David B. Anders is a Partner, John F. Savarese is Of Counsel, and Aline R. Flodr and Michael W. Holt are Counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. This post first appeared as Memo for the firm.
The views, opinions and positions expressed within all posts are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) or of the New York University School of Law. PCCE makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness and validity or any statements made on this site and will not be liable any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author(s) and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with the author(s).
