Month: April 2026

April 17 (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department is preparing an antitrust suit against a few major egg producers, including Cal-Maine Foods and Versova, over alleged price coordination, the Wall Street Journal said on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Shares of Cal-Maine Foods (CALM.O), opens new tab were down nearly 3% in extended trading following the news.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

U.S. egg producers have been facing a growing wave of class action lawsuits accusing them of price-fixing amid consumer frustration over higher prices of food products, including eggs.

The cost of eggs in the U.S. has been skyrocketing in recent years after bird-flu outbreaks wiped out millions of laying hens, triggering widespread supply shortages.

Additionally, U.S. producer prices rose to a seven-month high in February, driven by higher service and goods costs, with further pressure likely from rising oil prices and the persistent pass-through from tariffs.

According to the Producer Price Index report, U.S. producer goods prices were up 1.1% in February, with egg prices rebounding 93.6% after crashing 63.9% in January, when the Trump administration rolled back some tariffs.

Last year, Cal-Maine said it was cooperating with a U.S. Justice Department investigation into potential price-fixing by egg producers, after a civil investigative demand, adding that the scope, duration and outcome of the probe were uncertain.

Cal-Maine and privately held Versova did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

The lawsuit claims the egg producers coordinated using an industry price-benchmarking service, according to the report.

Friday’s report said the agency and the egg producers could still reach a settlement to avoid litigation.

The Justice Department is also separately investigating the markets for beef, fertilizer and crop seeds, the report added.

Reporting by Anuja Bharat Mistry in Bengaluru; Editing by Vijay Kishore and Maju Samuel

NEW DELHI, April 21 (Reuters) – India’s antitrust agency has made Anheuser-Busch InBev a target of a cartel investigation after the world’s leading brewer cooperated for four years as a witness, leading to a court battle in which AB InBev has obtained a temporary injunction, according to two sources and documents.

Since 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been investigating 42 alcohol retailers in Telangana, India’s largest beer consuming state, for allegedly forming a cartel to exclude AB InBev’s (ABI.BR), opens new tab rivals, leading to a surge in market share for the Belgium-based maker of beers including Budweiser and Corona.

Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.

As part of the case, AB InBev was raided in 2024, but no other details have been previously made public in line with CCI’s rules on its investigation of alleged cartels.

AB InBev’s status in the case was changed from a third-party to “party under investigation” in November 2025, which was illegal as

“no prior notice, hearing, or reasoned order preceded this drastic alteration,”

the company said in a court filing that was reviewed by Reuters.

In a brief court hearing on April 16, a judge in southern Karnataka state put the investigation against AB InBev on hold, two sources with direct knowledge of the decision told Reuters.

The court order has not yet been made public, but one of the sources said the court took the decision as it saw merit in AB InBev’s concerns.

AB InBev, the world’s largest brewer, did not respond to Reuters requests for comment. Nor did the CCI. The sources declined to be named as the case details were confidential.

Making a company a “party under investigation” from a third-party is a significant change in any case and is done when investigators feel they have discovered some evidence against an entity, according to lawyers familiar with the process.

“Your rights of defence are compromised. Now the company needs to defend itself,”

said Avaantika Kakkar, head of competition practice at Indian law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, which is not involved in the case.

Courts across India have had differing views on whether a third-party can be made an accused without notice, lawyers say. However, if the CCI succeeds in overturning the court block, AB InBev will be exposed to penalties that could be as much as three times its profit or 10% of the company’s turnover for each year of wrongdoing.

COURT PAPERS REVEAL CASE DETAILS

India’s beer market is worth $10 billion, according to the Brewers Association of India, which says Heineken alone accounts for roughly half the market, while AB InBev and Carlsberg (CARLb.CO), opens new tab each account for 19%.

The case about retailers in Telangana is the toughest regulatory move against the sector since Heineken-controlled United Breweries and Carlsberg were fined more than $100 million collectively in 2021 after being found guilty of price collusion, though both brewers repeatedly denied wrongdoing. AB InBev acted as a whistleblower in that case.

AB InBev’s court papers on the Telangana case reveal for the first time CCI’s initial views on the allegations, though the complainant’s name has been withheld by the watchdog.

The CCI found merit in allegations that scores of retailers had entered into arrangements among themselves to stock and sell AB InBev beers, and exclude products from Heineken (HEIN.AS), opens new tab, United Breweries (UBBW.NS), opens new tab and Carlsberg.

The regulator also said it had found retailers were eligible to receive a special incentive for promoting products of AB InBev exclusively. United Breweries and Carlsberg did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.

AB InBev privately told the CCI the case should be dismissed as the agency had failed to provide any evidence to show any communication

“between the retailers to boycott non-ABI beers”,

the court papers showed.

AB InBev continued to cooperate with authorities between 2023 and 2025 and provided sensitive business information, including details of incentives it provided, before realising in November last year it was now itself under investigation, the filing said.

“Such unilateral action is antithetical to the fundamental requirement of fairness,”

AB InBev said.

Reporting by Aditya Kalra; Editing by Kate Mayberry

Lowenstein Crypto advises leading digital asset and cryptocurrency projects, exchanges, and trading firms. Our practice covers regulatory advice, transactions and structuring advice, investigations, and adversarial matters including commercial disputes, bankruptcy, and related litigation. As these markets continue their rapid growth and market participants continue to evolve and mature their businesses, we are providing this weekly digest as a resource that highlights and summarizes a selection of key recent legal regulatory developments.

SEC Announces FY2025 Enforcement Results, Acknowledges Prior Crypto Cases Misallocated Resources

On April 7, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released its enforcement results for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, characterizing the period as one of significant “course correction.” The SEC filed 456 enforcement actions during the fiscal year, obtaining orders for monetary relief totaling $17.9 billion. In a notable self-assessment, the SEC stated that 95 book-and-record enforcement actions and $2.3 billion in penalties brought since FY2022, together with seven crypto firm registration-related cases and six “definition of a dealer” cases,

“identified no direct investor harm from those violations, produced no investor benefit or protection,” and reflected “a misinterpretation of the federal securities laws, a misallocation of SEC resources, and a bias for volume of cases brought versus matters of investor protection.”

SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins stated that the SEC has

“put a stop to regulation by enforcement and recentered its enforcement program on the SEC’s core mission.”

The SEC also noted that going forward, its focus will be on market manipulation, abuses of trust, and “fraud in its many forms.” The SEC’s press release is available here.

SEC Chair Atkins Says ‘Reg Crypto’ Proposal Is One Step From Publication

On April 6, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins confirmed that the Commission’s proposed “Regulation Crypto Assets” framework is currently under review at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the final step before publication for public comment. Atkins also subsequently reaffirmed his prior public statements by dictating that the rulemaking will address fundraising and startup exemptions for early-stage crypto projects. Separately, on April 8, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent published an op-ed urging the Senate to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, stating

“[e]conomic security is national security, and it is a cornerstone of CLARITY. Bringing digital-asset activity into a well-defined regulatory perimeter would strengthen oversight, improve compliance with anti-money-laundering standards and reduce user incentives to rely on opaque—and often vulnerable—offshore markets. Similarly, the software-developer protections that Clarity incorporates would ensure that the technology powering digital finance remains open, secure and domestically developed.”

Bessent further wrote that

“Congress has spent the better part of half a decade trying to pass a framework to onshore the future of finance. It is time for [Senate Banking] to hold a markup and send the CLARITY Act to President Trump’s desk. Senate time is precious, and now is the time to act,”

in conjunction with the op-ed, on X. Bessent’s post on X is available here, and his op-ed is available here. A recording of Atkins’s remarks is available here.

The FDIC Issues NPRM To Implement GENIUS Act

On April 7, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) designed to establish a new regulatory regime for FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers (PPSIs) and custodians. Under the proposed standards, PPSIs must maintain identifiable reserve assets, limited to highly liquid holdings such as U.S. currency and short-term Treasury bills, on at least a one-to-one basis to fully back all outstanding stablecoins. The proposal also mandates rigorous capital, liquidity, and risk management requirements tailored to an issuer’s risk profile. Specifically, issuers must be able to demonstrate the operational capacity to facilitate redemptions within two business days. Crucially, the FDIC clarifies that while deposits held as stablecoin reserves are insured up to the $250,000 limit as corporate deposits of the PPSI, they are not eligible for pass-through insurance to individual stablecoin holders. Additionally, the rule codifies a technology-neutral approach to “tokenized deposits,” confirming they are legally classified as “deposits” under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act regardless of the underlying distributed ledger technology used. The announcement is available here.

Treasury Proposes Rule To Implement GENIUS Act’s Anti-Illicit-Finance Requirements for Stablecoin Issuers

On April 7, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, through the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), issued a proposed rule to implement provisions of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act related to countering illicit finance. The GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, designates payment stablecoin issuers as “financial institutions” under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), subjecting them to anti-money laundering (AML) program requirements, customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting to FinCEN, and Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions compliance. FinCEN’s proposed rule would adopt implementing regulations “tailored to the size and complexity of issuers,” including the requirement for PPSIs to establish and maintain AML and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) programs, file suspicious activity reports, and be able to demonstrate the technical capabilities to block, freeze, and reject specific or impermissible transactions on both the primary and secondary payment stablecoin markets. FinCEN’s press release is available here.

FinCEN Proposes Rule To Fundamentally Reform Financial Institutions’ AML/CFT Programs

On April 7, FinCEN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to “fundamentally reform” financial institutions’ AML/CFT programs under the BSA. The proposal retains the four existing BSA program pillars–internal policies, procedures, and controls; independent testing; a designated compliance officer; and employee training–but layers on several significant changes. Most notably, the rule would codify a risk-based approach, allowing financial institutions to “direct more attention and resources toward higher-risk customers and activities … rather than toward lower-risk customers and activities,” a shift FinCEN characterizes as moving AML/CFT programs away from a “purely ‘check-the-box’ exercise.” The proposal also draws a new “clear distinction between establishing an AML/CFT program (design and structure) and maintaining one (day-to-day implementation)” and introduces an effectiveness standard. Under this framework, only “significant or systemic failures” to maintain a properly established program would warrant enforcement or significant supervisory action–a higher threshold than under current practice. Separately, the proposal would for the first time require federal banking supervisors to consult with FinCEN before taking certain AML/CFT enforcement or significant supervisory actions, elevating what FinCEN calls its “central role in AML/CFT supervision.” FinCEN’s press release is available here.

IMF Publishes Note Warning That Tokenized Finance Could Amplify Financial Crises

On April 2, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a note titled “Tokenized Finance,” arguing that tokenization constitutes “a structural shift in financial architecture rather than a marginal efficiency improvement.” The note describes how permissioned shared ledgers, programmable financial assets, and smart contract-based risk management alter the nature of settlement, liquidity, and systemic risk. While acknowledging benefits such as atomic settlement, continuous liquidity management, and embedded compliance, the IMF warned that the speed and automation of tokenized finance could compress the time available for regulatory intervention during stress events, potentially accelerating financial crises. The note singled out stablecoins as a key vulnerability, comparing them to money market funds that appear stable until confidence breaks. The IMF urged policymakers to anchor digital finance in public trust through clear policy frameworks, safe settlement assets such as central bank digital currencies, robust code governance, legal certainty, and international coordination. The IMF note is available here.

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge granted preliminary approval on Thursday to Bank of America’s $72.5 million settlement ‌with women who accused the bank of facilitating their sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan scheduled an August 27 hearing to consider final approval.

David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he expected between 60 and 75 victims to​submit claims. The victims are mainly based in the United States or Eastern Europe, he said.

The ​plaintiffs’ lawyers may seek up to 30% of the settlement, or about $21.8 million, for legal ⁠fees.

Rakoff said it was important for Epstein’s victims to be compensated by anyone that unlawfully facilitated his​sex trafficking, but that not everyone associated with him should be held liable.

“It’s not fair to penalize those persons​or entities that were drawn into his wide orbit but had no role in assisting or benefiting from his egregious misconduct,” Rakoff said, without referring to specific people or entities.

“I do want to just keep everyone on notice that I continue to​scrutinize this until the moment of final settlement,” the judge said.

SETTLEMENT AGREED IN MARCH

Epstein died in a Manhattan ​jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide by New ‌York City’s ⁠medical examiner.

The proposed class action, filed in October by a woman using the pseudonym Jane Doe, accused the second-largest U.S. bank of ignoring suspicious financial transactions related to Epstein despite a “plethora” of information about his crimes because it valued profit over protecting victims.

Rakoff ruled in January that Bank of America must face Doe’s claims that​it knowingly benefited from Epstein’s​sex trafficking and obstructed ⁠enforcement of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

In agreeing to settle the civil lawsuit in March, Bank of America said it did not facilitate sex trafficking crimes.​It said the resolution would allow it to move on and provide closure for​the accusers.

JPMORGAN, ⁠DEUTSCHE BANK ALSO SETTLED

Boies and Bradley Edwards, another lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the settlement was the best option for their clients because they suffered harm many years ago and need financial relief now.

Doe’s lawyers have also sued other alleged enablers ⁠of​Epstein’s sex trafficking, and in 2023 reached settlements of $290 million with​JPMorgan Chase  and $75 million with Deutsche Bank  on behalf of his accusers.

The lawyers are also appealing Rakoff’s dismissal in January of a similar​lawsuit they brought against Bank of New York Mellon.

 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Monday rejected JPMorgan ‌Chase’s bid to dismiss Wells Fargo’s  breach of contract lawsuit to recoup losses for investors in a defaulted $481 million commercial real estate loan.

U.S. District Judge ​Dale Ho in Manhattan said Wells Fargo, acting as the​investors’ trustee, adequately alleged that JPMorgan knew of an ⁠event of default by Chetrit Group, a Manhattan real estate development​firm that took out the loan in 2019 to buy 43​multifamily properties with 8,671 apartments in 10 U.S. states.

Wells Fargo said the borrower defaulted in 2022 and

JPMorgan did not immediately ​respond to requests for comment.

In its complaint, Wells Fargo said Chetrit told JPMorgan ‌more ⁠than five months before the $522 million purchase closed that the seller overstated the properties’ historical net operating income, a key commercial real estate metric, yet JPMorgan pretended “nothing unusual had happened” when making and​marketing the loan.

JPMorgan argued ​that Wells ⁠Fargo did not show how the overstatement reduced the value of the loan or the underlying properties.

But ​the judge said a plaintiff “may plead a material​breach where ⁠the breach materially increases a loan’s risk of loss.”

Wells Fargo accused JPMorgan of turning a blind eye in pursuit of millions of dollars ⁠in​fees.

It wants the largest U.S. bank to​repurchase the loan, less amounts the trust received from sales of underlying properties, or​else pay damages.

(Reuters) – The U.S. customs agency said on Tuesday it was making progress in setting up a streamlined process for refunding some $166 billion in tariff collections deemed illegal​by the Supreme Court, but that its new system could take up to ‌45 days to review and process refund applications.

In a filing with the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection official Brandon Lord said development of a new refund claims portal, review, processing and refund​system is now between 60% and 85% complete. He did not provide a​start date for applications, but the agency previously had indicated a 45-day goal, a deadline ⁠that ends in late April.

In the declaration filing on Tuesday, Lord said the new system​will begin accepting claims in phases, with first priority given to those customs entries liquidated, or​finalized, within the preceding 80 days and entries whose liquidation status has been “suspended, extended, or under review.”

The initial phase will also accept declarations containing warehouse and warehouse withdrawal entries, Lord said.

The filing also said some 26,664​importers of record had completed the process to receive electronic refunds, representing 78% of entries​for which duties or deposits under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act had been paid, an amount totaling $120 ‌billion.

The ⁠U.S. Supreme Court last month struck down President Donald Trump’s broadest global tariffs under IEEPA, dealing a blow to the central economic policy of his administration.

More than 330,000 importers paid the IEEPA tariffs on 53 million shipments, according to court documents.

The Supreme Court did not provide guidance on refunding the​tariff payments that had​been collected from importers ⁠since February 2025, leaving that matter to the Court of International Trade in New York City.

Many large importers such as FedEx to protect their​right to a refund, which Trump said could take up to​five years. Many ⁠smaller importers feared the cost of the refund process would outweigh the benefits of trying to get reimbursed.

Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade earlier this month ordered CBP to begin processing refunds ⁠using​its existing system, but the agency instead proposed a new process ​that would be ready to accept refund applications as soon as next month and would not require importers to ​sue.