Nvidia's independent directors hire Joon Kim and Wachtell Lipton to run the Huang investigation

The independent members of Nvidia's board have retained Joon H. Kim, the former acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and his firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, to conduct the investigation the board announced over the weekend. The company posted the short statement on its newsroom on November 10, 2026.

The retention completes the structure the board laid out on Sunday, November 8, when it said it was opening an independent investigation in response to recent reporting that founder and CEO Jensen Huang had been the target of a foreign intelligence effort. That statement said a committee of independent directors, assisted by outside independent counsel, would oversee the work. It did not name the directors on the committee, and the November 10 statement did not either.

What the board and Huang have said

The board's November 8 statement put national security at the center of the review. It said the board prioritizes U.S. national and economic security and that its inquiry would examine all available information. It also said the board has "no reason to believe that either national security or NVIDIA secrets were compromised," and that it has confidence in Huang and his leadership team. The board said Huang fully supports the review and has committed to cooperating.

Huang addressed employees the same day in an email the company also posted on its newsroom. In it, he apologized to his family and to employees for being unfaithful to his wife, said the board had initiated an independent investigation, and wrote: "I support the investigation and will cooperate fully." He also said he is committed to protecting Nvidia and supporting America's national security, and asked that his family be given privacy.

Bloomberg, in a report syndicated by Business Standard on November 11, said the committee was formed to examine reports that Huang had been targeted by foreign intelligence, and linked the matter to a woman the U.S. government reportedly suspects of spying for Chinese intelligence. Huang had previously said there was nothing inappropriate about his relationship with the woman, according to the report. Neither Nvidia statement names any individual or describes the underlying reporting beyond the reference to a foreign intelligence effort.

Who is leading the work

Kim served as acting U.S. Attorney in Manhattan after working as the top deputy to former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, according to the Bloomberg report. He left the office in January 2018 to become a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, and joined Wachtell from Cleary recently, the report said.

The choice gives the committee a lead investigator who has led the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan as acting U.S. Attorney, experience that may carry weight if regulators or prosecutors later review the inquiry's work.

The board has not said what the scope of the investigation is beyond the national security question, how long it is expected to take, or whether findings will be made public. Its November 8 statement said only that it would provide further updates as appropriate.

What this means for in-house counsel

The sequence Nvidia followed is a useful template when allegations reach the chief executive: announce quickly that independent directors, not management, control the inquiry; state that the executive will cooperate; and retain outside counsel who reports to the committee rather than to management. As a general practice, committees should also confirm that the firm they hire has no existing role advising the executive under review. Legal departments should confirm in advance which directors would qualify as independent for a matter involving the CEO and how a special committee would be formed and resourced, so that the structure is not being designed under public pressure.

The board's public statement that it has no reason to believe secrets were compromised was framed as the board's belief at the outset, not as a finding. Counsel drafting similar statements should keep them tied to what is known at the time and avoid conclusions the investigation has not yet reached, since those statements can be scrutinized by regulators and plaintiffs if later findings differ.

Where the concern involves possible foreign intelligence activity, GCs should also plan for parallel interest from federal authorities and for export control and insider-access reviews alongside the governance inquiry, with privilege and information-sharing protocols set before any outreach to the government.