Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Feb. 2, 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce and European Commission unveiled a new framework for personal data transfers from European Union (EU) Member States to the U.S. The new framework ' dubbed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield ' will replace the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor program, which was invalidated by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2015. The Commission and Department of Commerce have agreed to terms in principle, but the particulars of the new framework remain under development by officials on both sides of the Atlantic and will require formal approval by the European Commission.
To be sure, the raising of the Privacy Shield will be no small feat, but it does hold the promise of providing legal certainty for companies engaged in transatlantic data transfers.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."