Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On July 25, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 5575, the “Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act” (SHIELD Act), which had passed the Legislature on June 17, 2019. The SHIELD Act was originally proposed in the 2017-2018 session, but died in committee. It returned with gusto in 2019: proposed in the Legislature in February and passing both houses in a little more than four months.
The SHIELD Act does two things, primarily: 1) It amends New York's data breach notification statute, General Business Law §899-aa to update its definitions; and 2) creates a new section, §899-bb, requiring substantive data security controls of any person or business that owns or licenses computerized data including the defined “private information” of a New York resident.
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 ...."