Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two recent Chinese laws — the Data Security Law (DSL) and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) — include provisions aimed at restricting the cross-border transfer of China-based data to foreign enforcement and judicial authorities. As an initial matter, U.S. courts have limited the application of these laws and have continued to rely upon international comity analysis in compelling the production of responsive documents in civil discovery. However, U.S. courts have not yet addressed whether these data protection and privacy laws could bar the production of documents in civil contexts involving governmental litigants or in criminal proceedings.
The DSL and PIPL serve to create the framework for China's data protection regime and implement "stringent supervision and data processing duties on data processors and enforcement agencies."
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.
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.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.