UK Decision Provides Useful Reminder on Carefully Navigating Privilege Protection in Multi-Jurisdiction Investigations
The UK Serious Fraud Office obtained a declaration that certain documents prepared during investigations by solicitors and forensic accountants into the activities of a UK-incorporated multinational corporation were not subject to legal professional privilege.
German Federal Constitutional Court preliminarily prohibits prosecutors’ use of documents seized at investigating law...
On 26 July 2017 the German Constitutional Court ordered a restraint on the use of law firm seizures. The Court held that Munich Prosecutors could - for the time being - not assess the material they had seized in the course of a dawn raid at a law firm's office.
The UK High Court ruled in favour of the Serious Fraud Office finding that certain categories of documents produced during an internal investigation were not covered by litigation privilege.
The UK High Court ruled in favour of the Serious Fraud Office, finding that certain categories of documents produced by Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd during an internal investigation were not covered by litigation privilege.
Legal Privilege in Internal Investigations Concerning Anti-Money Laundering Obligations: a Swiss View
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court considered to what extent work products generated by external counsel in the course of anti-money laundering investigations are protected by legal privilege.
Hong Kong: Court Confirms a Heightened Need for Disclosure in Disqualification Proceedings Against Directors
The Court of First Instance of the Hong Kong High Court ordered the Securities and Futures Commission to produce relevant documents obtained in its investigations to respondents of disqualification proceedings.
If a company's lawyers interview the company's employees as part of an internal investigation, can legal advice privilege protect the contents of the interview and any notes taken by the lawyers from later disclosure to a regulator or in subsequent court proceedings?
An Ontario court held that the employer did not have sufficient cause for dismissing an employee on the basis of his pending criminal charges and allegations by another employee of potentially related conduct, where the employer had failed to carry out a proper investigation into the matter.
Last month marked one year since Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates issued a much-discussed mandate directing federal prosecutors to focus on not just companies but also individual employees.
The DOJ issued a Pilot Program1 that provides its latest answer to a critical question in FCPA practice: What benefits does a company receive for self-reporting potential FCPA violations?