Ilene Jaroslaw, former chief of the General Crimes Section at the EDNY; and Bradley Simon best known for defending numerous prominent individuals in two decades of private practice

Date:  Tuesday, June 25, 2019  |  Time:  11:15 AM - 12:30 PM
Panel:  "Due process and procedural fairness for individuals in corproate bribery enforcement actions"

A strong focus on anti-bribery enforcement actions against corporations, coupled with widespread and increasing use of nontrial resolutions to conclude these cases, raises concerns about the rights and interests of individual defendants, including due process
and procedural fairness. This panel will explore this dichotomy, from the perspective of in-house corporate counsel, white-collar
defence practitioners and prosecutors. Panellists will be invited to discuss strategies for navigating these issues in the specific context of self-reporting and internal investigations.
 

The Fashion Law Interest Group meeting coincides with the International Trademark Association (INTA) annual conference.  It is not, however, associated with or sponsored by INTA. The Group's attendees include outside counsel representing fashion designers, luxury apparel and accessories companies and retailers, in-house counsel and retail executives.

[Photo Credit: Copyright 2019. Candace R. Arrington]

This year's "Smooth Moves: Career Strategies for Attorneys of Color" CLE panel discussion will address: 'The Color of Neutrality:  Increasing Diversity in Alternative Dispute Resolution'.  Lauren Wachtler, Co-Chair of our Litigation Department, and Board Member of the NYSBA Foundation and a Former Chair of the NYSBA Commercial & Federal Litigation Section, will present a scholarship to a 1-L student to intern for the summer with a Commercial Division judge. 

The Section will confer The Honorable George Bundy Smith Pioneer Award jointly on The Hon. Preet Bharara and The Hon. Joon Kim. | Details and Registration

The #MeToo era has prompted employers across the country to review their internal mechanisms for screening and investigating complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace. Federal, state, and local laws—and more recently, cultural mandates—require companies to implement prophylactic and remedial procedures to address or mitigate sexual misconduct.

Those procedures often require in-house counsel to participate in crafting defensible measures to address employee complaints, perhaps with the assumption that involvement by counsel will provide a cloak of privilege surrounding internal investigations. However, a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, Barbini v. First Niagara Bank, No. 16-cv-7887, highlights the challenges companies can face in protecting attorney-client privilege when defending claims that arise from or turn in some way upon internal investigations involving in-house counsel.

Authored by Patrick Burke, Chair, Data Technology & Cybersecurity, and Anne-Sophie Hutteau-Hiltzer, referendare with our Data Technology & Cybersecurity, German and Corporate & Business Law Practices

Excerpt:

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, recently announced his intention to obligate companies to obtain Canadians’ consent before an organization engaged in commercial activities may legally transfer their personal information across the border for processing, including to the United States. Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) released a consultation paper on April 9, 2019 communicating this proposed change of direction, and calling for stakeholders’ commentary by June 4, 2019 (April 9, 2019 OPC Consultation on Transborder Data Flows). It is unclear at present whether the anticipated consent requirement will be applied to transborder transfer for processing of employees’ personal information by employers, which until now has not explicitly been required.

This is a significant turnabout for Canada. Consent for such transfers is not explicitly required under Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act, S.C. 2000, c.5 (Can.) (PIPEDA). Until now, the OPC did not require the consent of consumers or other “data subjects” for transborder transfers of personal information for processing. Instead, it applied an “accountability principle” that was satisfied if a Canadian-based entity informed data subjects of transborder transfers in its posted privacy policy and remained legally accountable for the protection of personal data sent abroad to a third party for processing. Principle 4.1.3 of schedule 1 of PIPEDA provides as follow: “An organization is responsible for personal information in its possession or custody including information that has been transferred to a third-party for processing. The organization shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by a third party.”

See Press Release:  Phillips Nizer launches College and University Integrity Initiative: Ilene Jaroslaw and Bradley Simon, two veteran federal prosecutors, to assist universities and administrators in confronting and resolving admissions investigation issues (March 20, 2019)

Monica has been a long-standing member of the ABA, and has served as the Copyright Program Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Law Section’s annual conference for 3 years, and as the Co-Chair of the IP Webinar program prior to that. 

Phillips Nizer is the law firm member representative in the New York metropolitan area.