On May 24, 2017, the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) issued its  Circular No. 63 (the Circular), setting out penalties for clinical trial data integrity violations, including intentional data falsification, incomplete and incompliant data and other data defects. The highlights are: (more…)
The English High Court recently handed down a judgment which limits the circumstances in which companies will be able to assert legal professional privilege in documents created as part of an internal investigation into potential criminal activity. The Court ruled that a claim for litigation privilege in the context of a criminal investigation will only be valid where, at the time that the relevant documents were created, the prospective defendant has sufficient knowledge about the matter to believe that there is a realistic prospect that a prosecutor will have enough material to proceed with a prosecution. The belief that a prosecutor will commence an investigation into a company is not sufficient to establish a claim for litigation privilege. The judge’s narrow interpretation of legal advice privilege also means that notes of interviews with employees will generally not attract privilege unless they provide “clues” as to aspects of legal advice given to the company. (more…)
The UK is expected to introduce its updated customer due diligence regime with effect from June 26 or shortly thereafter. The changes are wide-ranging and will affect virtually all financial services firms doing business in the UK.
The Government has published a near-final draft of the new legislation. To the extent they’ve not already started, affected firms should be planning for the changes that will be required to their existing policies, procedures and systems.
In this post, we highlight the key issues for financial services firms, and propose a series of action points that they may wish to consider over the next month as they move to implement the new requirements. (more…)
*This post was originally distributed as a privacy and cybersecurity client alert on Monday, May 15, 2017. Sign up for our privacy and cybersecurity distribution list here.
As you likely will have heard, there is an ongoing major cyber-attack involving the WannaCry ransomware. It is affecting businesses across the world and across sectors, including financial services firms, healthcare entities and even manufacturers. We are actively advising clients on cybersecurity matters, and we have recently guided clients through ransomware attacks. We have also recently authored a major report on improving transatlantic cybersecurity in collaboration with the US Chamber of Commerce.
Following the WannaCry attack, many companies and their counsel will need to consider and coordinate the following: (more…)
The EU’s Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) adopted, on 5 April 2017, final guidelines on the new right of data portability under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) (“GDPR”) which applies from 25 May 2018. (more…)
On 27 April 2017 the German Parliament passed the new Federal Data Protection Act (the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or “new BDSG”) which from 25 May 2018 will replace the current German Data Protection Act. The new BDSG adapts German law in line with the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). The GDPR has direct effect in EU members states, but it allows member states to pass legislation which supplements the GDPR but is consistent with it.
On 6th April, 2017, the European Parliament adopted a resolution stating that there are deficiencies in the EU-US data transfer accord Privacy Shield which must be “urgently resolved” in order to give citizens and companies legal certainty. MEPs called on the EU Commission to conduct an assessment and to ensure that the Privacy Shield complies sufficiently with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and new EU data protection rules. (more…)
On February 2, the Italian Data Protection Authority, known as the “Garante,” imposed a fine of EUR 5,880,000 on a UK money transfer company that it found to be in violation of Italian data privacy rules. This is the largest ever publicly-known fine imposed by an EU data protection authority, and it approaches the level of fines that are likely to be imposed under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) that will come into force in May 2018. Although the GDPR is not yet in force, the Garante’s enforcement action shows that European data protection authorities are willing to levy the kind of fines allowed by the GDPR.
Cybersecurity compliance is becoming increasingly complicated with multiple regulators across the globe weighing in on your legal requirements to manage cyber risk. If you have wondered how others are approaching their compliance strategy, you are not alone.
You are invited to participate in a brief survey regarding your business’s approach to cybersecurity legal requirements. Specifically, the purpose of this survey is to learn how businesses like yours are responding to cybersecurity legal requirements under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Network and Information Security Directive (NIS Directive). In particular, we are interested in whether and if so, how businesses in the U.S. and the EU and elsewhere are applying the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity to comply with these EU cybersecurity requirements. Understanding which standards business are applying in order to comply with these requirements could be helpful in encouraging consistency of cybersecurity frameworks in the U.S., the EU and other regions.
Please use the link provided below to access the survey which will take very few minutes to complete. We plan to publish the results in approximately six weeks. Please note that no individuals or specific businesses will be identified in any published results without their express consent.
CLICK HERE to begin the survey.
Thank you for your participation.
On February 3, 2017, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter ordered Google to comply with FBI search warrants to produce emails stored on foreign servers as part of a domestic criminal investigation. In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01 to Google (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2017). This ruling comes on the heels of the Second Circuit’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016) (denied rehearing on January 24, 2017), which reached an opposite decision and held that Microsoft could not be forced to turn over user data stored on a server located in Ireland. (For more background, see Second Circuit Microsoft Ruling: A Plea for Congressional Action (August 8, 2016)).