On Insider Trading . . . and Shredding and Smashing and Purging – Law Blog – WSJ

Memo to potential evidence-destroyers: If you find yourself suddenly needing to shred a bunch of documents or throw a hard-drive in a trash compactor, don’t later tell anyone about your plans or what you’ve done. Ever. Unless you’re standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the person and they’re completely naked.

It’s a lesson that perhaps should have been heeded by a couple of folks charged criminally on Tuesday in connection with the sprawling insider-trading case rippling through the hedge-fund world. Click here for the WSJ story; here for the NYT story.

The first is Donald Longueuil, one of two former hedge-fund managers at SAC Capital Advisors

According to the criminal complaint, filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, Longueuil allegedly ripped up his computer drives with pliers after reading a Wall Street Journal report on the probe late last year.

Longueuil’s version of that night’s events was recorded later, during a December meeting with a former colleague, who by then was cooperating with the government and recording conversations, according to the U.S. complaint.

“F—in’ pulled the external drives apart,” Mr. Longueuil told Mr. Freeman during their meeting, according to the criminal complaint. “Put ‘em into four separate little baggies, and then at 2 a.m. … 2 a.m. on a Friday night, I put this stuff inside my black North Face …  jacket, … and leave the apartment and I go on like a twenty block walk around the city … and try to find a, a garbage truck … and threw the s—t in the back of like random garbage trucks, different garbage trucks … four different garbage trucks.”

“When people frantically begin shredding sensitive documents and deleting computer files and smashing flash drives and chasing garbage trucks at 2 a.m. … it is not because they have been operating legitimately,” said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

via On Insider Trading . . . and Shredding and Smashing and Purging – Law Blog – WSJ.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Jilted Super Bowl Ticket-Holders Sue Jerry Jones, NFL. Discuss. – Law Blog – WSJ

This was a foregone conclusion, a done deal, a fait accompli: That some ticket-holders to Sunday’s Super Bowl who were denied access would rebuff the NFL’s efforts to make good and file a lawsuit.

Indeed, the first suit hit the federal court in Dallas on Tuesday.

For now, the backstory: It was designed as an, ahem, noble and selfless act on the part of Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and the National Football League: to try to squeeze more than 103,00 fans into Cowboys Stadium for Sunday’s Super Bowl.

Unfortunately — shocker! — it didn’t exactly go off as planned. Some 400 fans who had tickets to the game in their hot little hands arrived in Big D on the Big Day for the Big Game only to be denied admission. The problem: the makeshift seating area set up for these fans was deemed unsafe, and despite efforts, replacement seats were not made available.

The NFL and Jones have admitted they goofed. The NFL later said that the roughly 400 fans have two options. The first is a ticket to next year’s Super Bowl and a cash payment of $2,400, three times the face value of the ticket. The second is a ticket to any future Super Bowl, along with round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations.

But the overtures were not enough for some fans, who filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming they were deceived. Click here for the AP story; here for the complaint, filed by Newport Beach, Calif.-based firm Eagan Avenatti.

via Jilted Super Bowl Ticket-Holders Sue Jerry Jones, NFL. Discuss. – Law Blog – WSJ.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Official Google Blog: Introducing the Google Translate app for iPhone

Today, the official Google Translate for iPhone app is available for download from the App Store. The new app has all of the features of the web app, plus some significant new additions designed to improve your overall translation experience.

Speak to translate

The new app accepts voice input for 15 languages, and—just like the web app—you can translate a word or phrase into one of more than 50 languages. For voice input, just press the microphone icon next to the text box and say what you want to translate.

Listen to your translations

You can also listen to your translations spoken out loud in one of 23 different languages. This feature uses the same new speech synthesizer voices as the desktop version of Google Translate we introduced last month.

via Official Google Blog: Introducing the Google Translate app for iPhone.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

2010: A Scammer’s Delight

In 2010 alone, the Department of Justice (DoJ) imposed the highest criminal penalties in FCPA-related cases ‘in any single 12-month period: well over $1 billion,’ according to Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general. Those targeted include foreign companies doing business in the US, which are also liable under US laws.

Breuer notes that in 2009 and 2010, ‘we have charged more than 50 individuals with FCPA-related offenses – compared with, for example, two individuals in 2004, and five in 2005.’

Those individuals include Charles Jumet, who was sentenced last April to 87 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to bribe former Panamanian government officials to award Ports Engineering Consultants Corporation a contract to maintain lighthouses and buoys along Panama’s waterways. It was the longest prison sentence in FCPA history, and it’s perhaps those individual prosecutions that are sending the largest shivers down the spines of corporate leaders.

‘In my consulting with various companies around the world, I find the biggest deterrent is having some of these top officials investigated and hauled into court,’ notes Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa law professor and ethics consultant. ‘This is hugely damaging to brand equity, and most head offices don’t want something like that to happen.’ Individual prosecutions are, Mendes believes, part of a deliberate DoJ strategy.

via 2010: A Scammer’s Delight.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

E-discovery may be costly, treacherous for the unwary | Houston Business Journal

Electronic evolution has become a modern way of life. One needs only look to the latest phones, computers or PDAs to see this in evidence.

Technology may make life easier, but it also exposes people and businesses to increasing demands — such as electronic discovery (the process of producing documents in electronic format). Good consultants, attorneys and clients are all necessary for the proper management of e-discovery.

As we all see daily, George Orwell was right: Big Brother really is watching. As society has progressed, terms such as “E-litigation” and “E-management” have emerged to describe some of the pains that …

via E-discovery may be costly, treacherous for the unwary | Houston Business Journal.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

“[M]etadata Maintained by the Agency as a Part of an Electronic Record is Presumptively Producible under FOIA, Unless the Agency Demonstrates that such Metadata is Not ‘Readily Reproducible.’” : Electronic Discovery Law

Nat. Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 2011 WL 381625 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2011)

In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action, a dispute arose regarding the proper format of production and, in particular, whether metadata was subject to production pursuant to plaintiffs’ FOIA requests.  Following substantial analysis of the issue, the court held that “certain metadata is an integral or intrinsic part of an electronic record” and, as such, is “‘readily reproducible’ in the FOIA context.”  (FOIA provides that “[i]n making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.”  (Emphasis added.))  Addressing the question of which types of metadata are an intrinsic part of an electronic record, the court acknowledged that the answer “depends, in part, on the type of electronic record at issue . . . and on how the agency maintains its records” and determined that “the best way I can answer the question is that metadata maintained by an agency as part of an electronic record is presumptively producible under FOIA, unless the agency demonstrates that such metadata is not ‘readily reproducible.’”

via “[M]etadata Maintained by the Agency as a Part of an Electronic Record is Presumptively Producible under FOIA, Unless the Agency Demonstrates that such Metadata is Not ‘Readily Reproducible.’” : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Court Rejects Distinction between “Original Thumb Drives” and Forensic Images of the Same, Orders Production : Electronic Discovery Law

In this case, plaintiff sought to compel the production of forensic images of certain “flash” or “thumb” drives.  The images were created by a neutral third-party expert upon agreement of the parties following defendant’s refusal to produce the drives for inspection.  The original drives were then destroyed.  Defendant objected to production, arguing that plaintiff had previously requested access to the thumb drives, but not the forensic images, thus attempting to draw a distinction between the two.  The court rejected defendant’s argument reasoning that “if the original thumb drives were discoverable, Capsicum’s forensic images of the thumb drives must also be discoverable, and Océ need not propound a new discovery request for what amounts to the exact same information.”

via Court Rejects Distinction between “Original Thumb Drives” and Forensic Images of the Same, Orders Production : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

PODCAST: Surveying Sanctions in E-Discovery Cases in 2010 and Judicial Reactions || ESIBytes

Listen to Karl Schieneman, Director of Analytics and Review with JurInnov talk with the Honorable James C. Francis U.S. Magistrate Judge from the Southern District of NY since Oct, 1985, the Honorable Richard Sankovitz from Branch 29 of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Dan Willoughby, a partner at King & Spaulding and co-author of “Sanctions for E-Discovery Violations: By The Numbers,” and well known E-Discovery plaintiff lawyer James A. Batson from Liddle & Robinson. We will be talking about trends in the area of e-discovery sanctions. Given the variety in backgrounds the different panelists possess, this should be a very interesting and lively discussion as we try to figure out what will happen next in the world of E-Discovery Sanctions and how best to avoid them given what we know today.

via Surveying Sanctions in E-Discovery Cases in 2010 and Judicial Reactions || ESIBytes.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Digital Forensics: What Footprints Do You Leave Online? | Forensic Science

Because computers have become such an important aspect of our daily lives, almost every crime will likely have some electronic evidence. It is important for law enforcers to understand the benefits of electronic evidence, and to ensure that they handle digital evidence as carefully as physical evidence. Investigators may use digital forensics to show intent, cross-reference alibis or statements, or attribute data to a specific person. More difficult to follow than a “paper trail,” electronic records can still provide crucial information in criminal cases.

Past judicial interpretations of the Fourth Amendment have consistently sided with law enforcement in cases of warrantless searches of electronic information. The amendment states that, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”. However, because of the high incidence of electronic crime, searching electronic information is not considered unreasonable, and searching for information that would have required a warrant in past years has become legally obtainable in the electronic age. Law enforcement is pursuing more aggressive tactics to protect citizens from online crime.

This may come as bad news for digital criminals, and maybe even to radical proponents of civil liberties, but ultimately, the safety of private information is very important to most Americans. The law enforcement community is making good use of digital forensics as a revolutionary means in crime prevention and prosecution, and is beginning to catch up to the rapidly evolving cyber-criminals. Electronic evidence has become more important than physical evidence and has altered the very principles of crime scene investigation. Similarly, everyday citizens should become more careful with their sensitive information, and regularly check bank statements, credit card statements, or other activity in order to prevent identity theft and digital theft.

via Digital Forensics: What Footprints Do You Leave Online? | Forensic Science.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Lawyers Face New Challenges From Global Competition | NY Law Journal

The future of the legal profession is brightest where forward-looking attorneys have the “energy, the optimism and the can-do attitude” to prosper in a shifting economic and technological age, says Toronto attorney Simon Chester.

Unfortunately, Chester told New York attorneys gathered for the annual meeting of the New York State Bar Association late last month, that description applies more in other countries where lawyers and law firms often are more nimble in delivering legal services.

“Don’t look arrogantly at England, at the Philippines or India,” Chester, who has written extensively about legal trends, warned several hundred attorneys over a telephone hookup after he was grounded in Canada by bad weather.

Chester was part of a panel on the future of the profession during the President’s Summit at the annual meeting at the Hilton New York. Two days later, a special committee appointed by state bar President Stephen P. Younger of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler reported preliminarily to the association’s House of Delegates about serious and perhaps unprecedented challenges facing members of the New York legal profession.

The report argues that New York lawyers are facing more and more competition: “Aware of it or not, virtually every lawyer now operates in a globalized environment with increased competition. A solo practitioner in Elizabethtown, N.Y., can have a client with a legal problem involving a supplier in China. A law firm in Manhattan can send legal work to Bangalore as easily as it can to an associate on its 32nd floor. A solicitor from Toronto can represent a client with legal interests in Buffalo, just a few miles [kilometers] down the road.”

via Lawyers Face New Challenges From Global Competition.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare