Court Rules Failure to Copy Files on Flash Drive Prior to Failure of the Drive Violated Duty to Preserve : Electronic Discovery Law

Wilson v. Thorn Energy, LLC, 2010 WL 1712236 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010)

In this case, the court ordered sanctions for defendants’ failure to preserve relevant data where defendants failed to back up a flash drive containing all relevant financial records and where that data was lost as the result of the flash drive’s failure.

In short, a dispute arose between the parties related to plaintiffs’ loans to and investment in defendants’ petroleum-related project in Africa.  In the course of litigation, plaintiffs sought an accounting of defendants’ use of their funds.

At an initial pretrial conference, defendants’ counsel agreed to provide the accounting.  Despite a subsequent court order compelling its production and defendants’ continued promises to comply, the accounting was never provided.  Seven months after defense counsel promised to provide the accounting, defendants’ 30(b)(6) deponent testified that “all of the LLC’s records concerning the monies that allegedly were sent to Africa had been stored on a USB ‘flash drive’ that she maintained” and that the drive failed in the summer of 2008 – long before the promised production of the accounting.  The deponent further asserted that efforts to recover the information in a useable form were unsuccessful and the drive was eventually discarded.  Accordingly, plaintiff sought an order finding defendants in contempt and for sanctions.

For sanctions to be imposed, plaintiffs needed to show that defendant had a duty to preserve the data, that the data was lost or destroyed with a “culpable state of mind”, and that the evidence was relevant.  As to the first element, the court determined a duty to preserve arose upon plaintiffs’ demand for payment of their money, “well before the flash drive allegedly failed.”  Addressing defendants’ state of mind, the court noted that negligence was sufficient to warrant sanctions and, citing the recent case, Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Am. Secs., LLC, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), found that “the failure to collect evidence in a timely manner from a key witness, such as [the 30(b)(6) deponent], constitutes ‘gross negligence or willfulness’” and that “[i]t was consequently at least grossly negligent for the Defendants not to have made a copy of the flash drive before it allegedly failed.”  The lost data was also found to have been relevant.

via Court Rules Failure to Copy Files on Flash Drive Prior to Failure of the Drive Violated Duty to Preserve : Electronic Discovery Law.

Compliance comes calling | The Economic Times

Take an Indian conglomerate preparing to acquire a Belgian company. The last thing it needs to worry about is US criminal laws, right? Wrong — and indeed, buying the Belgian concern without thoroughly analysing its compliance profile could mean buying tens of millions of dollars in criminal liability.

The compliance challenges posed by the vigorous pursuit by the US of alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) transgressors have been compounded as other countries, most prominently Germany and the UK, have adopted and begun active enforcement of anti-foreign corruption laws of their own.

On January 19, for example, the US unveiled 22 indictments of individuals, including UK citizen Pankesh Patel, as a result of an undercover operation with FBI agents posing as sales agents offering to corruptly facilitate foreign contracts. Patel and 20 other defendants were handcuffed in front of their peers right on the floor of a Las Vegas trade show.

In his allegedly corrupt pursuit of defence contracts in Africa, Patel had meetings within the US, and sent paperwork in furtherance of the underlying scheme to the US. His indictment is an application of FCPA provisions catching foreign persons that take steps within the US to further overseas corruption.

For Indian companies that are issuers of US securities , no such actions within the US would even be required.

For our hypothetical Belgian marketing company, though not directly subject to the FCPA, it might have FCPA liability if it had corruptly carried out business operations for US companies, or sent dollar-denominated wire transfers for corrupt purposes.

Another trend worth noting for non-US companies is the expectation of active supervision on the part of senior corporate executives.

US enforcers have held executives at headquarters responsible for misconduct occurring in the field, on the basis that the executives failed to supervise far-flung personnel or failed to design internal controls to prevent misconduct.

Other countries are also raising the bar to prevent bribery. In part, this is due to diplomatic pressure from the US but also the efforts of the OECD and the UN, both of whom have sponsored conventions that are now in place mandating that their signatories take certain actions in the fight against corruption. India is party to the UN convention.

The Siemens case in which it paid a record settlement of $800 million in fines and disgorgement of profits was mirrored by a fine of equal magnitude paid to the German regulator.

via Compliance comes calling-Opinion-The Economic Times.

Bahrain’s new ADR centre begins regional campaign in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia | AMEinfo.com

Her Excellency Sheikha Haya bint Rashed Al Khalifa, Chair of the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR-AAA) today announced the launch of the Chamber's five day out-reach campaign in the Kingdoms of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia beginning at the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) in Manama.

H.E. Sheikha Haya bint Rashed Al Khalifa was joined by Richard Naimark, Senior Vice President of International and Mark Appel, Senior Vice President for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, from the BCDR-AAA’s joint partner, the American Arbitration Association.

The aim of the campaign is to reach out to professional business organisations, lawyers, bankers and engineers in the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to promote and attract trade and investment in the region. The BCDR-AAA will be emphasising the importance of a robust legal framework providing commercial organisations with the reassurance they need to conduct their business effectively.

Her Excellency Shaikha Haya Bint Rashed Al-Khalifa said, “The Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have traditionally shared a very close and special relationship based on a shared vision to preserve and promote the prosperity and commercial growth of the region. I am particularly grateful to the lawyers and business professionals in both Kingdoms for welcoming us so warmly and for co-operating with us to raise the standard of alternative dispute resolution in the region.”

“I am very impressed with the reception we have had from the BCCI today and hope to collaborate with them to support businesses in Bahrain who seek help to resolve their disputes expeditiously and fairly,” she said.

via Bahrain’s new ADR centre begins regional campaign in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia | BCDR-AAA | AMEinfo.com.