Category Archives: French Liability and Enforcement

Dutch Data Protection Authority Imposes a Fine of 290 Million Euros on Uber

by Sarah Pearce and Ashley Webber

Photos of authors.

Left to right: Sarah Pearce and Ashley Webber (Photos courtesy of the Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP)

On August 26, 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (the “Dutch DPA”), as lead supervisory authority, announced that it had imposed a fine of 290 million euros ($324 million) on Uber.  The fine related to violations of the international transfer requirements under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). 

The Dutch DPA launched an investigation into Uber following complaints from more than 170 French Uber drivers to the French human rights interest group the Ligue des droits de l’Homme, which subsequently submitted a complaint to the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”).  The CNIL then forwarded the complaints to the Dutch DPA as lead supervisory authority for Uber.

Continue reading →

Balancing Victim Compensation and Efficiency in Non-Trial Resolutions: A Comparative Perspective from the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators

by Stéphane Bonifassi, Lincoln Caylor, Grégoire Mangeat, Léon Moubayed, Jonathan Sack, Andrew Stafford K.C., Wolfgang Spoerr, and Thomas Weibel

Photos of authors.

Top left to right: Stéphane Bonifassi, Lincoln Caylor, Grégoire Mangeat, Léon Moubayed. Bottom left to right: Jonathan Sack, Andrew Stafford K.C., Wolfgang Spoerr, and Thomas Weibel. (Photos courtesy of authors)

Introduction

Negotiated settlements for financial crimes offer a practical approach to resolving cases without lengthy trials. However, they pose a complex dilemma: how to balance efficiency with the need for victims to have a meaningful role in the proceeding and achieve adequate victim compensation. Across various jurisdictions, the approaches to non-trial resolutions reflect differing priorities, with some countries leaning towards expediency and others emphasizing victim rights. This is why the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators published a working paper on the topic. This piece explores the current state of how victims of financial crime are being compensated in non-trial resolutions across different legal jurisdictions. Furthermore, it identifies some of the challenges and trade-offs lawmakers face when trying to infuse an optimal amount of victim involvement into the settlement process, providing suggestions on how victims of financial crime can be better heard and compensated in settlement procedures.

Continue reading →

Supply Chain Due Diligence Obligations in Germany, France and the EU: An Overview

by Amélie Champsaur, Mirko von Bieberstein, Guillaume de Rancourt, Sebastian Kummler, Camille Kernevès, Andreas Wildner, and Marc Christopher Baldauf

Photos of authors

Top from left to right: Amélie Champsaur, Mirko von Bieberstein, Guillaume de Rancourt, Sebastian Kummler.
Bottom left to right: Camille Kernevès, Andreas Wildner, and Marc Christopher Baldauf. (Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP).

Germany and France, the two largest economies in the EU, have adopted laws to hold companies accountable for violations concerning human rights and environmental protection along their supply chain. With the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, “LkSG”) and the French Duty of Vigilance Law (Loi de vigilance, “Vigilance Law”) both countries have already implemented a respective regulatory framework that would be refined by a future European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”), which would mandate all other Member States to implement similar laws.

The following provides an overview of the key aspects of the LkSG and the Vigilance Law, draws comparisons between the LkSG and the Vigilance Law and gives an outlook on the envisaged CS3D for supply chain due diligence in the EU in the future, based on the latest proposal.

Continue reading →

A View from Abroad: Unpacking DOJ’s M&A Safe Harbor Policy, Part II

by Joel M. Cohen, Marietou Diouf, James Hsiao, Francisco Málaga Diéguez, Aleksandra Oziemska, Jean-Pierre Picca, Anneka Randhawa, Jean-Lou Salha, Dr. Daniel Zapf, Dr. Nicolas Rossbrey, and Dr. Tine Schauenburg

Photos of the authors.

Top left to right: Joel M. Cohen, Marietou Diouf, James Hsiao, Francisco Malaga, Aleksandra Oziemska, and Jean-Pierre Picca. Bottom left to right: Anneka Randhawa, Jean-Lou Salha, Daniel Zapf, Dr. Nicolas Rossbrey, and Dr. Tine Schauenburg (Photos courtesy of White & Case LLP)

On October 4, 2023, United States Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco announced a new Department of Justice (DOJ) Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor policy that encourages companies to self-disclose criminal misconduct discovered by an acquiring company during the acquisition of a target company.  Under the policy, the acquiring party will receive a presumption of criminal declination if it promptly and voluntarily discloses criminal misconduct, cooperates with any ensuing investigation, and engages in appropriate remediation, restitution and disgorgement. While the DOJ has offered little guidance as to what it might expect from a company that self-discloses under the policy, many jurisdictions outside the United States offer corporate self-disclosure and cooperation incentives. This alert analyzes several of those practices in Europe and Asia, and what can be learned from their application. Continue reading →

French Competition Regulator Fines Six Companies €31.2 Million for Bid-Rigging

by Jonathan J. Rusch 

Photo courtesy of the author

Photo courtesy of the author

Despite its clearcut illegality in numerous countries around the world[1], and its inherently corrupt nature[2], bid rigging remains a perennial temptation for some companies that prefer predictability to the rigors of competition.  A recent decision by the French Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority/FCA) shows the extent to which some companies will go in establishing and maintaining bid-rigging schemes.

On September 7, the FCA issued a decision that fined six companies in the engineering, maintenance, decommissioning, and nuclear waste treatment services sector – OTND, Nuvia Process (a subsidiary of the Vinci Group), Endel, Bouygues Construction Expertises Nucléaires (BCEN), SNEF, and SPIE — a total of €31.2 million for engaging in anticompetitive agreements during calls for tender for decommissioning of a nuclear power plant.[3]  This post will address the actions of the fined companies, summarize the FCA’s decision, and offer some observations about its significance.

Continue reading →

French Authorities Publish Guide on Anti-Corruption Internal Investigations

by Bruce E. Yannett, Erich O. Grosz, Alexandre Bisch, and Fanny Gauthier

Photos of the authors

From left to right: Bruce E. Yannett, Erich O. Grosz, Alexandre Bisch, and Fanny Gauthier (photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

On March 14, 2023, France’s main anti-corruption authorities, the French Financial National Prosecutor (the “PNF”) and the French Anti-Corruption Agency (the “AFA”), published a 38-page document providing best practices for companies conducting anti-corruption internal investigations in France (the “Guide”).[1]

Although it has no normative value, the Guide is generally helpful for companies that have to conduct internal investigations as part of their mandatory French-style compliance programs and those who conduct internal investigations in anticipation of a potential French-style deferred prosecution agreement (the “CJIP”).

We describe below what we consider to be the main aspects of the Guide. When relevant, we have also added some comparisons and comments from a U.S. perspective.

Continue reading →

United States v. Bescond: The Second Circuit Construes the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine in a Corporate Criminal Investigation

by Jonathan J. Rusch

For more than a century, U.S. federal courts have been articulating and refining a doctrine known as the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.[1]  In the context of criminal law, the doctrine generally allows a court to deny a party’s request to make use of the U.S. judicial system when he or she is seen to be “purposely evad[ing] the jurisdiction to avoid criminal prosecution.”[2]  In principle, the doctrine extends to all areas of federal crime, including white-collar crime.[3]

The U.S. Supreme Court has advanced three reasons for application of the doctrine.  First, “so long as the party cannot be found, the judgment on review may be impossible to enforce.”[4]  Second, an appellant’s escape “disentitles” the appellant to call upon a court’s resources “for determination of his claims.”[5]  Third, disentitlement “discourages the felony of escape and encourages voluntary surrenders,” and “promotes the efficient, dignified operation” of the courts.[6]

Continue reading →

France Moves to Boost Its White Collar Enforcement

by Antoine F. Kirry, Alexandre Bisch, Aymeric D. Duoulin, Fanny Gauthier, and Karolos Seeger

On July 7, 2021, a French National Assembly Committee led by MPs Raphaël Gauvain and Olivier Marleix, published a long-awaited 180-page evaluation report about France’s anti-corruption law of December 9, 2016 (the so-called “Sapin II Law”)[1]. While recognizing the significant progress made by France in its fight against corruption and tax fraud over the last five years, MPs suggest further strengthening the existing legal framework. Their 50 recommendations cover various topics, including the French-style deferred prosecution agreement; the self-reporting of corporate crimes; corporate criminal liability criteria; the introduction of a new pre-trial guilty plea; French extra-territorial enforcement of corruption crimes; and the role of the French anti-corruption agency. We provide below the main highlights of the report.

Continue reading →

CNIL Issues Fines Totaling €135 Million in Landmark ePrivacy Directive Cases

by Gail Crawford, Myria Saarinen, Tim Wybitul, and Wolf-Tassilo Böhm

Between December 2019 and May 2020, the French data protection authority (CNIL) conducted multiple online investigations by visiting google.fr and amazon.fr, before launching a full-scale investigation into Google LLC, Google Ireland, and Amazon Europe Core. On 7 December 2020, the CNIL handed down two decisions, one against Google LLC (€60 million fine) and Google Ireland (€40 million fine), and another against Amazon Europe Core (€35 million fine). Contrary to a previous sanction against Google LLC, which was triggered by specific complaints about its practices, the CNIL’s decisions indicate that the investigations were launched sua sponte with the specific aim of controlling the companies’ cookie practices. Continue reading →

France Makes U-Turn on Corporate Successor Criminal Liability

by Antoine F. Kirry, Alexandre Bisch, Aymeric D. Dumoulin, and Ariane Fleuriot

On November 25, 2020, the French Court of Cassation (France’s Supreme Court) issued a landmark decision[1] whereby public limited liability companies may now be held criminally liable for the prior criminal conduct of the companies they acquire through “mergers by acquisition.”[2] This decision departs from existing case law. It will likely create an increased post-merger criminal liability risk for acquiring companies and a correlative incentive to enhance their pre-merger due diligence efforts.

Continue reading →