Courts Reinstates Embezzlement Charges Dismissed as Untimely, Holding that Dismissal was Based on a Premature Assessment of the Government’s Evidence

by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact

In United States v. Sampson, decided August 6, 2018, the Court (Cabranes, Livingston, Carney, C.J.J.) reversed the district court’s dismissal of embezzlement charges levied against former New York State Senator John Sampson.  In a companion decision issued the same day, which we summarize in a separate post, the Court affirmed Sampson’s conviction on obstruction and false statement charges that proceeded to trial.

As detailed below, in reinstating the embezzlement charges the Court explained that the crime of embezzlement requires not just conversion but also “fraudulent intent,” and that the government was entitled to have an opportunity to prove that the requisite fraudulent conversion was not complete until years after Sampson’s initial failure to timely remit escrow funds—and thus, within the statute of limitations.  The Court emphasized that a pretrial dismissal under Rule 12(b) is generally limited to defenses that are clear on the face of the indictment.  Dismissal is not appropriate if it requires a court to make factual determinations related to a defendant’s guilt, as this would invade the province of the jury and turn Rule 12(b) into a proxy for summary judgment—which does not exist in federal criminal procedure.  The tone of the Second Circuit’s opinion was not optimistic about the strength of the government’s theory of timeliness.  The opinion states that “on the record before us, we do not know if the government will be able to prove that Sampson completed the alleged embezzlements within the statute of limitations.”  However, the Court concluded that a jury, not a judge, should decide whether the statute of limitations defense is meritorious.

Factual Background

In addition to serving as a member of the New York State Senate from 1997 to 2015, Sampson was a member of the New York State Bar and served as a referee in Kings County foreclosure actions.  In his capacity as a referee, Sampson was from time to time appointed by New York State Supreme Court Justices to conduct the sale of foreclosed properties and distribute the proceeds.  After paying off outstanding liens on the property, Sampson was obligated to remit any excess funds to the Kings County Clerk within five days, for the benefit of prior owners and any other interested parties.  According to the indictment, Sampson instead embezzled the surplus funds on at least two occasions – referred to as the “Forbell Street Property Action” and the “Eighth Avenue Property Action.” 

With respect to the Forbell Street Property Action, Sampson reported excess funds of $84,000 on October 7, 1998.  He placed the funds into escrow, as required by the court order and judgment, but opened the account at a different bank than that specified in the order, and then failed to remit those funds to the clerk within five days as required by both the order and state law.  Instead, through several transactions between 1998 and 2008, he withdrew or transferred approximately $80,000 for personal use.

With respect to the Eighth Avenue Property Action, Sampson reported excess funds of $80,000 on June 28, 2002.  He placed the funds into escrow, but once again opened the account at a different bank than that specified in the order, and then failed to remit those funds to the clerk within five days.  Instead, he withdrew nearly $25,000 for personal use over the course of several years, such that only $55,167.94 remained as of July 2006.

In July 2006, Sampson appeared to take some steps towards repaying certain of these funds.  He obtained three banks checks totaling $188,500 from a Queens businessman, Edul Ahmad.  He combined one $27,500 check from Ahmad with the $55,167.94 remaining in the Eighth Avenue Property Action escrow account in order to secure a bank check for $82,677.94 payable to the Kings County Clerk.  In exchange for the money, Sampson allegedly conferred certain political favors on Ahmad—and, as became the grounds for his ultimate conviction, thereafter lied to the FBI about his dealings with Ahmad and “endeavored” to tamper with the testimony of Ahmad and other witnesses.  In any event, despite Samson obtaining the bank check, this money never made it to the Kings County Clerk.  Two years later, in June 2008, Sampson exchanged the $82,677.94 bank check for nine checks made out to himself.  Between June 2008 and January 2009, Sampson redeemed, negotiated, or deposited most of those checks for his own benefit.

Procedural History

On April 29, 2013, Sampson was indicted by a federal grand jury on several counts, including two counts of federal-program embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A).  One such count alleged that Sampson embezzled $8,000 from the Forbell Street Referee Account when on February 13, 2008 he transferred $8,000 from that account to his personal account.[1]  The other count alleged that he embezzled the $82,677.94 bank check made out to the Kings County Clerk when on July 7, 2008 he exchanged that bank check for nine checks made payable to himself.

Sampson moved pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to dismiss both embezzlement counts as untimely, based on the five-year statute of limitations imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a).  Samson argued that both embezzlement counts were “complete” upon his initial failure to remit the funds to the Kings County Clerk after ascertaining the surplus amounts, in 1998 and 2002.  The government argued that Sampson’s motion was not “ripe” since it had not yet offered its evidence of when Sampson formed the “fraudulent intent” necessary for the offense.

The district court granted Sampson’s motion to dismiss.  It rejected the government’s argument that the motion was not ripe, and endorsed Sampson’s view that the crime of embezzlement was complete when Sampson first failed to remit the excess funds to the Kings County Clerk within five days of determining the amount due.  According to the district court, “[o]n the sixth day, when he did not return the funds, Defendant appropriated the funds and completed the embezzlement.”  Therefore, in the eyes of the district court, Sampson’s subsequent acts of withdrawing the funds were irrelevant for statute of limitations purposes. 

The Court’s Decision

The Court reviewed de novo the legal question of when a crime of embezzlement is complete for statute of limitations purposes, and reversed.

The Court explained first that the five-year statute of limitations set forth in § 3282(a) begins to run as soon as a crime has been “committed” or is “complete”—which is the point at which every element of the crime has occurred.

Next, the Court considered the elements required for the offense of embezzlement.   Since “embezzlement” is not explicitly defined in § 666, the Court looked to the term’s common law definition, and summarized the elements as follows: 

An individual commits “embezzlement” when he: (1) with intent to defraud; (2) converts to his own use; (3) property belonging to another; in a situation where (4) the property lawfully came within his possession or control.

The Court observed that the “intent to defraud” element distinguishes the crime of embezzlement from mere “conversion” – which may occur absent such fraudulent intent.  Thus, to embezzle one must act “willfully” and with a “specific intent to deceive or cheat” in converting another’s property.

Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that the district court erred by finding that the charged embezzlement offenses were necessarily complete at the moment Sampson failed to turn over the proceeds to the Kings County Clerk.  According to the Court, such a finding rested on “implicit factual determination(s)” as to both when “Sampson possessed the requisite fraudulent intent (if he possessed it at all)” as well as when the underlying “conversion” took place.

The Court held that such an (implicit) factual finding constituted a “premature adjudication as to the sufficiency of the government’s evidence and was thus improper at the Rule 12(b) stage.”  Although Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure can be used to procure a pretrial dismissal of charges on statute of limitations grounds, such a defense must be “clear from the face of the indictment.”  However, if such a defense requires a determination of “issues of fact that are inevitably bound up with evidence about the alleged offense itself”—as was the case here—a district court should defer ruling on a 12(b) motion until such evidence is presented to the factfinder.

Here, according to the indictment and arguments by the government, Sampson did not “convert” the funds—let alone form the requisite “fraudulent intent” required for embezzlement—until sometime after his initial failure to remit them to the Kings County Clerk.  In dismissing the charges based on contrary factual determinations, the district court effectively granted Sampson “summary judgment.”  But as the Court explained at length, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not contain an analog to the “summary judgment” procedure that exists under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   The absence of “summary judgment” in criminal procedure reflects various policy rationales, including that the government need not reveal its entire case before trial—as might be required to defeat a motion for summary judgment.  Thus, “although a judge may dismiss a civil complaint pretrial for insufficient evidence, a judge generally cannot do the same for a federal criminal indictment.”

The Court acknowledged that a district court is not completely without authority to make pretrial factual determinations.  Rather, a district court frequently makes such findings in the context of suppression motions, discovery disputes, and the like.  “But when a defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant’s potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion.”  Here, the timing of the “conversion” and “fraudulent intent” were issues of fact for the jury—and not matters that could be resolved as a matter of law by the district court on a pretrial Rule 12(b) motion.  The Court observed that although it was possible that the crime was complete when Sampson first failed to turn over the funds to the Kings County Clerk as required, it was also possible that at that juncture Sampson’s conduct, though neglectful, did not amount to fraudulent conversion.  Moreover, a factfinder could conclude that Samson did not immediately convert with intent to defraud all of the funds in each account, but rather incrementally converted those amounts over time as they were transferred to accounts or checks in his own name.  Thus, on the limited evidence put forward by the government, the district court could not rule as a matter of law that the offense was complete outside of the statute of limitations.

In reaching this result, the Court distinguished its prior decision in United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772 (2d Cir. 1998), which recognized a “narrow exception to the rule that a court cannot test the sufficiency of the government’s evidence on a Rule 12(b) motion.”  In Alfonso, the Circuit acknowledged that a pretrial sufficiency-of-the-evidence dismissal is permissible if the government made a “detailed presentation of the entirety of the evidence.”  Sampson argued that here as well the government had made a “full proffer” of its evidence in advance of the district court’s ruling; however, based on the Court’s review of the record, it concluded that the “government had not yet proffered all of its evidence,” such that the exception stated in Alfonso did not apply.  Moreover, a court cannot require the government to make such a premature “full proffer” of its evidence, or dismiss counts based on it having failed to do so.

Finally, the Court quickly disposed of Sampson’s arguments for why it should affirm the dismissal notwithstanding this error.  First, it rejected Sampson’s claim that the government was “equitably estopped” from claiming that the embezzlement was not complete until 2008 given purportedly inconsistent positions taken by the government during its prosecution of Sampson on the remaining counts. 

Second, it rejected Sampson’s argument that the court lacked “subject matter jurisdiction,” which was premised on his claim that at the time of the alleged embezzlement he was not was not an “agent” of an organization or government entity that received federal funding—which was the jurisdictional hook for the charged offenses.  Sampson’s argument on this issue had three subparts:  first, that he was never an agent of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, as alleged in the indictment, since he was instead an agent of the “Kings County Supreme Court”; second, that even if he was an agent at some point, his agency terminated at the conclusion of each underlying foreclosure action; and third, that if his agency did not terminate at the end of the foreclosure action, it terminated if and when he committed the first alleged crime since doing so would have breached his obligations to the principal.  Rejecting these in turn, the Court explained first that, according to the New York Court of Appeals, there is as a legal matter a single “Supreme Court” even though it is physically housed in separate locations throughout the state; second, that the question of whether Sampson’s agency naturally terminated following a foreclosure was a question of fact for the jury; and third, that it declined to read general principles of “agency” (including termination thereof) into the definition of “agent” in § 666 since doing so would effectively immunize an agent from liability under this provision after the first of what may turn out to be several related crimes.

Commentary

This was not a good day for the former state senator as he not only had his conviction and sentence affirmed, but also now faces possible additional liability on two previously-dismissed embezzlement counts.  Nevertheless, it is not clear what impact these resurrected counts will ultimately have on Sampson.  First, as discussed in our separate post on the affirmance decision, it is possible that the government will agree to forgo its prosecution of the embezzlement counts in exchange for Sampson agreeing not to pursue further appellate relief on his conviction (e.g., an en banc review of the thinly-sliced 1503/1512 issue addressed in the affirmance decision).  Second, even though the Court reversed the district court’s pretrial judicial dismissal of the embezzlement counts, serious questions remain as to the timeliness of those counts.  But as the Court held here, those are issues to be weighed by the jury, not the district judge.

More generally, the Court’s decision appears to strictly limit the circumstances under which a district court may dismiss criminal charges before trial.  Based on this decision, to the extent the ground for dismissal rests on facts that are tied up with charged offense, dismissal is appropriate only if unambiguously clear from the face of the indictment, or if the government elects to make a full proffer of its evidence before trial.  As to the latter, the court recognizes that in general the government will not be eager to show all of its cards before trial—and that it need not do so.  This decision appears to further incentivize holding back in order to defeat a Rule 12(b) motion.  The Court seems to acknowledge this, but suggests that “it can sometimes be to the government’s benefit voluntarily to submit such a proffer”—for example, given the government’s ability to appeal a pretrial dismissal.

A final thought:  To be sure, the Court is right that there are no summary judgment motions in criminal cases.  However, this rule has often been viewed more as an aspect of the defendant’s right to have a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.  It also is necessitated by the fact that criminal defendants are not required to adduce any evidence in their defense—the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination together provide defendants with protections that have no analog in civil litigation.  In other words, no matter how strong the government’s case might be, the defendant is entitled to have a jury consider the claim and decide whether the presumption of innocence has been overcome, whether or not he presents any evidence.

Here, the Court takes the absence of a rule permitting summary judgment in a criminal case and invokes it in favor of the government.  The Court is surely right that the government is not required to lay out its evidence in Rule 16 discovery to the same extent that a civil litigant must afford an opponent broad discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (whether this is fair, as the Court suggests in a long footnote, is perhaps subject to some debate).  The Court is also right to say that if the government fails to prove its case, Rule 29 operates as a mechanism to protect the defendant—either before or after a jury verdict.  But there are real costs to allowing a defendant to be prosecuted when the government’s theory of timeliness is tenuous—as seems to be the case here.  One of the embezzlement offenses relates to a failure by the defendant in 1998 to remit funds that did not belong to him—in other words, 15 years before the defendant’s indictment in this case.  The Court itself seems to express some skepticism that a jury will rule that these charges are timely.  It may be that the outcome here was driven in part by the District Court’s finding at the other extreme that the embezzlement was complete on the “sixth day”—i.e., immediately after Sampson failed in his duty to turn over the funds to the Kings County Clerk within five days.  The Court appears to question that finding, noting that in Sampson’s trial on other counts, the Kings County Clerk testified that on at least one other occasion Sampson missed the five-day deadline but still turned over the foreclosure funds—though he presumably did so relatively soon thereafter, and not more than a decade later.

Although the ruling in this appeal is consistent with the governing law, it would be reasonable for those who design our rules of criminal procedure to include some screening mechanism to allow a defendant to avoid the burden of trial where the charges are time-barred.  It does not seem like it would rupture our system of trial by jury or criminal discovery if the government were required to clear some threshold on a discrete issue such as this before forcing an individual to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to defend himself in a white-collar trial. 


[1] Sampson entered into an agreement with the government that tolled the statute of limitations from February 1, 2013 through May 17, 2013.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact
more
less

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.