ENRC v SFO appeal: internal corporate investigation documents were protected by privilege

by Allen & Overy LLP

Allen & Overy LLP

​Documents, including interview notes, generated by mining company ENRC during an internal corruption investigation were protected by privilege and therefore did not have to be disclosed to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

This unanimous Court of Appeal decision overturns the controversial High Court ruling last year which threw into question how businesses could investigate possible wrongdoing without creating material, including potentially incriminating documents, that would have to be handed over to investigators.

The decision will be welcomed by businesses and their lawyers as it increases the likelihood of a successful claim to litigation privilege in England when entities are facing the prospect of a criminal prosecution or regulatory enforcement action. 

The Court also expressed helpful, but non-binding, views on the question of who is the “client” for the purposes of legal advice privilege – ie which individuals within a corporation can communicate with the corporation’s lawyers on a privileged basis.

ENRC conducts internal investigation

In December 2010, ENRC received an email from an apparent whistleblower containing allegations of bribery and financial wrongdoing in relation to its Kazakh subsidiary.  This led ENRC to instruct lawyers and carry out an internal fact-finding investigation.  In April 2011, following press reports suggesting that the SFO had been asked to investigate ENRC on the matter, forensic accountants were also instructed. 

In August 2011, the SFO became directly involved.  It contacted ENRC, drew its attention to the SFO’s self-reporting guidelines and suggested a meeting.  There followed a lengthy period of dialogue between ENRC and the SFO, including a series of meetings in which ENRC updated the SFO on the progress of its internal investigation.

SFO starts criminal investigation of ENRC and demands documents

The SFO formally commenced a criminal investigation in April 2013 and compelled ENRC to produce a range of documents including:

  1. notes taken by lawyers of the evidence given to them by ENRC's employees, former employees, subsidiaries, suppliers and other third parties; and
  2. materials generated by forensic accountants, as part of a “books and records” review, with a focus on identifying controls and systems weaknesses and potential improvements (together, the Documents).

The SFO cannot compel the production of documents which a corporation would be entitled to refuse to disclose on grounds of legal privilege in proceedings in the English court.  ENRC claimed the Documents were privileged and refused to produce them.  The SFO then commenced these proceedings disputing that claim and seeking production of the Documents.

Court of Appeal rules that litigation privilege applies

Litigation privilege applies to communications between clients or their lawyers and third parties for the purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with existing or contemplated litigation when, at the time of the communication in question:

  1. litigation is in progress or reasonably in contemplation;
  2. the communications are made with the sole or dominant purpose of conducting that litigation or anticipated litigation; and
  3. the litigation is adversarial, not investigative or inquisitorial.

At first instance, Andrews J denied a claim for litigation privilege for the Documents. This was on the basis that: 

  1. ENRC needed to have a criminal prosecution in contemplation at the time the Documents were created and, on the facts, Andrews J concluded that ENRC did not contemplate criminal prosecution at that time;
  2. even if a prosecution had been reasonably in contemplation, none of the documents had been created with the dominant purpose of being used in such litigation; and
  3. litigation privilege does not extend to documents created in order to obtain legal advice as to how to best avoid contemplated litigation, or a future regulatory or criminal investigation. 

The Court unanimously disagreed with these conclusions and upheld ENRC's claim that the Documents were protected by litigation privilege. 

Criminal proceedings against ENRC were reasonably in contemplation

The Court held that a criminal prosecution was reasonably in contemplation when ENRC initiated its investigation and was certainly in contemplation from when ENRC was contacted by the SFO. 

Ultimately, this was a question of fact (and the Court noted that it was not sure that “every SFO manifestation of concern would properly be regarded as adversarial litigation”).  However, the Court stated that, when the SFO specifically makes the prospect of its criminal prosecution clear to a corporation (over and above the general principles set out in the SFO’s Guidelines), and legal advisers are engaged to deal with that situation, there was “clear ground” to contend that a criminal prosecution was in reasonable contemplation. This was the case for ENRC.   

Indeed, the Court held that “the whole sub-text of the relationship between ENRC and the SFO was the possibility, if not the likelihood, of prosecution if the self-reporting process did not result in a civil settlement”.  

The Court diverged from the views of Andrews J on some important points of general principle, finding that:

  1. whilst a party anticipating possible prosecution will often need to make further investigations before it can say with certainty that proceedings are likely, that uncertainty does not of itself prevent proceedings being in reasonable contemplation;
  2. Andrews J was wrong that litigation privilege cannot attach until either; (a) the defendant knows the full details of what is likely to be unearthed; or (b) a decision to prosecute has been taken; and
  3. the fact that a formal criminal investigation has not yet been commenced will be a part of the factual matrix when determining whether litigation is reasonably in contemplation, but it will not necessarily be determinative.

Documents were generated by ENRC for dominant purpose of resisting or avoiding criminal proceedings

At first instance, Andrews J concluded that ENRC's dominant purpose was to investigate the facts to see what had happened and deal with compliance and governance, rather than defend contemplated criminal proceedings.  Andrews J also concluded that there was overwhelming evidence that the interview notes were created for the specific purpose of being shown to the SFO.

The Court disagreed, taking a more pragmatic approach. The Court found that:

  1. the fact that solicitors prepare a document with the ultimate intention of showing it to the other side (which, in any event, the Court found was not supported by the evidence in this case) does not automatically deprive the preparatory legal work of litigation privilege;
  2. legal advice given to head off, avoid or even settle reasonably contemplated legal proceedings remains protected by litigation privilege as much as advice on defending or contesting such proceedings would be; and
  3. whilst reputable corporations will certainly want to ensure high ethical standards for their own sake in their business, realistically, the legal sanction used to enforce appropriate standards in business is the criminal or civil law.  As such, where a corporation is facing a clear threat of criminal investigation and prosecution, the reason the corporation is investigating whistleblowing allegations must be “brought into the zone” where the dominant purpose is to prevent or deal with litigation.

In addition, the Court found on the facts that, whilst ENRC had indicated to the SFO it would make “full and frank disclosure”, it did not in fact do so and it had never gone so far as to agree to disclose all of the materials it created in the course of its investigation to the SFO. 

The Court noted that, had it been asked to approve a deferred prosecution agreement between ENRC and the SFO, ENRC’s failure to make good on its promises to be full and frank would undoubtedly have counted against it.  However, the Court was clear that this would not affect whether the Documents were covered by litigation privilege in the first place. 

The Court found that the Documents were brought into existence for the dominant purpose of resisting or avoiding proceedings and so were protected by litigation privilege.

Legal advice privilege – Three Rivers 5 criticised

Legal advice privilege attaches to confidential communications between a client and its lawyers, acting in their professional capacity, in connection with the provision of legal advice. 

The Court declined to determine whether the Documents were protected by legal advice privilege, in part because there was no need to do so, given its conclusions on litigation privilege, and in part because the Court took the view that in light of previous Court of Appeal authority in Three Rivers 5, any change to the test for legal advice privilege would have to be determined by the Supreme Court.

However, the Court did express a non-binding view on how it would have decided the matter if it could have done so. The Court said that:

  1. Three Rivers 5 decided that communications between an employee of a corporation and the corporation's lawyers could not attract legal advice privilege unless that employee was tasked with seeking and receiving such advice on behalf of the client; and 
  2. it would have departed from Three Rivers 5 if it had the choice.

In particular, the Court noted that in the modern world, the law needs to cater for legal advice sought by large national and multi-national corporations. It recognised that, where small corporations are concerned, the relevant information will normally be held by members of the corporation's board (who will almost always be authorised to seek and receive legal advice on the corporation's behalf), whereas this is less likely to be the case for multi-nationals. The Court’s view was that, if “a multi-national corporation cannot ask its lawyers to obtain the information it needs to advise that corporation from the corporation’s employees with relevant first-hand knowledge under the protection of legal advice privilege, that corporation will be in a less advantageous position than a smaller entity seeking such advice.”  The Court said that, whatever the rule is, it should be equally applicable to all clients, whatever their size or reach.

The Court also noted that English law was out of step with the common law in other jurisdictions on this question, referring specifically to decisions of the Singapore and Hong Kong Courts of Appeal. The Court said that it was “undoubtedly desirable” for the common law to remain aligned in different countries where its development was not specifically affected by different commercial or cultural environments. In the Court’s view, “legal professional privilege is a classic example of an area where one might expect to see commonality between the laws of common law countries, particularly when so many multinational companies operate across borders and have subsidiaries in numerous common law countries”.

As the Court felt unable to depart from Three Rivers 5, it concluded, however, that Andrews J was right in deciding that legal advice privilege did not apply.

Impact of ENRC v SFO Court of Appeal ruling

Lower bar for reasonable contemplation of criminal prosecution 

Decisions of the English court which narrowed the scope of legal professional privilege available to businesses involved in regulatory and criminal investigations had become the unfortunate norm.  That trend is now starting to reverse. 

The decision is positive news for those facing criminal or regulatory investigation and strikes a sensible balance on when litigation privilege should be available in those circumstances.  The Court recognised a clear public interest in encouraging companies to investigate allegations from whistleblowers or investigative journalists under the protection of legal professional privilege before approaching the authorities: otherwise, companies might be tempted not to investigate such allegations at all. 

Businesses are now in a position where, on the right facts, they can make a successful claim for litigation privilege at a much earlier stage than the first instance judgment suggested, and therefore obtain the benefit of protection for communications with third parties including external expert advisers and employees (or ex-employees) who are not specifically tasked with seeking legal advice.  The impact resonates beyond criminal proceedings: the Court’s conclusions are relevant to internal investigations in anticipation of regulatory action by bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, Competition and Markets Authority or HMRC.  

Businesses will still need to demonstrate, on the facts of each case, that civil litigation or criminal prosecution (or its equivalent) is reasonably in contemplation.  But the fact that a corporation has not yet comprehensively established whether there is truth in claims of wrongdoing is no longer a bar to litigation being reasonably in contemplation. 

Although the Court's conclusions of fact are specific to this case, they indicate the factors that might help in demonstrating a reasonable contemplation of adversarial litigation. The Court said that it was “not sure” that adversarial litigation would automatically be in contemplation whenever an entity is contacted by the SFO and noted that where an SFO investigation is reasonably in contemplation, it is not inevitable that an SFO prosecution can also be said to be reasonably in contemplation.

Here, however, ENRC was able to provide contemporaneous documents and witness evidence that the Court found pointed clearly towards contemplation of a criminal prosecution if the self-reporting process was not successful in heading it off.  Being able to point to examples of similar evidence will be helpful in future cases when seeking to establish a claim to litigation privilege.  Factors which the Court considered relevant included:

  1. ENRC's receipt of a whistleblower email and subsequent appointment of external lawyers to investigate the allegations;
  2. contemporaneous views of both ENRC's general counsel and head of compliance (expressed by email) that they expected an SFO investigation, and actions taken within the company which were consistent with this view (eg upgrading its dawn raid procedures);
  3. contemporaneous views of the firm's lawyers that privilege would attach to the documents and that litigation was reasonably in contemplation; and 
  4. the fact that, when the SFO wrote to ENRC, it asked ENRC to consider the self-reporting guidelines carefully, which included express statements that “no prosecutor can ever give an unconditional guarantee that there will not be a prosecution”, and the SFO's expression of similar views in later meetings. 

One other practical consequence of the decision is that the SFO (and regulators) will have to confront the question of how they will deal with privileged documents involuntarily produced under statutory compulsion based on the (now overturned) first instance decision.  It also remains to be seen whether the SFO will modify the content of its communications with targets of new investigations in response to this decision. 

Three Rivers still with us for now

Parties will also have to consider whether the Court of Appeal’s non-binding comments disagreeing with Three Rivers 5 should affect their approach in relation to legal advice privilege, including on the key issue of whether notes of interviews with employees are disclosable when created in circumstances which do not attract litigation privilege.  The Court’s decision provides a strong indication that it believes Three Rivers 5 should be overturned, but a party may need to be willing to take that issue to the Supreme Court for resolution.

The SFO is understood to be considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

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.

© Allen & Overy LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Allen & Overy LLP

Allen & Overy LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"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.