The Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2018

THE INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW OF THE AMERICAS 2018 –

A Global Investigations Review Special Report THE ASIA-PACIFIC INVESTIGATIONS REVIEW 2018

Published by Global Investigations Review in association with

AlixPartners Kim & Chang

Archer & Angel King & Wood Mallesons

DLA Piper Linklaters

FTI Consulting Nishimura & Asahi

Herbert Smith Freehills Tilleke & Gibbins

Hogan Lovells WongPartnership LLP GIR Globwww.globalinvestigationsreview.comal Investigati ons Review The law and practice of international investigations

Global Investigations Review GIR The law and practice of iinnternternatiatioonalnal investigationsinvestigations The Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2018

A Global Investigations Review Special Report The Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2018

Senior co-publishing business development manager George Ingledew Senior co-publishing manager Edward Perugia [email protected] Tel: +1 202 831 4658

Head of production Adam Myers Editorial coordinator Iain Wilson Chief subeditor Jonathan Allen Senior production editor Simon Busby Senior subeditor Anna Andreoli

Editor, Global Investigations Review David Vascott Editor in chief David Samuels

Cover image credit: ismagilov/iStock/Thinkstock

Subscription details To subscribe please contact: Tel: +44 20 3780 4242 Fax: +44 20 7229 6910 [email protected]

No photocopying. CLA and other agency licensing systems do not apply. For an authorised copy contact Edward Perugia ([email protected])

The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. This information is not intended to create, nor does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–client relationship. The publishers and authors accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of August 2017 be advised that this is a developing area.

ISSN: 2059-9129

Printed and distributed by Encompass Print Solutions Tel: 0844 2480 112 The Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2018

Published in association with:

AlixPartners

Archer & Angel

DLA Piper

FTI Consulting

Herbert Smith Freehills

Hogan Lovells

Kim & Chang

King & Wood Mallesons

Linklaters

Nishimura & Asahi

Tilleke & Gibbins

WongPartnership LLP Contents

Cross-border overviews India: internal investigations...... 44 Srijoy Das and Disha Mohanty Anti-corruption enforcement in the Archer & Angel ASEAN region...... 1 Japan: overview...... 48 Maurice Burke, Wataru Kawai and David Gargaro Hogan Lovells Kaku Hirao Nishimura & Asahi Cooperation: the defendable investigation...... 7 Korea: effective anti-corruption compliance...... 52 Jarrod Baker and Brett Clapp FTI Consulting Myungsuk Sean Choi and Michael Yu Kim & Chang Forensic accountancy...... 11 Laos: anti-corruption laws key to economic Brent Carlson development...... 57 AlixPartners Dino Santaniello Protecting privilege in Asia investigations...... 16 Tilleke & Gibbins Kyle Wombolt, Christine Cuthbert and Anita Phillips Myanmar: anti-corruption reforms and Herbert Smith Freehills initiatives...... 62 Sher Hann Chua and Nwe Oo Tilleke & Gibbins Country chapters Singapore: handling financial services Australia: handling internal investigations...... 21 investigations...... 67 Rani John and James Morse Joy Tan and Koh Swee Yen DLA Piper WongPartnership LLP

Cambodia: anti-corruption...... 26 Thailand: anti-corruption compliance...... 73 David Mol Michael Ramirez Tilleke & Gibbins Tilleke & Gibbins

China: guidance on cartel investigations...... 30 Vietnam: compliance risks...... 77 Susan Ning and Kate Peng John Frangos King & Wood Mallesons Tilleke & Gibbins

China: handling internal investigations...... 39 Melvin Sng, Justin Tang and Steven Pettigrove Linklaters

www.globalinvestigationsreview.com v Australia: handling internal investigations

Rani John and James Morse DLA Piper

It goes without saying that wrongful conduct in a corporate setting can result in a haphazard investigation process and a less than cred- can have drastic and irreparable legal, commercial and reputational ible – or even unreliable – investigation report. consequences for the individuals and entities involved. Internal investigations, which can be carried out quickly and tailored to Identifying who will conduct the investigation address specific company concerns, can be particularly well suited Once the company has decided to commence an internal investi- to identifying, minimising and remediating such fallout. gation, it will need to appoint someone to take responsibility for However, what makes an efficient and effective investigation can coordinating and conducting the investigation. Often, this will vary dramatically depending on the subject matter of the investiga- be a member of the company’s legal team. However, there may be tion, and the individuals and entities involved. This article provides cases where it is more appropriate for members of the board to have a brief overview of the key considerations that will allow a company oversight of the conduct of the investigation – for example, where to craft and manage an effective Australian internal investigation, to the conduct of senior management is impugned. achieve a prompt and robust outcome. Likewise, if the scale of the investigation involves numerous persons across various offices and a large quantity of factually or Launching an investigation technically dense material, the company may need to allocate addi- There are countless reasons for commencing an internal investiga- tional and specific resources to the investigation. For example, if the tion. A company may itself have identified potential wrongdoing. subject matter of the investigation is a serious and systemic issue, or Third parties may have alleged inappropriate conduct. Regulators potentially involves misconduct on the part of senior personnel, it may have made informal enquiries or launched a formal investiga- may be advisable for external advisers to conduct the investigation. tion, either of the company itself or of another industry participant, This often adds an additional layer of impartiality, objectivity and that has knock-on consequences for the company. In some cases, forensic scrutiny, and can assist in navigating difficulties created regulators may have required an organisation to undertake an inter- by internal reporting lines or interpersonal relationships between nal investigation (see, for example, section 53 of the Independent company personnel. Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW)), or there may The members of the investigations team should have an appro- be other circumstances creating impetus to investigate (for example, priate combination of skills, training and experience to support licence requirements or positive reporting obligations in particular a well-rounded and thorough investigation. If the investigation industries). involves topics where specialised expertise would be beneficial (such In the near future, entities may also commence investigations as concerns about securities or antitrust violations), that should be to determine whether notification is required under the mandatory taken into account in forming the team. Failure to appoint appro- data breach notification laws introduced into the Privacy Act 1988 priate persons could compromise the investigation process and (Cth) by the passing of the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data outcome. For similar reasons, close colleagues or peers of persons Breaches) Act 2017 (Cth) in February 2017, in the event the entity who are ‘at risk’ in the investigation should not be appointed to the suspects but is not certain that a serious and eligible data breach investigations team. has occurred. Entities will be required under the new data breach notification scheme to undertake ‘reasonable and expeditious Setting the remit of the investigation assessment’ to determine whether there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to The scope of the internal investigation must be set carefully and consider that an eligible data breach has occurred. This assessment clearly, with its sole focus on responding to the particular identi- must be made within 30 days of the entity becoming aware of the fied problem. It can be useful to prepare written terms of reference, relevant circumstances. Entities may also avoid the new notification which identify those matters that fall within the subject matter of requirements if they take remedial action before any serious harm is the internal investigation and – equally critically – those that fall caused by any eligible data breaches. outside. If the investigation has been prompted by regulatory atten- In some circumstances, urgent action is necessary. This includes tion, the intended interaction between the internal investigation where there is an actual or anticipated destruction of documents and any existing or anticipated regulatory process should be taken (discussed below), or where relevant personnel are about to depart into account. from the organisation. Immediate action is also required where The proper constitution of the investigations team, along with any unreasonable delay in launching the investigation could be the drafting of suitable terms of reference, not only ensures the seen as acquiescence or tacit approval of the impugned conduct by integrity of the investigation and the information gathered by it, the company. but also plays an important part in determining issues of privilege While those considerations may dictate the timing of immediate (discussed below). These initial decisions should not be made on a steps in an investigation, other factors, such as the need to efficiently ‘set and forget’ basis. As investigations invariably evolve over time, carry on business and the availability of resources, will also influence it is vital to reassess the scope of the investigation at frequent and an investigation’s progress. Insufficient information and resources regular intervals, and make any necessary changes. www.globalinvestigationsreview.com 21 AUSTRALIA

Communicating the existence of the investigation an internal investigation, the investigations team should ensure it The next step is for the company to communicate information has addressed the relevant legal requirements when embarking on internally regarding the investigation. It is often appropriate to issue data collection. a document preservation notice, drafted in a neutral and objective way, to all relevant personnel and, in some cases, to all staff, on a Witnesses confidential basis. Specific document collation requests to relevant Another key aspect of any investigation is interviewing relevant individuals may also be needed, as well as guidance on what may individuals. It is vitally important that the investigations team and may not be discussed between company staff, or third parties, properly identify the relevant individuals, and arrange for them to concerning the investigation. be interviewed separately, in an appropriate order, and with clear As a general rule, it is not advisable to disclose the details of objectives. A core bundle of documents should be produced, for the investigation in such communications, or the circumstances that each interviewee to be taken through during the course of the inter- have led to the investigation. This is for many reasons, but particu- view. It is generally not desirable to provide the interviewees with larly because those communications may not be privileged, and may advance copies of the documents, and they should not be permitted therefore be the subject of disclosure to third parties in the future to retain copies of any such documents. The interviewees should also (discussed below). be instructed not to discuss their evidence with anyone else. This is to maintain confidentiality, avoid a potential waiver of privilege and Conducting the investigation also avoid potential contamination of evidence. There are no general specifications in Australia as to how an internal When conducting interviews, the company’s legal representa- investigation should be carried out, including in relation to pro- tives should clearly inform the interviewee that they represent the cedural matters such as independent representation for company interests of the company, and while the content of the interview is employees interviewed in the course of an investigation. The com- confidential and privileged, the company reserves the right to waive pany should consider and address these issues prior to gathering that confidentiality or privilege in the future. evidence in the investigation. Best practice suggests companies take In appropriate circumstances, interviewees should not only be into account principles of natural justice, as well as anticipated inter- allowed but encouraged to obtain independent legal representation actions with regulators about the subject matter of the investigation, for the purposes of the interview. In some cases, the company – or in deciding how to proceed. Some Australian regulators have issued an insurer – may be obliged to indemnify the interviewee for the guidance notes as a reference point for those considering or under- costs of such representation. taking an internal investigation (see, for example, ‘Fact Finder: A During the interview process, the interviewer should be focused guide to conducting internal investigations,’ NSW Independent on assessing the interviewee’s recollection, as opposed to their rec- Commission Against Corruption, March 2012). reation, of relevant events. Interviewers should always be alive to the potential for interviewees to give incorrect accounts, and should be Documents prepared to challenge and test the evidence given by the interviewee An important first step in internal investigations in Australia – like there and then without the need to adjourn the interview, which may many other jurisdictions – is the appropriate collation, compilation allow the interviewee an opportunity to tailor his or her evidence. and retention of relevant documents. Document preservation must In Australia, written records of the interview created by internal include both hard copy and electronic documents, to ensure all or external lawyers for the purpose of advising the company will original documents are quarantined in their original form. It may usually be privileged (discussed below). That is not the case for notes be appropriate to take a forensic image of all relevant electronic taken by the interviewee, or any ‘support person’ brought into the data, to ensure the integrity of information (including metadata) interview by the interviewee. The only exception is where notes are is maintained throughout the course of the investigation. The created by the interviewee’s appointed legal representative, who has company should take urgent steps to preserve documents that could attended the interview for the purpose of advising the interviewee. otherwise be destroyed by innocent (for example, scheduled record Those notes will ordinarily be privileged in the hands of the inter- management) or malicious means. viewee, but not the company. Some of the issues a company may need to confront in document The investigations team should also consider whether it is useful collation include how to treat private documents an employee has to record the interview, or obtain a signed written statement from stored in or on company property. This includes private information the interviewee reflecting the evidence given during the interview. In or communications stored on the company’s computers or mobile the event the interview was recorded, the team should also consider phones, or on the company’s premises (such as in the employee’s whether to request the interviewee sign a transcript of the interview, desk or at their workstation). In many circumstances, the company’s verifying its accuracy. The assessment of how to record the interview ability to access and review such private documents will depend on may be influenced by views about the prospect of future regulatory the specific terms of the employment contract, or any applicable or litigious activity. Unlike some other jurisdictions, it is not yet codes of conduct or terms of use, and particularly whether consent commonplace for Australian regulators to request access to written has been previously provided by employees for employer access to statements, or notes of witness interviews, produced in the course such material. of internal investigations; any such requests are typically met with The company will also need to consider the impact of the claims of privilege. The more typical course is for Australian regula- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which regulates the company’s handling of tors to exercise their own compulsory powers to conduct their own personal information about individuals. There are also differing laws interview processes. However, companies should bear in mind the across various state and territory jurisdictions about the ability to possibility of such requests, particularly if the subject matter of the use surveillance or recording devices to obtain information with- investigation involves multi-jurisdictional issues, where regulators out the consent of the person under surveillance. As privacy and in other jurisdictions may have different practices, and different surveillance considerations can arise in various ways throughout rules as to the availability of privilege claims may apply.

22 The Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2018 HANDLING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS

The company may also need to confront issues that arise when Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc 2017 WL 00219524, where the Court individuals refuse to participate in an interview, or other aspects held that financial penalties otherwise to be imposed on a company of the investigation, which can trigger the need for disciplinary may be heavily discounted as a result of that company’s consider- action. The company must also consider whether certain employees able cooperation with law enforcement agencies or self-reporting of who are the subject of (or are at risk in) the investigation need to the issues. be suspended, or, where serious wrongdoing is clearly identified, An Australian DPA scheme, if introduced, is expected to simi- dismissed (which can then affect the willingness of those individu- larly provide an avenue for companies facing prosecution for serious als to cooperate with the investigation). All of these issues should corporate crime offences to reduce the consequences that might be assessed with an awareness of the company’s relevant employ- otherwise follow from successful prosecution, where justified by ment obligations. the company’s full and genuine cooperation with law enforcement authorities or self-reporting of misconduct, by entering into agree- Reporting on the investigation ments with prosecutors to comply with certain conditions. Such The investigations team should keep relevant internal stakeholders conditions may include implementing internal changes to improve informed of the progress of the investigation. Once the investigation future compliance, paying a financial penalty, admitting to agreed has concluded, they will also need to report its findings. A key issue facts and cooperating with any investigation. that often arises in this context is identifying the relevant stake- Mandatory data breach notification laws are likely to come holders who need to be informed, and at what stages. Generally, into effect by February 2018 via recent amendments to the Privacy dissemination of information relating to the investigation should Act 1988 (Cth). They will require the relevant entity to notify the be on a ‘need to know’ basis. That is because doing otherwise may Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and any affected jeopardise a company’s ability to claim or retain privilege over those individuals where there are reasonable grounds to believe a serious, reports. Reporting should also take into account the subject matter eligible data breach has occurred. The Privacy Commissioner has of the investigation and the personnel potentially implicated. For encouraged relevant entities to begin undertaking audits and devel- example, if senior management is potentially involved, it will be oping breach response plans in anticipation. necessary to devise reporting arrangements that avoid communica- While it is one thing to identify who should be provided with tion to those persons, and guard against their accessing any relevant information relating to the investigation, it is another to identify documents or reports created. what should be reported. In some circumstances, it might be appro- Depending on the company in question, there may be some priate merely to identify that an investigation has been undertaken requirement or obligation to disclose aspects of the investigation to and has concluded. In other circumstances, it may be appropriate to regulatory bodies or authorities. This is particularly so if the inves- identify the results of the investigation, or the recommendations or tigation intersects with an actual or anticipated regulatory investi- findings made in relation to certain matters. gation, and especially if the company wishes to self-report certain At all stages, the company should also consider whether com- conduct in an effort to obtain immunity from or leniency in respect munications will be protected by privilege and if so, how to best of potential penalties. In some industries, licence conditions can protect that privilege (discussed below). also create positive reporting obligations where potential contraven- tions are identified (for example, in the financial services industry). Privilege – a critical factor If the company is a publicly listed entity, disclosure of certain Privilege is a key consideration through the course of an internal aspects of the investigation may be required in order to comply investigation. An internal investigation where relevant communica- with the company’s continuous disclosure obligations under the tions are protected by privilege can greatly assist an investigations Australian Securities Exchange Listing Rules. The company may team to obtain full and frank disclosure, and enable the company also need to disclose certain circumstances to their insurer in order to thoroughly assess the situation with a fuller understanding of the to obtain coverage in respect of future claims against the company. facts than might otherwise occur. The Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing There is a healthy respect for privilege in Australia, including in Act 2006 (Cth) also imposes certain transaction and compliance respect of documents created for the purpose of internal investiga- reporting obligations on reporting entities, which can be triggered tions. However, this does not mean any claim for privilege over such if certain circumstances are identified in the course of an internal documents will be blindly accepted. Regulators and other litigants investigation. Reporting entities must also take care not to ‘tip off’ can and often do vigorously challenge privilege claims. persons in relation to these matters at any time, including during or In Australia, legal professional privilege applies to communica- following an investigation, as it is an offence to do so. tions that are prepared for the dominant purpose of: Where criminal conduct is suspected or identified, although • obtaining or providing legal advice; or there is usually no positive obligation to do so, the company may • obtaining or providing legal services (including representation) decide to engage with relevant law enforcement agencies, such as the in actual or anticipated litigation. police. Where aspects of an investigation may become public, the company may also wish to engage public relations personnel to assist The test of whether a communication was prepared for the domi- in managing media coverage and potential reputational impact. nant purpose of either of the above limbs requires consideration of To the extent that criminal conduct is suspected or identified, the ruling, prevailing or most influential purpose of the commu- companies may be incentivised in the near future to proactively nication. The starting point is generally to ask what the intended self-report internal misconduct in return for reduced penalties, with use of the communication is. Where a communication has mixed the Australian government currently considering the introduction purposes, only one of which is a privileged purpose, it is unlikely to of a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) scheme in Australia, be protected by privilege. It is critical to consider the communica- similar to the DPA scheme in the UK. The approach to DPAs in tions to be made, and any documents created, in the course of an the UK has recently been considered in SFO v Rolls-Royce PLC and internal investigation against that test. www.globalinvestigationsreview.com 23 AUSTRALIA

Where legal advice is given by an in‑house lawyer during to allow disclosure of privileged information to an Australian regu- the course of or in response to an internal investigation, legal lator, although at least one Australian regulator, ASIC, offers a pro professional privilege may still attach to that advice, provided the forma agreement to facilitate disclosure of privileged information to in-house lawyer was a qualified lawyer acting in the capacity of an it on a voluntary basis. independent professional adviser. Independence is crucial. In order The UK decision Property Alliance Group Limited v The Royal to promote such independence, in-house lawyers should maintain Bank Of Scotland Plc [2015] EWHC 1557 (Ch) potentially offers their practising certificates, maintain secure files that are separate some further guidance. There, the Court considered whether com- from the remainder of the organisation, and ensure their legal and munication with regulatory bodies in the course of an investiga- non‑legal work functions are separated as much as possible. tion was capable of attracting privilege. It held that disclosure by In the UK, documents produced and communications made by individuals and entities to regulators will not necessarily result in in-house lawyers in the course of undertaking internal investiga- a waiver of privilege if it occurs confidentially and for the limited tions are not necessarily protected by privilege. In the RBS Rights purpose of the ongoing investigation. Such communications and Issue Litigation [2016] EWHC 3161 (Ch), the English High Court disclosures are capable of retaining privilege on the basis they are considered that not all officers and employees of the company should subject to a limited waiver in respect of the relevant regulatory body be treated as a client for the purpose of legal professional privilege only. However, importantly, the privilege may be lost if the party and that certain transcripts and notes from interviews conducted claiming privilege later seeks to rely on the findings of the regulatory by the in-house lawyers gathered during an internal investigation body with which it communicated. therefore were not considered to be lawyer–client communications There are also many other ways in which privilege can be and were not protected by legal professional privilege. Australian waived. As confidentiality is an essential precondition to the exist- courts have not taken this narrow approach as to who constitutes a ence and maintenance of the privilege, waiver will often occur where client, however, they have taken differing approaches about whether the actions of a party are plainly inconsistent with the maintenance lawyers’ notes of interviews of witnesses are protected by privilege, of that confidentiality. This can include where the substance of legal depending on the particular circumstances. advice is disclosed in company announcements, where legal advice Issues also frequently arise as to whether privilege attaches to is referred to in correspondence in order to support a position documents prepared by third parties. Third-party service providers, (including in correspondence with regulators), or when the effect of such as information technology consultants or forensic accountants legal advice is disclosed and recorded in minutes of board meetings. (among others) may need to be involved in the investigation process, Where an investigation deals with cross-border subject matter, including to provide specific advice in relation to narrow or discrete the company should take into account the fact that rules regarding issues. In Australia, privilege can attach to documents prepared privilege can vary between jurisdictions, so that communications by these third parties, provided the document was created for the protected by privilege in Australia may not receive the same treat- dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice or for use in actual or ment elsewhere. anticipated litigation. When engaging third parties, the engagement letter should clearly specify the limited purpose for which those Concluding comments third parties are engaged, their obligations to maintain confidential- Internal investigations are an important tool for identifying, mini- ity, and confirm that disclosure of any privileged documents to them mising and remediating actual or alleged corporate wrongdoing. will not constitute a waiver to the world at large. The way in which an internal investigation is conducted can also In Australia, whether ‘limited waiver’ arrangements are effective have significant benefits for preparing for and responding to any to allow disclosure of privileged information to a regulator, while associated civil and criminal proceedings. Yet, there is obviously no maintaining privilege against third parties, was recently examined in one size fits all solution. The subject matter of each internal investi- Cantor v Audi Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 139. There, the Federal gation, along with any regulatory involvement, will shape the many Court of Australia considered whether legal advice disclosed to a forensic decisions to be made during each investigation. German regulator in response to its requests for information from Having in place an appropriate regime for conducting internal the company during the course of its investigations maintained investigations, taking into account the topics outlined in this article privilege for the purpose of the Australian litigation. The Court held (as well as the effective conduct of internal investigations), is viewed that privilege was maintained as against the applicants, because the positively by Australian courts and regulators as a sign of good cor- document had been provided in circumstances of confidentiality porate governance. Indeed, when used properly, the internal investi- such that any waiver of privilege was limited to the German regula- gations process is not only a valuable part of a company’s arsenal to tor. That regulator had no authority to waive that privilege, except to respond to allegations of wrongful conduct, but a deterrent to future the extent compelled by law, which had not been successfully forced wrongful conduct, thereby yielding an even greater benefit to the upon the regulator. However, Australian courts are yet to authorita- company in the medium to long term. tively determine whether ‘limited waiver’ arrangements are effective

24 The Asia-Pacific Investigations Review 2018 HANDLING INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS

Rani John James Morse DLA Piper DLA Piper

Rani John, a partner with DLA Piper in Sydney, is a leading investi- James Morse, a partner with DLA Piper in Sydney, is an accredited gations and dispute resolution lawyer, with wide-ranging and deep specialist in commercial litigation, who has extensive experience in experience in complex, high-profile and large-scale commercial liti- numerous aspects of commercial litigation and dispute resolution, gation, regulatory investigations and advice work. She is described including internal and external investigations. by clients in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2014 as ‘a fierce and determined James regularly advises both companies and individuals in mat- litigator, noted for her confidence-inspiring tactical instincts and ters of differing size and scope in various state, territory and federal good judgement,’ and in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2016 as a ‘highly jurisdictions. He frequently acts and advises in claims against com- intelligent and commercially savvy litigator’ and has been recog- pany directors and officers, and other professionals, with a focus on nised in Chambers Global, Chambers Asia-Pacific, Asia Pacific Legal complex, high-value and multiparty disputes. 500, Best Lawyers, Benchmark Asia Pacific, Euromoney Expert Guides James’ recent experience includes advising and acting for a and Doyles’ Guide as a leading disputes lawyer. She was also one of former CEO of a government corporation in criminal proceedings 100 women worldwide selected for inclusion in Global Investigation arising from an investigation by the Independent Commission Review’s 2015 survey ‘Women in Investigations’ and is also ranked in Against Corruption (relating to allegations of fraud and corruption, Chambers Asia-Pacific 2017 for anti-bribery and corruption. among others), and assisting an overseas public entity investigate the Rani has extensive experience in assisting corporations and potential for it to recover hundreds of millions of dollars as a result senior executives in relation to securities investigations (including of possible breaches of duty by previous directors of that entity and for insider trading; breaches of disclosure requirements; market certain third-party suppliers and contractors. manipulation and breaches of directors’ duties), and competition James also assists individuals and corporations to respond and antitrust, foreign bribery, and fraud investigations. She has to requests for documents and information by regulators, as well assisted clients in responding to compulsory notices, in examina- as advising companies, individuals and their insurers on various tions and hearings before the Australian Securities and Investments insurance-related issues associated with fraud, crime, and internal, Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer external or regulatory investigations. Commission and the Australian Federal Police, and in litigation by those regulators, as well as follow-on litigation by third parties. She has also assisted clients to navigate governance, media and reputational issues connected with investigations. Rani has authored or co-authored a number of publications relating to investigations, including the Australia chapter of The International Investigations Review by Law Business Research over four editions, and ‘Internal investigations and legal professional privilege – don’t get caught in the grey zone’ in the June 2014 edition of Governance Directions.

Level 22, No. 1 Martin Place DLA Piper is a global law firm with lawyers in the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Middle Sydney, NSW 2000 East, positioning us to help companies with their legal needs around the world. Australia We strive to be the leading global business law firm by delivering quality and value to our Tel: +61 2 9286 8000 clients. We achieve this through practical and innovative legal solutions that help our clients succeed. We deliver consistent services across our platform of practices and sectors in all matters Rani John we undertake. [email protected] Our clients range from multinational, Global 1000 and Fortune 500 enterprises to emerging companies developing industry-leading technologies. They include more than half of the Fortune James Morse 250 and nearly half of the FTSE 350 or their subsidiaries. We also advise governments and public [email protected] sector bodies around the world. Our global investigations practice has handled some of the highest profile investigations www.dlapiper.com in the world. With lawyers on the ground in more than 30 countries, DLA Piper clients benefit from multidisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional teams that are quickly and cost-effectively staffed to address every type of corporate, regulatory and internal investigation. Our lawyers regularly conduct criminal, regulatory and internal investigations, defend clients in court when necessary, and develop or help develop proactive compliance programmes and conduct internal audits.