umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Seminar

15 June 2017: Seminar “What does your organization know?"

15 June 2017: Seminar “What does your organization know?"

15 June 2017: Seminar “What does your organization know?"

24.05.2017 NL law

The increased digitization of communication makes it more difficult to keep track of information that enters a company. Whether the incoming information reaches the right employees often depends on chance. But sharing or not sharing certain information can have far-reaching legal consequences.

Even if there is an understandable explanation why, for instance, important information about a customer doesn’t reach the right department, the organization as a whole may still be deemed to have the knowledge at hand – and may be expected to act on it. Not responding to an unsolicited email may constitute an infringement of the cartel prohibition, which may result in very large fines being imposed. An innocent slip of the tongue about developments at a listed company can expose organizations to penalties due to the use of inside information. To create awareness of these types of risks, Stibbe will host a seminar about dissemination and protection of information within organizations: "What does your organization know?"

Programme:

  • Opening by Lineke Sneller, Professor in IT Value at Nyenrode Business University and member of the supervisory board at Achmea, ProRail, CCV and other companies.
  • Which knowledge of employees is attributed to companies? – Branda Katan, Lawyer and specialist in Commercial Litigation at Stibbe. Branda recently finished a PhD on this topic.
  • How do companies prevent competition law fines as a result of receiving market information? - Floris ten Have, Lawyer and expert in Competition Law at Stibbe.
  • When does an organization have inside information? - Professor Daan Doorenbos, Lawyer and expert in Corporate Crime at Stibbe.
  • How can an (investigative) authority or other party specifically determine which documents and information are held by the company? - Kevin Strooy, Senior Forensic IT Expert at Fox-IT.
  • Close and drinks

This seminar is free. To attend or for more information, please send an email to: StibbeEvents@Stibbe.com.

When: 15 June 2017 from 14.30 -17.00.

Where: Stibbe office: Beethovenplein 10 – Amsterdam.

Kindly note the seminar will be held in Dutch.

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more