This blog by Anamitra Mukhopadhyay at JMW is about another case related to the Disclosure Pilot.
The facts of the case are well summarised in the article, so I won’t go into that. However, I think the key thing here is that this piece demonstrates the importance of considering appropriately a wide base of potential sources for a eDisclosure exercise. This doesn’t mean you have to collect or process everything, but it is better to consider and have a reasoned and documented decision early on in a case. This could include related sources that maybe in other jurisdictions depending on the circumstances and specifics of the parties.
At A&M, we are used to dealing with both structured and unstructured data from around the world with local offices in most key regions. This allows for local, speedy and cost-effective solutions to be deployed in a consistent and defensible manner.
We have been talking a great deal recently about the DPS – and have conducted some bespoke research of senior lawyers regarding their thoughts around the pilot. To find out more about the research and whether they think the DPS is fit for purpose, take a look here: https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/insights/disclosure-pilot-scheme-inside-view
The Watchlist recommendation was submitted by the JP Morgan US Global Financial Crimes Compliance team. However, up until Nigeria’s discovery motion JP Morgan had only searched its EMEA database and not its US database and so any US specific compliance concerns of the type discussed might very well not have surfaced.