Amazon’s financial records have revealed that the Luxembourg data protection supervisory authority, the Commission Nationale pour la Protection des Données (“CNPD”), is fining the retailer’s European arm (Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.) an eyewatering 746 million euros (£636m or $838m) for breaches of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

When the GDPR was introduced in May 2018, the potential for huge financial sanctions grabbed many headlines: it gives European supervisory authorities the power to impose fines of up to 20 million euros or 4% of annual global turnover (whichever is greater) for breaches of the GDPR. There have been some undeniably sizeable fines issued under the GDPR in the last three years. But the level of this particular fine is extraordinary: it’s the largest GDPR fine issued to date by a considerable margin. The second largest fine ever imposed under the GDPR was a comparatively paltry 50 million euros, levied against Google by CNIL (the French supervisory authority) in early 2019 (which you can read about here).

The following is an excerpt from McGuireWoods’ recent contribution to the Global Investigations Review’s (GIR’s) The Guide to Sanctions – Second Edition published in July 2021. Authors Alex Brackett, Pat Rowan and Jason Cowley, each partners in the firm’s Government Investigations and White Collar Litigation department, penned a chapter on the Impacts of Sanctions and Export Controls on Supply Chains. The full publication is available here.

Compliance strategies

Sanctions and export controls can be highly dynamic in the speed with which they can be implemented and adjusted. Accordingly, businesses operating with international supply chains need to be prepared to be equally nimble. Fortunately, there are relatively straightforward and scalable strategies that companies can deploy to ensure they have a robust and effective compliance framework through which to operate, as detailed below.

Avista Capital Partners has announced it will sell Arcadia Consumer Healthcare to Bansk Group.

Arcadia, based in Bridgewater, N.J., is a provider of over-the-counter medicines, vitamins and nutritional supplements. Among its flagship brands: Nizoral, NATURELO, Kaopectate, Fungi-Nail and Opti-Nail. The company was formerly known as Kramer Laboratories.

Avista Capital Partners, based in New…

Sedlar-Sholty, et al. v. Acclivity West, LLC, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on July 19, 2021 seeking damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation in connection with a life settlement investment Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiffs are numerous individual and trustee investors who made investments in life insurance policies, either independently or through their retirement programs.  Defendants are Acclivity West LLC (“Acclivity West”), a California company, and several owners and employees of Acclivity West.

Cressey & Co. has announced a significant growth investment in Home Care Pulse.

Home Care Pulse, based in Rexburg, Idaho, is a provider of satisfaction management, training, and performance benchmarking solutions. Founded in 2008, the company supports the home care industry and other post-acute end markets.

Cressey & Co., with offices in Chicago…

Aquiline Capital Partners has acquired Avera eCare from Avera Health, according to a news release.

Avera eCare, based in Sioux Falls, S.D. is a telemedicine services provider. The company reports that it is partnered with more than 600 healthcare systems, rural hospitals, outpatient clinics, long-term care facilities, assisted livings and schools across the country.…

In Stop Illinois Health Care Fraud, LLC v. Sayeed, No. 12-CV-09306, 2021 WL 2331338 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2021), an Illinois district court issued an order after a recent bench trial finding that the defendants violated the False Claims Act (FCA), Illinois False Claims Act (IFCA), and the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) when they paid a community care organization for access to the organization’s raw client data, and then used that data to solicit clients for Medicare reimbursed healthcare services. Although this arrangement consisted of no direct referrals, the district court – following the 7th Circuit’s instructions on remand – held that such arrangements constitute prohibited, indirect referrals under what the court called a “file access theory.” Under this theory, the district court found that AKS liability attached because the payments were intended as remuneration for access to records that leads to the solicitation of additional healthcare services. This case is important as it illustrates once again how broadly the government and courts define “referral” in the AKS context.

Hughes & Company has announced it has closed its first private equity fund, Hughes Growth Equity Fund I, at $116 million.

This figure exceeds the original target of $100 million.

Based in Chicago, Hughes & Company seeks control and minority equity investments exclusively in healthcare software and technology-enabled services companies, Founded in 2011, the firm has wide…