Hong Kong SFC Signals Tougher Scrutiny of Legal Privilege Claims
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has signaled that it intends to take a tougher approach to claims of legal professional privilege, particularly where companies assert privilege broadly over internal investigation materials, documents collected during dawn raids, or materials responsive to compulsory regulatory requests.
The warning follows a recent Hong Kong court ruling rejecting privilege claims over an internal investigation report and related materials because their dominant purpose was found to be satisfying regulatory reporting obligations, rather than obtaining legal advice or preparing for litigation. The decision underscores that the involvement of lawyers, confidentiality labels, or even a limited waiver to a regulator does not itself establish privilege.
In this post, our colleagues examine the ruling, the SFC’s stated intention to “push back hard” against over-broad privilege claims, and the practical implications for companies conducting internal investigations and responding to regulatory inquiries. The post also considers how companies can preserve legitimate privilege claims while navigating investigations that may simultaneously involve fact-finding, legal advice, remediation, and regulatory engagement. Click here to read the full post.
DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel Broadens Scope of Executive Privilege to Apply to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers
On August 10, 2026, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that executive privilege may protect certain presidential communications with private advisers who hold no formal government role.
The opinion establishes a generally applicable Executive Branch position that private status alone does not place communications outside the presidential communications privilege. Instead, the analysis turns on whether the communications concern official presidential decision-making, involve the President or his direct advisers, and remain confidential.
We examine the opinion’s reasoning, its limits, and the implications for congressional investigations seeking testimony or records from private presidential advisers. Click here to read the full post.
English Privilege Ruling Carries Important Lessons for Internal Investigations
A recent English High Court decision could significantly affect how companies structure internal investigations and legal communications under English law. In Aabar Holdings v. Glencore, the court held that certain internal corporate communications created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice may be protected by legal advice privilege even where no lawyer is directly involved in the communication. The decision provides important clarification on the scope of English legal privilege, particularly for multinational companies navigating cross-border investigations and compliance reviews, while also underscoring the continued importance of carefully defining the corporate “client group” when seeking legal advice.
