Daniel Streim

Managing Associate

Washington, D.C.


Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Daniel Streim has a diverse practice that includes corporate compliance counseling, government investigations and regulatory enforcement actions, and complex business litigation. Dan has worked with clients across a wide array of industries, including tech, health care, and finance.

Dan represents industry-leading companies in sensitive and high-value disputes and compliance matters. He regularly counsels clients on regulatory and compliance issues involving fraud, anti-money laundering, corruption, securities and corporate governance, and antitrust. He has substantial experience representing companies and individuals in investigations, government enforcement actions, and complex business litigation matters, including in the areas of securities, financial services, and antitrust and competition.

Dan also assists clients in developing corporate compliance programs, preparing risk assessments, and conducting pre-acquisition and third-party due diligence. In particular, Dan advises clients on compliance with anti-fraud rules, the Bank Secrecy Act and state anti-money laundering laws, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He has particular expertise helping financial institutions--including financial technology companies--navigate increasingly complex anti-money laundering requirements.

Dan maintains a dedicated pro bono practice, and has represented clients in matters related to landlord-tenant rights, human trafficking, public international law, and veterans' benefits.

Posts by: Daniel Streim

DOJ and FTC Stand Their Ground on Comity Policy Despite Second Circuit’s Decision in Vitamin C Case

International Flags on poles DOJ and FTC Stand Their Ground on Comity Policy Despite 2d Circuit’s Decision in Vitamin C Case

Last September, we discussed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s opinion in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation vacating a $147 million judgment against Chinese vitamin C manufacturers based on the doctrine of international comity.  That case stemmed from allegations that the defendants illegally fixed the price and output levels of vitamin C that they exported to the United States.  In reversing the district court’s decision to deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Second Circuit held that the district court should have deferred to the Chinese government’s explanation that Chinese law compelled the defendants to coordinate the price and output of vitamin C.

READ MORE