Daniel Streim

Managing Associate

Washington, D.C.

Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Daniel Streim has a diverse civil and criminal practice that includes complex commercial litigation, corporate compliance counseling, and government enforcement actions. 

Dan represents industry-leading companies in sensitive and high-value disputes, and has experience representing clients in securities, antitrust, and insurance recovery litigations. Dan also counsels clients in white collar and regulatory matters involving a wide array of issues, including money laundering, fraud, and corruption.  He assists clients in developing corporate compliance programs and conducts internal investigations, risk assessments, and pre-acquisition and third-party due diligence.

Dan also advises clients on compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and state anti-money laundering laws.  He helps financial institutions navigate an increasingly complex and aggressive enforcement environment, and regularly counsels clients--in particular financial technology companies--on federal and state licensing requirements for money transmitters and digital currency activity businesses.

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.