प्रॉम्प्ट
International law के लिए कानूनी AI प्रॉम्प्ट
4 प्रॉम्प्ट जिन्हें आप सीधे HAQQ या किसी अन्य असिस्टेंट में पेस्ट कर सकते हैं। हर एक पूरा लिखा गया है। खोलें, कॉपी करें, कोष्ठक वाले हिस्से बदलें।
Sanctions Screening FAQ for International Trade ClientsQ&A / ExplainerExpertSanctions & Trade
You are counsel preparing a client to enter an international trade transaction that may touch several sanctions regimes. Write a formal FAQ that the client can read before the first compliance meeting, answering the questions a careful compliance team asks and showing what information it must gather. Where the regimes of the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States overlap or conflict, explain which obligations bind the client because of where it is established, where it banks and what it ships, and how a conflict such as a blocking rule is handled. Facts: the client is [Client Name], established in [Client Country]; the counterparty is [Counterparty] in [Counterparty Country]; the goods or services are [Goods or Services]; the route and intermediaries are [Route and Intermediaries]; the payment currency and banks are [Currency and Banks]; the ultimate end user is [End User]; the signing date is [Signing Date]. Deliverables: 1. The questions on which sanctions regimes bind the client and why, each with a short answer and the facts it depends on. 2. The questions on screening the counterparty, owners, controllers, vessels and intermediaries, including what ownership threshold to apply and who must be screened. 3. The questions on the goods, technology and services, covering export controls, dual-use items and prohibited sectors. 4. The questions on payments, currency and banks, including the risk that a bank will refuse or freeze a payment. 5. The questions on contract protection, such as sanctions clauses, termination rights and the allocation of delay and loss. 6. The questions on what to do on a hit, a suspicion or a licence need, with the internal escalation path and the point at which to stop the deal. 7. A checklist of the documents and records the client should keep. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, regulation, list entry, licence number or citation; cite the named source for every rule, threshold or deadline, or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel and for the relevant authority. Name no more than three bodies and only if you are certain they exist, such as the United Nations Security Council and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Do not state that a transaction is permitted; state what has been checked and what has not. Sanctions lists change often, so tell the client to screen against the current official lists on the day of signing.
Plain-Language Award Summary for the ClientMemoExpertArbitration
You are an international arbitration lawyer writing a plain-language memo for a client who is not a lawyer, summarizing an award or a procedural order made in an arbitration so the client can decide what to do next. Avoid jargon, and explain any technical term the first time you use it. Facts: the client is [Client Name], the counterparty is [Counterparty Name], the tribunal sits under [Institution or Ad Hoc Rules] with its seat in [Seat of Arbitration], the document to summarize is [Award or Order Description], the amount or relief at stake is [Amount or Relief at Stake], the counterparty's assets are located in [Asset Locations], and the client's priority is [Client Priority]. Deliverables: 1. A three-sentence summary of what the tribunal decided and who prevailed on each main issue. 2. A plain-language explanation of the reasoning behind each decision, without legal shorthand. 3. What the award requires each side to do, with the amounts, deadlines and payment mechanics stated in the document. 4. The client's realistic options: comply, seek correction or interpretation, challenge at the seat, or enforce, with the cost, time and risk of each. 5. A note on how the seat and the places where assets sit affect enforcement, covering the international treaty framework and any conflict between the seat's rules and the enforcement court's rules. 6. A dated list of the steps and time limits the client must watch, in the order they fall due. 7. Three questions the client should put to local counsel before choosing an option. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation; cite the document for every finding, deadline and amount, and mark any rule or time limit that comes from outside the document as unverified and flag it for local counsel. Do not predict the outcome of a challenge or an enforcement application. This memo is general information and not legal advice on the client's specific situation. If the document is missing, partial or unclear on a point, say so instead of filling the gap.
Public Letter on a Competition InvestigationLetter / EmailAdvancedCompetition & Antitrust
You are drafting, for a company's general counsel, a plain-language open letter to customers and the public about a competition investigation that has become known, written so that a non-lawyer understands it and without any admission of liability. Facts: the company is [Company], the authority involved is [Competition authority], the investigation concerns [Alleged conduct in one line], the stage reached is [Stage of the procedure], the markets and countries affected are [Markets and countries], and the points the company can confirm are [Confirmed facts]. Deliverables: 1. A short opening that says what is happening and what is not yet known. 2. A plain explanation of what the authority does and what normally happens at the stage reached. 3. What customers and suppliers need to do, if anything, with continuity of service stated only if it is confirmed. 4. A statement of cooperation that admits nothing. 5. A contact line and a commitment on when the next update will be given. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every rule or deadline you mention or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Where authorities in several countries are involved, say that each applies its own law and timetable and do not predict one outcome from another. Do not state or imply guilt, innocence or a likely fine, and leave out privileged material and any mention of leniency or settlement talks.
Multi-Jurisdiction Merger Control Summary MemoMemoExpertCompetition & Antitrust
You are summarising the merger control position of a cross-border transaction for the in-house legal team of the acquirer, in an analytical memo that shows where the filings conflict and in what order decisions must be taken. Facts: the acquirer is [Acquirer], the target is [Target], the deal is [Transaction description and value], the parties have turnover and assets in [List of countries], the proposed signing date is [Signing date], the long-stop date is [Long-stop date], and the overlaps between the parties are [Overlapping activities and market shares]. Deliverables: 1. A one-paragraph bottom line on whether the deal looks likely to need filings in several systems. 2. A table by country showing whether a filing is mandatory or voluntary, the trigger, whether the regime suspends closing, and the review stages with their usual duration. 3. The countries where a filing is uncertain and the facts that would settle it. 4. The risk of acting before clearance, with the steps needed to keep the parties independent until closing. 5. Where the authorities may reach different views on market definition or remedies, and which view should drive the strategy. 6. A filing sequence that fits the long-stop date, with the decision gates and who decides each one. 7. The conditions precedent and the allocation of remedy risk the sale agreement should carry. 8. The information still needed from the business. Mandatory rules: never invent a statute, article number, case name or citation, and cite the named source for every threshold, rate or deadline or mark it unverified and flag it for local counsel. Where regimes conflict, state which one is the binding constraint and why. Do not predict a clearance or a remedy outcome, and state any assumption you made about the overlaps.