The terms of a CCA are negotiated between the defendant and the government. For example, the agreement could require the defendant to acknowledge wrongdoing, pay refunds, or take certain steps to prevent future wrongdoing. For example, a data protection authority could ask a company to fire executives responsible for misconduct, put in place a stronger compliance program, submit to an independent monitor to ensure good behavior, or all of that – and maybe even more. While companies would likely have informed the SFO prior to the disclosure of confidential information, the obligation, and perhaps awaiting an SFO agreement, could slow down a company`s internal and external consultations during the DPA process. The chapter does not address how a company must manage its obligation, under market abuse regulations, to “inform the public as quickly as possible” when inside information is disclosed during the CCA negotiations on these requirements. Companies should address this risk from the outset to ensure that their regulatory obligations to the market can be met. After a CCA, the government will charge an accused, but agrees not to proceed with these charges. In return, the defendant agrees to meet certain requirements or conditions. If the accused completes his final agreement, the government agrees to drop the costs. But if the accused refutes and violates the terms of the CCA, the government can proceed with the prosecution. Discussions on the possible implementation of a prosecution agreement in Canada began in February 2016. Prior to the CCA, Canada already had a “prosecutorial discretion” that “allowed insulting companies to negotiate a non-criminal penalty for a misdemeanor.”  In June 2018, Canada adopted a CCA through provisions of the C-74 omnibus budget implementation act, which amended the penal code.   According to the Law Times, the data protection authority is changing the way Canadian courts prosecute economic crime, which involves a redress system in which offenders can escape conviction if they “cooperate with the Crown and the courts.”  The Times quoted Ottawa-based lawyer Patrick McCann, who stated that the DPA would “align Canada with many other countries that have deferred policing agreements, including the United States and the United Kingdom.