Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

The “Iron Curtain” has Fallen: A Radical Shift in Lawyers Representing Whistleblowers

Whistleblower Network News (WNN) recently revealed, for the first time, that major corporate law firms specializing in representing defendants before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have, in some cases, switched sides and are now representing whistleblowers who are turning in corporate fraudsters.  All but one of the firms identified by the SEC did not call public attention to their new-found client base – most likely because they did not want to upset their bread-and-butter corporate clients.  It appears that major corporate law firms now understand that the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower reward provisions are incredibly effective in incentivizing corporate insiders to report fraud, even when those insiders are executives usually on the other side of a whistleblower issue.  Lawyers who traditionally represent whistleblowers understand that Dodd-Frank is well designed and is being professionally implemented by the SEC.  Corporate lawyers and their firms have apparently caught on to this new reality and are now representing whistleblowers.

That defense firms are now actively engaged in representing whistleblowers cannot be denied.  Lists of law firms that have prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases, disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed with the SEC, document that 9.3% of firms that have obtained rewards on behalf of whistleblowers were traditional defense firms.  These firms include some of the largest defense firms in the United States that represent numerous corporations subjected to SEC enforcement actions for violating securities laws as well as firms that have defended corporations against whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

If that statistic holds, it is clear hundreds of corporate defense firms or their attorneys are representing whistleblowers in confidential investigations.  Why are these cases still under review?  Dodd-Frank is still a young law, and the vast majority of cases have not yet resulted in formal reward determinations.  Cases often take five years or more to be finalized, and as of the end of Fiscal Year 2021 over 51,000 whistleblower cases had been filed with the SEC.  Furthermore, under the FOIA requests the SEC only released the names of law firms that prevailed in a whistleblower case.  The names of firms that did not prevail in a claim, or firms that represent whistleblowers in ongoing investigations, were not disclosed.

Time will tell whether defense firms’ representation of whistleblowers who accuse their employers (or other corporate wrongdoers) of fraud is a good or bad development.  But unique issues will arise whenever a firm that primarily generates its profits from representing corporations accused of wrongdoing switches sides and represents a whistleblower who has accused an executive of engaging in fraud.  Although such representations may be permitted under the attorney’s rules of ethics, this does not mean that such representations are always in the best interest of a lawyer’s clients.  There are inherent potential conflicts whenever a defense firm switches sides and decides to represent a whistleblower reporting major corporate crimes.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, one thing is clear: the ethical, policy and legal implications of defense firms representing whistleblowers is a dramatic shift in legal practice and must be carefully evaluated.  Defense firms must understand that whenever they represent a whistleblower, they must zealously advocate on their behalf, even when the precedents set by their cases may be used against their corporate clients.  Likewise, whistleblowers need to be aware of the implications of choosing a lawyer whose primary practice is representing corporate crooks.  Conflicts of interest may not initially be visible but can unfold as a case progresses.

The Revelation

In August of 2022, Bloomberg Law and a draft non-peer-reviewed article published by University of Kansas Professor Alexander Platt raised the issue of which law firms represent whistleblowers.  Bloomberg and Platt obtained lists of law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases.  They used the lists to identify a small number of firms, all of which could be classified as pro-whistleblower firms.  These firms’ practices are centered on fighting corporate fraud and speculated whether these firms were being given preferential treatment by the SEC. Neither publication offered proof of any wrongdoing.  But Platt and Bloomberg did not list all the law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank cases.  Significantly, neither even mentioned the fact that major defense law firms had already filed and won Dodd-Frank cases on behalf of whistleblowers.  Additionally, the two authors did not explore the special issues that could arise when firms dedicated to defending white-collar criminals quietly switch sides.

In response to Platt and Bloomberg, WNN filed its own Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain access to the documents relied upon in the two articles.  The SEC released over 1000 pages of documents to WNN, including all its correspondence with Platt and all the records provided to Platt (and Bloomberg) that identified law firms that successfully represented whistleblowers.

On September 27, 2022, WNN revealed, for the first time, that the SEC had identified 64 law firms that successfully obtained a reward on behalf of a whistleblower.  Among those firms were six that primarily represent corporations and individuals accused of corporate crimes.  These defense firms included industry giants such as Winston & Strawn and Akin Gump.  Together, the defense firms have already obtained over $56 million in rewards on behalf of whistleblowers.  In response to the Platt, Bloomberg, and WNN FOIA requests, the SEC only identified firms that had already prevailed and obtained a reward on behalf of their clients. Approximately 50,000 cases are pending within the SEC’s reward program, and there is a long delay in processing whistleblower cases.  Therefore, one can assume that numerous other pending cases where these or other defense firms are actively representing whistleblowers that were not disclosed by the SEC.

It is important to note that the Dodd-Frank provisions only apply to large fraud cases.  No reward is available unless the SEC issues sanctions against the entity being investigated in excess of $1 million.  Thus, the cases previously targeted by the defense firms and currently under investigation by the SEC would implicate major frauds.

The defense firms identified by WNN as being listed in the SEC-released materials were:

Winston & Strawn, LLP:  Winston advertises itself as defending “companies and individuals in SEC enforcement and regulatory matters related to allegations involving securities fraud.”  But not mentioned on its webpage is that it also represented a securities law whistleblower who obtained a $2.2 million reward.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP: Akin Gump also describes its practice as representing “companies and individuals” under investigation by various regulatory agencies, including the SEC.  Akin’s attorneys obtained a Dodd-Frank reward of $800,000 award.

Haynes and Boone, LLP: This 600-lawyer defense firm’s website explained that it has “represented employers” in “whistle blowing.”  However, the SEC documents revealed the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a “20%” award against a corporate fraudster.

Levine Lee LLP:  Although this firm markets itself as successfully representing clients accused of violating anti-fraud laws, like the other defense firms, it has apparently started a whistleblower practice and obtained a reward of $10 million on behalf of a whistleblower.

Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein LLP:  This defense firm prevailed in cases filed on behalf of two separate whistleblowers and had considerable success.  Their whistleblower clients obtained $15 million and $27 million in awards.

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC: Although this firm “regularly represents financial institutions” in “fraud” cases, the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a $1.8 million award.  Sallah Astarita was the only firm that listed its Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower case on its website as among the victories achieved by one of its partners.

The SEC’s Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

Professor Platt and Bloomberg Law criticized the SEC’s Dodd-Frank program as having a bias in favor of a small number of whistleblower-rights law firms that had employed former SEC lawyers.  However, the information revealed by WNN completely refuted this negative implication raised by Platt and Bloomberg.  Instead, the FOIA documents support a finding that the SEC program is a paradigm of fairness and openness.  The extensive correspondence between Platt and the SEC demonstrates that the Commission freely disclosed the names of the firms that had won cases while carefully balancing the confidentiality needs of the whistleblower clients.  These numbers illustrate a program open to law firms regardless of their reputation or whether they employ former government lawyers.  They also reveal a program open to working directly with whistleblowers and rewarding them even if they had no lawyer.  Not one document produced provided any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, bias, or unprofessionalism.  The numbers speak for themselves:

  • Over 50 pro se whistleblowers won cases on their own behalf.  This high percentage of unrepresented applicants who successfully navigated the SEC’s program is remarkable.  In other legal programs, pro se whistleblowers (and other unrepresented persons) lose the vast majority of their cases.  Not so under Dodd-Frank. This demonstrates a high level of commitment by the SEC to helping individual whistleblowers who could not afford or obtain lawyers.
  • Of the 64 law firms that prevailed in a Dodd-Frank reward claim, only 12 had hired former SEC lawyers to assist in the cases.  Thus, the vast majority of successful law firms (52 of the 64) had no “insider” connection to the SEC.   This fact demonstrates the Commission’s staff’s willingness to work closely with attorneys who had no “friends” in the agency and whose information was solely merit-based. Moreover, a significant percentage of the firms that did employ former SEC or Justice Department lawyers were the very defense firms that Bloomberg Law and Platt did not discuss or analyze.
  • The Commission’s staff demonstrated no bias against firms based on their practice areas.  The Commission’s enforcement staff and Whistleblower Office worked with law firms that were defense-based (6) and law firms that traditionally represent whistleblowers or employees in lawsuits against companies (many of the remaining 58).

The FOIA documents support a finding that the Commission’s staff is open to whistleblowers, regardless of whether they represent themselves or whether or not the firms raising the concerns have any “insider” connections.   Organizations such as the National Whistleblower Center, which regularly works with whistleblowers, have widely praised the program, as have the last three Chairs of the SEC, appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden.  The Commission itself confirmed that as of September 2021, it returned over $1.3 billion to harmed investors based on whistleblower cases.

The Future Role of Defense Firms in Dodd-Frank Cases

The SEC cannot implement special rules that would be prejudicial to traditional defense firms that file whistleblower cases.   Likewise, whistleblowers have the right to hire counsel of their choice and, in most cases, can knowingly waive potential conflicts of interest.  But the mere fact that traditional defense firms can lawfully represent whistleblowers without violating any SEC or local Bar rules does not address the special problems that may exist when a defense firm represents a whistleblower.  For example, such representations can result in significant conflicts of interest that may not be apparent at the commencement of a case. This may result in the whistleblower’s attorneys not advocating for legal precedents that could harm their other corporate clients.

Traditional defense firms should implement internal procedures to guard against potential problems based on the obvious conflicts that can arise when they represent clients on both sides of whistleblower-disclosure cases.  More significantly, it is absolutely crucial that whistleblowers fully understand the potential for conflicts of interest when deciding on the best attorneys to hire.  Attorneys working for defense firms must clearly spell out these issues and ensure that when representing a whistleblower, their prospective client is fully aware of all the risks and limitations.

Among the rules, procedures, and practices that defense firms should implement or carefully consider are:

  1. At the very least, defense firms representing whistleblowers should identify this on their websites.  Corporate clients should know that the firm also represents whistleblowers and should be able to question counsel on these matters so they feel comfortable that no conflicts would arise.
  2. Whistleblower clients need full disclosure of how the defense firm’s primary practice may impact the representation.  This is particularly true whenever a case would require advocacy on behalf of a whistleblower that could expand legal interpretations benefiting whistleblowers.  It is hard to reconcile how a law firm defending some clients against whistleblowers can effectively argue before administrative agencies or courts of law legal precedents that could expand the rights of whistleblowers.  These expanded rights could and would ultimately not be to the advantage of corporate clients accused of wrongdoing.
  3. Similarly, defense firms need to reconcile how they can advocate for a whistleblower who engaged in tactics, such as removing documents or one-party tape recording, that their corporate clients may find offensive.  This is particularly true when the zealous representation of a whistleblower requires expanding the ability of whistleblowers to obtain evidence of wrongdoing, and the precedent this advocacy establishes may be used against the firm’s current or future corporate clients.
  4. The potential for a conflict of interest needs to be fully explored in every case.  One issue that firms and clients may not be fully aware of is how the “related action” provisions of the laws impact potential conflicts.  Once the SEC obtains a sanction of over $1 million in any case, all “related actions” become eligible for a reward.  Sanctions issued by other law enforcement or regulatory agencies based on “related” claims can form the basis of a reward.   When examining whether a conflict exists, law firms need to look beyond the SEC action and determine witnesses, parties, and issues that may be implicated in a “related action.” This determination is critical even if the related action is not based on any securities law violation.
  5. Defense firms can also explore ways to refer potential whistleblower clients to attorneys whose practices are based solely on representing whistleblowers.  These referrals would help ensure that the defense firm is not conflicted (either as a matter of ethics or marketing) and that the client can obtain the best counsel.

Conclusion: The Iron Curtain has Fallen

Whistleblower representation is entering a new world.  The “iron curtain” that formerly separated law firms that represent corporate crooks from those that represent whistleblowers has fallen. This new reality is not without serious risks to whistleblowers (and corporate clients).  Whistleblowers must be fully aware of the dangers of having a corporate law firm represent them.  Corporate law firms must institute procedures to guard against conflicts of interest and to ensure they can zealously represent whistleblowers.  Zealous representation is needed even when the precedents established in these cases may create trouble for their other client base.

At the end of the day, the fact that defense law firms are now representing whistleblowers affirms the success of Dodd-Frank.  It is an affirmation of the critical nature of the information whistleblowers provide to the government and the role of this insider information in stopping otherwise hard to detect corporate crimes.  The “iron curtain” has fallen, but it has fallen in the direction that helps whistleblowers.  It has fallen in the direction that affirms the quality of their disclosures. It refutes the often-repeated slander that whistleblowers are somehow simply disgruntled employees.

Whistleblowers are essential to ensuring fairness in the markets, holding wrongdoers accountable, and deterring future wrongdoing.  The SEC has publicly recognized this, and now leading corporate defense attorneys have quietly recognized it. Defense firms like Akin Gump, Winston and Strawn, and Hayes and Boone got it right when they advocated for paying whistleblowers substantial rewards.  Whistleblowers whose information holds corporate criminals accountable deserve large rewards. These rewards are in the public interest, and the SEC Dodd-Frank whistleblower program must be protected, enhanced and expanded.

Sources:

  1. Whistleblower Network News, “WNN Exclusive: SEC FOIA Documents Reveal Big Law Defense Firms are Confidentially Representing Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers,” (September 27, 2022)
  2. List of Law Firms that Obtained Rewards in Whistleblower Cases as of 2021
  3. List of Awards Obtained by the Six Defense Law Firms
  4. List of pro se Cases where Whistleblowers Obtained a Reward
  5. FAQ on the SEC’s Dodd-Frank Act program
  6. FAQ on Confidentiality of Dodd-Frank Act claims

Article By Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.

An Investment Worth Making: How Structural Changes to the EB-5 Program Can Ensure Real Estate Developers Build a Good Foundation for Their Capital Projects

The United States has made major changes to the rules governing its EB-5 program through the enactment of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA). The RIA was a component of H.R. 2471—the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022—which President Biden signed into law on March 15, 2022. And while the RIA made many sweeping changes to the EB-5 landscape, including establishing an EB-5 Integrity Fund comprised of annual funds collected from regional centers to support auditing and fraud detection operations, two changes in particular are pertinent to developers funding capital investments. First, the RIA altered how developers calculate EB-5 job creation. Second, the RIA prioritizes the processing and adjudication of EB-5 investment in rural area projects, and it tweaked the incentives for high unemployment area and infrastructure projects. Paying careful attention to each of these two areas will enable developers to maximize the benefits afforded to it through the changes enacted by the RIA.

THE RIA MODIFIES JOB CREATION CALCULATIONS

New commercial enterprises under the EB-5 program must create full-time employment for no fewer than 10 United States citizens, United States nationals, or foreign nationals who are either permanent residents or otherwise lawfully authorized for employment in the United States. The RIA made three major changes to how regional centers measure job creation to meet this 10-employee threshold:

  • First, the RIA permits indirect job creation to account for only up to 90% of the initial job creation requirement. For example, if a developer invests in a small retail-residential complex that will eventually create 30 new jobs with the retail stores that will move into the shopping spaces, the developer could count only nine of those jobs toward the 10-employee threshold.
  • Second, the RIA permits jobs created by construction activity lasting less than two years to account for only up to 75% of the initial job creation requirement. The RIA does allow for these jobs to count for direct job creation, however, by multiplying the total number of jobs estimated to be created by the fraction of the two-year period the construction activity will last. For example, if construction on the small retail-residential complex will last only one year and create 100 new jobs, then the RIA would calculate 50 new jobs (100 total jobs multiplied by one-half (one year of a two-year period)) but the developer could count only 7.5 of those 50 jobs toward the 10-employee threshold.
  • Third, while prospective tenants occupying commercial real estate created or improved by the capital investments can count toward the job creation requirement, jobs that are already in existence but have been relocated do not. Therefore, if a restaurant is opening a new location in the small retail-residential complex, the developer could count toward those new jobs toward the job creation requirement. If the restaurant is just moving out of its current location into a space in the retail-residential complex, however, the developer could not count those jobs toward the job creation requirement.

THE RIA CREATES NEW EB-5 VISAS RESERVED FOR TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Under the previous regime, the U.S. government would set aside a minimum of 3,000 EB-5 visas for qualified immigrants who invested in targeted employment areas, which encompassed both rural areas and areas that experienced high unemployment. Now, the RIA requires the U.S. government to set aside 20% of the total number of available visas for qualified immigrants who invest in rural areas, another 10% for qualified immigrants who invest in high unemployment areas, and 2% for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects. Therefore, at a minimum, the RIA reserves nearly a third of all total EB-5 visas issued by the U.S. government for rural projects, high unemployment area projects, and infrastructure projects. Furthermore, and most significantly, the RIA provides that any of these reserved visas that are unused in the fiscal year will remain available in these categories for the next fiscal year.
The changes to the reserved visa structure create significant incentives for qualified immigrants to invest in rural, high unemployment area, and infrastructure projects. If, for example, the United States government calculates that it should issue 10,000 visas in Fiscal Year 1, then the RIA mandates reserving 2,000 visas for rural projects (20% of total), 1,000 for high unemployment area projects (10% of total), and 200 for infrastructure projects (2% of total). These numbers are significant when considering the RIA’s roll-over provision because it pushes projects in these categories to the front of the line for the green card process. If only 500 of the 20,000 visas for rural projects are used in Fiscal Year 1, then the 1,500 unused visas set aside for rural projects roll over to the next fiscal year. Therefore, if the United States government issues 10,000 new visas in Fiscal Year 2, then 3,500 visas will be reserved for rural projects in the new fiscal year (the 1,500 rollover visas from the previous year plus a new 20% of the total number of visas per the RIA), and the high unemployment area and infrastructure project reserved visas would have a new 1,000 (10% of total) and 200 (2% of total) visas in reserve, respectively.

The RIA changed the structures for investing in both targeted employment areas and non-targeted employment areas, however. The RIA raised the minimum investment amount for a targeted employment area by over 50%, increasing the sum from its previous level of US$500,000 to its new level of US$800,000. The RIA similarly raised the non-TEA, standard minimum investment amount from its previous level of US$1 million to now be US$1.05 million.  Additionally, the RIA modified the process for the creation of targeted employment areas: While under the previous regime, the state in which the targeted employment area would be located could send a letter in support of efforts to designate a targeted employment area, the post-RIA EB-5 regime now permits only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to designate targeted employment areas.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The new developments resulting from the RIA will have tangible effects on developers seeking to fund new capital investments. The percentages caps imposed on indirect job creation, relocated jobs, and other categories toward the job creation requirement will likely lengthen the amount of time spent on project creation and completion. These changes also likely should incentivize developers to focus their job creation metrics toward directly created jobs rather than through indirectly created ones. While these changes might increase the length of projects, the broadening of visa reserves through both the percentage caps and the creation of the rollover provisions will likely increase the number of projects in rural areas and high unemployment areas. Developers should carefully consider the composition of their job creation goals and calculate workforce sizes in line with these new requirements. Additionally, developers seeking to ensure they are able to succeed in obtaining visas for their desired employees by avoiding the typical backlog of visa applicants through the EB-5 program should consider investing in rural and high unemployment area projects to take advantage of the broadened application pool.

Article By Brian Graham, Adriana Reyes, and Gregory T. Lewis of K&L Gates

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Metaverse Casinos: A Regulatory Wild West

A New World of Gaming

The metaverse is an immersive online universe on the blockchain where users interact with a multitude of digital worlds and with each other. As in the real world, the metaverse offers a wide variety of activities and entertainment options. The metaverse has become a haven for gaming. Users can explore casino “districts,” offering slots, poker, roulette, blackjack and more, go to shows and nightclubs, and even purchase real estate, including an entire casino. Some platforms within the metaverse are more developed than others, with their own parcels of land, decentralized governmental structures and native tokens. As this space continues to expand into various aspects of daily life, participants in the metaverse ecosystem, and in particular, gaming operators, should proceed with caution as the line between fantasy and reality continues to blur.

The metaverse provides an alternative virtual reality for those who visit, seemingly outside of the legal and regulatory structure of the real world. Now, due to the development of digital assets1 including cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”), visitors can add real-world economic value to some in-game activities. Players can buy, sell, or gamble items in the metaverse for digital assets that can convert to fiat currency, further blurring the lines between a virtual game experience and reality. What seems to some like a game will increasingly have real-world economic consequences for users, and the businesses with which they engage in the metaverse, resulting in more regulatory scrutiny and legal disputes.

Metaverse Gaming vs. Traditional Online Gaming

It is helpful to distinguish metaverse gaming from traditional online gaming. Gaming in the metaverse and online gaming both allow users to play casino games with their friends and social network virtually without the burdens and restrictions of physical travel. Unlike traditional online casinos, the metaverse attempts to replicate the full casino experience, allowing users to explore a digital representation of a casino using a unique avatar and virtual reality technology. Through advancements in technology, users can control their avatar’s behavior in a similar manner to controlling their own conduct in the real world. Essentially, avatars are digital representation of users – they physically walk around and engage with other avatars, including making observations of other avatars’ tells and contributing to an authentic casino experience, all from the comfort of home.

Metaverse casinos generally do not accept traditional fiat currency. A metaverse casino requires a participant to convert their fiat into one of the crypto currencies accepted in the metaverse and deposit funds using a crypto wallet. Users exchange the NFTs and cryptocurrency that they win in the metaverse for fiat currency in the real world, however.

The use of crypto in metaverse gaming has some clear benefits. In addition to providing an immersive interaction compared to fiat-based online gambling platforms, metaverse casinos offer higher levels of security, transparency, and privacy for users. For example, the history of the entire transaction history is accessible on a blockchain. Although the transaction is visible on a blockchain, users may remain anonymous without having to disclose certain personal information, thereby protecting privacy. Deposits and withdrawals are processed virtually instantaneously because there is no third party verifying the transaction.

Regulatory Considerations for Metaverse Gaming

Casino and sports gaming is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States. The regulation is primarily at the state level. Some mistakenly believe the metaverse is insulated from real life legal restrictions. To the contrary, any gaming and wagering activity, which constitutes a game of chance involving the risk of something of value and a prize,2 that is being offered to U.S. citizens in the metaverse (on an unregulated basis) is likely to draw the attention of regulators.

Despite the popularity of metaverse gaming, the top U.S. operators have largely stayed on the sidelines while offshore and smaller companies dominate the space. This is unsurprising for three reasons:

  1. The fact that metaverse gaming lacks a dedicated regulatory framework and online gaming is legal in only a handful of states;

  2. As we wrote previously, the reluctance of regulated gaming companies operating in the U.S. to pursue the legal use of cryptocurrency given its volatility, lack of acceptance, and regulatory and/or legislative hurdles; and

  3. General legal uncertainty.

An operator that wishes to offer a gaming platform to U.S. citizens in the metaverse would need to do so with the express permission and under the oversight of each state’s gaming commission whose residents they serve. This may also require new legislation and regulatory schemes. For example, Wyoming, an early adopter of cryptocurrency, passed legislation in 2021 that allows sportsbooks to accept “digital, crypto and virtual currencies.”3 Generally, however, regulators and legislators are not known for their speed in adopting new and emerging technologies and the industry as a whole is still working toward more immediate and attainable goals, such as expanding legal online gaming. Currently, fewer than 10 states offer online casinos and/or poker.

There is significant regulatory and legal uncertainty surrounding metaverse casinos. For example, which oversight bodies have authority to regulate metaverse casinos? Can users face consequences in the real world for the actions of their avatar in metaverse casinos? How are players protected from unlawful conduct in metaverse casinos? Can operators be held responsible for that misconduct? State gaming regulators would have jurisdiction over gaming activity being offered to their residents in the metaverse alongside other regulators including the SEC, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, given the use of cryptocurrency and NFTs.4 At this early stage, there are more questions than answers. The history of the real-world gaming industry suggests it is highly probable that metaverse casinos will be subject to direct regulation.

New Legal Parameters Around Metaverse Gaming Are Expected

The competitive nature of the U.S. gaming market, the vast lobbying power of licensed gaming operators, and the substantial fees for licensure indicate that it is not a matter of if, but when regulators will intervene in metaverse gaming. While the concept of metaverse casinos is exciting and creates the opportunity for significant growth in the gaming industry, like many innovations, it brings additional challenges and risks for operators.

In fact, earlier this year securities regulators in Texas and Arizona demanded that a metaverse casino developer cease its funding for the development of its metaverse casino (and expansion of its metaverse casinos to all other relevant metaverses) through NFTs for failing to register the NFTs as securities and on the grounds that it was conducting an illegal fraudulent securities scheme.5

About a month later, securities regulators in Texas, Wisconsin, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Alabama filed an action against another metaverse casino due to its alleged ties to Russia and a fraudulent investment scheme it was running in violation of securities laws.6 The Texas State Securities Board stated its concerns about scammers being able to hide their identities (also referred to as “going dark”), as they alleged occurred here, in metaverse casinos.

In addition, just a few months ago, 28 members of Congress urged the Department of Justice to work with the industry, and other stakeholders to prosecute offshore sports betting companies operating illegally in the U.S.7 Similarly, absent a known regulatory scheme, even “successful” operation of a metaverse casino at present does not foreclose adverse action or shutdowns in the future due to increasing regulatory scrutiny.

While it is unclear how, if, and to what extent, existing regulations apply to metaverse gaming, the actions referenced above demonstrate that some state regulators are taking the position that the same rules that apply to investments in the real world also apply to investments in the metaverse. The risk is not limited to the virtual world, but also exposes investors to the potential loss of real money. The above matters also highlight the broad range of risks government authorities could be motivated to address, from international policy implications to financial fraud scams.

Pioneering the Metaverse

Although there are significant barriers to operating gaming platforms in the metaverse, forward-thinking gaming companies have wisely been preparing to enter this new world when it is safe to do so. If the metaverse becomes as integrated into daily life as it is expected to be, those pioneers will reap the rewards. We recommend gaming operators in the metaverse proceed with caution and retain highly qualified counsel to help them navigate the developing regulatory landscape.

For more internet and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

FOOTNOTES

  1. Regulators in the United States including the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) use the term “digital asset” to refer to “an asset that is issued and transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology.” Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading, Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Investment Management, and Division of Trading and Markets, SEC (Nov. 16, 2018), available here. As the SEC has noted, digital assets include, but are not limited to, virtual currencies, coins, and tokens. Id. A digital asset may in certain instances be deemed a security under the federal securities laws. While not defined in the securities laws, the SEC often refers to digital assets that are securities as a “digital asset securities.” Id.

  2. The issue of what is a “thing of value” within the meaning of state anti-gambling law has been the subject of recent litigation. See, e.g., Kater v. Churchill Downs, Inc., 886 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2018) (virtual chips in online game held to be a “thing of value” for purposes of Washington’s illegal gambling law); Coffee v. Google, LLC, No. 20-CV-03901-BLF, 2022 WL 94986, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2022) (“loot box” prizes limited to use in in-app game not “things of value” under California illegal gambling law).

  3. Pat Evans, Cryptocurrency In Legal Sports Betting: What’s Next?, (June 9, 2022), available here.

  4. We will discuss the potential role of these Federal regulators in future articles.

  5. Dorothy N. Giobbe, et. al, Texas and Alabama Securities Regulators File Enforcement Actions Against Online Casino Developer Selling NFTs to Operate Casinos in a Metaverse, (April 29, 2022), available here.

  6. Five States File Enforcement Actions to Stop Russian Scammers Perpetrating Metaverse Investment Fraud, (May 11, 2022), available here.

  7. Chris Altruda, Congressional Group Calls on DOJ to Help Fight Illegal Offshore Sportsbooks, (Jun. 30, 2022), available here.

 

California Enacts Legal Protections for Cannabis Insurance Providers

Several cannabis-related bills were signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 18, 2022, including Assembly Bill 2568 (AB 2568), which clarifies that it is not a crime for individuals and firms licensed by the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to provide insurance or related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activities. Though the California Civil Code was amended in 2018 to clarify that cannabis is the legal object of a contract, and it has been tacitly understood that insurance contracts are legal in California, the intent of this new law is to remove any uncertainty and to encourage further growth of admitted insurance products for California cannabis businesses.

AB 2568 adds section 26261 to the California Business and Professions Code, which states in relevant part: “An individual or firm that is licensed by the Department of Insurance does not commit a crime under California law solely for providing insurance or related services to persons licensed to engage in commercial cannabis activity pursuant to this division.”

Intent of the Law

The California Assembly’s Committee on Insurance explained the intent behind AB 2568 in a report issued earlier this year:

“The hesitancy of insurance providers to provide insurance for commercial cannabis is attributed to risk, since cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, much of the insurance available in California is from surplus lines. This does not align with the federal government’s longstanding determination that it is in the public’s interest for states to regulate their own insurance marketplaces. Further, the argument has been refuted in federal case law brought about in Green Earth Wellness Center v. Attain Specialty Insurance Company (2016), which established that federal classification of cannabis is not relevant in an insurance provider’s determination to write an insurance policy.

It is important that commercial cannabis businesses have multiple options for insurance as they pursue licensure. AB 2568 clarifies that writing insurance for commercial cannabis does not constitute a crime, since cannabis is part of a legal, regulated market in California. This clarity will provide assurances to admitted insurers that they will not be in violation of any regulations and encourage them to provide an insurance product.”

In addition, AB 2568 was strongly supported by CDI, which argued that “we must provide commercial cannabis businesses with multiple, affordable options for insurance as they pursue and maintain state licensure.” CDI supports AB 2568 in part to “promote reliable insurance coverage for all aspects of these cannabis businesses to ensure that these businesses can continue to flourish just like any other business in this state.”

In a separate analysis, the California Senate Committee on Insurance inquired as to whether the bill would achieve the intended result of expanding insurance options for cannabis businesses. It concluded:

“This bill expressly states a protection under California Law for CDI licensees. This protection has been implied since the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2016, and in that same year a federal court gave a nod to insurers that writing cannabis [insurance] is permissible, but only one admitted company has fully waded into the market. On the one hand, insurers are famously risk averse, so this express statement of state law may go a long way for some to take the risk to sell cannabis coverage. But, federal illegality of cannabis could always be the larger barrier to entry for some companies than what the state laws say.”

The Senate report concludes that more study is needed to “consider additional efforts to effectuate the stated goal of growing the domestic market for cannabis insurance.”

Analysis

AB 2568 does not materially change existing California law since providing insurance services to properly licensed California businesses has been legal under state law since at least 2018. The bill, however, is meant to remove any lingering doubt on the topic and to encourage more insurance service providers to enter the market.

As we have previously reported, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk-benefit calculus has adequately shifted to justify entrance into the cannabis market without an unreasonable fear of prosecution. This certainly is true for the insurance industry.

Congress continues to prohibit the Department of Justice and other federal agencies from spending money to prosecute conduct that complies with state medical marijuana laws. Federal law enforcement, meanwhile, has not initiated any prosecution against a plant-touching or ancillary business involved in either adult-use cannabis or medical marijuana where the underlying marijuana business activity was compliant with state law and there was no other independent violation of law.

Despite this favorable outlook, it must be acknowledged that, without a change to the status quo, some degree of theoretical legal risk remains present for any plant-touching or ancillary business in the marijuana industry. Any decision to provide insurance-related services to the cannabis industry must be based on a well-informed understanding of the legal risks and the very challenging operating environment for state-licensed cannabis companies.

For more Food and Drug Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Wilson Elser

Hurricane Coming? Know Your Insurance Policy

As we prepare for Hurricane Ian in Tampa Bay and throughout Florida, one important item on your checklist for both your personal and business hurricane preparation plan should be to be aware of your hurricane/windstorm coverage in your insurance policies. While we all hope to avoid major impact or damage from the storm, even minor damage may be covered under your insurance policy. However, the conditions of your insurance policy may require that you report claims prior to doing anything other than emergency repairs. As such, a review of your policies before the storm may not only be helpful to learn what damages are covered but may also avoid taking steps that compromise what would otherwise be covered claims.

Know Your Deductibles

Florida statutes protect homeowners from unexpectedly declining windstorm/hurricane coverage, but allow insurance companies to set a different (and usually higher) deductible for claims related to hurricanes. These deductibles can be as high as 10% of the policy limits for the property/dwelling coverages and may also apply to claims discovered in the days immediately after the hurricane. Knowing your deductible will allow you to gain a more accurate understanding of your potential claims following a hurricane.

For your commercial lines, you should be sure to review your policy to ensure you have windstorm coverage and again check to see if a higher deductible applies.

Whose Policy Applies and What Coverages Apply

If you are on an active construction site, you likely have a general liability policy. But these liability policies are unlikely to cover the more common losses caused by a windstorm or hurricane. Common hurricane claims are more likely to be covered under a builder’s risk policy. As you prepare your project site for the storm, you should determine who has purchased the builder’s risk insurance and review that policy to see what coverages are available in the event of a loss.

Depending on the terms of your builder’s risk policy, there may be coverage for soft costs such as delays, expedited construction costs, consultant costs and possibly even attorney’s fees. Knowing your coverages before a claim arises will ensure that you are able to receive the insurance benefits that were purchased.

Be Prepared to File a Claim

As many insurance policies require claims to be reported promptly after a loss and even before work is done to repair the loss, being prepared to file a claim before the storm hits will allow you to maximize your chance of recovery under the applicable insurance policies…it may also provide you with some peace of mind in a stressful situation. Good practices include identifying a point person with knowledge of the policy to inventory any potential damage and document the same with photographs, videos, and notes. Also, know who you need to report any claims to and what evidence or documentation is needed to report a claim. Know what types of damages will allow for emergency repairs and what claims need to be reported to the carrier before work can be started. And take pictures of your property before the storm hits so that you can show before and after pictures of the property.

While knowing your available insurance coverage is an important item in your hurricane preparations, the most important thing in any storm is to be safe and take all reasonable precautions to keep you, your loved ones, and those around you safe. From all of us at Hill Ward Henderson, we hope and pray that Hurricane Ian passes without major impact to our community.

For more insurance law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2007-2022 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

Canada Announces Removal of COVID-19 Border Entry Requirements

The Government of Canada announced, on Monday, September 26, 2022, that after Friday, September 30, 2022, all requirements related to COVID-19 for entering Canada will expire. These include:

  • Providing proof of vaccination and other health information;
  • Mandatory usage of the ArriveCAN application;
  • Pre- or on-arrival testing and/or screening requirements;
  • Random testing at airports;
  • Monitoring and reporting if one develops COVID-19 symptoms;
  • Quarantine and isolation requirements.

As a result, as of September 30, 2022, persons entering Canada would still be required to follow local public health guidelines, where applicable. The removal of measures applies to all forms of travel, including by air, land (including rail), and sea, whether internationally bound or domestic.

Many of these requirements have been in place since early 2020, during the onset of the pandemic. Employers with employees traveling into Canada can be assured that such measures related to COVID-19 will no longer apply as of October 1, 2022. It is important to note that the Government of Canada did leave open the possibility of re-imposing measures if the situation regarding COVID-19 is seen as requiring it.

For more Coronavirus News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

NYC Issues Proposed Rules for Its Automated Employment Decision Tools Law

On Friday, September 23, 2022, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) released a Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Rules related to its Automated Employment Decision Tool law (the “AEDT Law”), which goes into effect on January 1, 2023. As we previously wrote, the City passed the AEDT Law to regulate employers’ use of automated employment decision tools, with the aim of curbing bias in hiring and promotions; as written, however, it contains many ambiguities, which has left covered employers with open questions about compliance.

The proposed rules are intended to clarify the requirements for the use of automated employment decision tools within New York City, the definitions of key terms in the AEDT law, the notices to employees and applicants regarding the use of the tool, the bias audit for the tool, and the required published results of the bias audit.

The DCWP’s public hearing on the proposed rules and deadline for comments are October 24, 2022. Although the proposed rules may be modified prior to adoption, the following summarizes the key provisions.

“Substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making”

The AEDT Law applies to an automated decision tool that is used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making.” It does not, however, specify the type of activities that constitute such conduct or what particular AI-powered employment tools are covered by the law.

The proposed rules attempt to provide guidance on this issue by defining “substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making” as one of the following actions:

  1. relying solely on a simplified output (score, tag, classification, ranking, etc.), without considering other factors; or
  2. using a simplified output as one of a set of criteria where the output is weighted more than any other criterion in the set; or
  3. using a simplified output to overrule or modify conclusions derived from other factors including human decision-making.

“Bias Audit”

Pursuant to the AEDT Law, before using an automated employment decision tool, a covered employer or employment agency must subject the tool to a “bias audit” no more than one year prior to the use of the of the tool.  The law explains that “bias audit” means an “impartial evaluation by an independent auditor,” but does not otherwise specify who or what constitutes an “independent auditor” or what the “bias audit” must contain. The proposed rules address these gaps.

First, the proposed rules define “independent auditor” as “a person or group that is not involved in using or developing an [automated employment decision tool] that is responsible for conducting a bias audit of such [tool].” This definition does not specify that the auditor must be a separate legal entity from the creator or vendor of the tool and therefore suggests that it may be acceptable for the auditor to be employed by the organization using the tool, provided the auditor does not use and has not been involved in developing the tool.

Second, the proposed rules state that the required contents of a “bias audit” will depend on how the employer or employment agency uses the tool.

If the tool selects individuals to move forward in the hiring process or classifies individuals into groups, the “bias audit,” at a minimum, would need to:

  1. calculate the selection rate for each category;
  2. calculate the impact ratio for each category; and
  3. where the tool classifies candidates into groups, the bias audit must calculate the selection rate and impact ratio for each classification.

If the automated employment decision tool merely scores candidates, the “bias audit” at a minimum, would need to:

  1. calculate the average score for individuals in each category; and
  2. calculate the impact ratio for each category.

The preamble to the proposed rules makes clear that DCWP intends these calculations to be consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“UGESP”), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4, and borrows concepts from the framework established by the UGESP in the definitions of “impact ratio” and “selection rate.”

Under the AEDT Law, upon completion of a bias audit, and prior to using the automated employment decision tool, covered employers and employment agencies must make the date and summary of the results of the bias audit publicly available on the careers or job section of their website in a clear and conspicuous manner. The proposed rules clarify that publication may be made via an active hyperlink to a website containing the required information, as long as the link is clearly identified as linking to the results of the bias audit. The required information must remain posted for at least six months after the covered employer or employment agency uses the tool for an employment decision.

Required Notices

The AEDT Law also specifies that employers and employment agencies must notify candidates for employment and employees who reside in New York City as follows:

  1. at least ten business days prior to using an automated decision tool, that such a tool will be used to assess or evaluate the candidate or employee, and allow the individual to request an alternative selection process or accommodation;
  2. at least ten business days prior to use, the job qualifications and characteristics that the tool will use in the assessment or evaluation; and
  3. if not disclosed on the employer or employment agency’s website, information about the type of data collected for the tool, the source of such data, and the employer or employment agency’s data retention policy shall be available upon written request by the individual and be provided within thirty days of the written request.

Covered employers and employment agencies have expressed concern about the practical and administrative difficulties of providing the above notices in the fast-paced environment of today’s recruiting and hiring.

In apparent response to these concerns, the proposed rules clarify that the employer or employment agency may provide the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2) by:

  1. (a) in the case of candidates, including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website at least ten business days prior to the use of the tool, and (b) in the case of employees, including notice in a written policy or procedure that is provided to employees at least ten business days prior to use;
  2. including notice in a job posting at least ten days prior to using the tool; or
  3. (a) in the case of candidates, providing notice via U.S. mail or email at least ten business days prior to use of the tool; and (b) in the case of employees, providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or email at least ten business days prior to use.

In short, under the proposed rule, an employer or employment agency could comply with the AEDT Law by providing the required notice when first posting the job.

With respect to the notice requirement in paragraph (3), the proposed rules state that an employer or employment agency must provide notice to covered individuals by including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website, or by providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or by email within 30 days of receipt of a written request for such information. If notice is not posted on the website, the employer or agency must post instructions for how to make a written request for such information on its careers or job section of the website.

Finally, although the AEDT Law requires an employer or employment agency to allow covered individuals to request an alternative selection process, the proposed rules state that nothing requires an employer or employment agency to provide an alternative selection process.

Article By Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Robert J. O’Hara, Alexander J. Franchilli, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Names and Brand Names

A key aspect of trademarks has been at the forefront of both fiction and real-life sports news over the past few weeks: what makes a name a name and who can use a name as a trademark? While trademarks are commercial rights, trademark law also protects a person’s right to control their own identity, including well-known pseudonyms and nicknames.

Marvel’s She-Hulk: Attorney-at-Law is, like most TV shows about lawyers, often cavalier with how it represents the law, but when the question of the protagonist’s rights in her nom de guerre came up, it was more accurate than most courtroom dramas. Jen Walters (the civilian identity of the titular She-Hulk) discovers a “super-influencer” has launched a line of cosmetics under the SHE-HULK brand and based on that use, is claiming trademark rights in SHE-HULK, going so far as to sue Jen Walters for her use of the name She-Hulk. While much of the terminology is mangled, the show’s hearing on the issue reaches points that are relevant in the real world. First, does “She-Hulk” identify a living person? And second, would another’s use of SHE-HULK be “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” (as set forth in 15 U.S. Code § 1125) of that user and the person known to the public as SHE-HULK? It being a superhero show, Jen Walters ultimately vindicates her rights to the She-Hulk name and SHE-HULK Mark.

Circumstances in the real world are rarely as cut-and-dried. In a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, NBA player Luka Doncic is attempting to reclaim the trademark rights in his own name from his ex-manager, his mother. Doncic, born in 1999, was a basketball star from his early teens. During his meteoric rise in European basketball, his mother, with his consent at the time, registered a design trademark (consisting mainly of his name) for goods and services including soaps, recorded basketball games, apparel, sports equipment, and promotional and educational services, starting with an application in the European Union in 2015 (when Doncic was 16) and filing in the U.S. in 2018 (when he was 19).

Doncic, as stated in his petition to cancel that U.S. Registration, has since withdrawn his consent to his mother’s use and registration of his name as a trademark. Instead, he has, through his own company, Luka99, Inc., applied to register a few marks including his own name, which have been refused registration because of the existing registration owned by his mother. To clear the way for his own registrations, he is seeking to cancel hers on the basis that (as in the fictional example above) her use or registration is likely to make consumers believe the goods and services offered with her authorization are associated with or endorsed by him, and because he has withdrawn his consent, her registrations are no longer permitted to remain on the register.

As Doncic was a minor when he gave consent, he has a good chance of regaining control of his name. Not everyone is so lucky, so you should be especially careful when entering any agreement that allows someone to use your name as a trademark.

Article By David H. Siegel of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

Ongoing Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Increasing

  • On September 14, 2022, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials reported a new outbreak of infections from Listeria monocytogenes. FDA has not yet identified a particular product linked to the pathogenic bacterial outbreak but has initiated traceback procedures. To date, FDA has confirmed 6 patients from this week’s Listeria outbreak, and the numbers appear to keep rising. It is still unclear what age group or geographic location has been afflicted by the outbreak.
  • FDA is currently actively investigating ten foodborne illness outbreaks with increasing patient numbers every week. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) continues to actively investigate a sizable E. coli outbreak suspected to have been caused by romaine lettuce served at Wendy’s restaurants in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania starting in early September 2022. To date, 43 individuals have been hospitalized due to E. coli poisoning, and 13 new patients have been accounted for this week alone. Other current FDA investigations include a Salmonella Typhimurium outbreak that now affects 30 individuals, a Cyclospora outbreak whose patient count is now 81, and a Salmonella Mississippi outbreak that now afflicts 103 patients nationwide.
  • Notably, in March 2022, FDA opened a similar investigation into a Listeria outbreak caused by ice cream products originating from Big Olaf Creamery in Sarasota, Florida. This investigation is still ongoing, but has resulted in 24 patient hospitalizations, 1 death, and 1 miscarriage across 11 states. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor these outbreaks as they impact the food industry.

For more Food Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Hackers Caused a Traffic Jam in Moscow

Hackers caused a massive traffic jam in Moscow by exploiting the ride-sharing app Yandex Taxi and using it to summon dozens of taxis to a single location. While Yandex has not confirmed the attacker’s identity, the hacktivist group Anonymous claimed responsibility on Twitter. The group has been actively taking aim at Russian targets in response to the Russian Federation’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Yandex claims that it has implemented new algorithms to detect this type of attack in the future and will compensate the affected drivers.

This traffic jam is a new application of an old hacktivist tactic: flood the system to make it unusable. Other techniques in this vein include blackouts (which target fax machines) and distributed denial of service (which targets websites and networks). No word yet on whether this new rideshare jam exploit will merit a snappy title.

Blair Robinson contributed to this article. 

For more Global Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.