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.

How to Solve Estate Planning Challenges: Q&A with Lindsey Paige Markus of Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.

In recognition of National Estate Planning Awareness Week, we sat down with Lindsey Paige Markus, a principal with Chuhak & Tecson law firm in Chicago to discuss the top estate planning challenges and considerations that her clients face. Markus oversees Chuhak & Tecson’s 24-attorney estate planning and asset protection group, and focuses her practice on counseling business owners and families in planning their estates, minimizing taxation and transferring wealth.

Read on to learn more about Markus’ key tips for successful estate planning, and how clients can tailor their estate plans for any stage of their lives.

The NLR: Estate planning needs can change throughout a person’s lifetime. How do you counsel clients to navigate these changes, whether it be marriage, having children or divorce?

Markus: Over time, assets and relationships may change. You might not have the same relationship with the individuals you selected to act as executor or trustee. You may also disagree on how the couple you identified to care for minor children have parented their own children at the last family gathering. Asset holdings, values and priorities change. When your children were young, you may have been very concerned with there being sufficient resources to provide for their everyday needs and help fund a college education. If they are now successful adults living on their own, you might wish to prioritize leaving a philanthropic legacy to your community. Similarly, laws and tax exemptions change over time. For these reasons, I often recommend that clients revisit their estate plan every three years to confirm that the individuals they have identified to carry out their wishes are still appropriate, in addition to the division of assets.

The following image from my book, “A Gift for the Future – Conversations About Estate Planning,” helps highlight life events impacting estate planning, including the following:

–         Engagement

–         Marriage

–         Buying a home or property

–         Starting and building a family

–         Welcoming grandchildren

–         Starting a business

–         Rapid estate growth

–         Charitable interests grow

–         Divorce

 

The NLR: How can clients prepare to handle probate and guardianship issues?

Markus: Ideally, clients will take the time to get documents in place so that their loved ones can avoid probate and guardianship proceedings. Often a revocable living trust is the most efficient vehicle to ensure that the court system is avoided during one’s life (guardianship proceedings) and upon death (probate). When properly drafted, the trust can also help to leverage estate tax savings, provide asset protection for beneficiaries and ensure that the maximum amount can pass estate-tax free from generation to generation. But it is not enough to simply have an estate plan with a revocable living trust. Rather, clients need to go through the process of funding their trust – retitling assets into the name of the trust, transferring real estate interests, business interests and making certain that beneficiary designations on life insurance and retirement plan assets comport with the overall plan.

The NLR: What do you think are some of the biggest or most common misconceptions people have about estate planning?

 

Markus: People think that “estate planning is for the rich and famous,” or comment, “I will make an estate plan…when I have an estate to plan!” In reality, everyone should have an estate plan in place to document their wishes and make the process more manageable for their loved ones. Estate tax savings are just one aspect. But anyone who has had the displeasure of going through the probate process appreciates the importance of avoiding it. Too often clients are overwhelmed by the process. In reality, like any project, actually engaging in the planning and getting it done is far easier than procrastinating. And once you find an estate planning attorney that you feel comfortable working with, the attorney should be able to help guide you seamlessly through the process. Clients are often surprised by how empowering the estate planning process can be.

The NLR: Estate taxes owed to federal and state governments can be difficult to deal with for many people. How can clients best navigate challenging estate tax situations?

Markus: Estate tax liabilities at the federal and state levels can easily reach a tax rate of 50%. FIFTY PERCENT! As challenging as it is to consider, those with taxable gross estates can’t afford to avoid planning. In contrast, by engaging in thoughtful estate planning, these estate tax liabilities can be minimized and sometimes completely eliminated. The best advice I have for clients is to engage in planning early. Once you see projections of your future net worth based on your life expectancy, you quickly appreciate the size of the potential tax liability. You will need to provide feedback on your goals of planning. And, from there, your estate planning attorney, working in tandem with your wealth advisor and CPA, can help advise you on proactive steps you can take now to help minimize or avoid those tax liabilities. Maybe it is through implementing an annual gifting program where you use the annual gift exclusion of $17,000 per person per year by making a gift outright or to a trust for the benefit of a loved one. Perhaps you are in a position to use your $12.92 million lifetime exemption before it cuts in half in 2026. The real benefit of gifting is that we can move the current value of the gift and all future appreciation outside of your taxable gross estate. Or, some clients elect to engage in life insurance as an estate tax replacement vehicle – they purchase life insurance to provide the family with liquidity to cover the estate tax in the future.

The NLR: What are some of the most common mistakes you see people make when it comes to estate planning, and how can they avoid them?

Markus: Start early! None of us know what the future has in store. Get your plan in place this year – and make modifications in the future. Fund your trust! Don’t just get an estate plan. Make sure you retitle assets into your trust and update beneficiary designations to leverage the benefits of the plan. Don’t forget about charitable intentions! It is so easy to leave a lasting legacy to a cause you are passionate about. In doing so, follow your estate planning attorney’s advice and consider leaving taxable retirement plan assets directly to the charity. That allows the funds to pass estate-tax free and income-tax free, sometimes saving more than 70% in estate and income tax consequences. Revisit your plan every three years. Review the summary of your plan, make certain your assets were properly moved into your trust and follow-up with your attorney to find out if any changes have taken place in the law which would warrant an update.

Article by  Rachel Popa of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC
For more articles on estate planning, visit the NLR Estates & Trusts section.

Cryptocurrency Brings Disruption to Bankruptcy Courts—What Parties Can Expect and the Open Issues Still To Be Resolved (Part Two)

In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.  In part one, we addressed whether cryptocurrency constitutes property of the estate, the impacts of cryptocurrency’s fluctuating valuation, issues of perfection, and the effects of cryptocurrency on debtor-in-possession financing.  In this part two, we explore preferential transfers of cryptocurrency, whether self-executing smart contracts would violate the automatic stay, and how confusing regulatory guidelines negatively impact bankruptcy proceedings, including plan feasibility.

Preferential Transfers

Pursuant to section 547(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-in-possession (or trustee) can avoid a transfer of the debtor’s property to a creditor made in the 90-days before filing the petition if, among other things, the creditor received more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.  Notably, such a transfer can only be avoided if the thing transferred was the debtor’s property.  When cryptocurrency is valued and whether cryptocurrency is considered to be property of the estate can impact preference liability.

Perhaps the first question to arise in cryptocurrency preference litigation is whether the transferred cryptocurrency is property of the estate.  If, as in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Celsius Network LLC and its affiliates, the cryptocurrency withdrawn by the accountholder during the ninety days prior to the bankruptcy is determined to be property of the estate, and not the accountholder’s property, a preferential transfer claim could be asserted.  If, however, the cryptocurrency was property of the accountholder, for instance if it was held in a wallet to which only the accountholder had exclusive rights, no preference liability would attach to the withdrawal of the cryptocurrency.

Assuming that a preferential transfer claim lies, the court must decide how to value the preferential transfer.  Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor-in-possession to recover “the property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property.”[1] This gives the debtor-in-possession wide latitude in asserting a preference claim.  For instance, the debtor-in-possession could take the position that the cryptocurrency is a commodity, in which case a claim could be asserted to recover the cryptocurrency itself, which, by the end of the case, may be worth a much more than it was at the time of the transfer, with any gain accruing to the estate’s benefit.[2]  In contrast, the party receiving the transferred cryptocurrency would likely take the position that the cryptocurrency is currency, in which case a claim would be limited to the value of the cryptocurrency at the time of the transfer.[3]

The proper valuation methodology has not to date been definitively addressed by the courts.  Perhaps the closest a court has come to deciding that issue was in Hashfast Techs. LLC v. Lowe,[4] where the trustee claimed that a payment of 3,000 bitcoins to a supplier was a preferential transfer.  The bitcoin was worth approximately $360,000 at the time of the transfer but was worth approximately $1.2 million when the trustee asserted the preferential transfer claim.  The trustee argued that the payment to the supplier was intended to be a transfer of bitcoins and not a payment of $360,000, and that the supplier was required to pay 3,000 bitcoins to the estate, notwithstanding the substantial increase in value (and the resulting windfall to the estate).  Ultimately, the court refused to decide whether bitcoin is either currency or commodities and held that “[i]f and when the [trustee] prevails and avoids the subject transfer of bitcoin to defendant, the court will decide whether, under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a), he may recover the bitcoin (property) transferred or their value, and if the latter, valued as of what date.”[5]

The changing value of cryptocurrency will also impact the question of whether the creditor received more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.[6]  While the value of preferential transfers are determined at the time of the transfer,[7] the analysis of whether such transfer made the creditor better off than in a Chapter 7 liquidation is determined at the time of a hypothetical distribution, which means, practically, at the time of the petition.[8]  Therefore, if a customer withdraws cryptocurrency from a platform during the 90-day preference period, and the cryptocurrency experiences a decrease in value during those 90 days, that customer could arguably be liable for a preferential transfer because the withdrawn cryptocurrency was worth more at the time of the transfer than at the time of the petition.

Presently unanswered is whether the safe-harbor provisions provided for in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shield cryptocurrency transfers from preferential transfer attack.  Pursuant to section 546(e), a debtor-in-possession cannot avoid as a preference a margin payment or settlement payment made to “financial participant . . . in connection with a securities contract . . . commodity contract . . . [or] forward contract . . . that is made before the commencement of the case.” If the court determines that cryptocurrency is a security or commodity, and that the transfers were made in connection with forward or commodities contracts, then section 546(e) may shield those transfers from attack as preferential.

Violations of the Automatic Stay and Smart Contracts

The self-executing nature of smart contracts may raise automatic stay concerns.  The automatic stay arises upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, and in general, prevents creditors and other parties from continuing their collection efforts against the debtor.[9]  Of relevance to smart contracts, section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code states that the stay applies to “any act” to obtain possession of or control of property of the estate.  Very recently, in Chicago v. Fulton, the United Stated Supreme Court held that section 362(a)(3) prevented any “affirmative act that would alter the status quo at the time of the bankruptcy petition.”[10]

Prior to Fulton, a bankruptcy court in Arkansas examined an analogous issue in Hampton v. Yam’s Choice Plus Autos, Inc. (In re Hampton).[11]  In Hampton, the court adjudicated whether a device that automatically locked the debtor out of her car violated the automatic stay when it disabled function of the car’s engine postpetition.  The device relied on a code—if the debtor paid, the creditor sent her a code, which she would then input, and this prevented the device from automatically disabling the car’s starter.  In this instance, the court found a violation of the automatic stay.[12]

Based on current case law, it remains unclear whether a smart contract, operating automatically, would violate the automatic stay.  For example, if a smart contract is based on a DeFi loan, and it automatically executes postpetition to transfer to the lender assets of the estate, a court may find a violation of the automatic stay.

Hampton would suggest that such actions would be a violation—but two issues caution against relying on Hampton as a clear bellwether.  First, Hampton was decided pre-Fulton and it remains unclear whether, and to what extent, the Supreme Court’s holding in Fulton would change the outcome of Hampton. Second, a potentially key factual distinction exists: the device in Hampton required the creditor to give the debtor a code to prevent the disabling of the car, but smart contracts can be programmed to automatically execute postpetition without any further action by the parties.  If a smart contract is found to violate the automatic stay, the next question is whether such a violation is willful, meaning that a court can impose monetary penalties, including potentially punitive damages.[13]

Note that even if a smart contract is found not to violate the automatic stay, it does not mean that a creditor can retain the property.  Section 542 of the Bankruptcy Code requires those in possession of estate property to turnover the property to the estate.  The estate is created at the time of the filing of the petition, and therefore, any smart contract that executes postpetition would theoretically concern estate property and be subject to turnover.  Unfortunately, ambiguities arise even in this statute, as section 542 contains a good-faith exemption to the turnover mandate if the recipient is not aware of bankruptcy filing and transfers the assets.[14]  Thus, the turnover mandate may be difficult to apply to non-debtor parties to smart contracts who program the contract ahead of time with the knowledge that such a contract may execute after a bankruptcy petition but with no actual knowledge of such petition having been filed.

Regulatory Confusion

The regulatory world has no uniform approach to cryptocurrency. Both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC), perhaps in part spurred by executive pressure, recently advanced heavier regulatory oversight of cryptocurrency.[15]  The two agencies also share jurisdiction; one agency asserting authority to regulate cryptocurrency does not preclude the other from doing so.[16]  Other agencies, such as the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen), have also asserted the jurisdiction to regulate cryptocurrency.[17]  The result is regulatory confusion for market participants, both because of the sheer number of agencies asserting jurisdiction and the fact that individual agencies can sometimes issue confusing and ill-defined guidelines.

For instance, the SEC applies the Howey test, developed in the 1940s, to determine whether a specific cryptocurrency is a security.[18]  Unfortunately, the SEC has stated that whether a specific cryptocurrency is a security can change overtime, and recently announced even more cryptocurrencies that they believe meet Howey’s definition of a security via their lawsuits with crypto exchanges Binance.US and Coinbase.[19]

The regulatory confusion clouding cryptocurrency has directly impacted bankruptcy proceedings. One recent case study offers a glimpse into that disconcerting influence. In 2022, crypto exchange Voyager Digital Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Another major crypto exchange, Binance.US, entered into an agreement with Voyager to acquire its assets—valued at around $1 billion. The SEC, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), and the New York Attorney General all filed sale objections in Voyager’s bankruptcy proceedings, arguing that if Voyager’s crypto assets constitute securities, then Binance.US’s rebalancing and redistribution of these assets to its account holders would be an “unregistered offer, sale or delivery after sale of securities” in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act.[20]  The NYDFS also alleged that the agreement “unfairly discriminates” against New York citizens by subordinating their recovery of diminished assets in favor of Voyager’s creditors—as well as foreclosing the option to recover crypto rather than liquidated assets.[21]

SEC trial counsel noted that, “regulatory actions, whether involving Voyager, Binance.US or both, could render the transactions in the plan impossible to consummate, thus making the plan unfeasible.”[22]  In April 2023, Binance.US sent Voyager a legal notice canceling the prospective transaction, writing that “the hostile and uncertain regulatory climate in the United States has introduced an unpredictable operating environment impacting the entire American business community.”[23]

The SEC’s desire towards regulating cryptocurrency as securities appears to be growing.  On August 15, 2023, the SEC settled for $24 million its claims against Bittrex, which included violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act.[24] Upon the settlement, the director of the SEC stated that Bittrex “worked with token issuers . . . in an effort to evade the federal securities law.  They failed.”[25]  Uncertainty combined with aggressive enforcement leaves cryptocurrency entities in an uncertain and precarious position.

Plan Feasibility

The Voyager case also highlights issues with plan feasibility in Chapter 11.  In Voyager, the SEC objected to plan feasibility on the basis that one known digital asset of Voyager was a security, and therefore, the purchaser should register as a securities dealer.[26]  Although the court overruled the SEC’s objection, as noted above, Binance.US ultimately withdrew its purchase offer, placing blame on the overall regulatory climate.[27]  As regulations remain uncertain, and government authorities have shown a willingness to assert themselves into the process of reorganization, debtors who file for bankruptcy will have to brace for new or unforeseen objections to an otherwise confirmable plan.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency has been seen by some as a disruptive force in finance.  As the above issues show, it also appears to be a disruptive force in bankruptcy cases.  Debtors and creditors alike will have to weather the disruption as best they can while the courts continue to grapple with the many open issues raised by cryptocurrencies.

See Cryptocurrency Brings Disruption to Bankruptcy Courts—What Parties Can Expect and the Open Issues Still To Be Resolved (Part One)

[1] See 11 U.S.C. § 550(a).

[2] This position would arguably be consistent with cases interpreting section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code that have held that the estate is entitled to recover the value of the property when value has appreciated subsequent to the transfer.  See, e.g., In re Am. Way Serv. Corp., 229 B.R. 496, 531 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1999) (noting that when the value of the transferred property has appreciated, “the trustee is entitled to recover the property itself, or the value of the property at the time of judgment.”).

[3] Mary E. Magginis, Money for Nothing: The Treatment of Bitcoin in Section 550 Recovery Actions, 20 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 485, 516 (2017).

[4] No. 14-30725DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2016),

[5] Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 1-2, Hashfast Techs. LLC v. Lowe, Adv. No. 15-3011DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2016) (ECF No. 49).

[6] See 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(5) (requiring the transferee to have received more that it would have received in a Chapter 7 liquidation).

[7] Maginnis, supra note 3.

[8] See In re CIS Corp., 195 B.R. 251, 262 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“Thus, the Code § 547(b)(5) analysis is to be made as of the time the Debtor filed its bankruptcy petition); Sloan v. Zions First Nat’l Bank (In re Casteltons, Inc.), 990 F.2d 551, 554 (9th Cir. 1993) (“When assessing an alleged preferential transfer, the relevant inquiry . . . [is] . . . the actual effect of the payment as determined when bankruptcy results.”).

[9] 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

[10] 141 S.Ct. 585, 590 (2021).

[11] 319 B.R. 163 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2005).

[12] Hampton, 319 B.R. at 165-170.

[13] See 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (providing that, subject to a good faith exception “an individual injured by any willful violation of [the automatic stay] shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.”).

[14] See 11 U.S.C. § 542(c).

[15] David Gura, The White House calls for more regulations as cryptocurrencies grow more popular (Sept. 6, 2022, 6:00 AM), https://www.npr.org/2022/09/16/1123333428/crypto-cryptocurrencies-bitcoin-terra-luna-regulation-digital-currencies.

[16] See, e.g., CFTC v. McDonnell, 287 F. Supp. 3d 222, 228-29 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“The jurisdictional authority of CFTC to regulate virtual currencies as commodities does not preclude other agencies from exercising their regulatory power when virtual currencies function differently than derivative commodities.”).

[17] See Treasury Announces Two Enforcements Actions for over $24M and $29M Against Virtual Currency Exchange Bittrex, Inc., (October 11, 2022), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1006.

[18] See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).

[19] Emily Mason, Coinbase Hit With SEC Suit That Identifies $37 Billion of Crypto Tokens As Securities, (June 6, 2023 5:08 pm), https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilymason/2023/06/06/coinbase-hit-with-sec-suit-that-identifies-37-billion-of-crypto-tokens-as-securities/?sh=3cc4c6d667a9; SEC Charges Crypto Asset Trading Platform Bittrex and its Former CEO for Operating an Unregistered Exchange, Broker, and Clearing Agency, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-78 (last visited July 31, 2023).

[20] Jack Schickler, SEC Objects to Binance.US’ $1B Voyager Deal, Alleging Sale of Unregistered Securities, (last updated Feb. 23, 2023 at 2:32 p.m.), https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/23/sec-objects-to-binanceus-1b-voyager-deal-alleging-sale-of-unregistered-securities/.

[21] See NYDFS Objection to Plan, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, et al. at 9-10, No. 22-10943 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2023) [ECF No. 1051].

[22] Kari McMahon, SEC and New York Regulators Push Back on Binance.US’s Acquisition of Voyager, The Block (Feb. 23, 2023), https://www.theblock.co/post/214333/sec-and-new-york-regulators-push-back-on-binance-uss-acquisition-of-voyager.

[23] Yueqi Yang & Steven Church, Binance US Ends $1 Billion Deal to Buy Bankrupt Crypto Firm Voyager, Bloomberg (April 25, 2023), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-25/binance-us-terminates-deal-to-buy-bankrupt-crypto-firm-voyager.

[24] See Crypto Asset Trading Platform Bittrex and Former CEO to Settle SEC Charges for Operating an Unregistered Exchange, Broker, and Clearing Agency, https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-150 (last visited Sept. 18, 2023).

[25] Id.

[26] See Objection of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission to Confirmation at 3 n.5, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, et al., No. 22-10943 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2023) (ECF No. 1047).

[27] See supra at n. 23.

© Copyright 2023 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Article by Mark A. Salzberg , Justin Cloyd of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on cryptocurrency, visit the NLR communications, media and internet section.

A Major Deal for the Minor League: California Bill Paves the Way for Historic Collective Bargaining Agreement for Minor League Baseball

Major changes are coming to the Minor League. In April, Major League Baseball (MLB) players and owners voted to ratify a historic collective bargaining agreement that, for the first time in history, covers Minor League players. MLB owners voted unanimously to ratify the agreement on April 3, following a March 31 vote in which more than 99 percent of Minor League players voted to ratify the agreement. The five-year agreement, which was negotiated by MLB and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA), more than doubles the salaries at all Minor League levels and provides that Minor League players will be paid almost year-round.

Equally significant, just seven months before the agreement’s ratification, MLB agreed to voluntarily recognize the MLBPA as the exclusive bargaining representative for Minor League players. MLB’s September 9, 2022 recognition decision marks the first time in history that all Minor League players have been represented by the MLBPA or any labor organization. Previously, the MLBPA only represented Minor League players on 40-man rosters, but the September 2022 recognition decision extended union coverage to all Minor League players. Integrating the 5,000-plus Minor League players into a union that had already represented 1,200 well-paid MLB players will no doubt pose a series of challenges to the MLBPA. But recognition as the exclusive union for Minor League players allows the MLBPA to negotiate bargaining agreements on behalf of the players, including the historic agreement ratified in April.

California Governor Signs Bill Paving the Way for Collective Bargaining Agreement

On September 11, 2023, the California Legislature unanimously passed SB 332, a bill designed to pave the way for the historic collective bargaining agreement ratified in April. SB 332 grants a narrow exemption from state labor laws for California-based Minor League players. The legislation was designed “to carry out the collective bargaining agreement” approved by MLB and the MLBPA. Specifically, SB 332 provides that certain provisions of Wage Order No. 10-2001—which covers the amusement and recreation industry—does not apply to Minor League Baseball players covered by the collective bargaining agreement ratified by MLB players and owners earlier this year. Additionally, the bill exempts these Minor League players from certain overtime and meal period laws, and it relaxes the requirements for the wage statements that must be provided to these players. Governor Newsom signed SB 332 into law on October 13.

The passage of SB 332 caps a major milestone for Minor League Baseball and ensures implementation of the collective bargaining agreement ratified earlier this year. With SB 332 signed into law, California’s Minor League Baseball players, owners, and fans can put contract negotiations in the rearview mirror – and play ball.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more articles on sports, visit the NLR entertainment, art and sports section.

Proposed Amendments to NY Film Production Tax Credit Would Disallow Costs for Artificial Intelligence

Since 2004, New York has provided tax credits to encourage film and television productions located in the state. In its adopted budget for fiscal year 2024, the tax credit program was extended to 2034, and the amount available for the tax credit increased to $700 million. The credit is 30% of “qualified costs” incurred in the production. This tax credit is one of the reasons that New York has remained one of the top filming locations in the United States notwithstanding stiff competition from other states to lure television and film projects.

Subsequently, legislation (S7422A) was introduced that would remove from “qualified costs” used to calculate the tax credit any production that “uses artificial intelligence in a manner which results in the displacement of employees whose salaries are qualified expenses, unless such replacement is permitted by a current collective bargaining agreement in force covering such employees.”

Given that the purpose of the tax credit is to incentivize production and creation of jobs in the state, with the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI), there is scrutiny of how AI will impact/employment in film and television productions. The legislators were also aware that the use of AI was a major issue in the recent negotiations for contracts with the writers (now settled) and actors (still ongoing as of this date). Consequently, the idea to disincentivize the use of AI that supplants employment by removing the cost of AI from the calculation of the tax credit provides motivation to pursue the proposed legislation in New York’s Legislature.

The goal of removing AI costs from the credit is protecting employment from encroachment by AI, but how the disallowance would be implemented is unclear. For example, if instead of using costumed characters or extensive make-up, a production used computer generated images (CGI), would the cost of the CGI be disallowed? Or if AI were used to write or supplement dialogue, would that call into question those costs for computing the tax credit? How would an auditor reviewing the film credit know and understand where AI is used and whether it actually displaced a human employee? In addition, auditors would have to examine collective bargaining agreements to determine whether “such replacement is permitted by a current collective bargaining agreement in force covering such employees.”

Whether or not S. 7422-A is enacted, the proposal may pique the interest of the other 37 states that have some type of credit for film production. See Film Industry Tax Incentives: State-by-State (2023) | Wrapbook.

©2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on artificial intelligence, visit the NLR Communications, Media and Internet section.

The Generative AI Revolution: Key Legal Considerations for the Fashion & Retail Industry

For better or worse, generative artificial intelligence (AI) is already transforming the way we live and work. Retail and fashion companies that fail to embrace AI likely risk losing their current market share or, worse, going out of business altogether. This paradigm shift is existential, and businesses that recognize and leverage AI will gain a significant competitive advantage.

For instance, some of our clients are using AI to streamline product design processes, reducing the costs and time necessary to generate designs, while others employ virtual models to circumvent issues related to adult and child modeling. Additionally, AI can provide valuable market intelligence to inform sales and distribution strategies. This alert will address these benefits, as well as other significant commercial advantages, and delve into the legal risks associated with utilizing AI in the fashion and retail industry.

There are significant commercial advantages to using AI for retail and fashion companies, including:

1. Product Design

From fast fashion to luxury brands, AI is set to revolutionize the fashion and retail industry. It enables the generation of innovative designs by drawing inspiration from a designer’s existing works and incorporating the designer’s unique style into new creations. For instance, in March 2023, G-Star Raw created its first denim couture piece designed by AI. We also worked with a client who utilized an AI tool to analyze its footwear designs from the previous two years and generate new designs for 2024. Remarkably, the AI tool produced 50 designs in just four minutes, with half of them being accepted by the company. Typically, this process would have required numerous designers and taken months to complete. While it is unlikely that AI tools will entirely replace human designers, the cost savings and efficiency gained from using such technology are undeniable and should not be overlooked.

2. Virtual Models

2023 marks a groundbreaking year with the world’s first AI Fashion Week and the launch of AI-generated campaigns, such as Valentino’s Maison Valentino Essentials collection, which combined AI-generated models with actual product photography. Fashion companies allocate a significant portion of their budget to model selection and hiring, necessitating entire departments and grappling with legal concerns such as royalties, SAG, moral issues, and child labor. By leveraging AI tools to create lifelike virtual models, these companies can eliminate the associated challenges and expenses, as AI models are not subject to labor laws — including child entertainment regulations — or collective bargaining agreements.

3. Advertising Campaigns

AI can also be used to create entire advertising campaigns from print copy to email blasts, blog posts, and social media. Companies traditionally invest substantial time and resources in these efforts, but AI can generate such content in mere moments. While human involvement remains essential, AI allows businesses to reduce the manpower required. Retailers can also benefit from AI-powered chatbots, which provide 24/7 customer support while reducing overhead expenses linked to in-person customer service. Moreover, AI’s predictive capabilities enable businesses to anticipate trends across various demographics in real-time, driving customer engagement. By processing and analyzing vast amounts of consumer data and preferences, brands can create hyper-personalized and bespoke content, enhancing customer acquisition, engagement, and retention. Furthermore, AI facilitates mass content creation at an impressively low cost, making it an invaluable tool in today’s competitive market.

4. ESG – Virtual Mirrors and Apps

From an environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) standpoint, the use of AI-powered technology can eliminate the need for retail stores to carry excess inventory, thereby reducing online returns and exchanges. AI smart mirrors can enhance in-store experiences for shoppers by enabling them to virtually try on outfits in various sizes and colors. Furthermore, customers can now enjoy the virtual try-on experience from the comfort of their homes, as demonstrated by Amazon’s “Virtual Try-On for Shoes,” which allows users to visualize how selected shoes will appear on their feet using their smartphone cameras.

5. Product Distribution and Logistics

Fashion companies rely on their C-level executives to make informed predictions about product quantities, potential sales in specific markets or stores, and the styles that will perform best in each market. In terms of logistics, AI models can be employed to forecast a business’s future sales by analyzing historical inventory and sales data. This ability to anticipate supply chain requirements can lead to increased profits and support the industry’s initiatives to reduce waste.

Legal and Ethical Risks

Although AI has some major advantages, it also comes with a number of legal and ethical risks that should be considered, including:

1. Accuracy and Reliability

For all their well-deserved accolades and hype, generative AI tools remain a work in progress. Users, especially commercial enterprises, should never assume that AI-created works are accurate, non-infringing, or fit for commercial use. In fact, there have been numerous recorded instances in which generative AI tools have created works that arguably infringe the copyrights of existing works, make up facts, or cite phantom sources. It is also important to note that works created by generative AI may incorporate or display third-party trademarks or celebrity likenesses, which generally cannot be used for commercial purposes without appropriate rights or permissions. Like anything else, companies should carefully vet any content produced by generative AI before using it for commercial purposes.

2. Data Security and Confidentiality

Before utilizing generative AI tools, companies should consider whether the specific tools adhere to internal data security and confidentiality standards. Like any third-party software, the security and data processing practices for these tools vary. Some tools may store and use prompts and other information submitted by users. Other tools offer assurances that prompts and other information will be deleted or anonymized. Enterprise AI solutions, such as Azure’s OpenAI Service, can also potentially help reduce privacy and data security risks by offering access to popular tools like ChatGPT, DALL-E, Codex, and more within the data security and confidentiality parameters required by the enterprise.

Before authorizing the use of generative AI tools, organizations and their legal counsel should (i) carefully review the applicable terms of use, (ii) inquire about access to tools or features that may offer enhanced privacy, security, or confidentiality, and (iii) consider whether to limit or restrict access on company networks to any tools that do not satisfy company data security or confidentiality requirements.

3. Software Development and Open-Source Software

One of the most popular use cases for generative AI has been computer coding and software development. But the proliferation of AI tools like GitHub Copilot, as well as a pending lawsuit against its developers, has raised a number of questions for legal counsel about whether use of such tools could expose companies to legal claims or license obligations.

These concerns stem in part from the use of open-source code libraries in the data sets for Copilot and similar tools. While open-source code is generally freely available for use, that does not mean that it may be used without condition or limitation. In fact, open-source code licenses typically impose a variety of obligations on individuals and entities that incorporate open-source code into their works. This may include requiring an attribution notice in the derivative work, providing access to source code, and/or requiring that the derivative work be made available on the same terms as the open-source code.

Many companies, particularly those that develop valuable software products, cannot risk having open-source code inadvertently included in their proprietary products or inadvertently disclosing proprietary code through insecure generative AI coding tools. That said, some AI developers are now providing tools that allow coders to exclude AI-generated code that matches code in large public repositories (in other words, making sure the AI assistant is not directly copying other public code), which would reduce the likelihood of an infringement claim or inclusion of open-source code. As with other AI generated content, users should proceed cautiously, while carefully reviewing and testing AI-contributed code.

4. Content Creation and Fair Compensation

In a recent interview, Billy Corgan, the lead singer of Smashing Pumpkins, predicted that “AI will change music forever” because once young artists figure out they can use generative AI tools to create new music, they won’t spend 10,000 hours in a basement the way he did. The same could be said for photography, visual art, writing, and other forms of creative expression.

This challenge to the notion of human authorship has ethical and legal implications. For example, generative AI tools have the potential to significantly undermine the IP royalty and licensing regimes that are intended to ensure human creators are fairly compensated for their work. Consider the recent example of the viral song, “Heart on My Sleeve,” which sounded like a collaboration between Drake and the Weeknd, but was in fact created entirely by AI. Before being removed from streaming services, the song racked up millions of plays — potentially depriving the real artists of royalties they would otherwise have earned from plays of their copyrighted songs. In response, some have suggested that human artists should be compensated when generative AI tools create works that mimic or are closely inspired by copyrighted works and/or that artists should be compensated if their works are used to train the large language models that make generative AI possible. Others have suggested that works should be clearly labeled if they are created by generative AI, so as to distinguish works created by humans from those created by machine.

5. Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement

Content produced without significant human control and involvement is not protectable by US copyright or patent laws, creating a new orphan class of works with no human author and potentially no usage restrictions. That said, one key principle can go a long way to mitigating IP risk: generative AI tools should aid human creation, not replace it. Provided that generative AI tools are used merely to help with drafting or the creative process, then it is more likely that the resulting work product will be protectable under copyright or patent laws. In contrast, asking generative AI tools to create a finished work product, such as asking it to draft an entire legal brief, will likely deprive the final work product of protection under IP laws, not to mention the professional responsibility and ethical implications.

6. Labor and Employment

When Hollywood writers went on strike, one issue in particular generated headlines: a demand by the union to regulate the use of artificial intelligence on union projects, including prohibiting AI from writing or re-writing literary material; prohibiting its use as source material; and prohibiting the use of union content to train AI large language models. These demands are likely to presage future battles to maintain the primacy of human labor over cheaper or more efficient AI alternatives.

Employers are also utilizing automated systems to target job advertisements, recruit applicants, and make hiring decisions. Such systems expose employers to liability if they intentionally or unintentionally exclude or impact protected groups. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), that’s precisely what happened with iTutorGroup, Inc.

7. Future Regulation

Earlier this year, Italy became the first Western country to ban ChatGPT, but it may not be the last. In the United States, legislators and prominent industry voices have called for proactive federal regulation, including the creation of a new federal agency that would be responsible for evaluating and licensing new AI technology. Others have suggested creating a federal private right of action that would make it easier for consumers to sue AI developers for harm they create. Whether US legislators and regulators can overcome partisan divisions and enact a comprehensive framework seems unlikely, but as is becoming increasingly clear, these are unprecedented times.

© 2023 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more articles on AI, visit the NLR Communications, Media and Internet section.

The Supreme Court to Further Clarify “Transportation Worker” Exemption to the FAA

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, a case from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals involving application of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) exemption for transportation workers.

Specifically, Section 1 of the FAA exempts from arbitration “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce”—the third category commonly referred to as the “transportation worker” exemption.

In the case below, the plaintiffs—a group of delivery drivers for a bakery—filed various wage and hour claims against the defendant, whom they claimed was their employer.  When the defendant moved to compel arbitration, the plaintiffs argued that, as bakery delivery drivers, they were exempt from arbitration as a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

The Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs were not exempt from arbitration because they were in the bakery industry, not in the transportation industry.  Therefore, the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs were not transportation workers subject to exemption under Section 1 of the FAA. The Second Circuit’s decision turned, in part, on the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon—a case that we previously reported on from last term.

In the Saxon case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a ramp supervisor who frequently handled cargo for an interstate airline company was exempt under Section 1 of the FAA as a transportation worker.  In reaching that conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the “actual work” the worker performed, rather than the industry in which the employer operated—holding that “[the worker] is . . . a member of a ‘class of workers’ based on what she does at Southwest, not what Southwest does generally.”

Though the Second Circuit in Bissonnette acknowledged Saxon, the Second Circuit, in a split decision, held that Saxon did not come into play, stating that “those who work in the bakery industry are not transportation workers, even those who drive a truck from which they sell and deliver the breads and cakes”—essentially establishing a threshold requirement that the individual work in the “transportation industry” in order to be covered by the exemption.

In a pointed dissent, Judge Pooler wrote: “Of course these truckers are transportation workers,” and, “[b]y focusing on the nature of the defendants’ business, and not on the nature of the plaintiffs’ work, the majority offers the sort of industrywide approach Saxon proscribes.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision will likely clarify whether the FAA’s exemption contains an industry requirement or whether the analysis turns purely on the nature of the work the individual worker performs without regard to the underlying industry in which they work.  Regardless of the outcome, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will provide much-needed guidance at a time when more and more businesses are bringing transportation services in-house—opting to ship and deliver their own products as opposed to relying exclusively on traditional transportation companies.

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on employment, visit the NLR labor and employment section.

Navigating Data Ownership in the AI Age, Part 1: Types of Big Data and AI-Derived Data

The emergence of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT) has fundamentally transformed our understanding and utilization of data. While the value of big data is beyond dispute, its management introduces intricate legal questions, particularly concerning data ownership, licensing, and the protection of derived data. This article, the first installment in a two-part series, outlines challenges and opportunities presented by AI-processed and IoT-generated data. The second part, to be published Thursday, October 19, will discuss the complexities of the legal frameworks that govern data ownership.

Defining Big Data and Its Legal Implications

Big data serves as a comprehensive term for large, dynamically evolving collections of electronic data that often exceed the capabilities of traditional data management systems. This data is not merely voluminous but also possesses two key attributes with significant legal ramifications. First, big data is a valuable asset that can be leveraged for a multitude of applications, ranging from decoding consumer preferences to forecasting macroeconomic trends and identifying public health patterns. Second, the richness of big data often means it contains sensitive and confidential information, such as proprietary business intelligence and personally identifiable information (PII). As a result, the management and utilization of big data require stringent legal safeguards to ensure both the security and ethical handling of this information.

Legal Frameworks Governing Data Ownership

Navigating the intricate landscape of data ownership necessitates a multi-dimensional understanding that encompasses legal, ethical, and technological considerations. This complexity is further heightened by diverse intellectual property (IP) laws and trade secret statutes, each of which can confer exclusive rights over specific data sets. Additionally, jurisdictional variations in data protection laws, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the United States’ California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), introduce another layer of complexity. These laws empower individuals with greater control over their personal data, granting them the right to access, correct, delete, or port their information. However, the concept of “ownership” often varies depending on the jurisdiction and the type of data involved — be it personal or anonymized.

Machine-Generated Data and Ownership

The issue of data ownership extends beyond individual data to include machine-generated data, which introduces its own set of complexities. Whether it’s smart assistants generating data based on human interaction or autonomous vehicles operating independently of human input, ownership often resides with the entity that owns or operates the machine. This is typically defined by terms of service or end-user license agreements (EULAs). Moreover, IP laws, including patents and trade secrets, can also come into play, especially when the data undergoes specialized processing or analysis.

Derived Data and Algorithms

Derived and derivative algorithms refer to computational models or methods that evolve from, adapt, or draw inspiration from pre-existing algorithms. These new algorithms must introduce innovative functionalities, optimizations, or applications to be considered derived or derivative. Under U.S. copyright law, the creator of a derivative work generally holds the copyright for the new elements that did not exist in the original work. However, this does not extend to the foundational algorithm upon which the derivative algorithm is based. The ownership of the original algorithm remains with its initial creator unless explicitly transferred through legal means such as a licensing agreement.

In the field of patent law, derivative algorithms could potentially be patented if they meet the criteria of being new, non-obvious, and useful. However, the patent would only cover the novel aspects of the derivative algorithm, not the foundational algorithm from which it was derived. The original algorithm’s patent holder retains their rights, and any use of the derivative algorithm that employs the original algorithm’s patented aspects would require permission or licensing from the original patent holder.

Derived and derivative algorithms may also be subject to trade secret protection, which safeguards confidential information that provides a competitive advantage to its owner. Unlike patents, trade secrets do not require registration or public disclosure but do necessitate reasonable measures to maintain secrecy. For example, a company may employ non-disclosure agreements, encryption, or physical security measures to protect its proprietary algorithms.

AI-Processed and Derived Data

The advent of AI has ushered in a new era of data analytics, presenting both unique opportunities and challenges in the domain of IP rights. AI’s ability to generate “derived data” or “usage data” has far-reaching implications that intersect with multiple legal frameworks, including copyright, trade secrets, and potentially even patent law. This intersectionality adds a layer of complexity to the issue of data ownership, underscoring the critical need for explicit contractual clarity in licensing agreements and Data Use Agreements (DUAs).

AI-processed and derived data can manifest in various forms, each with unique characteristics. Extracted data refers to data culled from larger datasets for specific analyses. Restructured data has been reformatted or reorganized to facilitate more straightforward analysis. Augmented data is enriched with additional variables or parameters to provide a more comprehensive view. Inferred data involves the creation of new variables or insights based on the analysis of existing data. Lastly, modeled data has been transformed through ML models to predict future outcomes or trends. Importantly, these data types often contain new information or insights not present in the original dataset, thereby adding multiple layers of value and utility.

The benefits of using AI-processed and derived data can be encapsulated in three main points. First, AI algorithms can clean, sort, and enrich data, enhancing its quality. Second, the insights generated by AI can add significant value to the original data, rendering it more useful for various applications. Third, AI-processed data can catalyze new research, innovation, and product development avenues.

Conversely, the challenges in data ownership are multifaceted. First, AI-processed and derived data often involves a complex web of multiple stakeholders, including data providers, AI developers, and end users, which can complicate the determination of ownership rights. Second, the rapidly evolving landscape of AI and data science leads to a lack of clear definitions for terms like “derived data,” thereby introducing potential ambiguities in legal agreements. Third, given the involvement of multiple parties, it becomes imperative to establish clear and consistent definitions and agreements that meticulously outline the rights and responsibilities of each stakeholder.

© 2023 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
For more articles on AI, visit the NLR Communications, Media and Internet section.

Understanding Domain and IP Reputation in Email Deliverability

If you’re in the legal field, you’re well acquainted with the ways in which a good (or bad!) reputation can have an enormous impact on your practice’s success. Email deliverability is no different; mailbox providers (MBPs) use a variety of factors to determine what kind of reputation should be associated with your emails. Let’s break it down:

IP Reputation

An IP address is like a home address for your computer on the internet or local network, ensuring data sent from your computer reaches the correct destination and that data sent to you arrives at your computer.

When it comes to email, the IP address from which it originates is not just a technical detail—it carries a distinct reputation with it, much like a credit score. Just as lenders use credit scores to gauge the financial reliability of a person, MBPs evaluate an IP’s history to determine its trustworthiness. This reputation is shaped by different variables including:

  • Email volume and its consistency (or lack thereof)
  • Frequency of those emails being marked as spam
  • Bounce rates

If an IP address consistently sends out high-quality, relevant emails that recipients engage with, it’s much more likely to enjoy a positive reputation. On the flip side, its reputation can quickly plummet if it becomes associated with behaviors such as:

  • Sending large quantities of unsolicited email
  • High bounce rates
  • High frequency of spam complaints

A damaged IP reputation can have significant consequences that lead Email Service Providers (ESPs) to filter or block emails from that IP. This affects the sender’s ability to reach their intended audience effectively.

Domain Reputation

A domain, often recognized as a website or the web address, is a unique name that identifies a website or email address on the internet.

Every domain that sends email carries its own reputation, akin to a business’s standing in the community. This reputation is shaped by various behaviors and practices associated with the email you send:

  • Engagement
    • Mailbox providers want to see that your subscribers are engaged
    • They rely on hundreds of different signals to filter email, but engagement is heavily weighted.
    • Any time your subscribers show strong interest or engagement in your content, it’s a big win for your overall deliverability
  • Permission
    • Sending unsolicited email is a surefire way to harm your domain’s reputation
    • Unsolicited email is highly likely to result in spam complaints or even a spamtrap hit
    • Any domain associated with large numbers of spam complaints raises serious alarms for mailbox providers
  • Bounces
    • Large numbers of bounces can decrease trust in your domain
    • Because of this, it’s important to regularly curate and update your email lists Sending emails to old, unengaged, or invalid addresses often results in high bounce rates
    • List hygiene practices such as removing inactive subscribers or those who haven’t engaged in a long time are an effective preventative measure
  • History
    • Your domain’s email-sending history plays a significant role in its reputation
    • A consistent track record of sending high-quality, engaging emails can enhance your domain’s standing while any past transgressions, like sending to purchased lists or being flagged by spam traps, can linger and affect future deliverability
    • MBPs have a long memory, so it’s important to avoid these problems wherever possible
  • Authentication
    • Many inbox providers won’t accept your mail if it isn’t able to pass email authentication protocols like SPF (Sender Policy Framework) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail)
    • If you have a sending domain validated within Lawmatics, SPF and DKIM are automatically implemented when you add our CNAME records to your domain
    • However, if you remove or alter those records, there’s a good chance that authentication will fail and your mail will bounce
  • Blocklists
    • Having your domain listed on a blocklist can have a major effect on your deliverability
    • That being said, it’s worth noting that anyone can create a blocklist and not all of them are reputable or affect your email delivery

Ultimately, you and your firm play a major role in your domain’s reputation. Being mindful of the content you send, maintaining updated email lists, and engaging with your subscribers in a meaningful way aren’t just strategies to maintain a strong domain reputation; they’re essential steps to elevate your firm’s credibility. They also serve to enhance client engagement and secure consistent deliverability for your communications.

©2023 — Lawmatics
Article by Shay Paris of Lawmatics
For more articles on legal marketing, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

US Halts Visa Services in Israel, Focuses on Assisting US Citizens

The United States has halted immigrant and nonimmigrant visa services in Israel amid ongoing security concerns.

‌‌Key Points:

  • Visa services are unavailable at this time at the U.S Embassy in Jerusalem or the Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv. Non-U.S. citizens in need of emergency visa services should request an expedited appointment at a U.S. embassy or consulate other than Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
  • U.S. citizens in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza who would like assistance should fill out this crisis intake form, which allows the U.S. State Department to respond to requests from evacuees in leaving or obtaining other routine or emergency passport or citizen services or information.
  • Commercial flight availability remains limited out of Ben Gurion Airport, but the U.S. government is facilitating charter flights and other modes of transportation for U.S. citizens. The State Department said these flights will continue until at least Oct. 19.
  • The Israeli government has extended the validity of work visas until Nov. 9, 2023, for all foreign nationals in the country whose Israeli visas will expire within the next month.
  • Up-to-date information is available on the Embassy’s News & Events and Travel Alerts pages.

BAL Analysis: Visa services are not available in Israel at this time. The situation continues to evolve and travel rules and procedures may change with little or no notice. U.S. citizens in Israel are encouraged to monitor State Department websites for updates.

©2023 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.

Business Immigration Could Be Impacted if Congress Fails to Fund Government Through FY 2024

On September 30, 2023, President Joe Biden signed into law stopgap funding legislation that temporarily averted a government shutdown. The legislation, which passed the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support and extended funding for the federal government for a period of forty-five days, will keep the government running through November 17, 2023.

Quick Hits

  • A recently enacted stopgap funding measure has allowed the government to continue operations, including immigration services, through November 17, 2023.
  • If Congress cannot reach an agreement to fund the federal government before November 17, 2023, a partial government shutdown may occur.
  • A government shutdown would disrupt federal agencies that are responsible for immigration-related services and benefits. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a fee-generating agency; during past government shutdowns, USCIS offices generally continued to operate.
  • The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is not fee generating, and, consequently, the department’s operations were significantly hindered during previous government shutdowns. As a result, any immigration petition that requires a DOL pre-filing will likely be impacted.

The most significant business immigration impacts of a government shutdown on U.S. employers may include:

  • the DOL taking the Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG) system offline, resulting in a suspension of new labor condition applications (LCAs) that are required for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 nonimmigrant petitions;
    • a DOL suspension of PERM labor certifications and prevailing wage determinations (PWD), which would further extend already lengthy PERM and PWD processing times; and
    • possible visa processing delays at U.S. consulates. While the U.S. Department of State is partially funded by visa application fees, it is possible that nonemergency services could be suspended during a prolonged shutdown.

Next Steps

While Congress temporarily averted a government shutdown, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have not reached an agreement on an appropriations bill to fund the federal government through the entirety of fiscal year (FY) 2024. The risk of a government shutdown remains if Congress is not able to resolve spending and policy disagreements prior to November 17, 2023.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Article by  Katie W. Desmond of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
For more articles on business immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section.