ICC – Economic Sanctions in the Global Economy

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ICC Institute’s Economic Sanctions in the Global Economy Conference:

At a time when the global financial crisis has severely impacted trade flows and hampered world growth, what is the effect and the justification for the extraterritorial application of economic sanctions?

The long arm reach of law enforcement agencies sets global companies unprecedented challenges in terms of conflict of laws and regulatory jurisdiction. Dozens of criminal, administrative or regulatory investigations on both sides of the Atlantic are currently targeting billions of dollars worth of commercial transactions and cross-border payments. Penalties in the hundred of millions of dollars are regularly disclosed sanctioning global companies and banks for their past cross-border dealings . What is the right balance between the governments’ objective of moving to a safer world and the business reality? How are judges and arbitrators expected to adjudicate a claim for non-performance triggered by foreign economic sanctions?

Conference highlights
This event is unprecedented in bringing together senior government officials from both sides of the Atlantic and decision makers in global companies as well as their counsel. Speakers and participants have a unique opportunity to discuss in an open public-private forum the regulators’ approach towards economic sanctions and the expectation of industry leaders as to how sanctions could be better conceived and applied.

Who should attend?

Lawyers, compliance officers, bank executives, general managers, payment and treasury officers in companies and banks, government officials and academics.

How The White House’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage Affects Employment Law

Recently Anjali Chavan of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP had an article regarding the White House’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage, featured in The National Law Review:

On May 9, 2012, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to affirm his belief that same-sex couples should be able to get married. Weeks later, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declared a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) unconstitutional.1 These announcements are just two of many events that have shaped the current landscape in this country with respect to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) Americans.

As LGBT issues are being placed at the forefront of American politics, employers would do well to pay attention, as these changes may necessitate changing employment policies, educating staff, and potentially defending against employment lawsuits for previously unchartered claims, including discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

On June 12, the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee (“HELP Committee”) is set to consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”). ENDA seeks to expand the protections of Title VII to cover sexual orientation and gender identity and will prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment by nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.

ENDA will be a federal mandate proscribing any discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity by both public and private employers—thereby bringing employees living in states without such protections like Ohio,2 Kentucky,3Pennsylvania,4 and West Virginia,5 under the umbrella of federal protection.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that Title VII protects transgender employees—holding that discriminating against employees who do not identify with their gender, act like members in their gender, or conform with sexual stereotypes is a form of sex discrimination violates Title VII. Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004).

Further underscoring the shifting landscape of LGBT rights was the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) recent ruling in Macy v. Holder, expanding the prohibition against sex discrimination of Title VII to cover transgender workers.

In Macy v. Holder, the EEOC held that Mia Macy’s complaint of discrimination based on gender identity, change of sex, and/or transgender status can be brought under Title VII. Macy, a former police detective in Phoenix, Arizona, relocated to San Francisco and applied for an open position at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“Agency”) for which she was qualified. Macy originally applied for the position as a man and interviewed with the Director as a man. Macy asserted that the Director told her on two separate occasions that she would have the position pending completion of a background check. A few months after her original application, Macy informed the Agency that she was beginning the process of transitioning from male to female. After the Agency received notice of Macy’s change of name and gender, the agency contacted Macy and told her the position was no longer available due to lack of funding. Macy later discovered that the Agency filled this position with another person.

The EEOC found that charges of discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity are cognizable under Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibition and any such claims must be processed by the EEOC.

That Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination proscribes gender discrimination, and not just discrimination based on biological sex, is important. If Title VII proscribed only discrimination on the basis of biological sex, the only prohibited gender-based disparate treatment would be when an employer prefers a man over a woman, or vice versa. But the statute’s protections sweep far broader than that, in part because “gender” encompasses not only a person’s biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity.

* * *

[G]ender discrimination occurs any time an employer treats an employee differently for failing to conform to any gender-based expectations or norms.

The growing trend in the United States reveals that employment law is changing and adapting to provide a more inclusive environment for LGBT employees. Even though your state or federal circuit court may not recognize certain protections for LGBT individuals, many cities and counties around the country do have such protections in their local ordinances. As employers are navigating these issues in hiring, promoting, and firing, they should be cognizant of the local, state, and federal laws that may be at play. Employers must take the time to recognize and understand these changes, and consider revising their employee manuals and employment policies to comply with these changes.

(1) Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep’t of HHS, et al., Case Nos. 10-2204, 10-2207, & 10-2214, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10950, (1st Cir. May 31, 2012) (affirming the lower court’s holding finding Section 3 of DOMA which defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a women, to be an unconstitutional encroachment on the power to define marriage granted to the states by the Tenth Amendment).
(2) Ohio prohibits discrimination by public employers based on sexual orientation.
(3) Kentucky prohibits discrimination by public employers based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
(4) Pennsylvania prohibits discrimination by public employers based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
(5) West Virginia provides no protections for LGBT employees.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Retail Law Conference 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Retail Law Conference:

at the Westin Galleria in Dallas, Texas

November 7-9, 2012

This event is the perfect opportunity to discuss the latest issues affecting the retail industry while obtaining important continuing legal education (CLE) credits.

Open to retail and consumer product general counsel, senior legal executives and in-house attorneys and their teams, the exceptional dialogue presented at this conference will help your organization navigate the current legal landscape of the industry.

On May’s Employment Report

The U.S. Department of Labor had an article regarding May’s Employment Report published in The National Law Review:

While Friday’s jobs report was a bump in the road to recovery, our labor market continues to show signs of economic growth. We have had 27 straight months of private sector job growth, which has helped 4.3 million Americans get back to work. This expansion has been broad, with every industry (except government) showing clear growth in the past two years.

Last month, we saw strong growth in health care, transportation and warehousing, and wholesale trade. In particular, manufacturing continues to be a symbol of the resilience of American industry, with nearly 500,000 jobs added over the last 28 months. This has been the strongest growth in manufacturing in any 28 month period since April 1995.

The ratio of available jobs to jobseekers has declined from 1:7 to 1:3 from 2009 to 2012.

Additionally, millions more Americans are working today compared to the end of 2009. Competition for jobs has also eased in recent months. During the height of the recession, there were 7 jobseekers for every available job, making it very difficult to find employment. Today, as more jobs are becoming available, the ratio has declined to just over 3 jobseekers for every job opening – improving the chances for an unemployed individual to find an opportunity.

The steady increase in employment has also helped drive the unemployment rate down to the low 8% mark. Yet, there has been some debate about what is causing the unemployment rate to decline – is it people leaving the labor force or people getting jobs? The facts are clear: since August 2011 (when the rate started its steady decline) the primary factor in bringing the unemployment rate down has been people getting jobs.

Decline in the Unemployment Rate

99% of Decline in Unemployment Rate Since August 2011 is Because of People Finding Jobs

But we have to do more. The economic situation continues to be a challenge for too many Americans who desperately want a job. We won’t be satisfied with our efforts until every American who wants a job can get a one.

At the Department of Labor, we are taking a number of steps to help the unemployed get back to work faster, including reforms to the unemployment insurance system. These reforms will provide states with more flexibility to respond to changes in the economy, provide employers with tools to avoid layoffs, help the unemployed get back into the workforce faster and even expand opportunities for the unemployed to start their own businesses.

However, as Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis said on Friday, congress must come together to work on the to do list President Obama developed. These plans will encourage businesses to bring jobs back to the U.S.; help small businesses grow and hire more workers through tax credits; create more job opportunities for our veterans; invest in the clean energy economy; and help struggling homeowners with refinancing options so they can stay in their homes.

By Adriana Kugler on June 4, 2012

Adriana Kugler is the Chief Economist for Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis.

© Copyright 2012 U.S. Department of Labor

8th Annual FCPA & Anti-Corruption Compliance Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 8th FCPA & Anti-Corruption Compliance Conference:

8th FCPA and Anti-Corruption Compliance Conference
Identifying Changes to the Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Landscape to Maintain and Upgrade Your Existing Compliance Program

Event Date: 12-14 Jun 2012
Location: Washington, DC, USA

Beyond dealing with the FCPA and UK Bribery Act, there are upcoming changes to global Anti-Compliance initiatives being enacted by other major countries. It is imperative that organizations are made aware of these new rules and regulations to be able to meld them all into their organization’s anti-corruption compliance program. Maintaining a robust global compliance program along with performing proper and detailed 3rd party due diligence is of the upmost importance.

Marcus Evans invites you to attend our 8th Annual Anti-Corruption & FCPA Conference. Hear from leading executives within various industries on how to identify new areas of concern when dealing with bribery or working within a company to update an anti-corruption compliance program.

Attending this event will allow you to learn how to mitigate the effects of any possible instances of corruption and bribery both at home and abroad. Discuss solutions and best practices that companies have found when dealing with their anti-corruption compliance programs. This conference will not only review the newest enforcement cases, but also highlight practical solutions to problems dealing with FCPA and global anti-corruption measures.

Attending this conference will allow you to:

-Overcome the issues in dealing and conducting an internal investigation with Dell
-Identify anti-corruption liability concerns for US companies when engaging in Joint Ventures and Mergers and Acquisitions with Crane Co.
-Perform anti-corruption audits to better identify gaps in the compliance program with SojitzCorporation of America
-Promote 
a culture of ethics within an organization to combat non-compliance with Morgan Stanley
-Assess
 the continued challenges in conducting a 3rd party due diligence program with Parker Drilling

The marcus evans 8th Annual Anti-Corruption & FCPA Conference is a highly intensive, content-driven event that includes, workshops, presentations and panel discussions, over three days. This conference aims to bring together heads, VP’s, directors, chief compliance officers, and in-house counsel in order to provide an intimate atmosphere for both delegates and speakers.

This is not a trade show; our 8th Annual Anti-Corruption & FCPA Conference is targeted at a focused group of senior level executives to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Issues Final Rule Re: Student Health Insurance Coverage under the Affordable Care Act

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.‘s Alden J. Bianchi recently had an article about Student Health Insurance Coverage featured in The National Law Review:

Section 1560(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) provides that nothing in the Act “shall be construed to prohibit an institution of higher education … from offering a student health insurance plan, to the extent such requirement is otherwise permitted under applicable Federal, State, or local law.” On March 21, 2012, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final regulation implementing the provisions of Act Section 1560(c). This client advisory explains the key provisions of the final regulation.

The final regulation defines the term “student health insurance coverage” as:

“[A] type of individual health insurance coverage that is provided pursuant to a written agreement between an institution of higher education … and a health insurance issuer, and provided to students enrolled in that institution of higher education and their dependents, that meets the following conditions:

  1. Does not make health insurance coverage available other than in connection with enrollment as a student (or as a dependent of a student) in the institution of higher education.
  2. Does not condition eligibility for the health insurance coverage on any health status-related factor … relating to a student (or a dependent of a student).
  3. Meets any additional requirement that may be imposed under State law.”

The final regulations apply only to fully insured student health plans, and not to self-funded plans, which are beyond the scope of the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to regulate. CMS takes the position that, since student health plans are not employment based, they are not group health plans under thePublic Health Service Act (PHS Act). They are therefore regulated under the PHS Act as individual plans. That some states regulate student health plans as types of group coverage (e.g., as association “blanket” coverage) does not change their treatment under the Act as individual plans.

Certain polices of “limited duration insurance” qualify for a regulatory exemption for “health insurance coverage provided pursuant to a contract with an issuer that has an expiration date specified in the contract (taking into account any extensions that may be elected by the policyholder without the issuer’s consent) that is less than 12 months after the original effective date of the contract.” So-called “short-term limited duration insurance” is available to individuals to fill in gaps of coverage that otherwise might occur, such as when they are between jobs and without employer coverage. It is specifically excluded from the definition of individual health insurance coverage. As a consequence, the individual market protections of the Act do not apply. CMS noted in this regard, however, that —

“these policies often — (1) Allowed students to renew coverage as long as their schools had chosen to retain the policy (and, in some cases, the issuers cooperated with the universities in automatically renewing students who did not affirmatively opt out); (2) had significant numbers of students keep coverage for longer than one year; and (3) in some cases, even based annual and lifetime dollar limitations and preexisting condition exclusion limitation periods on students’ coverage under the policies from the same issuer during prior academic years.”

CMS therefore chose not to change the definition of what constitutes short-term limited duration insurance, which is defined (in 45 C.F.R. 144.103) to mean:

“… health insurance coverage provided pursuant to a contract with an issuer that has an expiration date specified in the contract (taking into account any extensions that may be elected by the policyholder without the issuer’s consent) that is less than 12 months after the original effective date of the contract.”

As a consequence, where coverage is renewable each year at the option of the student, then the coverage does not qualify as short-term limited duration insurance. Recognizing that this interpretation may require some adjustments, the preamble to the final regulation says that, “[t]he effective date of this rule is intended to provide issuers and universities that operated with a reasonable belief that their policies were short-term limited duration coverage to come into compliance ….” (The rule applies to policy years beginning on or after July 1, 2012.)

The final regulation exempts student health plans from the following of the Act’s insurance market reforms:

•  Guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability

Guaranteed issue and renewability rules, which take effect in 2014, will not apply to student health plans. For purposes of the Act’s provisions governing guaranteed issue and renewability, student health insurance coverage is deemed to be available only through a bona fide association, which is exempt from these requirements.

•  Annual limits

The Act generally prohibits annual limits on the dollar value of essential health benefits. An interim final rule provides for a phase-in of annual limits before 2014. Under these interim final regulations, annual limits on the dollar value of essential health benefits may not be less than the following amounts for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning before January 1, 2014:

For Plan or Policy Years
Beginning on or after:
Applicable Restricted
Annual Limit
September 23, 2010,
but before September 23, 2011
$750,000
September 23, 2011,
but before September 23, 2012
$1.25 million
For plan or policy years beginning
on or after September 23, 2012,
but before September 23, 2014
$2 million

The final regulation provides for a transition period for issuers of student health insurance coverage to comply with the restricted annual dollar limits requirements under the Act. Student health insurance coverage will be allowed to impose an annual dollar limit of no less than $100,000 on essential health benefits for policy years beginning before September 23, 2012, and $500,000 for policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2012, but before January 1, 2014. Beginning in 2014, health insurance issuers offering student health insurance coverage must comply with the Act’s bar on annual dollar limits.Where a health insurance issuer that provides student health insurance coverage fails to satisfy the restricted annual limits set out in the table above, the issuer must provide a notice informing students that the policy does not meet those requirements. The notice must include the dollar amount of the annual limit along with a description of the plan benefits to which the limit applies for the student health insurance coverage. The notice must also state that the student may be eligible for coverage as a dependent in a group health plan of a parent’s employer or under the parent’s individual market coverage if the student is under the age of 26. To assist with this requirement, the final regulations provide the following model language:

“Your student health insurance coverage, offered by [name of health insurance issuer], may not meet the minimum standards required by the health care reform law for the restrictions on annual dollar limits. The annual dollar limits ensure that consumers have sufficient access to medical benefits throughout the annual term of the policy. Restrictions for annual dollar limits for group and individual health insurance coverage are $1.25 million for policy years before September 23, 2012; and $2 million for policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2012 but before January 1, 2014. Restrictions for annual dollar limits for student health insurance coverage are $100,000 for policy years before September 23, 2012, and $500,000 for policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2012, but before January 1, 2014. Your student health insurance coverage put an annual limit of: [Dollar amount] on [which covered benefits — notice should describe all annual limits that apply]. If you have any questions or concerns about this notice, contact [provide contact information for the health insurance issuer]. Be advised that you may be eligible for coverage under a group health plan of a parent’s employer or under a parent’s individual health insurance policy if you are under the age of 26. Contact the plan administrator of the parent’s employer plan or the parent’s individual health insurance issuer for more information.”

•  Preventive services

PHS Act Section 2713 generally bars the imposition of cost sharing for preventive services. The final regulation exempts “student administrative health fees” from this requirement by clarifying that these fees are not considered a “cost-sharing” requirement with respect to specified recommended preventive services. A student administrative health fee is defined for this purpose to mean:

“[A] fee charged by the institution of higher education on a periodic basis to students of the institution of higher education to offset the cost of providing health care through health clinics regardless of whether the students utilize the health clinics or enroll in student health insurance coverage.”

•  Minimum Loss Ratios (MLRs)

Under the Act’s provisions governing “medical loss ratios” (MLRs), in general, at least 80% (in the small group and individual markets) or 85% (in the large group market) of the premiums that issuers receive for insurance policies must be spent on reimbursement for clinical services to enrollees (such as hospital and physician payments) and activities that improve health care quality. Under final MLR rules issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, limited benefit (or “mini-med” plans) and issuers of expatriate plans are required to report their mini-med and expatriate plan experience separately from their other policies for one year, and, for that one-year period, are provided an accommodation in the formula for determining the MLR. This was done because these plans have unique characteristics or expense structures that warrant loosening of MLR requirements. The final regulations take a similar approach to student health plans. The rule provides for a transition period for issuers of student health insurance coverage to comply with the Act’s MLR requirements. Issuers will be allowed to calculate their MLRs by applying a multiplier of 1.15 to the total of incurred claims and expenditures for activities that improve health care quality for the 2013 MLR reporting year. The net effect of this adjustment is to make it marginally easier for issuers to comply with the MLR rules without having to issue rebates to policyholders.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Rainmaker Retreat: Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp:

WHY SHOULD YOU ATTEND?

Have you ever gone to a seminar that left you feeling motivated, but you walked out with little more than a good feeling? Or taken a workshop that was great on style, but short on substance?

Ever been to an event that was nothing more than a “pitch fest” that left a bad taste in your mouth? We know exactly how you feel. We have all been to those kinds of events and we hate all those things too. Let me tell you right up front this is not a “pitch fest” where speaker after speaker gets up only trying to sell you something.

We have designed this 2 day intensive workshop to be content rich, loaded with practical content.

We are so confident you will love the Rainmaker Retreat that we offer a 100% unconditional money-back guarantee! At the end of the first day of the Rainmaker Retreat if you don’t believe you have already received your money’s worth, simply tell one of the staff, return your 70-page workbook and the CD set you received and we will issue you a 100% refund.

We understand making the decision to attend an intensive 2-day workshop is a tough decision. Not only do you have to take a day off work (all Rainmaker Retreats are offered only on a Friday-Saturday), but in many cases you have to travel to the event. As a business owner you want to be sure this is a worthwhile investment of your time and money.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Partners at Small Law Firms (less than 25 attorneys) Solo Practitioners and Of Counsel attorneys who are committed to growing their firm. Benefits you will receive:

Solo practitioners who need to find more clients fast on a shoe-string budget. In addition to all the above benefits, solo attorneys will receive these massive benefits:

Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff who are either responsible for marketing the law firm or manage the team who handles the law firm’s marketing. In addition to all the above benefits, Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff will also receive these benefits:

Of Counsel Attorneys who are paid on an “eat what you kill” basis. In addition to all the above benefits, Of Counsel attorneys will also receive these benefits:

Associates who are either looking to grow their book of new clients in the next 6-12 months or want to launch their own private practice. In addition to all the above benefits, Associates will also receive these benefits:

Federal Court Approves Plan to Drill Off Alaska’s North Shore

GT Law

On May 25, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued adecision upholding theBureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) approval of Shell Oil Company’s plan for exploratory drilling in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. Two Alaskan Inupiat groups and ten environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, brought the appeal challenging BOEM’s August 2011 approval of the drilling plans. The environmental groups claimed that BOEM erred in approving the plan because (1) the plan did not adequately inform BOEM about its oil spill response plan, and (2) the seven-paragraph description of the well-capping stack and the containment systems was incomplete. However, the court deferred to BOEM’s technical expertise in evaluating the adequacy of the oil spill response plan and found that BOEM had complied with applicable statutes and regulations in approving the plan.

The court’s deference to BOEM’s approval of well-capping technology is significant because it opens a gateway through which other drilling efforts in the Arctic can get approval. Well-capping, the same technology that BP used in containing the Deepwater Horizon spill, had never before been approved for use in Alaska or in Arctic drilling conditions. The opinion also marks a victory for Shell, which has been trying to get approval for the exploratory drilling project since 2005, when Shell purchased a lease portion in Alaska’s continental shelf from the Minerals Management Service.

Other appeals are still pending in the Ninth Circuit, including one challenging the approval of federal air quality permits for the project. Unless that litigation disrupts the project, the Chukchi Sea drilling operations will commence early next month.

From Chelsae Johansen, summer associate, of GT Tampa:

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Canadian International Trade Compliance Conference – August 21-23, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Canadian International Trade Compliance Conference:

Addressing the Global Trade Compliance Concerns Involving Export Controls, Custom Compliance and Cross Border Trade in Canada

Event Date: 21-23 Aug 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario – VENUE TO BE CONFIRMED, Canada

Key conference topics
  • Assess the latest export permit requirements in Canada with Pratt and Whitney Canada
  • Address re-exports of U.S. origin goods from Canada to comply with both Canadian and U.S. export controls with Future Electronics
  • Integrate an effective anti-corruption compliance program as part of a global trade compliance program with Methanex Corporation
  • Analyze supply chain security concerns when dealing with cross border trade with Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
  • Uncover the updates to the Export Controls List and their impact upon Canadian companies with Research in Motion Limited

Currently, international trade compliance professionals need to stay up to date on the changing regulations within Canada and also abroad. With the changes to the Export Controls List and the ever-complex nature of Canadian-U.S. cross border trade, companies need to be aware of how these changes affect their international trade compliance programs.

Canada’s relationship with the U.S. makes it imperative that the International Trade Compliance community is informed on the impact that U.S. rules and regulations can have on Canadian companies.

Building upon the success of the 2nd Annual International Trade Compliance Conference, the marcusevans Canadian International Trade Compliance conference addresses the Global Trade Compliance Concerns involving export controls, customs compliance and cross border trade in Canada.

By attending this event, industry leaders will be able to overcome any potential challenges in crafting and sustaining a comprehensive trade compliance program.

Attending This Conference Will Enable You To:

1. Dissect the latest updates from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with Research in Motion Limited
2. Comprehend the U.S. Export Reform Initiative and the impact upon Canadian companies with Public Works and Government Services Canada
3. Develop and understanding of import value and transfer pricing with Ericsson Canada Inc.
4. Focus on NAFTA and other Free Trade Agreements with Plains Midstream Canada

Industry leaders attending this event will benefit from a dynamic presentation format consisting of workshops, panel discussions and case studies. Attendees will experience highly interactive conference sessions, 10-15 minutes of Q&A time after each presentation, 4+ hours of networking and exclusive online access to materials post-event.

Audience:

SVPs, VPs, Directors, Superintendents, Supervisors, Engineers, Specialists, Leaders and Managers from the Chemical, Petrochemical, and Refining Industries with responsibilities in:

  • EHS Environmental Health and Safety
  • Safety/Process Safety Management
  • Plant Management/Operations
  • Inspection/Reliability
  • Mechanical/Asset Integrity
  • Manufacturing/Technology
  • Training & Development

2013 H-1B Visa Cap Closing Soon

The National Law Review recently published an article by Kimberly A. ClarkeNina Thekdi, and Luis E. Avila of Varnum LLP regarding 2013 H-1B Visa Caps:

Varnum LLP

As of June 1, 2012, approximately 10,000 H-1B visas remain within the fiscal year 2013 H-1B cap. This indicates that the cap will likely be reached within the next few weeks.   Employers will then need to wait until April 2013 to file new H-1B visa for an October 1, 2013 start date.

This H-1B cap limitation does not apply to extensions of H-1B status or those obtaining H-1B status to teach at colleges, universities, related nonprofit or government research organizations or J waiver physicians.

If your company has potential new H-1B candidates such as international students in their OPT work authorization period or foreign candidates, please contact us to prepare H-1B petitions for these individuals as soon as possible to secure an available visa.

© 2012 Varnum LLP