Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Illinois Department of Labor Publishes Guidance for Employers Seeking Equal Pay Registration Certificate

Effective March 24, 2022, the Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA) was amended to require private businesses with more than 100 employees in Illinois to obtain an Equal Pay Registration Certificate (EPRC) by March 23, 2024, and every two years thereafter.

To apply for the EPRC, businesses must submit the following to the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL): (1) a filing fee; (2) an equal pay compliance statement; (3) a copy of the employer’s most recently filed EEO-1 report; and (4) a list of employees separated by gender and the race and ethnicity categories as reported in the employer’s most recently filed EEO-1 report, and the total wages paid to each employee during the past calendar year.

The IDOL recently updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for the EPRC, addressing, among other things, the application and submission processes, fee requirements, recertification, publicly available data, and penalties for employer noncompliance.  Here are key takeaways:

  • All employees based in Illinois, including those working remotely, should be included in the total employee count for reporting purposes. An employer’s total employee count includes the total number of people employed who worked in or were based out of Illinois on December 31 of the 12-month calendar year immediately prior the year the employer is required to submit an EPRC application.
  • For reporting purposes, “wages” means any compensation paid to an employee by an employer pursuant to an employment contract or agreement between the two parties, including wages, salaries, earned commissions, earned bonuses, stocks and ownership shares. This does not include retirement health insurance benefits, or other fringe benefits.
  • If an employer’s submitted wage data in its EPRC application shows that the employer is paying unequal wages to male and female employees or to African-American and non-African American employees, the IDOL may initiate its own investigation pursuant to Sections 10(a) and 15(c) of the IEPA and Section 320.200 of the IEPA regulations.
  • Before any fines may be imposed for a violation of the IEPA, the IDOL will provide notice to an employer that violates the IEPA and inadvertently fails to file an initial EPRC application or recertification that they have 30 calendar days to submit the application or recertification. If the employer fails to do so, it shall be fined up to $10,000.
  • An employer that falsifies or misrepresents data on an EPRC application faces suspension or revocation of the EPRC and civil penalties up to $10,000.
  • Current employees subject to the IEPA may request anonymized data from the IDOL regarding their job classification or title and the pay for that classification.

Illinois employers should audit their pay practices to ensure that any differences in wages amongst employees of similar job classifications are justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more articles covering labor law updates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

CEQ Reverses First Set of Trump-Era NEPA Regulatory Reforms

On April 20, 2022, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a final rule rolling back minor regulatory changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process that it had promulgated in 2020. The new rule reverts to the language of CEQ’s original 1978 NEPA regulations but otherwise does not substantially alter the regulatory landscape. This is the first of an anticipated two-step process as identified in CEQ’s October proposed rule. The next regulatory proposal is expected to “more broadly revisit” the 2020 regulations and propose further changes to promote environmental justice, climate change, and other Biden administration “objectives.”

The Phase 1 final rule attracted significant public comment and media coverage, but in practice, it should not meaningfully affect NEPA reviews. The regulatory changes themselves are very confined. The final rule features three main components:

Purpose & Need/Alternatives

NEPA reviews of proposed federal agency actions begin by defining a statement of purpose and need and identifying a reasonable range of alternatives. In doing so, agencies routinely give substantial weight to the project proponent’s objectives, rather than reinventing what is proposed. The 2020 rule had codified that longstanding policy by adding language expressly directing federal agencies to consider their statutory authority and the goals of the project proponent when formulating statements of purpose and need and identifying a reasonable range of alternatives that could meet the purpose and need. The new final rule deletes reference to the applicant’s goals to avoid perceived “bias” and restore “flexibility.” Yet, the final rule does not prohibit agencies from considering the applicant’s goals, and instead recognizes they remain “important.” The final rule also retains the fundamental NEPA concept that a “reasonable” alternative must “meet the purpose and need for the proposed action.”

Individual Agency NEPA Regulations

While CEQ’s regulations apply across the federal government, individual federal departments and agencies also have their own rules and procedures for implementing NEPA specific to the particular types of actions they typically undertake. CEQ oversees these agency efforts. To promote consistency in agency NEPA reviews, including those involving multiple agencies, the 2020 rule sought to restrict agencies from adopting requirements stricter than CEQ’s rules. The new Phase I rule removes this ceiling. To be clear, this change does not allow agency-specific NEPA rules and procedures to conflict with CEQ’s regulations, but it does increase the potential for inconsistencies in the application of NEPA procedures across federal agencies. That said, many federal agencies developed their own NEPA regulations and procedures years ago, did not amend those regulations and procedures in response to the 2020 rule, and are not expected to substantially alter their procedures at least while CEQ is still developing its future Phase 2 rule.

Effects

The 2020 rule simplified the regulatory definition of “effects” or “impacts” of the proposed action and alternatives to eliminate separate terms for “direct,” “indirect,” and “cumulative” effects, and to clarify which effects are “reasonably foreseeable.” It specifically provided that a “but for” causal relationship is insufficient to attribute an effect to a proposed project, while excluding potential effects from analysis “if they are remote in time, geographically remote, or the product of a lengthy causal chain” or if they are beyond the agency’s control. But the 2020 rule did not preclude consideration of cumulative impacts or climate change and allowed for their incorporation as part of the baseline for the “no action” alternative. The new Phase 1 rule simply reverses those minor changes including restoring the separate “effects” definitions. This reversion may foster more expansive indirect and cumulative impacts analysis in NEPA documents akin to the analyses developed before the 2020 rule. However, particularly because the 2020 rule did not overrule case law overwhelmingly requiring consideration of cumulative impacts and climate change, the practical implication of these changes should be minimal.

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more regulatory updates, visit the NLR Administrative & Regulatory section.

EPA Will Hold Webinar in May 2022 on Reducing Vertebrate Animal Testing

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on April 18, 2022, that it will hold a webinar on May 11, 2022, entitled “Data-Driven Solutions to Reducing Animal Use in Ecotoxicity.” Speakers will include:

  • Carlie LaLone, Ph.D., EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD), on “The Sequence Alignment to Predict Across Species Susceptibility (SeqAPASS) Tool: Extrapolating Knowledge Computationally.” EPA states that regulatory decision-making for chemical safety relies upon toxicity data generated from laboratory test species for the protection of wildlife in the environment. Typically, ecological risk assessments integrate safety factors to account for interspecies variability. According to EPA, the SeqAPASS tool is a more informed way to extrapolate knowledge from model species to other species that does not require the use of animals in toxicity testing and instead uses existing protein sequence knowledge. LaLone will describe EPA’s SeqAPASS tool and its applications for cross-species extrapolation relative to understanding conservation of biology and predicting chemical susceptibility.
  • Michael Lowit, Ph.D., EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), on “Exploring Potential Reductions in Fish Testing in a Regulatory Context.” According to EPA, as part of its commitment to reducing animal testing, OPP is conducting retrospective analyses of existing data to evaluate critically which EPA guideline studies form the basis of regulatory decisions. EPA states that the results from these analyses can inform if reductions can be made to the number of animals used without reducing the quality of ecological risk assessments. EPA is currently conducting a retrospective analysis for fish acute toxicity tests, which are used by OPP to assess potential risk to fish species from pesticides. For each pesticide, EPA typically requires in vivo testing of three different fish species. Lowit will focus on the relative sensitivity among species subjected to in vivo fish acute toxicity studies. The results of this analysis will inform whether there is a basis for reducing the number of species while providing sufficient information to support pesticide registration decisions.

The webinar is co-organized by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Science Consortium International, EPA, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). EPA notes that it does not necessarily endorse the views of the speakers. Registration is now open.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more updates on the EPA, visit the NLR Environmental & Energy section.

SEC Issues Three Whistleblower Awards Totaling Over $1 Million

On April 18, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued three separate whistleblower awards totaling over $1 million. Each of the awarded whistleblowers voluntarily provided the SEC with original information that contributed to the success of an enforcement action.

Through the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers are entitled to awards of 10-30% of the funds collected by the SEC in the relevant enforcement action. The SEC has awarded over $1.2 billion to over 250 individual whistleblowers since issuing its first award in 2012.

One of the awards issued by the SEC on April 18 was a $700,000 award granted to joint whistleblowers. The whistleblowers provided the SEC with original information and the SEC subsequently passed this information along to another agency. The whistleblowers’ information led to the successful enforcement of actions by both the SEC and the other agency. Under the Dodd-Frank Act’s related action provisions, the whistleblowers were entitled to awards based on the sanctions collected in both actions.

According to the award order, in determining the exact percentage to award the whistleblowers, the SEC considered the following: “(i) Claimants’ information prompted Commission staff to begin an examination that led to the Covered Action, (ii) Claimants’ assistance helped focus the examination; (iii) some of the charges in the Commission’s Order were based, in part, on the information submitted by Claimants; and (iv) there was substantial law enforcement interest in the information provided, as it related to an ongoing fraud involving the misappropriation of investor funds.”

The second award from April 18 was for $450,000. The whistleblower in this case first reported the misconduct internally before providing information to the SEC. According to the award order, the whistleblower’s information “significantly contributed to an existing investigation” and “helped streamline the staff’s investigation and saved the staff time and resources.” The whistleblower also provided the SEC with additional assistance including identifying witnesses and specific events of interest.

The final award, a $45,000 award based on sanctions collected to date, was issued to a whistleblower whose information prompted the SEC to open an investigation. According to the award order, the whistleblower “participated in a voluntary interview with Commission staff” and “suffered hardships as a result of the underlying misconduct.”

On April 18, the SEC also issued a whistleblower award denial. The denial covers award claims submitted by two individuals for the same enforcement action which stemmed from an investigation based on a self-report by a company. The SEC found that the individuals did not contribute to the success of the enforcement action.

According to the denial, “[t]he staff responsible for the Covered Action credibly declared, under penalty of perjury, that it neither received nor used any of the information provided by either Claimant during the Investigation or in the Covered Action, nor did it have any communications with the Claimants. Moreover, the information the Claimants provided did not relate to the matters considered in the Investigation.”

Individuals considering blowing the whistle to the SEC should first consult an experienced SEC whistleblower attorney in order to ensure they are fully protected and qualify for the largest possible award.

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.
For more articles about whistleblower awards, visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.

COVID-19 Healthcare Enforcement Actions to Increase in 2022 and Beyond

“The Department remains committed to using every available federal tool—including criminal, civil, and administrative actions—to combat and prevent COVID-19 related fraud. We will continue to hold accountable those who seek to exploit the pandemic for personal gain, to protect vulnerable populations, and to safeguard the integrity of taxpayer-funded programs”

US Attorney General Merrick Garland – March 10, 2022, Remarks

The Biden Administration, US Department of Justice (DOJ), US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), and other federal agencies have prioritized prosecuting COVID-19-related fraud since the pandemic began. Although the United States appears to be finally emerging from the pandemic, the government’s pandemic-related enforcement actions are here to stay for the foreseeable future. DOJ has made clear that the government’s COVID-19 enforcement efforts will accelerate, with a more significant focus on complex healthcare fraud cases and civil actions under the False Claims Act (FCA). As the federal government continues to devote additional resources towards its pandemic-related enforcement efforts, healthcare companies, hospital systems and providers should prepare for increased scrutiny.

Additional Resources Devoted to COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Efforts

DOJ and other federal agencies have already devoted an unprecedented amount of resources to investigating and prosecuting pandemic-related fraud cases. These extensive efforts have led to immediate results. To date, DOJ has brought pandemic-related criminal charges against more than 1,000 individuals with the total alleged fraud losses exceeding $1 billion, and has seized more than $1.2 billion in fraudulently obtained relief funds.

DOJ’s pandemic-enforcement efforts show no sign of slowing down anytime soon. Less than a year after US Attorney General (AG) Merrick Garland established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force, the Biden administration announced that DOJ would appoint a chief prosecutor to expand on the Task Force’s “already robust efforts,” to focus on “most egregious forms of pandemic fraud” and to target particularly complex fraud schemes.

On March 10, 2022, DOJ announced that Kevin Chambers has been appointed as DOJ’s director for COVID-19 fraud enforcement. During his introductory remarks, Chambers said that DOJ would be “redoubling [its] efforts to identify pandemic fraud, to charge and prosecute those individuals responsible for it and whenever possible, to recover funds stolen from the American people.” He also indicated that DOJ would use “new tools” it has developed since the start of the pandemic to investigate such fraud.

In a March 2, 2022, speech before the American Bar Association’s Annual National Institute on White Collar Crime, AG Garland also announced that the Biden Administration will seek an additional $36.5 million in the 2022 budget for DOJ to “bolster efforts to combat pandemic-related fraud.” As evidence of this point, DOJ plans to hire 120 new prosecutors and 900 new Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who will focus on white-collar crime.

DOJ and HHS-OIG to Increasingly Focus on FCA Cases

For the past two years, officials from DOJ and HHS-OIG have identified civil and criminal healthcare fraud relating to COVID-19 as a high priority. As the effects of the pandemic subside, COVID-19-related civil enforcement actions targeting healthcare providers and healthcare companies seem set to increase.

During remarks at the Federal Bar Association’s annual Qui Tam Conference in February 2022, Gregory Demske, chief counsel to the inspector general for HHS-OIG, emphasized that COVID-19 remains a key enforcement priority. Demske indicated that HHS-OIG is focused on the use of COVID-19 to bill for medically unnecessary services, and fraud in connection with HHS’s Provider Relief Fund (PRF) and Uninsured Relief Fund. Demske also confirmed that HHS-OIG remains intensely focused on fraud in connection with telehealth services, the use of which increased exponentially during the pandemic. And, in March 2022, AG Garland reiterated that DOJ will use “every available federal tool—including criminal, civil, and administrative actions—to combat and prevent COVID-19 related fraud.”

The majority of pandemic-related healthcare enforcement actions to date have been criminal prosecutions involving truly blatant instances of fraud and abuse. Going forward, civil and administrative actions likely will be used to pursue cases that turn on lower mens rea requirements or involve more complex regulatory issues. These civil actions will include qui tam actions filed by whistleblowers, as well as FCA cases initiated directly by the DOJ.

In 2021, DOJ recovered more than $5 billion in connection with FCA cases involving the healthcare industry. Given the unprecedented amount of government funds expended to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, DOJ and HHS-OIG will undoubtedly rely on the FCA to maximize the government’s financial recovery. DOJ has already reached FCA settlements in several Paycheck Protection Program cases. It is only a matter of time before we see similar FCA investigations, complaints and settlements focused on relief funding to healthcare providers.

Pandemic-Related Healthcare Priorities

HHS’s PRF

The PRF was created as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to provide direct payments to “eligible health care providers for health care-related expenses [and] lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirus.” More than $140 billion has been disbursed to hospitals and healthcare providers under the PRF, which is administered by the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA).

Payments under the PRF are subject to specific terms and conditions. To retain PRF disbursements, providers must attest to “ongoing compliance” with these requirements and acknowledge that their “full compliance with all Terms and Conditions is material to the Secretary’s decision to disburse funds.” Notwithstanding ongoing concerns and confusion regarding the PRF program requirements, any noncompliance with the terms and conditions could result in criminal, civil and administrative enforcement actions. As recently as March 3, 2022, AG Garland identified fraud in connection with the PRF as a key DOJ enforcement priority.

To date, the Healthcare Fraud Unit of DOJ’s Criminal Division has already brought criminal charges against nine individuals for fraud relating to the PRF. These criminal cases, however, have almost exclusively focused on egregious allegations of fraud and abuses, such as misappropriating PRF disbursements and using the money for personal expenses. For example, in September 2021, DOJ charged five individuals with using PRF payments to gamble at Las Vegas casinos and purchase luxury cars.

DOJ, however, has long indicated that the FCA will also play a “significant role” in DOJ’s PRF enforcement efforts. It is now just a matter of time before such civil investigations and settlements emerge.

HRSA’s stated oversight plan includes post-payment analysis and review to determine whether HHS distributed PRF payments to eligible providers in the correct amounts; audits to assess whether recipients used the funds in accordance with laws, guidance, and terms and conditions; and the recovery of overpayments and unused or improperly used payments. Among other things, HRSA and HHS-OIG likely will evaluate ownership changes, double counting reimbursed expenses and losses, and compliance with the balanced billing requirements.

PRF oversight and enforcement actions have been delayed partly because of program complexities and extended reporting timelines. For example, the first report from PRF recipients on use of funds was not due until the end of 2021. Depending on the date funds were received, PRF recipients may have no reporting obligations through 2023. Entities that expended more than $750,000 in federal awards, including PRF payments, also must obtain an independent audit examining their financial statements; internal controls; and compliance with applicable statutes, regulations and program requirements. These independent audits of PRF payments must be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, for nonprofit organizations, or the HRSA Division of Financial Integrity, for for-profit “commercial” organizations. Recipients also may be subject to separate audits by HHS, HHS-OIG or the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee to review copies of records and cost documentation and to ensure compliance with the applicable terms and conditions.

Finally, DOJ and HHS-OIG have increasingly relied on sophisticated data analytics to drive their healthcare enforcement efforts generally. Now that the first round of reports containing specific PRF data certifications are available to HRSA and HHS-OIG, we expect to see the use of such analytics, in conjunction with all the other available information, in connection with PRF enforcement.

Telehealth

Telehealth use expanded exponentially during the pandemic. A March 2022 HHS-OIG report showed that during the first year of the pandemic, more than 28 million Medicare beneficiaries (approximately 43% of all Medicare beneficiaries) used telehealth services—a “dramatic increase from the prior year” in which only 341,000 beneficiaries used telehealth. This increase was largely the result of HHS temporarily waiving statutory and regulatory requirements related to telehealth to allow Medicare beneficiaries to obtain expanded telehealth services.

Telehealth has been at the forefront of DOJ’s healthcare enforcement efforts for years now. For example, DOJ’s 2021 nationwide healthcare enforcement action included criminal charges against dozens of individuals for telehealth fraud schemes involving more than $1.1 billion in alleged loses. The majority of these telehealth enforcement actions to date have involved the use of telehealth to engage in traditional fraud healthcare schemes, such as illegal kickbacks and billing for medically unnecessary services and equipment.

DOJ, however, has increasingly pursued criminal enforcement actions directly related to the telehealth waivers HHS issued in response to the pandemic. For example, in November 2021, a defendant was sentenced to 82 months in prison for participating in a $73 million telehealth fraud scheme. The defendant owned laboratories that provided genetic testing and had paid his coconspirators to arrange for telehealth providers to order medically unnecessary genetic tests. The telehealth providers were not actually treating the beneficiaries, did not use the test results and often never even conducted the telemedicine consultation. Although this was primarily a traditional Anti-Kickback Statute/medical necessity case, DOJ also charged the defendant with using the COVID-19-related telehealth waivers to submit more than $1 million in false claims for sham telemedicine visits.

Similar criminal prosecutions and civil actions relating to the expanded telehealth waivers and sham telehealth encounters can be expected in the future. DOJ and HHS-OIG will likely focus on telehealth visits that resulted in claims for services and equipment with particularly high reimbursement rates, such as genetic testing and durable medical equipment. DOJ and HHS-OIG likely will use data analytics to focus on instances in which telehealth services were billed by providers with whom the beneficiary did not previously have a relationship.

Improper Billing Schemes

DOJ has also pursued criminal cases involving traditional healthcare fraud schemes that sought to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in May 2021, DOJ announced criminal charges against numerous individuals who were improperly bundling COVID-19 tests with other more expensive laboratory tests, such as genetic testing, allergy testing and respiratory pathogen panel testing. DOJ has likewise pursued criminal cases in which defendants improperly used COVID-19 “emergency override” billing codes to circumvent preauthorization requirements and bill Medicare for expensive medications and treatments. Any improper billing schemes that relate to the pandemic will continue to be a focus of criminal and civil enforcement efforts going forward.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

DOJ, HHS-OIG and other federal agencies remain focused on pursuing healthcare fraud relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The best way for hospitals, health systems and other healthcare companies and providers to prepare for this increased enforcement activity and scrutiny is to ensure that they have a robust compliance program in place.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to compliance, but companies can take several proactive and practical steps to minimize their enforcement risk:

  • Monitor federal and state regulatory and statutory changes. The rules, regulations and guidance relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, including for the PRF and expanded telehealth waivers, have repeatedly changed over the past two years and continue to evolve. Monitoring such changes will not only help prevent enforcement actions, but a company’s reasonable and good faith efforts to interpret and follow such rules and regulations can be a powerful defense should an investigation arise, as discussed in connection with the Allergan case, above. Further to that point, where regulatory requirements and associated guidance is ambiguous, a good documentary record of the basis for your entity’s interpretation of the rules is critical.
  • Incorporate data analytics into your compliance program. DOJ and HHS-OIG continue to rely heavily on sophisticated data analytics, including artificial intelligence, to identify and prosecute fraud. In March 2022, AG Garland emphasized DOJ’s use of “big data” to identify payment anomalies that are indicative of fraud. Healthcare companies already have access to vast amounts of data that they can and should use to proactively identify errors, monitor risk areas and address any potential misconduct.
  • Adapt your compliance program and internal controls, as appropriate, to support PRF compliance, reports and audits. Recipients should continue to practice good compliance hygiene and maintain contemporaneous records regarding the receipt and spending of federal funds. Doing so may involve implementing additional systems to track spending, recovery and relief to avoid overlapping use of funds among relief programs, or consulting with grant accounting and compliance advisors to augment existing infrastructure. Recipients also should periodically review policies, procedures and controls, particularly following major updates to program requirements and interpretations.
  • Ensure the accuracy of required PRF reports, certifications and submissions. Particularly in light of ongoing political pressure, HRSA and HHS-OIG likely will conduct extensive oversight of the PRF to identify potential errors, overpayments and improper use of funds. Recipients should carefully review guidance and instructions to avoid inadvertent errors and misstatements on all submissions. Recipients may consider revisiting prior submissions underlying significant disbursements to identify interpretative issues or compliance concerns that warrant additional supporting documentation or disclosure.
  • Carefully consider the implications before entering into arrangements with other parties. The biggest risk to healthcare companies often comes from those with whom they do business. Compliance programs should focus heavily on reducing the risk of entanglement with bad actors.
  • Be diligent in the design and oversight of marketing strategies. Healthcare companies and providers should regularly review their marketing strategies to ensure total transparency and compliance (both historic and prospective) with applicable state and federal anti-kickback statutes. Companies should confirm that patients are reached through appropriate channels. Although issues relating to COVID-19 may be the impetus for a government investigation, violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute frequently result in larger recoveries for the government.
  • Proactively examine coding and billing practices. Providers should immediately review and revisit their coding and billing practices to determine if their practices involved bundling COVID-19 testing with other claims, the use emergency override billing codes or billing for other COVID-19 related services with high reimbursement rates. There is a strong likelihood that the DOJ will review the claims data for any providers with statistically significant use of these billing and coding practices, particularly when the providers are located in geographical areas where the DOJ’s Healthcare Fraud Strike Force and HHS-OIG’s Medicare Fraud Strike Force operate.

Article By Julian L. André, Benton Curtis, and Dawn R. Helak of McDermott Will & Emery

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

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

Legal News Reach – Season 2, Episode 1: Immigration & Its Impacts on the U.S. Labor Market with Raymond Lahoud [PODCAST]

Welcome to our first episode of Season 2! Rachel and Jessica speak with Raymond Lahoud, a Member of Norris McLaughlin, P.A., focusing on immigration law. Immigration issues are complicated enough, but how does that factor into boosting the U.S. economy?  Listen to our last episode to find out more.

Be sure to also check out the latest episode of Mr. Lahoud’s podcast, “Immigration Matters.”

We’ve included a transcript of our conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for style, clarity, and readability.

Full Transcript

INTRO  00:02

Hello and welcome to Legal News Reach, the official podcast for The National Law Review. Stay tuned for our discussion on the latest trends, legal marketing, SEO, law firm best practices, and more.

Rachel  00:15

Today’s episode is the first of the second season, where we’re broadening our focus to trending topics in the legal industry. Today we’re speaking with Ray Lahoud, Member of North McLaughlin about the impact of COVID-19 on immigration and labor shortages. Ray, would you like to tell our listeners a little bit about yourself?

Raymond Lahoud  00:30

Well, thanks for having me, Rachel. It’s really awesome to be here on this podcast and to talk about such an interesting area of law right now, in the world, particularly immigration law. I’m a partner at Norris McLaughlin, where I serve as the Chair of the Immigration Law Group here. I handle employment-based immigration matters, removal defense, employment, verification, I noncompliance all types of immigration matters, a broad spectrum with my great team of attorneys, paralegals, and assistants here at North McLaughlin. So thank you again for having me. It’s great to be here.

Rachel  01:05

One of the first topics we wanted to focus on here is immigration’s impact on labor shortages. You’ve written a lot about the impacts on the U.S. economy due to labor shortages. Can you explain how immigration can help remedy the situation?

Raymond Lahoud 01:18

I think we can all agree that without labor without employees, without people to go and work in whatever company, whatever organization, whatever place that exists out there that that needs to provide services or goods to the American public needs, needs employees. Without labor, there’s no economy, immigration right now is really a huge part of the employment demand, or the employment shortage share. There’s a lot of Americans who are able to legally work who just don’t want to work or have you know, taken different decisions or different approaches on life or what they want to do with their life. But we still need people to perform some of these essential functions from farming, to nursing care to handling, you know, mushroom picking to manufacturing, immigration is the way that has long proven to be a way to solve that through temporary visa programs through you know, green card programs that existed out there. And under the Trump administration. And when COVID hit, things really got hit pretty hard and really slowed down the ability for people to bring in international employees to the United States that fill that gap.

Rachel  02:29

This has been an ongoing issue. So are there any policy changes on your radar that will help solve this issue, either through immigration or otherwise?

Raymond Lahoud 02:38

The only way to solve this issue is through comprehensive immigration reform. For over a decade now, we’ve been using the number of 11 million people that are in the country without documentation, I think we can all agree that that number is significantly higher, probably 20, or 30 million people, step one is going to be trying to figure out how we handle those 20 to 30 million people or even Federalists 11 million people that 11 to 20 million people that we have the United States without documentation. And that means that some people are going to have to be deported, who you know, may have certain crimes may have certain issues in terms of their background, but a significant number of these individuals have been in the country for a long time, working without authorization, pleading taxes. So there has to be a process of legalization for those individuals, which is the big issue. We don’t what is legalization for them. And then there also has to be a secure border where people can’t just cross the border without any documentation. I mean, every country has borders, borders are important. We can all see how important borders are right now with what’s happening in Ukraine. You know, comprehensive immigration reform includes having an ability for individuals to come into the United States to work to claim asylum if they have to, to help our employers here in the United States who need employees because people are just not taking part or not applying to Americans are just not applying to take on these jobs. The great resignation has, for some reason taken over the United States and it continues. So what do we need? We need comprehensive immigration reform? How do we get there? It’s getting members of Congress to agree daily, I’m talking to clients who will arrive in Pennsylvania and they’ll say how do I start working here I just crossed the border assuming that because they heard on Facebook before they came up here are on TikTok are though like that it would be very easy for them to claim asylum. So I’m dealing with a lot of clients and potentials and individuals who have just recently crossed the border now feel that they’re stuck in the United States because they can’t leave because they have to go through proceedings and they can’t work. I mean, there’s also in this representation, let’s say that we keep hearing the numbers, millions are coming to the United States. There are millions of encounters. So you may have one person try to come to the United States four or five times and each one is considered an encounter. And this is a problem that we see from President to President, by the way, and this is why I say we need comprehensive immigration reform. Because let’s go back to 1986. Ronald Reagan was going to deal with the immigration problem we had, you know, millions of people here in the United States back then. And he did put three amnesty 1213 14 million people were granted permanent resident status, they say that cost the turn of California to a blue state once they became citizens top political. In the end, they’re like going back to that every President has made immigration, much tougher, actually very tough. Actually, it was the administration that puts some of the toughest policies when it comes to what’s called the public charge rule. The way our system is written right now is that the executive branch just has so much ability and authority discretionary ability and authority over what to do or what not to do, what they can do what they can’t do in terms of immigration. And then every time a new president comes in, something changes drastically. So you had Obama come in, then he puts in place DACA, you know, gives eight 900,000 people, you know, a temporary quote-unquote, status, and you have President Trump come in, and he takes it away. And then you have President Biden come in. Again, it goes back to comprehensive immigration reform. It’s all just been patchwork since after ’86. Now we have 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 million people here. So it’s-I think the distaste is, is that we’re going to grant people status, and it’s just going to happen, again, has to be a two-fold fix as to be true, comprehensive immigration reform where we’re not, you know, 10 years down the road, we don’t have another 15 million people that don’t have documentation here.

Rachel  06:34

What can companies do to help deal with this shortage of immigrant labor or just labor in general?

Raymond Lahoud 06:39

Every day, I probably field 20 to 30 calls from employers who cannot find employees. It’s the biggest problem. I think that’s facing our country right now. And I’m not sure where it comes from, I really don’t understand what this great resignation is, I don’t know how people can live. Right now, there are several legal immigration processes that are available. One is the H Tubi. system, which is a great way of bringing in seasonal employees for farms for landscaping, contractors, painters, manufacturing work, which we bring workers over here year after year. The H1-B lottery is another visa process. So there’s visa processes that are out there, it’s good to avail as an employer to not be afraid of these processes to you know, when you’re recruiting globally recruit, and when you find a candidate, seek out an immigration attorney and say, Hey, is there a way that I can bring this person over legally sponsor them? Is there a pathway and there are. You have companies like the bigger tech companies that are getting all the big H1-B visas, you have the bigger farming companies that are getting all the H2-B visas, because the smaller ones are not really availing themselves, the legalized programs that exist there, we have a lot of people who are coming into the country across the border, these individuals, they’re turning themselves into the Customs and Border Protection. So there’s an expectation at some time that, you know, some of them have fears of returning, I mean, that they’re going to start going through processes. These are individuals that will likely have employment authorization documents, within a year or so don’t forget about the American worker offer good wages, offer good benefits offer time off the world’s change right now in terms of how things work. So if there’s, you know, remote operations that you can offer, do that offer child care services, if you could, but you have to be creative.

Jessica  08:25

So I would love to get your perspective since you’ve been involved in immigration law for so long, and you definitely have a great grasp on the history of a lot of immigration policy changes. I know with COVID, you know, the legal industry got backed up in general; just court cases being rescheduled, I would really like to know what the last two years for immigration law has looked for you how has it changed because of the pandemic updates on border restrictions? I’d love to get your take on that.

Raymond Lahoud 08:52

When the pandemic hit immigration really became incredibly, incredibly busy from the travel restrictions to a title 42 at the border expulsions to people that were detained in immigration custody that were getting COVID It was a disaster for a long time for a lot of people. A lot of people out there who are stuck in other countries, you know, travel bans were coming up and moving and changing by the minute. And companies. You know, the companies that we represent, the employers that we represent that keep operating there were essential. They were central companies and they were healthcare companies. They were companies that do industrial manufacturing or handle electricity and the like, so they needed their employees here. So during COVID, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out the ways to bring a lot of these employees into the United States through the waivers that existed. They’re reaching out to the State Department to seek special exemptions. And then at the same time, you know, the immigration to the deportation defense part of it really came to a halt. court hearings were halted for all like non detained cases, which took an already incredibly backlogged immigration court system and took it about I have four more years behind now. So you’re probably looking at a good 10 years before an immigration judge for a trial. And after continuances and the, like 10 cases COVID really spread pretty heavily, we have to file lots of petitions and requests to try to get clients that were detained by immigration out of custody within the United States. So a lot happened during COVID. And when it came to immigration, in those days, there were nights where I was awake at, you know, two, three in the morning, making sure a client was able to get back in.

Jessica  10:34

We’re in such an interesting environment at this point, especially more recently with the Ukraine crisis, but we also had a changing of the hands in the White House, all the different elections. So there’s been a lot of transition period. And you know, we touched on it a little bit already. But the changes moving forward, I mean, now that the pandemic is having some type of release, besides needing that comprehensive immigration law changes, do you see any other changes now that we’re getting out of the pandemic, whether that’s Ukraine specifically, or just in general? What do you think is gonna happen here?

Raymond Lahoud 11:07

I think that we’ve, we’ve moved on to our next disaster with our next emergency, we’ll say, which is Ukraine right now. This is all that we hear about on the news, there aren’t COVID numbers at, you know, at the bottom, how do people are dying, how many people died and the like, I just feel that, you know, Ukraine has as taken over COVID. Now COVID brought on a time of remote hearings, which are still continuing now. The immigration courts, making fun of them with, you know, video, WebEx hearings in Zoom hearings, are able to move them quicker through the system and the like, and I have some serious issues. When it comes to remote hearings. You know, there’s huge due process concerns and having my client be able to testify in person where the judge can see his or her face. You know, there’s some very serious concerns in that. So they’re changes that, you know, came about from COVID, in terms of remote operations and the like, but I don’t know if they’re necessary to our benefit, even for, you know, immigrants work were coming in. And also, you would think that we really learned how to process things a lot faster. You know, what, we’re kind of hit with the crisis, and we just aren’t, you know, our embassies are still in a huge backlog when it comes to processing visas and, you know, fiance petitions and merit-based petitions and the like, but we are seeing movement here stateside within that, honestly, in terms of change. I mean, you just, it’s all patchwork.

Jessica  12:27

If memory serves me correctly, I know the Biden administration has put more emphasis on visas for STEM. I think people coming either for schooling or for employment, if I’m remembering correctly, do you think that’s a step in the right direction, I know it’s another “patch,” but…

Raymond Lahoud 12:43

 The United States has a huge number of international students in the United States, even locally here in what’s called the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, Lehigh, Lafayette, Cedar Crest Moravian, their F huge international student populations and international student populations are critical to cultural diversity to you know, just to the growth of the school and it’s bringing the world together. So as part of it, so students will come here from abroad, Saudi Arabia, countries, China, Japan, Australia, they’ll come to the F1 visa complete their courses here to get a bachelor’s degree. And if they typically, if you come in under the f1 visa, regardless of your degree, you’ll get 12 months of what’s called occupational practical training. And that’s because you 12 months of just training in your, your area of of studies, when you were in school, if you earned a STEM degree science, tech, engineering or math degree, you can get an additional 24 months of occupational practical training. To me, that’s great to me for bringing people here, and we’re educating them, we should keep them here and you know, give them jobs here. I mean, we there’s no reason that you know, we should be training talent and, you know, bringing in talent from across the world, and then just sending them, you know, back to, you know, their home country, particularly if they’re willing to stay and work here and become members of society in good standing that contribute pay taxes. Why not? Even if you were you came in, you knew you were coming in across the border, see, you’re still a kid, and then you turn over all of your information to the government when you’re 17 or 18 years old. And then, you know, four, eight years later, the Trump ministration says that they are going to get rid of it and it goes through courts who put it back in and take it out and put it back in and then there’s an injunction lifted, and these are hundreds of thousands of lives in people’s hands. People really have to recognize that there are faces to these individuals that have deferred action that have temporary protected status that there are faces to them. And it’s more than just politics. But could you imagine if you were in that position with deferred action, not knowing should I finish going to college should I spend the money should I take a job, what do I do next?

Jessica  15:01

COVID already caused a very large limbo feeling if you’re coming from another country, or you’ve been here, and then you might be told, “oh, you gotta go back to where you came from.” And I can’t imagine being young when you come here and then going back to a country you don’t even really know.

Rachel  15:17

So we wanted to get your viewpoints on Ukrainian refugees and immigration, how does this compare to other refugee crises that we’ve had in the past

Raymond Lahoud 15:27

Ukraine refugee crisis has brought the US government to its peak when it comes to refugees, and the like, they’ve acted very quickly, to bring in them what’s called Temporary Protected Status. You compare it to you know, what happened in Afghanistan and the lake, there are a lot of differences, I would say just that how quickly they are granted temporary protected status. You know, if you’re from Ukraine, there’s countries that are setting up policies like Canada to try to bring in people from Ukrainian. And I hope that these policies that these countries are putting together to help refugees in times of crisis will stay for other countries to beyond Ukraine’s. Hopefully this won’t be the last time that you’ll see other countries open their doors to help people. My mom and dad are both born in Lebanon and immigrated here during the civil war in the late 70s. And it was devastating. And the US opened its doors to the Christians from the north, they came in and became an integral part of the society life here in Pennsylvania, it’s good to see that in Ukraine, but we’re going to have other countries that are going to have similar issues. And who knows where, you know, President Putin may stop, we just really have to think long term about it. Because we also have to be realistic. And we can only handle so many people in our country. I hate to say that.

Rachel  16:49

How does that factor into maybe some of the more, like, long-term policy changes that the country could implement? Is there a need to sort of rethink how we bring in refugees, and how many people we can take and how that process really goes?

Raymond Lahoud 17:02

There is, there is, but how do you rethink that? You know, how do you it’s even just saying, you know, how many people can we take in I know you just feel I feel internally bad because you don’t want to turn anybody away, that’s really hurting, you know, and but we have to, thankfully, I’m not in Congress to make up those decisions. But I think there has to be, you know, some sense of reason, and balance. And I’m not really sure what that is.

Rachel  17:29

Like the US has to work together with other countries to make sure that we help them out of people that need to be helped. I don’t think it’s realistic for one country to sort of shoulder most of the burden.

Raymond Lahoud 17:38

It’s very hard to get refugee status. I mean, you don’t just kind of come into the United States and walk-in and may take years to go through I mean, if you’re going to the Iraqi refugee have to go in through the United Nations refugee program, there’s a huge process you have to go through, it’s not easy. The things that happened in Afghanistan kind of made known the issues with our you know, the refugee program and the lake. But it’s not, it’s not an easy process to go through. You can’t just walk into an embassy, US Embassy and say, Hey, I’m I’m afraid of where I’m living, I want to go to United States,

Rachel  18:09

Right, yeah. And I imagine on top of even having to be in a situation where you have to flee your home.

Raymond Lahoud 18:15

Anybody that goes through pain, like a harm or fear, you know, I mean, whether it’s domestic violence, and those are the worst of cases where I have clients who are coming in suffered extreme domestic violence, like at the hands of their spouses and the like, and, and with those, you know, you know, what you do, you can send them back, you know, when that when the spouse is going to kill them on, you know, they’re dead on arrival. And so those are cases that we’re dealing with inside the United States right now. It’s like we have refugees coming in. But we also have asylees, here in the United States that were people who are in here applying affirmatively for asylum, we have a lot of people in the United States that are here on like a protective status we do. We do so much. And other countries are recognizing that if you take a look at Australia, so people are coming into the to Australia, they don’t go into the country, they sit off-island for a long period of time for they claim asylum or anything like that. The other countries that are out there, I think that they all have some pretty unique set of circumstances that are there, and in ours has a lot of issues that we have to really work through.

Rachel  19:16

So you’ve written about policy changes in Pennsylvania aimed at helping undocumented immigrants, you know, entrepreneurs, people who are getting driver’s licenses, things like that. I was curious to get your insight on how you see these changes impacting both immigrants in the state as a whole, like what sort of have been the changes there?

Raymond Lahoud 19:33

Driver’s licenses in Pennsylvania, we’re seeing a movement. New Jersey, just fair aware, they pass legislation in the implement to the driver’s licenses, people who may not have a social security number or the like, right now in Pennsylvania. I believe it’s in the House Committee. It’s being discussed. I don’t see it moving out of there given the current makeup of the legislature. I don’t foresee it happening in Pennsylvania anytime soon. It does keep coming up a lot by members of the State House, I think it’s a good idea because people are driving. Let’s get real. There are people without papers in the United States. I mean, if we don’t realize that, I think that we’re just fooling ourselves. So, you know, it’s if it’s a way for them, they’re voluntarily providing their information, you know, why not register it, they can get their insurance. It’s not a federal issue. It’s a state issue as the as right to get driver’s licenses, it’s state-by-state. Pennsylvania considers that they look at it, they bring it up, but it always fills in committee doesn’t go anywhere. Pennsylvania, has the political planet as a swing state, as we all know, and immigration is a hot topic issue here.

Rachel  20:37

I’m glad to hear that at least it’s even if it’s not, you know, moving forward, I think it being on people’s minds is a good thing. So in terms of changes like that, and maybe large scale changes, like we spoken about how we just need really large scale immigration reform, I was wondering, we could talk about the changes that you think need be made to both attract and retain immigrants in the United States, I think there’s a lot of talk about specifically, after the Trump administration, a lot of international students to stop coming here, you know, the United States is losing talent to countries like Canada and other places like that. So I was curious to get your thoughts on that.

Raymond Lahoud 21:14

COVID-19 opened up a different way of kind of operating, we had spoken earlier, where, you know, these companies are now recognizing that they could get that global talent opened up a facility in India or, you know, have somebody remote in from Canada, or actually just physically move their locations to Canada, or their offices or their manufacturing sites to another country, because it’s easier to bring labor in. I think that other countries are starting to embrace certain kinds of immigration, like I know that Canada is, you know, they’ve implemented that another investment-based immigration system, they’ve made it easier for Indian workers a certain kind of ticket during COVID in the light. So there are countries that are taking no more proactive approach to bringing in people but during the Trump administration, people from abroad really felt they weren’t welcomed in the United States. And I saw that a lot with students, and there was a significant number. It’s coming back, and I’m seeing the numbers come back, and just from the schools locally, that that we’re working with. So in terms of the International Student Program, you know, I do feel that it’s picking back up after COVID. And after the Trump administration, I just think we have to kind of keep going with it to make sure that, you know, we know that the people that we’re inviting into our country, we know that we have to welcome them here and treat them kindly, and work with them. Because we’re just we are one world one people. I’m really just, I think it’s a realist here, and that, you know, you have immigration lawyers who, you know, will just, you know, push things to like an end and say, No, open borders, and you have no people on another end that would say, you know, close everything to anybody. And but I think we have to have recent ability. I mean, you just can’t close the United States to everything. I mean, you can’t close the United States to the globe’s cultures, we just have to find a middle ground. And I hope that, you know, I was able to kind of present some of that reason that no middle ground, that’s there being immigration where it’s hard to take, you know, some things that Trump did weren’t necessarily I’m going to do but if somebody heard me say that, and I will now, you know, they would be shocked at it. But I think that’s what the issue is, is that there’s no meeting of minds. People just become enemies, because somebody has a different political opinion. You know, I think there really has to come a realization that we just can’t shut the borders down completely. And you can’t open the borders up completely. There just has to be a middle ground that we all have to reach in. Our members of Congress really have to grow up and hopefully, they will. And hopefully, they’ll work with the Biden ministration. We’ll get somewhere.

Jessica  23:52

I actually have an interesting question. Since you’re located in Pennsylvania; Lancaster’s, a certified welcoming status for refugees. Do you think that’s helpful in situations like Ukraine? And like if more cities did that, do you see that as a positive direction?

Raymond Lahoud 24:06

I do, I do. I mean, like…Philadelphia has, like a welcome center for Lancaster was one of the counties like that. It’s really what they do with it is, yeah, it certainly hops. The more the better. Governor Wolf has actually taken very proactive actions towards the Ukrainian community here, even locally. But again, there’s more than just the Ukrainian community that are suffering from prosecution. So hopefully, it’ll open our minds to how we deal with other areas and in the future when this happens and how other countries can work together with it. But yeah, it does. It does help because it shows that we care you know, things like that only they can start shows that we care. You know, even if you know, New Jersey, they couldn’t give them give people a real ID driver’s license, but they gave them a license to drive and pencil and they can leave the state drive and add to it, it’s still a driver’s license so they can give What they want to know as much as they can give them and if that’s what Lancaster was able to give them, that’s what it was. They can’t give driver’s licenses but um, you know, that opens up a door for immigrants and to have stuff like that it’s good for them to have programs like that is good.

Rachel  25:14

Well, excellent. Thanks again, Ray for joining us today. We had a great conversation.

Raymond Lahoud 25:20

 It’s really been good being here talking about immigration. It’s an interesting topic. And hopefully, we’ll see things changing in the years to come and I’m here to talk to you whenever. Yeah, thank you for having me.

OUTRO  25:40

Thank you for listening to The National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes for the latest legal news. Interested in publishing and advertising with us? Visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Article By Rachel Popa and Jessica Scheck of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more Legal News Reach podcasts, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

The Biden Administration Proposes Mark-to-Market Minimum Tax on Individuals With More than $100 Million in Assets

Summary and Background.  On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration proposed a 20% minimum tax on individuals who have more than $100 million in assets.  The minimum tax would be based on all economic income (which the proposal refers to as “total income”), including unrealized gain.  The tax would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.  The minimum tax would be fully phased in for taxpayers with assets of $200 million or more.

Under the proposal, an individual’s 2023 minimum tax liability would be payable in nine equal annual installments (e.g., in 2024-2032).  For 2024 and thereafter, the minimum tax liability would be payable in five annual installments.  The tax may be avoided by giving away assets to section 501(c)(3) organizations (including private foundations or donor-advised funds) or 501(c)(4) organizations before the effective date of the legislation so as to avoid the $100 million threshold.

The Biden proposal is an attempt to appeal to Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and address some criticisms of Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-Or.) mark-to-market proposal.  Senator Manchin has expressed support for a minimum 15% tax on individuals, and this support was apparently an impetus for the proposal.  Senator Manchin has not, however, expressed support for a mark-to-market minimum tax, and the Biden Administration does not appear to have received any support from Senator Manchin before releasing its proposal.

The five-year payment period is an attempt to address concerns that Wyden’s proposal might overtax volatile assets, and to “smooth” taxpayers’ cash flows without the need for the IRS to issue refunds.  Under the Biden Administration’s proposal, installment payments of the minimum tax may be reduced to the extent of unrealized losses.

The minimum tax is being described as a “prepayment” that may be credited against subsequent taxes on realized income.  This description provides a backup argument on constitutionality: the minimum tax isn’t a tax on unrealized income but is merely a prepayment of tax on realized income.

Operation of the Minimum Tax.  The minimum tax would apply to taxpayers with wealth (assets less liabilities) in excess of $100 million.  The proposal does not define liabilities, and does not indicate whether a taxpayer would be deemed to own the assets of his or her children, or trusts.  Therefore it is unclear as to whether a taxpayer who is close to the $100 million threshold may avoid the tax by giving away assets to children.  As mentioned above, a taxpayer can give assets to section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organizations to avoid the threshold, and so, if the minimum tax is enacted, donations to charity would be expected to dramatically increase.

The proposal phases in for taxpayers with wealth between $100 million and $200 million.  The phase in is achieved mechanically by reducing the tax liability to the extent that the sum of (w) the minimum tax liability, and (x) the uncredited prepayments exceeds two times (y) the minimum tax rate, times (z) the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million.  Thus, for a taxpayer with $150 million of wealth and a zero basis and no prior prepayments, the $30 million of minimum tax liability would be reduced by $10 million to equal $20 million.  ($10 million is amount by which (x) $30 million exceeds (y) $20 million, which is 40% [two times the minimum tax rate] times $50 million [the amount by which the taxpayer’s wealth exceeds $100 million].)

A taxpayer subject to the minimum tax would make two calculations:  Their “normal” tax liability under our current realization system, and the “minimum” tax under the proposal. Tax would be paid on the greater of the two.

For purposes of the 20% minimum tax, the taxpayer would include all unrealized gain on “tradeable assets.”  The proposal does not define tradeable assets.  Tradeable assets would be valued using end-of-year market prices.  The taxpayer would also include all unrealized gain on “non-tradeable assets.”  Non-tradeable assets would be valued using the greater of (i) the original or adjusted cost basis, (ii) the last valuation event from investment (i.e., a round of equity financing), (iii) borrowing (i.e., a lender’s appraisal), (iv) financial statements, or (v) other methods approved by the IRS.  Original or adjusted cost basis would be deemed to increase at a rate equal to the five-year Treasury rate plus two percentage points.  The five-year Treasury rate is currently 2.76% and so, at today’s rates, non-traded assets without a valuation event would deemed to increase in value at a 4.76% annual rate.  The proposal would not require valuations of non-tradeable assets.

While a taxpayer would be subject to the minimum tax if it exceeds the normal tax, as mentioned above, payment of the minimum tax would be made in equal annual installments (nine for the first year of minimum tax liability and five thereafter).

So, assume that a taxpayer purchases an equity interest in a non-traded C corporation on January 1, 2023 for $200 million.  The taxpayer has no realized income and no other assets.  The taxpayer would have zero “normal” tax.  Assume that the five-year Treasury rate is 2.76%.  The investment would be deemed to increase in value by 4.76% (to $209.5 million).  The minimum tax would be 20% of $9.5 million, or $1.9 million.  If this was the taxpayer’s first year subject to the minimum tax, the minimum tax liability would be $211,111 in each of years 2024-32, subject to the “illiquid exception” described below.  If the taxpayer subsequently sells the C corporation, it would credit the minimum tax prepayments against his or her income tax liability.

Payments of the minimum tax would be treated as a prepayment available to be credited against subsequent taxes on realized gains.

The Biden Administration has separately proposed that death would give rise to a realization event.  If a taxpayer’s prepayments in excess of tax liability exceed gains at death, the taxpayer would be entitled to a refund.  The refund would be included in a single decedent’s gross estate for estate tax purposes.  Net uncredited used prepayments of a married decedent would be transferred to the surviving spouse (or as otherwise provided in regulations).

In contrast to Senator Wyden’s proposal, which does not require that tax be paid on unrealized gain for non-traded assets, and instead imposes a deferral charge upon realization, the Biden Administration’s proposal generally requires that minimum tax be calculated with respect to all unrealized gain, including deemed appreciation on non-traded assets, subject to an “illiquid exception.”  If tradeable assets held directly or indirectly make up less than 20% of a taxpayer’s wealth, the taxpayer may elect to include only unrealized gain in tradeable assets in the calculation of their minimum tax liability.  A taxpayer that makes this election would be subject to a deferral charge upon realization to the extent of gain, but the deferral charge would not exceed 10% of unrealized gain.  The proposal does not indicate the rate of the deferral charge.

This aspect of the Biden Administration’s proposal provides a meaningful benefit to “illiquid” taxpayers and encourages taxpayers to become “illiquid” to qualify for the exception.  The proposal provides that tradeable assets held “indirectly” are treated as owned by the taxpayer for this purpose and therefore it is unclear whether and to what extent taxpayers can contribute tradeable assets into nontradeable vehicles to qualify for the illiquid exception.  The proposal would provide the IRS with specific authority to issue rules to prevent taxpayers from inappropriately converting tradeable assets to non-tradeable assets.

Estimated tax payments would not be required for minimum tax liability, and the minimum tax payments would be excluded from the prior year’s tax liability for purposes of computing estimated tax required to avoid the penalty for underpayment of estimated taxes.

The tax is expected to affect 20,000 taxpayers (in contrast to roughly 700 under Wyden’s plan) but to generate approximately the same amount of revenue as Wyden’s proposal: $360 billion over ten years as estimated by the Treasury Department (which is expected to be around $550 billion over 10 years under the Joint Committee on Taxation’s “scoring” methodology).

Article By Robert Gaut, Martin T Hamilton, and Colleen Hart at Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

The DOJ Throws Cold Water on the Frosties NFT Founders

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York recently charged two individuals for allegedly participating in a scheme to defraud purchasers of “Frosties” non-fungible tokens (or “NFTs”) out of over $1 million. The two-count complaint charges Ethan Nguyen (aka “Frostie”) and Andre Llacuna (aka “heyandre”) with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.   Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The Defendants marketed “Frosties” as the entry point to a broader online community consisting of games, reward programs, and other benefits.  In January 2022, their “Frosties” pre-sale raised approximately $1.1 million.

In a so-called “rug pull,” Frostie and heyandre transferred the funds raised through the pre-sale to a series of separate cryptocurrency wallets, eliminated Frosties’ online presence, and took down its website.  The transaction, which was publicly recorded and viewable on the blockchain, triggered investors to sell Frosties at a considerable discount.  Frostie and heyandre then allegedly proceeded to move the funds through a series of transactions intended to obfuscate the source and increase anonymity.  The charges came as the Defendants were preparing for the March 26 pre-sale of their next NFT project, “Embers,” which law enforcement alleges would likely have followed the same course as “Frosties.”

In a public statement announcing the arrests, the DOJ explained how the emerging NFT market is a risk-laden environment that has attracted the attention of scam artists.  Representatives from each of the federal agencies that participated in the investigation cautioned the public and put other potential fraudsters on notice of the government’s watchful eye towards cryptocurrency malfeasance.

This investigation comes on the heels of the FBI’s announcement last month of the Virtual Asset Exploitation Unit, a special task force dedicated to blockchain analysis and virtual asset seizure.  The prosecution of the Defendants in this matter continues aggressive efforts by federal agencies to reign in bad actors participating in the cryptocurrency/digital assets/blockchain space.

Article By Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Robert L. Lindholm, and Daniel Curran of Nelson Mullins

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

Copyright ©2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

EPA Will Propose to Ban Ongoing Uses of Asbestos

The U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) announced on April 5, 2022, that it will propose to prohibit ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the only known form of asbestos currently imported into the United States. EPA notes that the proposed rule will be “the first-ever risk management rule issued under the new process for evaluating and addressing the safety of existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that was enacted in 2016.” EPA will propose to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for all ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos. EPA will also propose targeted disposal and recordkeeping requirements in line with industry standards, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements, and the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). EPA has posted a pre-publication version of the proposed rule. Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period.

Background

As reported in our January 4, 2021, memorandum, EPA released on December 30, 2020, the final risk evaluation for asbestos, part 1: chrysotile asbestos (Asbestos RE Part 1). Of the six use categories evaluated (chlor-alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets, other gaskets, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, and other vehicle friction products), EPA found that there is unreasonable risk to workers, occupational non-users (ONU), consumers, and/or bystanders within each of the six chrysotile asbestos use categories. EPA found no unreasonable risk to the environment. According to the final risk evaluation, chrysotile is the prevailing form of asbestos currently mined worldwide, and “so it is assumed that a majority of commercially available products fabricated overseas that contain asbestos are made with chrysotile. Any asbestos being imported into the U.S. in articles is believed to be chrysotile.” The other five forms of asbestos are now subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR), as reported in our April 18, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Announces Final SNUR for Asbestos Will ‘Close Loophole and Protect Consumers.’”

Proposed Rule

EPA will propose a rule under TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk or as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks used in the oil industry, aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings, other chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle friction products (not including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Super Guppy Turbine aircraft use), and other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will further propose pursuant to TSCA Section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of: aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings for consumer use, and commercial use of other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets for consumer use. EPA will propose that these prohibitions take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.

EPA will also propose disposal and recordkeeping requirements under which regulated parties would document compliance with certain proposed prohibitions. EPA states that it does not intend the proposed prohibitions on processing or distribution in commerce to prohibit any processing or distribution in commerce incidental to disposal of the chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance with the proposed requirements.

According to EPA, because a determination has been made that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to health within the United States or to the environment of the United States, pursuant to TSCA Section 12(a)(2), the proposed rule would apply to chrysotile asbestos even if being manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce solely for export from the United States.

Commentary

Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) commends EPA on this historical achievement. Unsurprisingly, there are aspects of this precedent-setting proposed rule that invite discussion and warrant comment from affected parties. Key among these issues is a potential significant legal vulnerability in the underlying risk evaluation (i.e., Asbestos RE Part 1) for the proposed rule, an issue that may overshadow this historic achievement in a manner reminiscent of EPA’s failed ban of asbestos in 1991 (Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir., 1991)).

EPA proposed that the prohibition on specific conditions of use (e.g., chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry) would take effect two years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA stated that it “believes an aggressive transition away from chrysotile asbestos will spur adoption of superior technology [e.g., membrane cells with increased concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)].” The clear need to consider EPA’s intended action on asbestos in the context of its ongoing actions on PFAS is of course not lost on the Agency. EPA acknowledged that “the transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms could result in greater usage and release of PFAS.”

B&C notes that innovative new technologies, such as alternative membrane cells, may be available in the future, but those technologies must be proven to be economically and technically viable. Once proven effective, the underlying chemical substances must be reviewed as new chemicals if so classified under TSCA. The development, review, and approval are all on indeterminate timelines, so it is speculative when novel, non-PFAS-based technologies will be commercially available and, of course, whether that time will be prior to the effective date of EPA’s proposed ban on asbestos.

EPA requested comment on specific aspects of the proposed rule that B&C encourages potentially impacted parties to consider. For example, EPA discussed its authority under TSCA Section 6(g) to grant a time-limited exemption for a specific condition of use, such as the chlor-alkali industry, where EPA finds “that compliance with the proposed requirement would significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or critical infrastructure.”

EPA also requested comment on a primary alternative regulatory option that EPA discussed for the chlor-alkali diaphragm and sheet gasket categories that would allow a prohibition to take effect five years after the effective date of the final rule. As part of this option, EPA would include establishment of a risk-based performance standard known as an existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL). EPA developed an eight-hour time-weighted average (8-hr TWA) ECEL of 0.005 fibers/cubic centimeter (f/cc) for inhalation exposures to chrysotile asbestos as an eight-hr TWA ECEL-action level of 0.0025 f/cc, with associated requirements for initial and periodic monitoring and respirator usage/type if exceedances are found.

As part of the monitoring requirements, EPA stated that it would “require use of appropriate sampling and analytical methods to determine asbestos exposure, including: … Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at 40 CFR Part 792,” despite the fact that EPA acknowledges that other standards, such as Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP), are more appropriate for industrial hygiene monitoring. EPA’s TSCA Section 5(e) order template states the following under Section III.D:

Compliance with TSCA GLPS, however, is not required under this New Chemical Exposure Limit Section where the analytical method is verified by a laboratory accredited by either: the American Industrial Hygiene Association (“AIHA”) Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (“IHLAP”) or another comparable program approved in advance in writing by EPA.

EPA devoted one paragraph in the proposed rule to “TSCA section 26(h) considerations.” EPA stated, in part, that its unreasonable risk determination “was based on a risk evaluation, which was subject to peer review and public comment, was developed in a manner consistent with the best available science and based on the weight of the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h) [and 26(i)] and 40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45.”

B&C notes that EPA stated in the Asbestos RE Part 1 the following:

TSCA § 26(h) and (i) require EPA, when conducting Risk Evaluations, to use scientific information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies and models consistent with the best available science and base its decisions on the weight of the scientific evidence. To meet these TSCA § 26 science standards, EPA used the TSCA systematic review process described in the [2018] Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document [citation omitted] [2018 SR Document].

Prior to completing Asbestos RE Part 1, EPA requested the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to review the 2018 SR Document. In February 2021, NASEM released its consensus study report on EPA’s 2018 SR Document and concluded that it did not meet the criteria of “comprehensive, workable, objective, and transparent” and that “The OPPT approach to systematic review does not adequately meet the state-of-practice.”

NASEM recommended that “With regard to hazard assessment for human and ecological receptors, OPPT should step back from the approach that it has taken and consider components of the OHAT, IRIS, and Navigation Guide methods that could be incorporated directly and specifically into hazard assessment.”

In response to the NASEM review, EPA revised its systematic review method. On December 20, 2021, EPA released the “Draft Systematic Review Protocol Supporting TSCA Risk Evaluations for Chemical Substances” (2021 Draft Protocol) for public comment. EPA acknowledged in the 2021 Draft Protocol that:

Previously [in the 2018 SR Document], EPA did not have a complete clear and documented TSCA systematic review (SR) Protocol. EPA is addressing this lack of a priori protocol by releasing [the 2021 Draft Protocol].

EPA further stated that the:

[2021 Draft Protocol] is significantly different [from the 2018 SR Document] in that it includes descrition [sic] of the Evidence Integration process…, which was not previously included in the [2018 SR Document].

B&C recognizes that the scientific methods used to inform systematic review are not static and that updates will be required as the science evolves. In this instance, however, many of the documents cited as supporting information for updating the 2021 Draft Protocol (e.g., Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), 2015) were available prior to EPA issuing the 2018 SR Document. Rather than utilizing these documents at the time, EPA developed the 2018 SR Document de novo. In other words, EPA chose to develop its own methodology in 2018 rather than incorporating and adapting existing methodologies that represented the best available science at the time.

These issues raise interesting procedural questions and issues around whether EPA demonstrated that Asbestos RE Part 1 was based on the best available science and weight of scientific evidence, as required under TSCA Sections 26(h) and 26(i) and the implementing regulation under 40 C.F.R. Part 702.

B&C encourages stakeholders to review EPA’s proposed risk management rule on chrysotile asbestos, even for entities that do not manufacture, process, distribute, or use this substance. We urge this review because of the precedential nature of EPA’s decisions. B&C also encourages interested parties to provide public comments on the proposed rule, given that risk management decisions in the proposed rule will likely serve as a basis from which EPA regulates other chemical substances EPA is evaluating under TSCA Section 6.

Article By: the Government Regulation practice at Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

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

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

The SEC’s Proposed Rules on Climate-Related Disclosures – What to Do Now: A Guide for In-House Counsel Facing the Proposed Rules

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rules governing climate-related disclosures, if adopted as proposed, would represent a sea change to the existing public-company disclosure regime.  The rules would require that public companies include the following, among other disclosures, in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC:

  • disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data covering Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for all companies and Scope 3 emissions for companies1 (other than those that qualify as “smaller reporting companies”) for which Scope 3 emissions are material or that have set emissions reduction targets that include Scope 3 emissions, with third-party attestation being required for Scope 1 and Scope 2 data for companies that qualify as “large accelerated filers” or “accelerated filers”;
  • extensive and detailed disclosures regarding climate-related risks, including physical risks and transition-related risks, to a company’s financial statements, business operations or value chain (i.e., upstream and downstream activities of third parties related to the company’s operations);
  • disclosure in the notes to audited financial statements of quantitative and qualitative information regarding financial impacts of climate-related risk, including disaggregated quantitative information with respect to impacts of physical risks or transition activities on specific financial statement line items if the impact is 1% or more of the line item;
  • extensive and detailed disclosures regarding climate-related governance, strategy and risk management; and
  • to the extent relevant to a particular company, disclosures regarding the company’s transition plan, climate-related targets or goals, use of scenario analyses or other analytical tools in evaluating climate-related risk and use of an internal carbon price.

For many companies, the rules would require enterprise-wide changes to how the company collects, assesses and reports climate-related data and other information, as well as changes to their governance structures and systems of controls.  Changes may be driven both by the need to comply with the disclosure requirements and by a company’s view of how its disclosures will be received by investors or the public generally.

The tasks of understanding the implications of the proposed rules for a particular company and preparing for eventually complying with the rules are monumental, and, unfortunately, public companies currently find themselves in the difficult position of possibly needing to act with some urgency in order to be prepared to comply with rules of uncertain substance on an uncertain timeline.  At this point, the proposed rules are just that – proposed and not final.  The period for public comment on the proposed rules will run until May 20 at the earliest and could be extended by the SEC, and public comments are likely to reflect the controversial nature of the proposed rules and strong opinions by both supporters and detractors.  After the comment period, whether and when the SEC releases final rules, and the extent to which any final rules largely follow or reflect significant changes from the proposed rules, will remain to be seen.  Like the proposed rules, any final rules should provide for phase-in periods for compliance.  Further, any final rules are almost certain to face legal challenges that could delay implementation of the rules even if such challenges ultimately are unsuccessful.  It is therefore very difficult to predict when companies will need to comply with new rules and precisely what information they will be required to disclose under new rules.

Despite that uncertainty, it appears very likely that the SEC will adopt final climate-related disclosure rules in the not-too-distant future and that those rules will include in some form most, if not all, of the big buckets of disclosure requirements reflected in the proposed rules.  Because of the significant effort and degree of organizational change that compliance with the rules likely will require, companies may not be able to wait until final rules are released to begin assessing the impacts of the proposed rules on their organizations.  And, if the SEC were to adopt final rules later this year in the proposed form, companies that are large accelerated filers with a calendar fiscal year would be required to include information for 2023, including Scope 1 and 2 emissions data, in their annual reports filed in early 2024, meaning that they would need to have the systems in place to track and record the relevant information by the end of this year.

Assessing the potential impact of the proposed rules on a company and preparing the company for eventually complying with the rules will require participation from many different parts of the organization, but we expect that, at many companies, the task of setting the company on a course to do those things will fall on the general counsel and other in-house counsel with responsibility for relevant substantive areas.  With that in mind, we have prepared the following guide for in-house counsel with respect to near-term actions their companies should be taking or should consider taking, depending on their circumstances.  Bracewell will expand on a number of the topics noted below in future alerts, webinars or other similar communications.

1.   Engage senior management, the board of directors and relevant board committees and begin assessing governance, oversight and management of climate-related risks.

In-house counsel likely will be hearing from their CEOs and board members, if they haven’t already, asking what the proposed rules mean for their company.  In any case, in-house counsel should ensure that top-level management and board members understand the potential challenges and changes their companies may face with the proposed rules and encourage the level of board and senior management oversight and engagement that is appropriate for their situation.  The proposed rules would require companies to provide detailed disclosures concerning their boards’ oversight of climate-related risks and management’s role in assessing and managing those risks. Although many companies already have robust board oversight of ESG matters and include related disclosures in their SEC filings, the proposed rules are far more granular in dictating the type of information that would need to be disclosed.

In that regard, in-house counsel may be asked what changes, if any, should be made to board or committee composition and structure in light of the proposed new disclosure requirements.  Among other matters, consideration should be given to whether the creation of a new ESG committee – or a purely climate-focused committee – is appropriate or whether responsibility reasonably can be shouldered by an existing committee, such as the audit committee.

2.   Establish organizational responsibility for assessing the implications of the proposed rules for your company.

As noted above, this is a huge task that will require input from a multidisciplinary team, including legal, accounting, operations and possibly other personnel.  Identifying the right team and setting clear responsibilities and timelines are critical near-term tasks.

3.   Understand the potential timeline for compliance with the proposed rules as it relates to your organization.

As noted above, there is considerable uncertainty regarding, among other matters, whether final rules will require compliance on the timelines contemplated in the proposed rules, which would have the compliance requirements phased in over several years based on a company’s status as a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company.  This fact sheet on the proposed rules published by the SEC provides helpful tables (on page 3) detailing the phase-in periods contemplated by the proposed rules for companies with a calendar fiscal year, assuming the proposed rules were adopted as final with an effective date in December 2022.

Despite the uncertainty, it is certainly possible that the SEC could adopt final rules later this year with compliance dates as contemplated by the proposed rules, and companies therefore would be ill-advised to assume that they will have a longer ramp-up period than they would under the proposed rules and the assumption of a December 2022 effective date.

4.   Understand the proposed rules and the disclosures they will require for your company based on its specific circumstances, including with regard to differences between what the company is disclosing now and what would be required by the proposed rules.

The proposed rules are highly prescriptive and are intended to produce consistent and comparable disclosures across the public-company spectrum.  With limited exceptions (e.g., that smaller reporting companies would be exempted from the requirement to disclose Scope 3 emissions), all public companies will need to assess required disclosure under all provisions of the rules.  That assessment, however, will need to be made in light of the company’s specific circumstances, and there will be categories of required disclosures that are very relevant to some industries or companies but of no or limited relevance to other industries or companies.  Additionally, many companies have been voluntarily disclosing information that is similar to some of the information that may be required to be provided under the proposes rules, but there may be gaps between or differences in required disclosures and a company’s current practices.

As companies begin to digest the proposed rules, it will make sense for them to drill down on the specific types of disclosures they would need to make if the proposed rules were adopted as proposed.  Questions that companies might ask themselves include the following:

  • Will we need to disclose Scope 3 emissions data based on materiality or having set targets or goals including Scope 3 emissions?
  • What, if anything, have we done with respect to the following topics such that disclosure regarding those topics would be required?
    • Adoption of a transition plan
    • Setting of climate-related goals or targets
    • Use of carbon offsets or renewable energy credits in setting goals or targets
    • Use of scenario analyses or other analytical tools in evaluating climate risk
    • Use of an internal carbon price
      • Note that, with respect to goals or targets, the proposed rules refer to a company’s having “set” such goals or targets and not to its having publicly disclosed them.  Similarly, with respect to all of these topics, it is not clear that the related disclosure would be triggered only by some level of formality or organizational scope in the adoption, setting or use of the applicable item.  Companies therefore should assess the relevance of these topics broadly, including informal use or discussion within the organization.
  • What information that we are not currently disclosing would the proposed rules require us to disclose?
  • For information that we are currently disclosing, would the proposed rules require that information to be established, assembled or disclosed differently, or disclosed more expansively or granularly, from how we are doing it now?  If so, how?
  • Which required disclosures might be particularly challenging for our company, such that they might merit special or prioritized focus?

5.   Begin to evaluate existing systems and resources related to climate-related information and identify changes that will need to be made.

Companies in some industries, such as energy or manufacturing, likely already have systems in place to collect much of the data called for by the proposed rules, and many public companies have been publishing voluntary disclosures in the form of ESG reports for years.  However, smaller companies in such industries may not currently have the resources necessary to devote to compliance with the new rules.  Likewise, companies in non-GHG intensive industries, such as financial services, previously may not have had the need, or a more limited need, for such systems.  And even those companies that are experienced in collecting and disclosing climate-related data and other information likely would, under the proposed rules, need to expand their systems to cover a much broader universe of information and ensure that controls and procedures meet standards for disclosures in SEC-filed documents and are appropriate for enhanced scrutiny and potential liability that will come with including such disclosures in SEC-filed documents.  Companies may need to invest significantly in new personnel with appropriate expertise and in new technology, and they will need to expand their disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to cover new sets of information that are wide-ranging, voluminous and highly detailed.  Accordingly, public companies should begin to assess their existing capabilities and identify the changes they would need to make to comply with proposed rules to ensure that the changes can be effected in time to comply with new rules.

Additionally, the climate-related risk disclosures contemplated by the proposed rules may require that companies devote significant resources to expanding the process by which they identify and assess climate-related risk.  Further, the need for companies to evaluate climate-related risks to upstream and downstream – value chain – activities, and potentially to disclose Scope 3 emissions associated with those activities, may pose significant challenges and likely will require many companies to develop new processes to address disclosure requirements that relate to matters that are largely outside of the company’s control and access.  These are areas that companies may want to focus on in the near term.

6.   Evaluate needs and strategy for retaining third parties to assist with disclosures, including for attestation of GHG emissions data.

As noted above, for large accelerated filers and accelerated filers, the proposed rules would require attestation regarding Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions data by an independent third party meeting certain minimum qualifications, which may be a public accounting firm if it meets the minimum qualifications but need not be an accounting firm.  The market for providing these attestation services is evolving and will continue to evolve as accounting firms and others develop their ability to provide these services.  Some observers have raised concerns that the supply of emission-attestation services may not initially meet the demand for such services that the proposed rules would create.  Companies may wish to begin thinking about their options for third-parties to handle the attestation, particularly large accelerated filers who could be subject to the attestation requirements as soon as in their 2024 annual reports filed in early 2025. Additionally, it is important for companies to have conversations around attestation ahead of their information gathering efforts to ensure that the disclosure information being developed and gathered will be sufficient for attestors to provide the required assurance.

In addition to attestation services, companies should consider their potential need for and access to other third-party advisors with the necessary expertise and experience, including attorneys, accountants/auditors and firms providing consulting and other services to assist companies with climate-related disclosures.

7.   Consider whether the disclosures contemplated by the proposed rules warrant any changes to your current, planned or contemplated climate-related activities, such as setting or disclosing of climate-related goals or targets.

As noted above, the proposed rules contemplate detailed disclosures regarding several matters that may or may not be relevant to a particular company depending on things that the company may or may not have done in advance of the initial compliance date for the proposed rules.  These include whether a company has:

  • adopted a climate transition plan,
  • set climate-related goals or targets,
  • included Scope 3 emissions in its goals or targets,
  • used carbon offsets or renewable energy credits in setting its goals or targets,
  • used scenario analyses or other analytical tools in assessing climate-related risk, or
  • used an internal carbon price.

Companies may wish to reassess their existing, planned or contemplated activities in these areas in view of the proposed rules.  It may be the case that a company would want to modify its activities in one or more of these areas when viewed through the lens of what the company’s disclosures regarding such activities would look like under the proposed rules.  For example, if your company is planning to set or announce new GHG emissions goals, should the company modify the goals as they relate to Scope 3 emissions or otherwise before doing so, or would it be preferable for the company to delay any such setting or announcement of goals until there is clarity on the content of final rules?

8.   Determine whether to submit comments on the proposed rules.

The proposed rule release includes over 200 requests for comment.  Comments are due by the later of 30 days after the date the proposing release is published in the Federal Register (which had not happened as of the date of this update) or May 20, 2022.  (As noted above, it is possible that the comment period could be extended beyond that date, but, unless and until the SEC actually does that, parties desiring to submit comments should proceed with the expectation that they will need to submit them by the applicable current deadline.)  Although the SEC will not agree with all comments received and may adopt final rules despite strong and widely-held opposing views reflected in the comments, the SEC and its staff will consider the comments received in adopting final rules and likely will make at least some changes to the proposed rules based on comments.  If your company would like to have its voice heard on the proposed rules, you may consider doing so by submitting comments directly or through an industry association or similar group.

9.   Monitor developments.

As noted above, we are in the early stages of the process through which the proposed rules could, in their current form or with changes, become final rules with which public companies actually would need to comply.  In-house lawyers should continue to monitor developments and advise others in their organizations of such developments as appropriate so that preparations for compliance with new climate-related disclosure rules can be adjusted as necessary.

10. Don’t forget that climate-related disclosures may be required under existing SEC rules and interpretations.

With the anticipation of a massive new disclosure regime for climate-related matters and preparation for compliance with that regime, it might be easy to overlook that fact the existing SEC rules and interpretations may require climate-related disclosures in SEC filings, and the SEC staff may issue comments on climate-related disclosures, or the absence thereof, in a company’s SEC filings, as they did for a number companies in the fall of 2021 with respect to the companies’ 2020 annual reports on Form 10-K.  Pending the adoption and implementation of final new rules, companies should continue to assess their disclosures in view of the SEC’s 2010 guidance on climate-related disclosures.

_______________________________________

1. Scope 1 emissions are direct GHG emissions from operations that are owned or controlled by a company.  Scope 2 emissions are indirect GHG emissions from the generation of purchased or acquired energy that is consumed by a company’s operations.  Scope 3 emissions are all indirect GHG emissions not otherwise included in a company’s Scope 2 emissions, which occur in the upstream and downstream activities of a company’s value chain.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP
For more about SEC disclosures, please visit the NLR Financial, Securities & Banking section.