Category: Administrative & Regulatory

U.S. Sentencing Commission Weighing Recommendation to Increase Criminal Antitrust Penalties

Dickinson Wright Logo

In June, the United States Sentencing Commission, which is appointed by the President to make recommendations to Congress on the criminal penalties for the violation of federal law, issued a request for comments regarding whether the guidelines for calculating antitrust fines should be modified. Currently, corporate fines for cartel price fixing are calculated on a sliding scale, tied to the amount of the “overcharge” imposed by the violators, with the standard maximum fine under the Guidelines for a corporation capped at $100 million and, for an individual, capped at $1 million. The deadline for such comments was July 29, and the views expressed on the issue varied considerably.

Contending that the current Guidelines do not provide an adequate deterrent to antitrust violations, the American Antitrust Institute urged the Commission to recommend an increase in the fines for cartel behavior. The AAI stated that the presumption in the Guidelines that antitrust cartels, on average, “overcharge” consumers for goods by 10% is greatly understated, and thus should be corrected to reflect more accurate levels. Pointing to economic studies and cartel verdicts, the AAI suggests that the median cartel “overcharge” is actually in excess of 20%, and therefore the presumption should be modified in the Guidelines. If adopted, the AAI’s proposal would double the recommended fines under the Guidelines for antitrust violations.

Perhaps surprisingly, the DOJ responded to the Commission’s Notice by stating that it believes that the current fines are sufficient, and that no increase in antitrust fines is warranted at this time. The DOJ indicated that the 10% overcharge presumption provides a “predictable, uniform methodology” for the calculation of fines in most cases, and noted that the Guidelines already permit the DOJ to exceed the fine levels calculated using the 10% overcharge presumption in some circumstances. Specifically, the DOJ noted that the alternative sentencing provisions of 18 USC 3571 already permit it to sidestep the standard guidelines and seek double the gain or loss from the violation where appropriate. Notably, the DOJ utilized this provision in seeking a $1 billion fine from AU Optronics in a 2012 action, although the court declined the request, characterizing it as “excessive”. The court did, however, impose a $500 million fine, an amount well in excess of the cap under the standard antitrust fine guidelines.

Finally, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg and FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright offered a completely different view on the issue in comments that they submitted to the Sentencing Commission. Suggesting that fines imposed on corporations seem to have little deterrent effect, regardless of amount, they encouraged the Commission to instead recommend an increase in the individual criminal penalty provisions for antitrust violations. Notably, they encouraged the Commission not only to consider recommending an increase in the fines to which an individual might be subjected (currently capped at $1 million), but also to recommend an increase in the prescribed range of jail sentences for such conduct (which currently permit for imprisonment of up to 10 years).

The Commission will now weigh these comments and ultimately submit its recommendations to Congress by next May. If any changes are adopted by Congress, they would likely go into effect later next year. Stay tuned.

ARTICLE BY

James M. Burns
 
OF 
Dickinson Wright PLLC

North Carolina General Assembly Fails to Jump Start Our Businesses with Crowdfunding Legislation

Poyner Spruill Law firm

Crowdfunding is a relatively new capital raising tool, which was generally used in the past as a financing method for such ventures as films and music recordings.  To date, crowdfunding has not been a popular method for offering and selling securities because offering a share of financial returns or profits from business activities would subject the transaction to federal and state securities laws, requiring certain registrations with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state securities regulators. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Issues Proposal on Crowdfunding (October 23, 2013).

In 2012, Congress passed the JOBS Act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act).  The JOBS Act, among other things, added a new section, 4(a)(6), to the Securities Act of 1933, creating a new exemption for certain crowdfunding offerings from SEC and state law registration requirements.  However, before the law can become effective the SEC must promulgate and implement rules regulating the exemption.  For further information on the JOBS Act, please see The JOBS Act—An Overview and Some Recent Developments, written by Michael E. Slipsky and David R. Krosner.

As of this summer, the SEC has proposed rules for crowdfunding, but those rules are not final. A dozen states are making an effort to join Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Alabama, Maine, Washington, Wisconsin, and Indiana by developing their own regulations allowing crowdfunding within the states. States are growing frustrated and tired of waiting for the SEC to adopt federal regulations.  See Posting of Bill Meagher to TheDeal.com, States make own crowdfunding rules, rather than wait for SEC (May 5, 2014, 15:03 EST).

In response to the federal delay, Representative Tom Murry of Wake County sponsored state legislation attempting to allow and regulate crowdfunding in North Carolina, filing House Bill 680, the JOBS Act, on April 9, 2013.  House Bill 680 did not pass the Senate and was not eligible for consideration in the 2014 short session.  For that reason, in June the House added the crowdfunding provisions, titled, “Jump-Start Our Business Start-Ups Act,” to the 32 page fifth edition of Senate Bill 734, Regulatory Reform Act of 2014. 

When compromise discussions between the House and Senate on Senate Bill 734 stalled, the Senate added to House Bill 1224 various provisions regarding modifications to the local government sales and use tax rate as well as other provisions including the crowdfunding provisions.  House Bill 1224 had been filed at the beginning of the short session as a bill modifying the Job Maintenance and Capital Development Fund.  The House rejected the Senate’s modifications of House Bill 1224.  As a result, the House and Senate appointed a conference committee, and the committee made its report on July 31, 2014.  The Proposed Conference Committee Substitute was passed by the Senate, however it failed in the House. 

The final version of House Bill 1224, the Proposed Conference Committee Substitute, would have allowed North Carolina residents to invest up to only $2,000 per purchaser – unless the purchaser is an accredited investor as defined by rule 501 of SEC regulation D, 17 C.F.R. § 230.501 – in new in-state ventures through the crowdfunding mechanism.  It would have allowed most companies to raise up to $1 million in capital through unregistered securities without a financial audit and up to $2 million in capital if the issuer has undergone and made available to each prospective investor and the Secretary of State the documentation resulting from a financial audit.  Essentially companies would have been able to sell securities directly to the North Carolina public without having to incur the expense of conducting a registered securities offering.  The NC Secretary of State would have been tasked with the regulation of these types of transactions and would have collected quarterly reports.  See Posting of Mark Binker to WRAL TechWire, Crowdfunding bill clears N.C. Senate Committee,  (July 16, 2014 14:08 EST).

The General Assembly has adjourned sine die.  Although crowdfunding provision had an opportunity to become law during the 2014 short session in either Senate Bill 734 or the Proposed Conference Committee Substitute of House Bill 1224, the General Assembly did not pass the crowdfunding provision.  House Bill 1224 failed in the House and the compromise finally reached for Senate Bill 734 in the ratified bill excluded the crowdfunding provision.  There is a possibility the crowdfunding provision could again be considered before the 2015 session, scheduled for late January, if three-fifths of all members of the Senate and three-fifths of all members of the House vote to do so, as provided in Section 11(2) of Article II of the North Carolina Constitution.  However, the more likely scenario for the General Assembly to return would be for a “special session” by call of the Governor.  As provided in Section 5(7) of Article 3 of North Carolina Constitution, “[t]he Governor may, on extraordinary occasions, by and with the advice of the Council of State, convene the General Assembly in extra session by his proclamation, stating therein the purpose or purposes for which they are thus convened.”

ARTICLE BY

Jillian DeCamp
 
OF 
Poyner Spruill LLP

Oregon’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

Jackson Lewis Law firm

 

Oregon’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, newly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane has held in a case filed on behalf of four couples in Multnomah County. Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (May 19, 2014).

Judge McShane explained the measure discriminates against same-sex couples. “The state’s marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple’s fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”

A state Constitutional amendment, enacted pursuant to a 2004 ballot initiative organized and sponsored by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, had prohibited same-sex marriage, stating that only “marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” This initiative and the subsequent Constitutional amendment were in response to the Multnomah County commissioner’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. During the Geiger litigation, Oregon’s Attorney General stated she found it impossible to legally defend the ban because “per- forming same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relation- ship.” With Geiger, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage is valid under Oregon state and federal law.

Further, although Oregon enacted a domestic partnership law in 2008, the Family Fairness Act, granting domestic partners similar rights and privileges to those enjoyed by married spouses, the Legislature acknowledged domestic partnerships did not reach the magnitude of rights inherent in the definition of marriage. For example, same-sex couples in Oregon were not entitled to the rights or benefits under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act because Department of Labor guidance recognizes same-sex marriage only if valid under the employee’s state of residence. The DOL, however, has proposed a rule expanding the term “spouse” and, if implemented, will recognize same-sex marriages when recognized in the couple’s state of residence or if performed in a state recognizing same-sex marriage. According to the Secretary of Labor, “The basic promise of the FMLA is that no one should have to choose between succeeding at work and being a loving family caregiver. Under the proposed revisions, the FMLA will be applied to all families equally, enabling individuals in same-sex marriages to fully exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities to their families.” No changes have been proposed, however, for purposes of the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act (“ERISA”), the federal law governing employee benefit plans. The DOL counsels employers that, for purposes of ERISA, same-sex marriage should be recognized if valid in the state it is performed.

While Geiger will simplify the legal landscape, employers should review policies, procedures, and benefit plans closely to ensure that same-sex spouses are treated equally in all respects. In addition, Oregon law further prevents employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and family status. Requiring same-sex couples to “prove their status” or take other similar measures that are not required of opposite-sex couples may increase the risk of potential litigation under these laws.

Mei Fung So contributed to this article. 

ARTICLE BY

Scott Oborne
Bryan P. O’Connor
Roger S. Kaplan
 
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model (Part II)

 

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Yesterday’s post discussed the decision of NLRB’s General Counsel to hold McDonald’s Corp. jointly responsible with its franchise owners for workers’ labor complaints. The decision, if allowed to stand, could shake up the decades-old fast-food franchise system, but it does not stop there. The joint employer doctrine can be applied not only to fast food franchises and franchise arrangements in other industries, but also to other employment arrangements, such as subcontracting or outsourcing.

This decision could also impact the pricing of goods and services, as franchisors would likely need to up costs to offset the new potential liability. Everything from taxes to Affordable Care Act requirements could be affected if the decision stands.

If you are a franchisor and are currently in what could be determined to be a joint employer relationship, consider taking steps to further separate and distinguish your role from that of your franchisee. While franchisors should always take reasonable measures to ensure that franchisees are in compliance with applicable federal and state employment laws, they should take care to not wield such force over them to give the appearance of a joint-employer relationship.

We will be following the NLRB decision and keep you updated as the issue progresses.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp. as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Drones Over Kenya and South Africa?

Covington BUrling Law Firm

Similar to the growing U.S. interest in exploring civilian uses of unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), efforts are underway across the African continent to deploy UAS in innovative ways such as protecting wildlife, expanding internet connectivity to isolated communities, and delivering humanitarian aid.  In Kenya, Dickens Olewe and his African SkyCAM project is helping journalists to revolutionize their news reporting and coverage.

The winner of the inaugural African News Innovation Challenge, African SkyCAM “establishes Africa’s first newsroom-based ‘eye in the sky’ drones and camera-equipped balloons to help media that cannot afford news helicopters cover breaking news in dangerous situations or difficult-to-reach locations.”  It has the potential to address two of the main shortcomings faced by traditional news media in the region.  First, journalists who lack financial and technological resources to conduct remote reporting often are “‘risking life and equipment’” to get their story.  Second, by not resorting to state-owned UAS, journalists are able to maintain editorial independence in their reporting.

Use of UAS for journalism and other civilian purposes in the region is facing the same regulatory challenges which are delaying their widespread deployment in the U.S.  Although the Kenyan government has not yet established a regulatory framework for civilian UAS, it has indefinitely grounded both the Flying Donkey Challenge (a high-profile, Swiss-funded competition to develop flying robots which are capable of carrying heavy cargo over long distances) and the Ol Pejeta Conservancy’s wildlife surveillance drone.  Similarly, earlier this year, the South African Civil Aviation Authority announced a “clampdown” on civilian UAS, a warning that some observers believe has chilled this nascent industry.  However, it is promising that the South African government has stated that it is “cognizant of the urgent need and demand for UAS usage” and that it will be releasing an interim guidance document by March 31st of next year.  In addition, South Africa and other countries in the International Civil Aviation Organisation Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Group are continuing to work to develop a safe and harmonised regulatory framework.

In the meantime, African SkyCAM (which is looking to expand to Mozambique and Namibia) and others will need to pay careful attention to finding the proper balance between business, compliance, and innovation.

ARTICLE BY

Mipe Okunseinde
 
OF 
Covington & Burling LLP

Energy and Environmental Law Update: Week of 8/25/2014

Mintz Levin Law Firm

Now that summer is drawing to a close, let’s check in on one important bill that lost momentum just as the summer was beginning. Remember the Senate Finance Committee’s tax extenders package (S. 2260), which the committee marked up on a bipartisan basis in mid-May? The one that was poised to pass the Senate but that surprisingly failed to reach cloture after Senate leadership blocked Republican amendments on the bill? At the time, congressional staff and lobbyists—and even Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) —suggested that the extenders package would come up again in the lame duck session after the November election. The House was not expected to vote on an extenders package before then anyway, so the Senate delay would not really impact the timing of final passage of this two-year extension of more than 50 tax provisions.

Well, that was then. Today, almost two months before the mid-term elections, the future of the clean energy provisions in an extenders package—particularly the production tax credit (PTC) and investment tax credit in lieu of the PTC—depends a great deal on which party wins control of the Senate. Republicans are more confident that they can win the necessary six seats to take back the top chamber; and if they do, they will have more leverage in the lame duck about what the contents of an extenders package would be. The $84 billion EXPIRE Act of 2014 not only extends the PTC by two years but also extends key clean energy depreciation benefits and tax credits, including a $1-per-gallon credit for biodiesel and a 50-cent-per-gallon credit for alternative fuels. Senate Democrats strongly support the clean energy provisions. Certain Republicans, such as Chuck Grassley (R-IA), remain staunch supporters of the PTC and biodiesel credits, but many other Republicans are eager to eliminate or scale back the PTC and other clean energy provisions. If Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) learns he will be chairman of the Finance Committee next year in a Republican chamber, he has less of an incentive to work with current Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Democrats during the lame duck session. He can simply hold out and put forward his own extenders bill next year with popular provisions like the research and experimentation (R&D) credit and without clean energy incentives.

The extension of a handful of relatively popular and less controversial business and individual extenders such as the R&D credit and bonus depreciation are more assured. House Republicans, as part of a “tax-reform-lite” effort, have passed several bills making select provisions such as these permanent. For clean energy advocates, they have to cling to the more popular parts of the overall package and make sure their provisions are not trimmed away when Congress eventually takes it up. The business community, which wants many of the non-energy provisions in the EXPIRE Act extended, also must be much more vocal if the bill is to rise to the front of the agenda.

If Democrats do manage to hold onto control of the upper chamber, they very likely will be dealing with a reduced majority, and that too will give Republicans more leverage. With all the competing priorities in a very short legislative period, it will be difficult for the package to be enacted before the end of the year. Another retroactive extension in early 2015 could be possible. Congress has let the PTC lapse several times since 1992 before renewing it again. While it’s hard to avoid feeling a feeling of déjà vu when faced with another “will-they-or-won’t-they” end-of-year extension, this time also seems different. Many legislators thought the previous PTC extension would be the last one, so the stakes are high. Anti-PTC campaigns financed by conservative groups and utilities ratchets up the pressure on lawmakers. One possible way to blunt some Republican opposition would be to modify the PTC and either reduce the amount of the credit or include a deadline by which projects must complete construction—or both.

Several scenarios exist where even a change of control in the Senate would not preclude the passage of a tax extenders package. A short-term extension would give lawmakers some breathing room to debate tax reform. Some Republicans from wind-friendly states might prefer the clean energy provisions to pass under a Democratic watch rather than under Republican leadership in the new Congress. In this optimistic scenario, the lame duck session could mirror the productive session of 1980.

Ironically, election results in any one of three bio-energy and wind states–Colorado, South Dakota, and Iowa—could help decide the balance in the Senate and the fate of clean energy tax credits.

ARTICLE BY

Bryan M. Stockton
 
OF 
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp.as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

A Proactive Approach to Travel Risk Management

Risk-Management-Monitor-Com

An improving economy and updated business practices have contributed to companies sending more employees than ever on international business trips and expatriate assignments. Rising travel risks, however, require employers to take proactive measures to ensure the health and safety of their traveling employees. Many organizations, however, fail to implement a company-wide travel risk management plan until it is too late – causing serious consequences that could easily have been avoided.

travel risk management

The most effective crisis planning requires company-wide education before employees take off for their destinations. Designing a well-executed response plan and holding mandatory training for both administrators and traveling employees will ensure that everyone understands both company protocol and their specific roles during an emergency situation.

Additionally, businesses must be aware that Duty of Care legislation has become an integral consideration for travel risk management plans, holding companies liable for the health and safety of their employees, extending to mobile and field employees as well. To fulfill their Duty of Care obligations, organizations should incorporate the following policies within their travel risk management plan:

  • A customized policy specific to the organization and the specific needs of traveling employees.
  • Clearly communicated protocols that are enforced to help educate and protect the safety and health of traveling employees.
  • Response plans and procedures for handling medical/health emergencies.

Proactive Resources for Your Traveling Employees

A travel risk management strategy can only be successful if your workforce is given the necessary resources well before travel occurs. An important part of any travel risk management strategy involves answering common questions employees may have regarding their upcoming travels. It’s also a good idea to provide them with follow-up information so they can be up-to-date.

Not only will a company-wide pro-active travel risk management plan empower employees with the information they need, but implementing such a plan can also help keep your company’s reputation and financial standing in check and prevent any liabilities against your business. The following resources can be useful as part of your overall travel risk management strategy:

  • Travel logistics such as hotel/meeting site location and reservations details, nearby pharmacies and medical clinics, and passport and/or visa arrangements. It is also crucial to share contact information in the event employees need help during an emergency – such as that of your travel assistance partner or internal emergency resources – and encourage them to add this information to their mobile phone contacts.

  • A medical overview is essential, especially if the host country requires visitors have documentation of specific vaccinations. Employees should understand and be up-to-date on all routine vaccinations (such as influenza, measles, and mumps). The CDC’s Travelers’ Health website has valuable information, such as worldwide health alerts, although a travel assistance partner can provide this information directly to your employees prior to travel. Additional insight your company can provide to traveling employees is information about health risks in their destination countries. This ensures employees are well aware of the quality of local food and drinking water as well as where to find quality medical care.

Also, since most health insurance plans do not cover members when they are traveling outside the U.S., businesses should purchase additional coverage. Even if their plans provide coverage outside the U.S., many health insurance policies aren’t able to mitigate all of the risks associated with business travel. It would only take one international medical evacuation (which can cost more than $100,000 from business hubs in Dubai, UAE to New York, or China to Texas) to make a serious impact, not just on your traveling employee but on your company as a whole.

  • A detailed synopsis of the destination’s political standing is crucial to keep your employees safe while traveling, as many regions of the world are experiencing political unrest and living under the very real threat of terrorism. It is important to ensure that your employee benefits package includes security coverage for employees traveling to high-risk areas.

Advance knowledge of the political status of a country will prepare employees should they face an unexpected issue abroad, as would these resources:

  • American embassies and consulates at the destination country, as well as the State Department’s emergency contact numbers.

  • Travel alerts, which provide information on risks to the security of U.S. citizens. Though usually short-term, these alerts must be taken seriously.

  • The State Department’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) is an extremely reliable resource that provides up-to-date location-specific security updates to any employee enrolled for the destination as well as information on the nearest U.S. Embassy. The enrollment will help U.S. Embassy or nearest U.S. Consulate to be in contact with your traveler in the event of an emergency.

Keep in mind that it is not just traveling employees – but also the employers – who need to be prepared for a travel-related emergency. Planning ahead and implementing company-wide crisis management education allows your workforce to be fully aware of the guidelines and protocols. Successfully mitigating a crisis without any communication missteps can prevent a crisis from spiraling into disaster.

ARTICLE BY

Risk Management Magazine
 
OF
Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS)

Quarterly Whistleblower Award Update – August 21, 2014

Drinker Biddle Law Firm

Since our last quarterly update, the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) has issued four denial orders and three award orders. Here are some lessons learned from this activity:

  • The SEC Will Not Award Whistleblowers Who Provide Frivolous Information. The SEC determined that a claimant (who submitted “tips” relating to almost every single Notice of Covered Action”) was ineligible for awards because he/she “has knowingly and willfully made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and representations to the Commission over a course of years and continues to do so.” Under Rule 21F-8, persons are not eligible for an award if they “knowingly and willfully make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, or use any false writing or document knowing that it contains any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry with intent to mislead or otherwise hinder the Commission or another authority.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-8(c)(7). The OWB found that a number of passages submitted by the claimant were patently false or fictitious and that the person had the requisite intent because of the (1) incredible nature of the statements, (2) continued submissions that lack any factual nexus to the overall actions, and (3) refusal to withdraw unsupported claims at the request of the OWB. (May 12, 2104.)

  • The SEC Will Enforce the Time Frames Set Forth in the Statue. The OWB denied two awards because the claimants did not submit an award claim within the 90-day period established by Rule 21F-10(b). The claimants argued that OWB should waive the 90-day period due to extraordinary circumstances. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-8(a). The OWB determined that neither a lack of awareness that the information that the whistleblower had shared would lead to a successful enforcement action nor the lack of awareness that the Commission posted Notices of Covered Actions on its website constitutes an extraordinary circumstance to waive the timing requirement. See SEC Release No. 72178 (May 16, 2014) and SEC Release No. 72659 (July 23, 2014).

  • Whistleblowers are Not Eligible for an Award Unless the Information Leads to a Successful Enforcement Action. The OWB denied an award to a claimant because the provided information did not lead to a “successful enforcement by the Commission of a federal court or administrative action, as required by Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 21F-4(c) of the Exchange Act.” OWB also noted that the claimant did not submit information in the form and manner required by Rules 21F-2(a)(2), 21F-8(a), and 21F-9(a) & (b) of the Exchange Act. See In the Matter of Harbinger Capital Partners, LLC, File No. 3-14928 (July 4, 2014).

The OWB Can Be Persuaded to Change Its Preliminary Determination. Although the OWB initially denied the whistleblower’s award claim on the basis that the information did not appear to have been voluntarily submitted within Rule 21F-4(a)(ii) because it was submitted in response to a prior inquiry conducted bya self-regulatory organization (“SRO”). In a Final Determination issued on July 31, 2014, however, the OWB determined that claimant was entitled to more than $400,000. OWB noted that a submission is voluntary if it is provided before a request, inquiry, or demand for information by the SEC in connection with an investigation by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, any self-regulatory organization, Congress, the federal government, or any state Attorney General.

On the basis of the unique circumstances of this case, the OWB decided to waive the voluntary requirement of Rule 21F-4(a) for this claimant. The SEC noted that the claimant “worked aggressively … to bring the securities law violations to the attention of appropriate personnel,” the SRO inquiry originated from information that in part described claimant’s role, claimant believed that the company had provided the SRO with all the materials that claimant developed during his/her own internal efforts, and claimant promptly reporting to the SEC that the company’s internal efforts as a result of the SRO inquiry would not protect investors from future harm. Sean McKessy, chief of the SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower, remarked that “[t]he whistleblower did everything feasible to correct the issue internally. When it became apparent that the company would not address the issue, the whistleblower came to the SEC in a final effort to correct the fraud and prevent investors from being harmed. This award recognizes the significance of the information that the whistleblower provided us and the balanced efforts made by the whistleblower to protect investors and report the violation internally.”See SEC Release No. 72727 (July 31, 2014); SEC Press Release, “SEC Announces Award for Whistleblower Who Reported Fraud to SEC After Company Failed to Address Issue Internally,” (July 31, 2014).

  • SEC Continues to Make Awards to Qualified Claimants. On June 3, 2014, the SEC awarded two claimants 15% each for a total of 30% percent of the monetary sanctions collected in the covered action. See SEC Release No. 72301 (June 3, 2014). On July 22, 2014, the SEC awarded three claimants 15%, 10%, and 5% respectively (for a total of 30%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action. See SEC Release No. 72652 (July 22, 2014).

ARTICLE BY

William L. Carr
Daniel E. Brewer
 
OF
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP