Category: Administrative & Regulatory

The Exploding Use of Drones

COV_cmyk_C

The potential for drones, i.e., unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), is tremendous.  After years of being associated with military operations, the civilian UAS market is expected to dramatically expand in the United States in the next ten years.  A multitude of conceivable applications for UAS — including mapping, weather forecasting, law enforcement, news gathering, real estate, photography, agriculture, and freight transport — promises to change the way business is done across a diverse array of industries and companies.

By any measure, the UAS market is significant and growing. Optimistic analysts project that annual U.S. civilian spending on UAS will grow from $1.15 billion in 2015 to $4 billion in 2020 and $5.11 billion in 2025.   Less sanguine analysts place the annual worldwide civilian UAS market between $498 million and $1 billion  by 2020.  The FAA predicts that UAS will be the “most dynamic growth sector within aviation industry.”

However, many legal and regulatory obstacles remain before drones can be widely used in our national airspace.  Current federal law prohibits UAS in most circumstances with exceptions for test flights and government aircraft that secure special permission from the FAA.

This will change because Congress delegated to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the task of integrating UAS in to the National Airspace System by September 2015.  Quite apart from the regulatory framework developed by the FAA, numerous legal issues will arise ranging from takings and property torts relating to flights over private property to privacy issues.  State tort laws will be heavily involved.

Notwithstanding these legal and regulatory challenges to widespread UAS usage, there is great momentum and potential for this new form of aviation.  Businesses should focus on how they can benefit from the use of drones.  Once they have done so, they should navigate the legal and regulatory thicket.  The rewards could be substantial.

Article By:

Jack L. Schenendorf
Of:
Covington & Burling LLP

Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland (7th Cir. May 14, 2014)

Godfrey Kahn

On May 14, 2014 the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals released its long-awaited decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland. Click here to read a copy of the court’s decision.

The opinion is authored by Judge Diane Sykes who was a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court before being nominated by President Bush and then appointed to the federal Court of Appeals in 2004. The matter had been fully briefed, argued and pending since January 2013.

In 2010, the Government Accountability Board (the G.A.B.) adopted an administrative rule, GAB 1.28. In short, this rule greatly expanded the scope of communications subject to regulation as independent expenditures. As a result, issue advocacy communications in the 30/60 days before an election that identified a candidate would be presumed to be independent expenditures and subject to full PAC regulation under state campaign finance law, including donor disclosure.

In response to the G.A.B.’s adoption of this highly controversial rule, three lawsuits were filed almost immediately after the rule took effect. One of those lawsuits was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by attorney James Bopp on behalf of Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL). However, WRTL not only sued the G.A.B. about administrative rule GAB 1.28, it also challenged a multitude of other Wisconsin campaign finance laws. Today’s decision is essentially a resolution of WRTL’s lawsuit and all of those legal challenges.

WRTL prevailed in virtually all of its arguments, including:

  • Wisconsin’s ban on corporate political spending is unconstitutional under Citizens United;
  • GAB 1.28 which treats issue advocacy during the 30/60 day preelection period as fully regulable express advocacy/independent expenditures is unconstitutional; and,
  • GAB 1.91 which imposes PAC-like registration and reporting requirements on all organizations that sponsor independent expenditures is unconstitutional as applied to sponsors who are not superPACs (such as 501(c)(4) organizations and other non-committee sponsors).

The Court of Appeals reached its conclusions using very strong and clear language on government’s limited ability to regulate political speech:

  • “The effect of [Buckley] was to place issue advocacy—political ads and other communications that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate—beyond the reach of the regulatory scheme.” (p. 20)
  • “As applied to political speakers other than candidates, their committees, and political parties, the statutory definition of ‘political purposes’ in section 11.01(16) and the regulatory definition of ‘political committee’ in GAB 1.28(1)(a) are limited to express advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms were explained in Buckley and Wisconsin Right to Life II.” (p. 62)
  • The G.A.B.’s administrative rule “sweeps a far wider universe of political speech into [state campaign finance laws], introducing confusion for ordinary political speakers who lack the background or assistance of a campaign finance lawyer.” (p. 64)
  • “Regulations on speech, however, must meet a higher standard of clarity and precision. In the First Amendment context, ‘rigorous adherence to [these] requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.’ Vague or overbroad speech regulations carry an unacceptable risk that speakers will self-censor, so the First Amendment requires more vigorous judicial scrutiny.” (p. 65)

The WRTL decision also highlights the confusing nature of Wisconsin’s campaign finance statutes and the burdens these laws place on those organizations desiring to participate in the process:

Like other campaign-finance systems, Wisconsin’s is labyrinthian and difficult to decipher without a background in this area of the law; in certain critical respects, it violates the constitutional limits on the government’s power to regulate independent political speech. Part of the problem is that the state’s basic campaign-finance law—Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes—has not been updated to keep pace with the evolution in Supreme Court doctrine marking the boundaries on the government’s authority to regulate election-related speech. In addition, key administrative rules do not cohere well with the statutes, introducing a patchwork of new and different terms, definitions, and burdens on independent political speakers, the intent and cumulative effect of which is to enlarge the reach of the statutory scheme. Finally, the state elections agency has given conflicting signals about its intent to enforce some aspects of the regulatory mélange. (pp. 3-4)

The WRTL decision also is an excellent summary of the history of campaign finance regulation and litigation in Wisconsin during the last 20 years. It covers in detail successful legal challenges brought against the Elections Board / Government Accountability Board (the G.A.B) by our law firm on behalf of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (Wis. Supreme Court 1999); Wisconsin Realtors Association (W.D. Wis. 2002); and, Wisconsin Club for Growth / One Wisconsin Now (W.D. Wis. 2010). And, it discusses how despite losing in each of these instances, the G.A.B. continued to push for greater regulation—not less—of political speech.

Bottom line, the WRTL decision makes clear that the government’s authority to regulate political speech extends only to money raised and spent for speech that is express advocacy and that “ordinary political speech about issues, policy, and public officials must remain unencumbered.” (p. 9) Hopefully, with the strong language in this opinion, the G.A.B. will now understand the statutory and First Amendment limitations on its ability to regulate political speech. And, hopefully, the State Legislature will now understand that “Wisconsin’s foundational campaign finance law is in serious need of legislative attention to account for developments in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence protecting political speech.” (p. 80)

Article By:

Mike B. Wittenwyler
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Gives Insider Trader a $30,000 Slap On The Wrist

DrinkerBiddle

On April 23, 2014, the SEC agreed to settle insider trading charges against Chris Choi, a former accounting manager at Nvidia Corporation who allegedly set into motion a trading scheme that reaped nearly $16.5 million in illicit profits and avoided losses. Given the amount of the purported loss, the fact that Choi was the original “tipper,” and the fact that nearly every other member of the scheme has been indicted, the Choi settlement seems like nothing more than a slap on the wrist: a $30,000 penalty without admitting to the insider trading allegations. The Choi settlement also represents a notable departure from the SEC’s recent insider trading fines and penalties against “tippers.”

According to the SEC’s complaint, on at least three occasions during 2009 and 2010, Choi tipped material nonpublic information about Nvidia’s quarterly earnings to his friend Hyung Lim. SEC v. Choi, No. 14-cv-2879 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2014). Lim passed the information along to Danny Kuo, a hedge fund manager at Whittier Trust Company, who passed the information to his boss and to a group of managers at three other hedge funds.

Kuo and the other tippee-hedge fund managers used Choi’s information to trade in advance of Nvidia earnings announcements and reaped trading gains and/or avoided losses of approximately $16.5 million.

The SEC alleged that Choi was liable for this trading because he “indirectly caused trades in Nvidia securities that were executed” by the hedge funds and “did so with the expectation of receiving a benefit and/or to confer a financial benefit on Lim.” The SEC charged him with violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5) and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.

Choi, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, agreed to settle the matter and to the entry of an order: (1) permanently enjoining him from violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a); (2) barring him from serving as an officer or director of certain issuers of securities for five years; and (3) ordering him to pay a $30,000 penalty.

Not only is Choi’s settlement a significant departure from the resolutions obtained by his “downstream” tippees, a number of whom were convicted on criminal charges of insider trading, it is a departure from recent SEC “tipper” settlements. For example:

  • A former executive at a Silicon Valley technology company, who allegedly tipped convicted hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam with nonpublic information that allowed the Galleon hedge fund to make nearly $1 million profit, agreed to pay more than $1.75m to settle the SEC’s insider trading charges. See SEC Charges Silicon Valley Executive for Role in Galleon Insider Trading Scheme.
  • A physician who served as the chairman of the safety monitoring committee overseeing a clinical trial for an Alzheimer’s drug being jointly developed by two pharmaceutical companies, who allegedly tipped a hedge fund manager with safety data and eventually data about negative results in the trial approximately two weeks before they became public, which allowed the hedge fund to make nearly $276 million in gains, agreed to pay more than $234,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the SEC’s insider trading charges. The physician’s penalty may have been mitigated by the fact that he cooperated with and received a non-prosecution agreement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in a parallel criminal action. See SEC Charges Hedge Fund Firm CR Intrinsic and Two Others in $276 Million Insider Trading Scheme Involving Alzheimer’s Drug.
  • A former executive director of business development at a pharmaceutical company located in New Jersey, who allegedly tipped a hedge fund manager (a friend and former business school classmate) with material nonpublic information regarding the company’s anticipated acquisition that allowed the manager to make nearly $14 million in gains, escaped criminal prosecution and agreed to pay a $50,000 penalty to settle the SEC’s insider trading charges. See SEC Charges Pharmaceutical Company Insider and Former Hedge Fund Manager for Insider Trading, Resulting in Approximately $14 Million in Profits.

There are a few reasons the SEC may have settled with Choi for such a small civil penalty. First, the SEC recently settled with Lim, the second chain in the insider trading scheme. Lim tentatively agreed to disgorgement or to pay a penalty once he has completed his cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and has been sentenced in its pending, parallel criminal action¾ i.e., United States v. Lim, 12-cr-121 (S.D.N.Y.). It also could be Choi’s limited financial means. We likely will never know the reason for the SEC’s agreed-upon resolution, but the fact of the resolution may have some value to other defendants.

Article By:

William L. Carr
Kevin A. Wisniewski
Of:
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

 

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? U.S. Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

Barnes Burgandy Logo

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision upholding EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (also known as the Transport Rule). The Transport Rule restricts air emissions from upwind states that in EPA’s judgment contribute significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) in downwind states. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, the Rule is expected to have significant cost implications for electric generating utilities, and much of the costs could occur in Midwestern and Southern states that were identified in the Transport Rule as contributing to nonattainment of the NAAQS for states along the East Coast.

The Transport Rule was promulgated pursuant to what is often called the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act. In the Rule, EPA established a two-step approach for restricting emissions in upwind states. First, EPA used air modeling to determine which upwind states contributed more than one percent to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 in downwind states. Second, EPA determined the level of emission reductions that could be achieved in downwind states based on cost estimates for reducing emissions. For example, EPA concluded that significant emission reductions could be obtained for a cost of $500 per ton of NOx reduced, but that at greater than $500 per ton the emission reductions were minimal. The Agency then translated those cost estimates into the amount of emissions that upwind states would be required to eliminate. Lastly, EPA developed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) detailing how states were to comply with the emission budgets assigned under the Transport Rule.

As we previously reported in August 2012, the Transport Rule had been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Aug. 21, 2012. The Court of Appeals struck down the rule primarily for two reasons. First, the court found the cost estimates that EPA used as a basis to justify emission reductions would in some cases result in requirements for upwind states to reduce their emissions more than necessary to eliminate “significant” contributions to nonattainment in downwind states. The court held that EPA could only require reductions proportionate to a specific upwind state’s contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment status. Second, the court held that states should have been given an opportunity to develop their own implementation plans before EPA required states to follow the FIP in the Transport Rule.

In reversing the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Air Act does not require EPA to mandate only proportionate reductions in emissions from upwind states. The court argued that the “proportionality approach could scarcely be satisfied in practice” because there are multiple upwind states that each affect multiple downwind states. The Court concluded that the proportionality approach would mean that “each upwind State will be required to reduce emissions by the amount necessary to eliminate that State’s largest downwind contribution,” but that would result in cumulative emission reductions and “costly overregulation.” The court also concluded that it was appropriate for EPA to use cost as a means of allocating emissions, instead of the proportionality approach favored by the D.C. Circuit.

Regarding the FIP approach, the court held that after EPA issues a NAAQS, each state is required to propose a State Implementation Plan (SIP), including requirements to satisfy the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Court held it was appropriate for EPA to establish a FIP because the statutory deadline to propose SIPs that complied with the Good Neighbor provision had passed. The court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that it was premature to establish a FIP before EPA had made a determination regarding each upwind state’s contribution to downwind states’ nonattainment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored a dissent in the case agreeing with the D.C. Circuit that costs are not contemplated as a basis for reducing emissions under the Good Neighbor provision. Further, the dissent addressed the majority opinion’s assertion that the proportionality approach would result in “costly overregulation.” The dissent stated, “over-control is no more likely to occur when the required reductions are apportioned among upwind States on the basis of amounts of pollutants contributed than when they are apportioned on the basis of cost.” The dissent went on to note, “the solution to over-control under a proportional-reduction system is not difficult to discern. In calculating good-neighbor responsibilities, EPA . . . would set upwind States’ obligations at levels that, after taking into account those reductions, suffice to produce attainment in all downwind States. Doubtless, there are multiple ways for the Agency to accomplish that task in accordance with the statute’s amounts-based, proportional focus.”

At this juncture, it is unclear whether EPA will need to promulgate additional rules to implement the Transport Rule as many of the Transport Rules’ deadlines have already expired. Additionally, it is unclear whether other legal challenges to the Transport Rule, including challenges to whether the Rule satisfies regional haze emission requirements, will delay final implementation of the Rule. Those challenges have been stayed since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the rule in 2012 but appear to be able to proceed now that the vacatur has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also questions as to whether the Transport Rule, which was designed to help meet the 1997 ozone NAAQs of 80 ppb, will need to be reworked by EPA to meet the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQs of 75 ppb. It is also possible that estimates of emission cuts expected from the original the Transport Rule will change given the move by several power plants to convert from coal to natural gas in recent years.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

Article By:

Michael H. Elam
Hae Park-Suk
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Takes First Step Toward Possible Federal Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

On May 9th the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) initiated a process that may result in federal regulation of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing(fracking).  In the past 10 years, United States production of oil and gas has skyrocketed, due in part to the increased use of fracking technologies that use high‐pressure injection of fluids, sand, and chemicals to stimulate the release of oil and gas from geological formations which were difficult to access with other techniques.  While fracking technologies have been in use for some time, environmentalists have argued that the public lacked adequate information to assess whether chemicals used in fracking posed represented threats to human health or the environment.

Last Friday, the USEPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) soliciting comment on whether companies must publicly disclose the chemicals used in the fracking process.  The notice starts the public participation process and seeks comment on

  • The types of chemical information that could be reported under TSCA;
  • The regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to obtain information on chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities;
  • Whether fracking-related chemicals should be regulated through a voluntary mechanism under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

According to the USEPA, this process will help inform its efforts to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing and will not duplicate existing reporting requirements.  James Jones, the USEPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said that the “EPA looks forward to hearing from the public and stakeholders about public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, and we will continue working with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to ensure that we complement but not duplicate existing reporting requirements.”

The notice includes a list of questions to be considered by stakeholders and the public in formulating their comments.  The USEPA anticipates that the notice will publish in the Federal Register by the week of May 19, 2014.  The comment period closes 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.  When published, comments may be submitted through regulations.gov with reference to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019.

The Prepublication Copy Notice can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/prepub_hf_anpr_14t-0069_2014-05-09.pdf and more information from the USEPA on hydraulic fracturing can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

Article By:

Edward Casmere
J. Michael Showalter
Of: 
Schiff Hardin LLP

June 2014 Visa Bulletin Released, Shows Significant Retrogression for EB-3 Worldwide, China and Mexico

GT Law

Below is a summary of the U.S. State Department June 2014 Visa Bulletin:

  • EB-1 remains current across all filing categories;
  • EB-2 for Worldwide, Mexico and Philippines all remain current. The EB-2 India cut-off remains at November 15, 2004 (this has remained stagnant since the December 2013 Visa Bulletin). EB-2 China moves forward to May 22, 2009; and
  • EB-3 Worldwide, China and Mexico retrogress significantly (see below). EB-3 Worldwide and EB-3 Mexico move back to April 1, 2011 and EB-3 China moves back by 6 years to October 1, 2006. EB-3 Philippines moves forward by 2 months to January 1, 2008, while EB-3 India moves forward by only 2 weeks to October 15, 2003.

Dramatic Retrogression for EB-3 China

The Department of State stated in the Visa Bulletin that the “unexpected and dramatic increase in demand being received from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Offices during the past several months has resulted in number use approaching the annual limit for this category. As a result, it has been necessary to retrogress the Worldwide, China and Mexico cut-off dates for the month of June.”

Beginning with the June 2013 Visa Bulletin, the third preference employment-based immigrant visa category (EB-3) for individuals born in the People’s Republic of China (China) had a more recent cut-off date than the second preference employment-based category (EB-2). Accordingly, many foreign nationals chose to “downgrade” their case from EB-2 to EB-3 to shorten their wait time. However, this has had a negative impact on the EB-3 category and has resulted in the severe retrogression (six years) as reported above. Applicants who are still preparing their I-485 Adjustment Applications for this filing category should file before the end of the month, before the retrogression occurs on June 1, 2014.

Employment-Based Projections

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reported that on Monday April 21, 2014, Mr. Charlie Oppenheim of the Department of State’s Visa Office (VO) spoke to AILA regarding what his office is currently seeing with regard to visa demand and what might be expected in terms of Visa Bulletin movement at this time. While these “projections” can (and often do) change based on usage and/or new developments, below is a summary of the outlook based on AILA’s conversation with Mr. Oppenheim (note: Mr. Oppenheimer discussed both Family-Based and Employment-Based projections; however, we only report the employment-based projections here):

Employment Based 5th Preference China (EB-5)

  • China EB-5 could retrogress later this year, possibly August or September.
  • Retrogression for China EB-5 in the 2015 fiscal year seems almost inevitable, as there are more than 7,000 I-526 applications pending and 80% are from China.

Employment Based 1st Preference (EB-1)

  • It is still a little early in the fiscal year to know how many unused cases will drop down into EB-2. EB-1 usage is heavier this year than last year.

Employment Based 2nd Preference India (EB-2)

  • It is possible in August, but more likely in September, that India EB-2 will open at 1/1/2008 or perhaps later in 2008, in order to utilize the rest of the EB-2 visa numbers that were unused by the Worldwide categories.
  • How many numbers will be utilized depends on EB-1 and EB-2 usage in the Worldwide categories for the rest of the fiscal year (it could be 5,000 or more). This would be less than what was available in fiscal year 2013.
  • No expected changes for Worldwide EB-2.

Employment Based 3rd Preference Worldwide (EB-3)

  • The VO has limited knowledge as to the number of eligible applicants, and USCIS has encouraged DOS to “move the category forward” over the last five months. Demand appears to be increasing, thus, it is unlikely in the short run that the category will move forward. In fact, if current demand continues, something may have to be done as early as May 2014 to slow the demand in this category.
  • The last quarter of the fiscal year for 2014 does not look good, and no movement, or retrogression, is possible.

Employment Based 3rd Preference China (EB-3)

  • Many Chinese nationals who were waiting in the EB-2 category have been filing to “downgrade” from EB-2 to EB-3, and the result of these requests will be reflected in the coming months.
  • High demand is expected to continue in this category and a correction may be reflected as early as the May or June Visa Bulletin, depending on demand.

Why Are Priority Dates Important Anyway?

The issue of a visa number’s “availability” is tied to the U.S. preference system for permanent residence. The U.S. maintains limits on those who can apply to enter as permanent residents; these limits apply by type of immigrant visa sought for permanent resident as well as country of origin. From time to time, backlogs occur in certain categories of employment-based visas, for all persons or for persons from certain countries (backlogs are almost always present for family-based visas) as there are more people applying in those categories from those countries than there are visa numbers available. The setting of the preference is based upon the position’s minimum requirements, not the qualifications of the employee. The net result is that persons who have applications from those countries in the third preference are not able to move on to the final step of the permanent residence process until their “priority date” (or “place in line”) moves to the front of the line for immigrant visas. The line is set by the Department of State and is reviewed monthly. In many cases, this step can take eight years or more depending on the filing category.

The VO’s projections can give hope to some applicants, who in the coming months, may be eligible to move to the final step of the permanent residence process, after waiting for years on hold. But for others, the outlook is not very promising. While the future movement of the immigrant visa availability remains hazy, one thing is clear. Immigration Reform is needed to help eradicate these extreme and unnecessary delays for individuals who continue to contribute to the U.S. economy; and for employers, who are forced to continue filing multiple temporary work extensions in order to retain valuable employees. We will continue to watch the movement in the Visa Bulletin and provide updates.

Article By:

Patricia A. Elmas
Of: 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Work and Travel Guidance for F-1 Students with Pending H-1B “Change of Status” Applications and “Cap-Gap” Employment Authorization

MintzLogo2010_Black

This advisory summarizes key travel and employment issues if you are an F-1 studentwith Optional Practical Training (OPT) employment eligibility and an H-1B filing on your behalf has been accepted by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).USCIS will adjudicate these visa petitions over the next few months and approved petitions will have an October 1, 2014 start date. The good news is that your OPT employment card is automatically extended, by operation of law, with validity to September 30, 2014 under the “cap-gap” OPT extension rule. This means you can continue working legally even after the expiration of your OPT employment card. We recommend that you alert your school’s international student office by providing that office with a copy of the H-1B receipt notice. The international student office will use this receipt information to update your I-20 to show the extension of your OPT.

International travel between now and October 1 is complicated, and whether you can travel and return to work before October 1 depends on your specific situation. As a general rule, it is safest not to travel during the cap-gap period. In all cases, travel as an F-1 student with OPT requires a valid F-1 visa stamp, Form I-20 with updated authorization for travel from your school’s international student office, the OPT Employment Authorization Document (EAD), and proof of current employment in the US (employer letter and/or recent pay slips).

Please note that any international travel carries risks. If your F-1 visa has expired and you need to apply for a new one, you may face delays for extra security clearances (221(g) administrative processing), or you may not be able to prove you have nonimmigrant intent, which is required for F-1 visa applications. Furthermore, even with a valid F-1 visa, admission to the US is up to the discretion of the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer at the port of entry. We therefore caution you to carefully consider the need to travel as an F-1 student with OPT and list below some of the common scenarios and our recommendations.

1. My OPT employment card has not expired and my H-1B petition has been accepted, but not yet approved.

If you travel outside the US in this situation, the change of status part of your H-1B petition will be abandoned. This means that even when the H-1B is approved, your status will not change to H-1B because you departed the US while the H-1B “change of status” petition was pending. Your employment eligibility will end on September 30, 2014 with expiration of the cap-gap extension, and you will need to depart the US, apply for an H-1B visa stamp based on the petition approval, and reenter after October 1, 2014 to activate your status as an H-1B worker.

2. My OPT employment card has not expired and my H-1B has been approved.

In this situation, according to guidance from USCIS, it is possible to travel and not abandon the change of status because it has already been approved and is for a date in the future. Since there is no abandonment, once you return to the US on your F-1 visa, your change of status will be effective on October 1. However, there is a very real risk in traveling in this scenario as upon approval by USCIS of your H-1B petition, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) may no longer reflect that you are an F-1 student and you may have difficulties entering the US in F-1 status.

3. My OPT employment card has expired.

In this situation, you are eligible to remain in the US and continue working under the cap-gap extension rule discussed above. However, there is no provision or guidance from USCIS that allows for reentry during this cap-gap period once your EAD has expired. Therefore, if you must depart the US during this period, you will not be able to return to the US until you obtain an H-1B visa stamp based on approval of the H-1B petition. Initial entry into the US on an H-1B visa is allowed up to 10 days in advance of the start date of the petition approval. So, for an October 1 start date, this entry date can be as early as September 21. However, you will not be able to resume employment until October 1, 2014. Unless there is an emergent need to travel and arrangements can be made for remote work outside the US, you should make no plans to travel after expiration of your OPT employment card.

4. I need to depart the US and will not return until October 1 or later and will apply for the H-1B visa.

You can apply for the H-1B visa stamp any time after approval of the H-1B petition as soon as you can schedule an appointment at the US Embassy or Consulate. The visa will not be effective until October 1, 2014, but you can, and are encouraged to, apply for it as soon as possible to avoid the rush in September. Please note H-1B nonimmigrants are allowed to enter the US up to 10 days in advance of the petition validity. However, you cannot start employment in H-1B status until October 1. This 10-day time period is intended to allow you to get settled in the US before starting employment.

5. My H-1B petition was denied by USCIS.

If your H-1B petition is denied and your OPT EAD is still valid, you are authorized for ongoing employment in the US until your EAD expires. However, cap-gap employment eligibility after expiration of the EAD is only valid while the H-1B petition is pending with USCIS. Therefore, you are no longer eligible to continue working in the US if your H-1B petition is denied and your OPT EAD has expired.

The examples above all deal with the situation where the H-1B filing has been accepted by USCIS out of the quota. If the H-1B petition filed on your behalf was rejected, you may choose to travel if you have a valid F-1 visa stamp, Form I-20 with updated authorization for travel from your school’s international student office, the OPT Employment Authorization Document (EAD), and proof of current employment in the US in the form of an employer letter and/or recent pay slips. You may also stay in the US for 60 days after the expiration of your F-1 OPT status, but only for purposes of settling your personal affairs and domestic travel within the US. You are not allowed to work during this 60-day grace period. If you travel outside the US during the 60-day grace period, even if you do not plan to work upon your return, you will not likely be readmitted because you will be deemed to have departed the US at the conclusion of your F-1 program, thus fulfilling the need for the 60-grace period. The 60-day grace period is not meant to facilitate international travel and reentry — it is designed to allow F-1 students to remain in the US at the end of the F-1 program to settle their affairs until they are ready to depart the US.

Article By:

Susan J. Cohen
William L. Coffman
Of: 
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) Guidance on the Testimonial Rule and Social Media

Godfrey Kahn

In March 2014, through question and answer format, the Division of Investment Management issued an Investment Management Guidance Update on an adviser’s or investment advisory representative’s (IAR) ability to use social media and to promote client reviews of their services that appear on independent, third-party social media sites.

Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(1) (the testimonial rule) prohibit investment advisers or IARs from publishing, circulating, or distributing any advertisement that refers to any testimonial concerning the investment adviser or any advice, analysis, report, or other service rendered by such investment adviser. While the rule does not define “testimonial,” the staff previously has interpreted it to mean a “statement of a client’s experience with, or endorsement of, an investment adviser.”

Third Party Commentary. The guidance clarifies that in certain circumstances, an investment adviser or IAR may publish public commentary from an independent social media site if (i) the social media site’s content is independent of the investment adviser or IAR, (ii) there is no material connection between the social media site and the investment adviser or IAR that would call the site’s or the commentary’s independence into question, and (iii) the investment adviser or IAR publishes all of the unedited comments appearing on the independent social media site. The staff explained that publishing commentary that met these three criteria would not implicate the concerns of the testimonial rule and, therefore, an investment adviser or IAR could include such commentary in an advertisement.

Inclusion of Investment Adviser Advertisements on Independent Sites. The guidance also addresses the existence of an investment adviser’s or IAR’s advertisement on an independent site and notes that such presence would not result in a prohibited testimonial provided that (i) it is readily apparent to the reader that the advertisement is separate from the public commentary and (ii) advertising revenue does not influence, in any way, the determination of which public commentary is included or excluded from the independent site.

Reference by Investment Adviser to Independent Social Media Site Commentary in a Non-Social Media Advertisement (e.g., radio or newspaper). In the guidance, the staff explained that investment advisers or IARs could reference, in a non-social media advertisement, an independent social media site. For example, an adviser could state in its newspaper ad “see us on Facebook or LinkedIn” to signal to clients and prospective clients that they can research public commentary about the investment adviser on an independent social media site. In contrast, however, the investment adviser or IAR may not publish any testimonials from an independent social media site in a newspaper, for example, without implicating the testimonial rule.

Client Lists. The guidance also addressed posting of “contacts” or “friends” on the investment adviser’s or IAR’s social media site. Such use is not prohibited, provided that those contacts or friends are not grouped or listed in a way that identifies them as current or former clients. The staff carefully noted, however, any attempts by an investment adviser or IAR to imply that those contacts or friends have received favorable results from the advisory services would implicate the testimonial rule.

Fan/Community Pages. The guidance stated that a third-party site operating as a fan or community page where the public may comment ordinarily would not implicate the testimonial rule. However, the guidance cautioned investment advisers or IARs to consider the material connection and independence rules discussed above prior to driving user traffic to such a site, including through the publication of a hyperlink.

Sources: Investment Management Guidance Update, No. 2014-4, Guidance on the Testimonial Rule and Social Media (March 2014); Investment Company Institute Memorandum Regarding the Advisers Act Testimonial Rule and Social Media Guidance (April 1, 2014).

Article By:

Christopher M. Cahlamer
Elizabeth J. Chandler
Laura A. Hawkins
Susan Hoaglund
Helge Lee
Of:
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

New G-7 Sanctions Against Russia

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

The United States, in coordination with other G-7 nations, announced on Monday, April 28new sanctions on individuals and entities with ties to the Russian government and President Putin.  The newly announced sanctions build on earlier rounds of U.S. sanctions imposed on March 6, March 17, March 20 and April 11.  The United States also tightened license restrictions for high technology exports to Russia.  In addition to the new U.S. sanctions, the European Union, Canada and Japan also announced new sanctions against Russian individuals and entities.

Reasons cited for the new sanctions were Russia’s failure to abide by commitments it made to de-escalate the crisis during an April 17 meeting in Geneva among Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union (also known as the Geneva accord) and continued Russian-supported efforts to destabilize Eastern Ukraine.  According to an April 25 statement by the G-7 leaders, Russia has failed to take actions required by the Geneva accord and has continued to escalate tensions through its “increasingly concerning rhetoric” and “ongoing threatening military maneuvers on Ukraine’s border.”

New U.S. Sanctions and Export Restrictions

The new U.S. sanctions issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, target seven individuals and 17 entities, including banks, construction companies and transportation companies, with connections to the Russian government.  These sanctions, like those previously announced, freeze the assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction of all sanctioned individuals and bar those individuals from obtaining visas to enter the United States.  The sanctions also prohibit U.S. persons, including U.S. companies and their overseas branches and divisions, from transacting business with any sanctioned individuals or entities.

In addition, the Bureau of Industry and Security of the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it added 13 of the newly sanctioned entities to its Entity List (comprised of parties that are prohibited from receiving some or all items subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations without a license), and that it will immediately begin denying pending applications for licenses to export or re-export “high technology” items to Russia or Crimea that may enhance Russia’s military capabilities.  Concurrently, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of the U.S. Department of State announced that it is placing a hold on all licenses for exports of defense articles and defense services to Russia.

New EU Sanctions

In coordination with the new U.S. sanctions, the new EU sanctions add 15 individuals with ties to the Russian government to the European Union’s existing list of sanctioned individuals.

Other New G-7 Sanctions

The two remaining G-7 member states also imposed new sanctions on Russian individuals this week:  Canada announced sanctions against two Russian banks and nine individuals, and Japan announced visa bans on 23 as-yet-unnamed individuals.

Companies with interests in Russia or Ukraine or doing business with Russian enterprises are advised to ensure appropriate measures are in place to comply with the sanctions, including careful screening of all parties to transactions.

Article By:

Jay L. Eizenstat
Andrea L. Hamilton
David J. Levine
Raymond Paretzky
David Henry
Of:
McDermott Will & Emery

HEARTBLEED: A Lawyer’s Perspective on the Biggest Programming Error in History

Jackson Lewis Logo

By now you have probably heard about Heartbleed, which is the biggest security threat to the Internet that we have ever seen. The bottom line of Heartbleed is that for the past two years most web sites claiming to besecure, shown by the HTTPS address (the S added to the end of the usual HTTP address was intended to indicate a web secured by encryption), have not been secure at all. Information on those webs could easily have beenbled out by any semi-skilled hacker who discovered the defect. That includes your user names and passwords, maybe even your credit card and bank account information.

For this reason every security expert that I follow, or have talked to about this threat, advises everyone to change ALL of their online passwords. No one knows who might have acquired this information in the past two years. Unfortunately, the nature of this software defect made it possible to steal data in an untraceable manner. Although most web sites have upgraded their software by now, they were exposed for two years. The only safe thing to do is assume your personal information has been compromised.

Change All of Your Passwords

After you go out and change all of your passwords – YES – DO IT NOW – please come back and I will share some information on Heartbleed that you may not find anywhere else. I will share a quick overview of a lawyer’s perspective on a disaster like this and what I think we should do about it.

Rules of the Internet

One of the things e-discovery lawyers like me are very interested in, and concerned about, is data security. Heartblead is the biggest threat anyone has ever seen to our collective online security, so I have made a point of trying to learn everything I could about it. My research is ongoing, but I have already published on detailed report on my personal blog. I have also been pondering policy changes, and changes in the laws governing the Internet that be should made to avoid this kind of breach in the future.

I have been thinking about laws and the Internet since the early 1990s. As I said then, the Internet is not a no-mans-land of irresponsibility. It has laws and is subject to laws, not only laws of countries, but of multiple independent non-profit groups such as ICANN. I first pointed this out out as a young lawyer in my 1996 book for MacMillan, Your Cyber Rights and Responsibilities: The Law of the Internet, Chapter 3 of Que’s Special Edition Using the Internet. Anyone who commits crimes on the Internet must and will be prosecuted, no matter where their bodies are located. The same goes for negligent actors, be they human, corporate, or robot. I fully expect that several law suits will be filed as a result of Heartbleed. Time will tell if any of them succeed. Many of the facts are still unknown.

One Small Group Is to Blame for Heartbleed

The surprising thing I learned in researching Heartbleed is that this huge data breach was caused by a small mistake in software programming by a small unincorporated association called OpenSSL. This is the group that maintains the open source that two-thirds of the Internet relies upon for encryption, in other words, to secure web sites from data breach. It is free software and the people who write the code are unpaid volunteers.

According to the Washington Post, OpenSSL‘s headquarters — to the extent one exists at all — is the home of the group’s only employee, a part timer at that, located on Sugarloaf Mountain, Maryland. He lives and works amid racks of servers and an industrial-grade Internet connection. Craig Timberg, Heartbleed bug puts the chaotic nature of the Internet under the magnifying glass (Washington Post, 4/9/14).

The mistake that caused Heartbleed was made by a lone math student in Münster, Germany. He submitted an add-on to the code that was supposed to correct prior mistakes he had found. His add on contained what he later described as a trivial error. Trivial or not, this is the biggest software coding error of all time based upon impact. What makes the whole thing suspicious is that he made this submission at one minute before midnight on New Year’s Eve 2011.

Once the code was received by OpenSSL, it was reviewed by it before it was added onto the next version of the software. Here is where we learn another surprising fact, it was only reviewed by one person, and he again missed the simple error. Then the revised code with hidden defect was released onto an unsuspecting world. No one detected it until March 2014 when paid Google security employees finally noticed the blunder. So much for the basic crowd sourcing rationale behind the open source software movement.

Conclusion

Placing the reliance of the security of the Internet on only one open source group, OpenSSL, a group with only four core members, is too high a risk in today’s world. It may have made sense back in the early nineties when an open Internet first started, but not now. Heartbleed proves this. This is why I have called upon leaders of the Internet, including open source advocates, privacy experts, academics, governments, political leaders and lawyers to meet to consider various solutions to tighten the security of the Internet. We cannot continue business as usual when it comes to Internet data security.

Article By:

Ralph C. Losey
Of: 
Jackson Lewis P.C.