Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Why October 1, 2014 Is An Important Date For Management Persons Of Nevada Entities

AllenM logo with tagline

Two years ago, the Nevada Supreme Court in an en band decision held that a state district court may exercise jurisdiction over the nonresident officers and directors of a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Spain.  Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg, 282 P.3d 751 (Nev. 2012).  The Supreme Court reasoned

When officers or directors directly harm a Nevada corporation, they are harming a Nevada citizen. By purposefully directing harm towards a Nevada citizen, officers and directors establish contacts with Nevada and “affirmatively direct [] conduct” toward Nevada.

At the time, Nevada, unlike Delaware, had no implied consent statute.  Thus, the Nevada Supreme Court’s holding was based on Nevada’s long-arm statute, NRS 14.065(1).

In the ensuing session, the Nevada legislature decided to address the issue as well by enacting an implied consent statute:

Every nonresident of this State who, on or after October 1, 2013, accepts election or appointment, including reelection or reappointment, as a management person of an entity, or who, on or after October 1, 2014, serves in such capacity, and every resident of this State who accepts election or appointment or serves in such capacity and thereafter removes residence from this State shall be deemed, by the acceptance or by the service, to have consented to the appointment of the registered agent of the entity as an agent upon whom service of process may be made in all civil actions or proceedings brought in this State by, on behalf of or against the entity in which the management person is a necessary or proper party, or in any action or proceeding against the management person for a violation of a duty in such capacity, whether or not the person continues to serve as the management person at the time the action or proceeding is commenced. The acceptance or the service by the management person shall be deemed to be signification of the consent of the management person that any process so served has the same legal force and validity as if served upon the management person within this State.

NRS 75.160(1).  Under the statute, an “entity” means a corporation, whether or not for profit; limited-liability company; limited partnership; or a business trust.  NRS 78.160(10)(b).  A “management person” means a director, officer, manager, managing member, general partner or trustee of an entity.  NRS 75.160(10)(c).

Apparently, the Nevada legislature did not consult with Professor Eric Chiappinelli who last year published an article arguing that Delaware’s implied consent statute was unconstitutional.  The Myth of Director Consent: After Shaffer, Beyond Nicastro, 37 Del. J. Corp. L. 783 (2013).

Why does the statute refer to October 1?  Pursuant to NRS 218D.330(1), each law and joint resolution passed by the Legislature becomes effective on October 1 following its passage, unless the law or joint resolution specifically prescribes a different effective date.

Article By:

Keith Paul Bishop
Of
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Unpaid Employer Contributions as Plan Assets: Expansion Of Liability Under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act)

Firm Logo

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), requires trustees of multiemployer pension and benefit funds to collect contributions required to be made by contributing employers under their collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the labor union sponsoring the plans. This is not always an easy task—often, an employer is an incorporated entity with limited assets or financial resources to satisfy its contractual obligations. In some instances, an employer will resort to filing for bankruptcy to obtain a discharge of its debts to the pension or benefit funds.

In a distinct trend, federal courts have found that, depending on the text of the underlying plan documents, unpaid employer contributions due under a CBA may be viewed as plan assets, such that the representatives of an employer who exercise fiduciary control over those plan assets can be held individually liable for the unpaid amounts (together with interest and penalties) under ERISA. These cases will no doubt help plan trustees and administrators collect monies owed to the plan. They also should serve as cautionary warnings to contributing employers to ensure that they fully understand the obligations that they are undertaking when they agree to contribute to ERISA funds pursuant to CBAs.

Background

In the typical scenario, an employer will agree under one or more of its CBAs to make specified contributions to fund the pension and health and welfare benefits promised to plan participants under the trust fund’s plan of benefits. If an employer fails to timely remit those payments in violation of the CBA and the plan’s rules, the trustees of the fund have a legal duty to attempt to recover the unpaid contributions unless, after fully examining the facts and circumstances, the trustees conclude that the likelihood of recovery is outweighed by its costs. What happens if the trustees expend the fund’s resources to seek to collect the unpaid obligations and obtain a judgment against the employer, only to find the company’s coffers empty? Or what if the company files for bankruptcy?

Unlike employee contributions, which under U.S. Department of Labor regulations are explicitly deemed to be plan assets, employer contributions are typically found to be contractual obligations that do not become plan assets until such amounts are paid by the employer to the trust fund. Hence, while an employer’s failure to remit an employee contribution relegates the employer to the status of an ERISA plan fiduciary because it is has authority and control over plan assets, employer contributions have generally been held not to constitute plan assets. As a result, an employer who fails to make its contributions due under the CBA may have committed a contractual violation but has not breached an ERISA fiduciary duty.

The Potential for Individual Fiduciary Liability

Recently, courts have regularly carved out an exception to the general rule that unpaid contributions are not plan assets by finding that employer contributions are plan assets where the CBA explicitly defines them as such. In such cases, these courts will then proceed to consider the next question of whether the officers, directors or other representatives of such employer exercised a level of control over corporate assets sufficient to make them an ERISA plan fiduciary and thus individually liable for the contributions—effectively stripping them of the protections of the corporate form. Furthermore, if elevated to the status of a fiduciary breach, the debt may not be dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, the plan could proceed to collect the unpaid contributions against the principals of the debtor personally.

For over a decade, some federal district courts in the Second Circuit have applied a two-part test in delinquent employer contribution cases to find that: (i) such contributions are plan assets when so specified by the CBA; and (ii) the principals of the employer are an ERISA plan fiduciary. More recently, the Second Circuit concluded that delinquent contributions were not plan assets where there were no provisions in the relevant plan documents that stated that unpaid contributions are assets of the plan. See In re Halpin, 566 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2009). The Court expressly stated, however, that “the trustees were free to contractually provide for some other result.” It further noted that merely finding that delinquent contributions constitute plan assets does not end the inquiry. A court must also determine whether an individual defendant has exercised sufficient fiduciary conduct over the unpaid contributions to be found to be a plan fiduciary under ERISA.

While the Court’s statements were extraneous to the holding of the case, some district courts within the Second Circuit have seized upon this language and have cited In re Halpin for the proposition that employer contributions can be plan assets where the plan documents so provide. See, e.g., Trustees of Sheet Metalworkers Int’l Assoc. v. Hopwood, 09-cv-5088, 2012 WL 4462048 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2012); Sullivan v. Marble Unique Corp., 10-cv-3582, 2011 WL 5401987, at *27 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011).

Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit, in ITPE Pension Fund v. Hall, 334 F.3d 1011 (11th Cir. 2003), held that delinquent contributions can constitute plan assets when explicitly provided for in the plan documents and corporate officers are plan fiduciaries with respect to those assets. The Court demanded a high level of clarity in the plan documents, however, regarding the delinquent contribution’s status as plan assets. It explained that when a corporation is delinquent in its contributions, the fund “has a sufficient priority on the corporation’s available resources that individuals controlling corporate resources are controlling fund assets. This in effect places heavy responsibilities on employers, but only to the extent that . . . an employer freely accepts those responsibilities in collective bargaining.”

In addition, district courts in the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have found that employer contributions constitute plan assets when the plan documents so provide. See, e.g., Trustees of Construction Industry and Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Archie, No. 2:12-cv-00225 (D. Nev. Mar. 3, 2014) (holding that unpaid contributions were plan assets based upon the CBA’s language and finding that the company principals’ acts and responsibilities demonstrated sufficient control and authority over the company’s operations and financials to qualify as ERISA fiduciaries); Galgay v. Gangloff, 677 F. Supp. 295, 301 (M.D. Penn. 1987) (refusing to dismiss fiduciary breach claims for alleged failure to pay delinquent contributions based upon the “clear and undisputed language [of the agreement] stating that title to all monies ‘due and owing’ the plaintiff fund is ‘vested’ in the fund,” rendering “any delinquent employer contributions vested assets of the plaintiff fund.”; Connors v. Paybra Mining Co., 807 F. Supp. 1242, 1246 (S.D.W.V. 1992) (finding company officers personally liable for delinquent contributions that were plan assets based upon CBA’s language since they breached their fiduciary duty by exercising authority over those assets by favoring other creditors over the fund); see also Secretary of Labor v. Doyle, 675 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2012) (holding that district court erred in failing to determine whether payments collected from various employers were plan assets subject to ERISA).

District courts in the Sixth Circuit have even signaled support for finding that contributions are plan assets as soon as they become due, “regardless of the language of the benefit plan.” See, e.g., Plumbers Local 98 Defined Benefit Funds v. M&P Master Plumbers of Michigan, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 873, 879 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (holding company principal personally liable for delinquent contributions since “the CBA and trust agreements . . . treat these unpaid contributions as inalienable plan assets” and signaling support for holding delinquent contributions plan assets “regardless of the language of the benefit plan.”).

In a related context, a federal bankruptcy court recently refused to discharge a debtor’s debt for delinquent contributions based upon the Bankruptcy Code’s “defalcation in the performance of fiduciary duty” exception. See In re Fahey, 494 B.R. 16 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2013). Although the court initially found that the debtor lacked the necessary discretion for fiduciary status under ERISA because the “option to breach a contract does not constitute discretion in the performance of one’s duty,” the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit reversed. The Panel ruled that “even if an ERISA fiduciary does not per se satisfy the § 523(a)(4) requirement for ‘fiduciary capacity,’ an analysis of [the Debtor’s] control and authority over the plan in functional terms nonetheless yields the conclusion that he acted as a fiduciary of a technical trust imposed by common law.” On remand, the bankruptcy court found that the debtor prioritized payments that were personally beneficial over his obligations to the ERISA funds and, consequently, committed defalcation as contemplated by the Bankruptcy Code.

View from Proskauer

Although the general rule that employer contributions do not constitute plan assets until actually received by the trust fund continues, recent decisions indicate an increased willingness by courts to carve out an exception to this rule. Funds looking to protect their ability to collect contributions should explicitly define in the plan documents and agreements with employers that plan assets also include all unpaid contributions in the hands of the employer. Employers should be fully cognizant of these provisions; otherwise its officers, directors and other representatives who choose to pay other creditors rather than the trust fund might be held personally liable for the unpaid amounts and interest and penalties, and possibly be unable to escape this liability through bankruptcy.

Article By:

Neal S Schelberg
Aaron Feuer
Of:
Proskauer Rose LLP.

Employer Used As Means to Commit Crime not a Victim under Restitution Act, Fourth Circuit Court Rules

Jackson Lewis Logo

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) provides that a victim of a federal crime may be entitled to an order of restitution for certain losses suffered as a direct result of the commission of the crime for which the defendant was convicted.  A question that courts sometimes face is whether a company can be considered a “victim” under the MVRA if an employee uses that company as an instrument to defraud the federal government.

Looking at this issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on April 4, 2014, declined to allow a company’s bankruptcy estate to receive restitution for a large debt caused by an owner/employee’s fraud because that company was used as an instrument for that fraud.  In re Bankruptcy Estate of AGS, Inc., No. 12-cr-113 (4th Cir., April 4, 2014).

Dr. Allen G. Saoud was convicted after a June 2013 jury trial of five counts of health care fraud.  Dr. Saoud, who is a dermatologist, in 2005 was excluded from participating in Medicare and Medicaid for 10 years.  He then plotted to maintain ownership and control of his dermatology practice, AGS, Inc. in violation of the exclusion.  He founded a new dermatology practice and transferred all of his patients to this new practice.  After selling  his new practice to Dr. Fred Scott for $1.8 million,  Dr. Saoud then sold AGS, which had lost its value, for $1 million to nurse practitioner Georgia Daniel.  Despite  these sales, he continued to control and profit from both entities, partly by collecting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement funds.

After Dr. Saoud was convicted, the estate of AGS, Inc., which had filed for bankruptcy, sought a $1 million restitution award to cover bankruptcy creditor claims that stemmed partly from the underlying fraud.   The district court declined.  The Estate of AGS, Inc. then filed a writ of mandamus with the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit also refused  to award restitution to the Estate.  The Court held that Dr. Saoud used AGS, Inc. as an instrument in his scheme to illegally obtained Medicare and Medicaid funds, and as such, the Court declined to “also hold that AGS was one of the scheme’s victims.”

AGS, Inc. should be a source of concern to companies that have sustained losses as a result of employee fraud.  If an employee, director, officer or owner uses a company to defraud the government and that company incurs tax or other debt liability as a result of that fraud, that company may not be able to receive restitution under the MVRA.  Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to advise companies on the scope of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and their rights in collecting amounts lost to criminal acts.

Article By:

Ramsay C. McCullough
Of: 
Jackson Lewis P.C.

The President’s Methane Reduction Strategy – Here’s What Energy Companies Need to Know

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

President Obama recently released a Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (Strategy) that sets forth a multi-pronged plan for reducing methane emissions both domestically and globally.  Domestically, the plan is to focus on four sources of methane—the oil and gas sector, coal mines, agriculture and landfills—and to pursue a mix of regulatory actions with respect to those sources.  Energy companies now have the opportunity to help influence exactly what those actions will be.

For the oil and gas sector, the Strategy indicates that the federal government will focus primarily on encouraging voluntary efforts to reduce methane emissions—such as bolstering the existing Natural Gas STAR Program and promoting new technologies.  But the Strategy also identifies two areas of potential mandatory requirements.  First, later this year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue a draft rule on minimizing venting and flaring on public lands.  Regulated parties will have the opportunity to submit comments after the proposed rule is released.  Second, the Strategy confirms that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will decide this fall whether to propose any mandatory methane control requirements on oil and gas production companies.  Consistent with that announcement, on April 15, 2014, EPA released five technical whitepapers discussing methane emissions from the oil and gas production process.  The agency is soliciting comments on those whitepapers—they are due by June 16, 2014.

For coal mines, the Strategy indicates that BLM will soon be seeking public input on developing a program to capture and sell methane from coal mines on public lands.  The Strategy further indicates that EPA will continue promoting voluntary methane capture efforts.

For landfills, the Strategy calls for public input on whether EPA should update its regulations for existing solid waste landfills, indicates that EPA will be proposing new regulations for future landfills, and indicates that EPA will continue to support the development of voluntary landfill gas-to-energy projects.

For agriculture, the Strategy does not suggest any new regulatory requirements.  Instead, it indicates that EPA and the Department of Energy will work to promote voluntary methane control efforts and that those agencies will place special emphasis on promoting biogas—starting with the release of a “Biogas Roadmap” in June 2014.

In addition to these sector-specific approaches, the Strategy emphasizes the need for improved methane measurement and modeling techniques, both domestically and globally.  All of the topics covered by the Strategy are ones about which regulated parties may want to submit comments—to EPA, BLM and/or the Office of Management and Budget.

Article by:
Jacob Hollinger
Jessica Bayles
Of:
McDermott Will & Emery

Privacy, Behavioral Health and Hospital Regulations: Recent Developments in Wisconsin Law [VIDEO]

vonBriesen

In recent months, the Wisconsin legislature has passed several bills relating to health information privacy, treatment of behavioral health patients, and regulation of hospitals. Please view this webcast that will provide a summary of the legislative action and tips for complying with the new law.

http://player.vimeo.com/video/90057974

Health Law Check-Up Webcast: Recent Developments in Wisconsin Law

Article By:

Meghan C. O’Connor
Ralph V. Topinka
Of:
von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

U.S. Tax Court Rejects Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) Restrictive View of Trust Material Participation

Barnes Burgandy Logo

The U.S. Tax Court recently issued a taxpayer favorable opinion regarding how a trust materially participates in its activities. The court’s holding will make it easier for trusts to currently deduct expenses against non-passive income and to exclude income from the reach of the new 3.8% net investment income tax.

In Frank Aragona Trust v. Comm’r, the court held that in determining whether a trust materially participates in its activities, the activities of the trustees, including their activities as employees of the businesses owned by the trust, should be considered. The court’s opinion directly conflicts with recent IRS guidance that only a trustee’s time spent acting in a fiduciary capacity counts toward the trust’s material participation – a standard that would be very difficult for most trusts to meet. See Technical Advice Memorandum 201317010.

In Frank Aragona Trust, a Michigan trust owned rental real estate activities and engaged in holding and developing real estate. The trust conducted some of its activities directly, and others through its wholly-owned business, Holiday Enterprises, LLC. The trust had six trustees, three of whom worked full-time for Holiday Enterprises. The IRS argued that the participation of the trustee-employees should be disregarded. The court disagreed and concluded that the participation of the trustee-employees should be counted and further, that the participation of the trust’s six trustees was sufficient to meet the material participation standard. The court based its decision, in part, on the fact that Michigan law requires trustees to “administer the trust solely in the interest of the trust beneficiaries” even when they are participating through a business wholly-owned by the trust. This decision provides helpful authority for trusts, their trustees and their advisors in navigating the complex passive activity loss and net investment income tax rules.

However, the decision in Frank Aragona Trust does not answer all of the outstanding questions regarding material participation of trusts. In recently finalized regulations implementing the net investment income tax, the Treasury Department and the IRS requested public comments on rules regarding material participation of trusts, which indicates that the IRS may finally undertake a formal project to provide long-awaited guidance on this issue.

Article By:

Michala P. Irons
Randal J. Kaltenmark
William M. Pope
Douglas S. Robson
Howard J. Rubin
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Detecting FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) Abuse

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Dealing with employees who abuse FMLA can be difficult. Letting abuse run rampant, however, can impact business productivity and put a damper on company morale (as present employees often have to pick up the slack of someone on leave). Employers who detect abuse must proceed with caution because it is very easy to run afoul of regulations.

Under the FMLA, it is unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of any right provided by the Act. Further, employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions. Violating these provisions can lead to employee lawsuits for interference or retaliation. Having said that, an employer is not helpless in thwarting employees’ ill-intentioned leaves.

If there is suspected abuse, it should be documented in detail. Who reported it? Is the source credible? Is there evidence (i.e., photographs)? Employers should refrain from overzealously playing detective or prompting other employees to snoop on a coworker – doing so may violate privacy laws. However, if there is a reasonable belief or honest suspicion that abuse is occurring, an employer may begin a confidential investigation, perhaps with the aid of private investigator. Surveillance of an employee should only be used in the most egregious situations and should always be conducted by a professional. Be sure to allow the employee the chance to refute the allegation and present his or her side of the story before taking any adverse action against him or her.

FMLA leave is a right for covered employees, but it does not act as a shield for misconduct nor does it prohibit termination of an employee who abuses the terms of an FMLA leave. You can terminate an employee on FMLA leave, but caution must be used. If you are an employer and detect abuse, it is highly recommended you contact an employment attorney about how to proceed so as to avoid costly lawsuits alleging interference or retaliation.

Article By:

Benjamin L. Riddle
Of: 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Issues Data Listing Medicare Payments To Individual Physicians

Giordano Logo

As it had promised to do, the Medicare program issued data listing the amounts paid to individual physicians for services rendered by those physicians to Medicare beneficiaries for calendar year 2012.  CMS indicated that the data was issued “in order to make our healthcare system more transparent, affordable, and accountable.”  The Wall Street Journal has created a tool which allows users to search the CMS data set by name, specialty and location.  The Medicare announcement and data set link can be found here: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trend….

Article By:

Beth Christian
Of:
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

EB-5 Visas: A Source of Funding for US Businesses But Not Without Risk

Poyner Spruill

China’s wealthy investors are known for seeking secure havens for their money overseas.  In addition to being considered a secure environment for their money, the US offers the EB-5 program providing the investor and his or her immediate family with permanent US residence, known as getting “green cards” in return for making an investment.

Basically, in return for an investment of either $500,000 or $1,000,000, which can be shown to the satisfaction of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services to create 10 US jobs per investment over a two year period, the investor and his family get green cards.  Since it started in 1990, the EB-5 visa program has brought approximately $6.7 billion to the US and has created 95,000 jobs.  In fact, the EB-5 visa program was not very popular until the 2008 financial crisis when traditional sources of financing became more difficult to obtain.  Since then, numerous businesses have attempted to use the EB-5 program to raise money.  For example, Vermont’s Trapp Family Lodge of “Sound of Music” fame advertises that it seeks EB-5 investors to open a beer hall and renovate its existing resort facilities.

There are two distinct EB-5 routes — the Basic Program and the Regional Center Pilot Program. Both programs require that the immigrant make a capital investment of either $500,000 or $1,000,000 (depending on whether the investment is in a Targeted Employment Area [TEA]) in a new commercial enterprise located within the United States.  A TEA is defined by law as “a rural area or an area that has experienced high unemployment of at least 150% of the national average.”  The new commercial enterprise must create or preserve 10 full-time jobs for qualifying US workers within two years (or under certain circumstances, within a reasonable time after the two year period) of the immigrant investor’s admission to the US as a Conditional Permanent Resident.

Entrepreneurs across the nation have set up regional centers for foreign investment to market local EB-5 projects to investors.  There are over 230 such regional centers, some of which are state-run  like Vermont’s Jay Peak. The flexibility offered by a regional center is attractive to both the investor and developer since the investor does not have to play a role in the company. With a direct EB-5 investment, the investor must have some sort of “managerial” function.  Seeing a lucrative opportunity when connecting an investor with regional centers, an industry has sprung up, particularly in China, to connect US businesses with potential investors. These go-betweens charge the regional center as much as $175,000 per investor for making the introduction.

Some projects have not produced the requisite number of jobs that would prompt US immigration authorities to withhold green cards – resulting in exposure to lawsuits from the investor against the developer or regional center that has solicited the investment.  Approximately 31 investors, 15 from China, filed a federal lawsuit alleging the only thing they had to show for a $15.5 million investment was an undeveloped plot of land across the Mississippi River from New Orleans.  In San Bruno, California, three Chinese investors alleged in a lawsuit filed last year that they lost $3 million when an EB-5 developer disappeared with his associates concocted a story about his death.

In contrast, the Marriot and Hilton hotel chains have successfully solicited and obtained EB-5 investment funds to build new hotels; Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Brothers have used the EB-5 program to raise funds for film projects; and the new home of the NBA’s Brooklyn Nets, Barclay Center, was funded through EB-5 investment.

Even if successful, EB-5 visa approval has become much slower due to suspicion of fraud and developers’ inaccurate estimate of creating 10 jobs per investor.  With the economic downturn, the USCIS has hired economists and securities lawyers to review EB-5 applications. Now showing it that it means business, the Securities Exchange Commission has filed its first lawsuit against an EB-5 project alleging that the promoters of a Chicago hotel and convention center project fraudulently sold more than $145 million in securities and collected $11 million in administrative fees from over 250 Chinese investors.

The Canadian government has decided recently to halt its immigrant investor program due to the number of Chinese applications.  This has left Chinese investors potentially turning their attention to the US equivalent as they seek a financially and politically stable haven for themselves and their families.

Article By:

Jennifer G. Parser
Of:
Poyner Spruill LLP

McSweeny Confirmed to Fill Vacancy at Federal Trade Commissions (FTC)

Sheppard Mullin 2012

The Federal Trade Commissions will soon be back to having a full complement of five commissioners.  Today, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 95 to 1, confirmed Terrell McSweeny to fill a vacancy at the agency created by the departure of Jon D. Leibowitz more than a year ago.  Her term runs through September 26, 2017.

The White House announced the nomination of McSweeny in June 2013.  Although her nomination was not controversial, her confirmation was delayed because the Senate failed to take a vote before year’s end.

McSweeny is currently Chief Counsel for Competition Policy and Intergovernmental Relations at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.  She has been at the Antitrust Division since 2012.  Prior to that, she served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy Advisor to the Vice President at the White House.  McSweeny received an A.B. from Harvard University and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law School.

McSweeny’s arrival at the FTC will provide the agency with a Democratic majority that should avoid two-to-two deadlocks and enable Chairwoman Edith Ramirez to pursue her agenda.

The FTC recently described itself as “collegial, bipartisan, and consensus-driven.”  However, there has certainly been some disagreement among the four current commissioners.

During questioning by the Commerce Committee last year, McSweeny discussed the need for offering guidance to business.  Noting that the FTC was primarily a law enforcement agency dealing with issues on a case-by-case basis, she said that it was incumbent on agency leaders to clearly articulate their reasoning, to apply the law as written, and to follow the case law.  She committed to doing just that if confirmed.

Article By:
Bruce A. Colbath

Of:
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP