Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Employers’ Immigration Update – No. 12 December 2013

Jackson Lewis Logo

H-2B Employers Using Temporary Foreign Workers Not Required to Pay Supplemental Prevailing Wages

In a significant decision likely to have a major impact on H-2B employers, the Department of Labor’s Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) has rejected the DOL’s attempt to apply supplemental prevailing wage determinations (PWDs) retroactively on employers who use H-2B temporary foreign labor. The action came in an Appeals Board Decision rendered on December 3.

Ninth Circuit Requires Reimbursement of H-2A Expenses

In the latest in a series of decisions addressing the proper allocation of travel and immigration fee expenses between employers and employees utilizing the H-2A agricultural guest worker program, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, has ruled that an employer must reimburse an H-2A worker for the employee’s travel and immigration expenses in the initial week of employment.

Health History Can Block Entry to U.S.

A disturbing trend appears to have developed in the last few years in admissions review at the Canadian border. U.S. border guards reportedly are barring entry to anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property based on the person’s personal health history. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario will “look into the matter to ensure that personal health information isn’t compromised.” One 2011 report states, “More than a dozen Canadians have told the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office in Toronto within the past year that they were blocked from entering the United States after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”

New E-Verify MOU to be Released

New Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for E-Verify will be released on December 8, 2013, according to USCIS. Current E-Verify users will not be required to execute a new MOU, but they are bound by any and all enhancements to the E-Verify program, including the new or revised MOU that applies to their access method; therefore, they should become familiar with the new or revised MOU that applies to their access method. Employers who join the E-Verify program on or after December 8, 2013, will execute a new or revised MOU (Revision Date 06/01/2013) during enrollment.

Restaurant Manager Indicted on Harboring Charges

The manager of a restaurant who failed to complete I-9s and provide housing for his workers has been indicted on harboring charges. The manager faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count in the indictment. These charges illustrate that ICE techniques for worksite enforcement are not limited to I-9 inspections and fines.

 

Article by:

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

The Top Ten Things You Should Know About The Innovation Act of 2013 (For Now)

Andrews Kurth

 

Companies that find themselves either defending against patent infringement lawsuits or enforcing their own patent infringement claims should pay close attention to the Innovation Act of 2013 (H.R. 2639). The Innovation Act (“the Act”), which was introduced by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), made it out of committee and has now been passed by the House, is aimed squarely at non-practicing entities (“NPEs”), i.e., companies that own patents but that do not sell any products or provide any services themselves. While NPEs may be the primary target, the Innovation Act, if passed, will impact all patent litigation, not just NPE efforts. Likewise, while primarily having a potentially negative impact on plaintiffs, the Act will also have potentially negative impacts on defendants. With bipartisan support and the backing of the White House, the Innovation Act may be the first such legislation to pass.

The Innovation Act makes numerous amendments to Title 35, the section of U.S. Code embodying U.S. patent law. These changes include introducing a discovery delay and other discovery changes, fee shifting, customer suit staying and party-of-interest transparency, heightening pleading requirements and expanding post-grant review. If nothing else, NPEs and their targets should know the following about these changes and the Innovation Act:

Discovery: Perhaps the most expensive and intrusive aspect of any U.S. patent litigation is the discovery process. Indeed, the expense and process of discovery is often the most effective tool used by plaintiffs to bring defendants to settlement, as the process can begin early in the case before any substantial determinations regarding the merits are decided. As a result, defendants are often forced to spend up to hundreds of thousands of dollars going through the discovery process before having any idea whether infringement is a substantial risk or not. The Innovation Act significantly neuters this tool and makes other significant changes to discovery in patent cases:

1. The Act limits discovery to only matters relevant to interpreting the claims until such time as the claims are actually interpreted. Claim interpretation is often dispositive of the merits of the case. Consequently, defendants would be able to dispose of frivolous cases before the expensive discovery process or make settlement decisions more fully informed of the risks; and

2. The Act seeks to better balance discovery costs between the parties, ordering the Judiciary Conference to address the presumably unfair burden placed on defendants and place a higher burden of costs on plaintiffs.

Fee Shifting: Another area in which U.S. patent litigation, indeed U.S. litigation as a whole, differs from foreign litigation is that, except in extreme cases, each party bears its own litigation costs. Currently, NPEs often file suit against multiple defendants. Each defendant is often offered a settlement for an amount much less than that defendant’s anticipated litigation costs. As defendants settle, the settlement price typically is increased for other defendants, further encouraging early settlement. Consequently, many defendants that otherwise believe they have a strong non-infringement case will settle because the cost of achieving victory is substantially higher than settling. This strategy would not work in most foreign countries since, in those countries, the losing party pays the winning party’s fees and costs. The Innovation Act would align U.S. patent litigation with this practice and eliminate the strategy of leveraging high litigation costs for early settlement.

3. In other words, under the Act the Court can force the losing party to pay the winning party’s attorney fees and costs. If passed, this would have a dramatic effect on patent litigation defendants’ decision making process and the typical enforcement strategy of many NPEs. By allowing Courts to shift the litigation costs to the losing side, defendants may be significantly motivated to litigate when they have a strong case even if the price of settlement is relatively low. Combined with the discovery delay described above, defendants will have considerable incentive to remain in the case at least through claim interpretation and to fight infringement claims if the claim interpretation is favorable…

4. …but, by allowing Courts to shift litigation costs to the losing side, defendants’ potential exposure may also be much higher. If the defendant ultimately loses a case, the Court presumably could order them to pay the plaintiff’s litigation costs, particularly if it was apparent that they should have settled. Consequently, the Act’s changes will necessitate defendants making smart decisions about their risk exposure. Fortunately, the discovery delay will enable defendants to economically make more effective decisions by delaying significant discovery costs until after claim interpretation.

5. The Act’s fee-shifting provisions also allows for the limited joinder of parties (such as those covered by transparency provisions described below) to satisfy the award of litigation costs. In principle, this provision could be used against defendants as well as plaintiffs.

The other changes mentioned above may also cast a chill on the NPE business and other patent plaintiffs.

Customer Suit Staying

6. The Innovation Act requires the staying of patent lawsuits against a defendant’s customer. Plaintiffs often sue a defendant’s customers in order to pressure the defendant into settling, often on terms less favorable than the defendant’s actual liability would dictate. Under the Act, an action against a customer may be stayed if the customer agrees to be bound by the results of a suit against the manufacturer. Consequently, customer suit staying takes away another pressure point for plaintiffs.

Post-Grant Review Expansion

7. The Innovation Act expands the post-grant review available against covered business methods (“CBMs”), making CBM review a more effective tool to fight back against patent lawsuits. Specifically, the Act makes the CBM review program permanent and codifies the broad interpretation of what is a CBM.

Heightened Pleading Requirements

8. Currently, many plaintiffs merely name the patents infringed and, in some cases, the products or services infringing. Heightened pleading requirements require more detailed initial pleading by plaintiffs, including greater details describing how a defendant’s products or services infringe the asserted patent claims.

Party-of-Interest Transparency

9. The actual parties of interest are often not discernible from patent complaints. Many NPEs are shell companies that serve the purpose of hiding the actual party asserting the patent. The Innovation Act requires detailed descriptions of the plaintiff’s business and identification of the real party or parties-of-interest behind the asserting plaintiff. Such transparency makes next to impossible for plaintiff’s to hide their true identity and may impact litigation strategies currently used by NPEs and other plaintiffs.

10. Additionally, the party-of-interest transparency provisions of the Act also permit possible joinder of the real party or parties-of-interest behind the asserting plaintiff. This provision gives real teeth to the Fee Shifting provisions of the Act as it may prevent a real party-of-interest from hiding behind a shell company with limited or no resources and avoiding the consequences of the Fee Shifting provisions.

Keep in mind that the Innovation Act will not just affect the Act’s main target, NPEs. Indeed, the Innovation Act has the potential to affect others. Defendants that choose to fight a patent lawsuit rather than settle could find themselves on the losing end of the fee-shifting provisions. Also, the Act may encourage a delay in sharing sales numbers until after claim interpretation, with the result that defendants that may have previously settled for reasonable amounts may find themselves paying much higher amounts if the claim interpretation goes poorly. On a different front, the amounts NPEs and others are willing to pay for patents may be reduced because of the greater risks and costs involved in enforcement. This could reduce the market for patents that provide additional sources of revenue for many patent owners. This in turn could reduce the overall value of patents, the amount companies are willing to spend on patenting and result in an overall chilling effect on research and development and ultimately innovation. As the Innovation Act evolves through the legislative process, some or all of the points above may vary, but the clear direction of the Act, the limitation of patent litigation by NPEs, will remain.

Article by:

Sean S. Wooden

Of:

Andrews Kurth LLP

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Finalizes Import Regulations for “Mad Cow Disease”

Varnum LLP

 

In November, the USDA announced a final rule that will align the Agency’s import regulations for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”)with international standards. According to a USDA November news release, the final regulation will allow for the safe trade of bovines and bovine product, while still protecting the U.S. from the introduction of BSE.

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow praised the new rule by stating, “I applaud USDA’s actions to make sure that American’s beef producers have access to new export markets…This effort is crucial to breaking down other countries’ unfounded trade barriers, and re-opening trade markets that are closed to U.S. beef. American agriculture has long set the gold standard food production. [These] actions will ensure U.S. beef producers can operate on a more level playing field and help grow our agriculture economy.”

 

Article by:

Aaron M. Phelps

Of:

Varnum LLP

The Christmas Conundrum Re: Employee Time Off

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

The holidays are a joyous time of year, but many employers face the season with a certain sense of trepidation as their employees inevitably request time off work.  As the holiday season kicks into full gear, now is a good time for employers to refresh themselves on basic guidelines for granting and denying employees’ vacation requests.

As a starting point, the availability of time off is typically dependent on a number of factors, including the employer’s formal policies, employment contracts, or a collective bargaining agreement. While there are no express state or federal laws requiring private employers to provide time off to celebrate holidays like Christmas, Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does require employers to ”reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious practices, so long as it does not impose an “undue hardship” on the employer. Allowing an employee time off to observe a recognized religious holiday is normally a reasonable accommodation that should be made, if requested, without an undue burden.

Although some employers voluntarily reward employees with at least some time off during the holidays, employers must be careful to recognize that some employees may observe holidays that are not reflected in the employer’s office calendar. For example, if employees are given time off for Christmas day but not for Ramadan, employees observing the Muslim holiday may claim discrimination. Such situations can typically be avoided by utilizing “floating holidays” which allow time off for religious days that do not appear on a company’s official schedule. In addition, employers can include in the company policy that any holiday not appearing on the calendar can be requested and granted subject to review.

Article by:

W. Chapman Hopkins

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

It's Official—The Supreme Court Announces That It Will Review The Contraceptive Mandate

Image

On Nov. 26, 2013, U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will review two cases in which for-profit employers challenged the application of the contraceptive mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The cases are Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialites Corp. v. Sebelius.

Both employers say that their religious beliefs bar them from providing employees with drugs or other items that they consider abortifacients. These employers argue that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects their religious beliefs and therefore bars the application of the contraceptive mandate. In contrast, the government argues that for-profit corporations cannot exercise religion and therefore have no protection from the mandate.

Supreme Court

At present, the federal courts of appeal are deeply divided on this issue. Three circuits—the Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits—have upheld challenges to the mandate, while two circuits—the Third and the Sixth—have rejected these challenges. The most recent decision came from the Seventh Circuit in Korte v. Sebelius, Case No. 12-3841, and Grote v. Sebelius, Case No. 13-1077.  The court’s ruling, issued Nov. 8, 2013, held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act barred the application of the mandate to closely held, for-profit corporations when the mandate substantially burdened the religious-exercise rights of the business owners and their companies.

The Supreme Court will likely hear oral argument in the consolidated Hobby Lobby andConestoga case in March 2014. The decision is expected to decide whether—and to what extent—for-profit corporations have a right to exercise religion. Many commentators see parallels between this case and the Citizens United case in which the Court held that corporations had a First Amendment right to make certain political expenditures. If the Court finds that corporations also have religious rights, it could have significant impact on the application of other laws—including the Title VII, the ADA, the FMLA, etc. For example, could a religious employer object to providing FMLA leave for an employee to care for a same-sex spouse, even in a state that recognizes same-sex unions? Keep an eye on this case—it could have far-reaching consequences.

Article by:

Mark D. Scudder

Of:

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Mobile Medical Applications

GT Law

 

On September 25, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) released final guidance on the regulatory requirements regarding the introduction of mobile medical applications into the marketplace (the “Final Guidance”).  The purpose of the Final Guidance and its Appendices is to assist manufacturers with determining if a product is a mobile medical app and if so the FDA’s expectations for that product.  This Alert summarizes some the key components of the Final Guidance.

I. Summary of the Guidance

This Final Guidance informs manufacturers, distributors and other entities on how the FDA intends to apply its regulatory authorities to select software applications intended for use on mobile platforms (mobile applications).1   Some mobile applications may meet the definition of a medical device under section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)), but because some may pose a lower risk to the public, FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion.  A majority of mobile applications either do not meet the definition of the FD&C Act or are in a category where the FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion.

The FDA intends to apply its regulatory oversight on those mobile applications that are medical devices and whose functionality could post a risk to a patient’s safety if the mobile application does not function appropriately.  The Final Guidance is intended to provide clarity and predictability for manufacturers of these mobile applications.

The Final Guidance provides lengthy definitions of the following terms:

  • Mobile Platform
  • Mobile Application
  • Mobile Medical Application
  • Regulated Medical Device
  • Mobile Medical App Manufacturer

The above-referenced definitions can be found in the full guidance.

II. Scope

The Final Guidance explains the FDA’s intent—to focus its oversight on a segment of mobile apps.

III. Regulatory Approach for Mobile Medical Apps

The FDA intends to apply its regulatory oversight to only those mobile apps that are (1) medical devices; and (2) whose functionality could pose a risk to a patient’s safety if the mobile app were to not function as intended. The FDA believes that if it fails to function as intended, this subset of mobile medical apps poses potential risks to the public health as currently regulated devices. The FDA strongly recommends that manufacturers who fall within the scope of this guidance follow the Quality System2  regulation (which includes good manufacturing practices) in the design and development of their mobile medical apps and initiate prompt corrections to their mobile medical apps, when appropriate, to prevent patient and user harm. Manufacturers of mobile medical apps must meet the requirements associated with the applicable device classification.

A. Mobile medical apps: Subset of mobile apps that are the focus of the FDA’s regulatory oversight

The FDA currently intends to apply its regulatory oversight to only the subset of mobile apps.3   Of major importance, mobile apps can transform a mobile platform into a regulated medical device by using attachments, display screens, sensors, or other such methods. In spite of the transformation, FDA considers such mobile apps to be mobile medical apps.

The following are mobile apps that the FDA considers to be mobile medical apps that are subject to regulatory oversight:

  • Mobile apps that are an extension of one or more medical devices by connecting4  to such device(s) for purposes of controlling5  the device(s) or displaying, storing, analyzing, or transmitting patient-specific medical device data.
  • Mobile apps that transform the mobile platform into a regulated medical device by using attachments, display screens, or sensors or by including functionalities similar to those of currently regulated medical devices. Mobile apps that use attachments, display screens, sensors or other such similar components to transform a mobile platform into a regulated medical device are required to comply with the device classification associated with the transformed platform.
  • Mobile apps that become a regulated medical device (software) by performing patient-specific analysis and providing patient-specific diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. These types of mobile medical apps are similar to or perform the same function as those types of software devices that have been previously cleared or approved.

B. Mobile Apps for which the FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion (meaning that FDA does not intend to enforce requirements under the FD&C Act)

The Final Guidance illustrates the FDA’s exercise of enforcement discretion for mobile apps that: (i) Help patients (i.e., users) self-manage their disease or conditions without providing specific treatment or treatment suggestions; (ii) Provide patients with simple tools to organize and track their health information; (iii) Provide easy access to information related to patients’ health conditions or treatments; (iv) Help patients document, show, or communicate potential medical conditions to health care providers; (v) Automate simple tasks for health care providers; or (vi) Enable patients or providers to interact with Personal Health Record (“PHR”) or Electronic Health Record (“EHR”) systems.

It is important to note that some mobile apps listed above and below may be considered mobile medical apps, and others might not.

The following examples represent mobile apps for which the FDA intends to exercise enforcement discretion:

  • Mobile apps that provide or facilitate supplemental clinical care, by coaching or prompting, to help patients manage their health in their daily environment.
  • Mobile apps that provide patients with simple tools to organize and track their health information.
  • Mobile apps that provide easy access to information related to patients’ health conditions or treatments (beyond providing an electronic “copy” of a medical reference).
  • Mobile apps that are specifically marketed to help patients document, show, or communicate to providers potential medical conditions.
  • Mobile apps that perform simple calculations routinely used in clinical practice.
  • Mobile apps that enable individuals to interact with PHR systems or EHR systems.

IV. Regulatory Requirements

Manufacturers of mobile medical apps are subject to the requirements described in the applicable device classification regulation.6

Our team will continue to provide you with updated information on various aspects of this Final Guidance.

1 While many have suggested that this guidance provides similar views on software, the Agency has taken a more formalized position on certain software requirements and the classification of such products.  For example, the FDA has previously clarified that when stand-alone software is used to analyze medical device data, it has traditionally been regulated as an accessory to a medical device or as medical device software.  Medical Devices; Medical Device Data Systems Final Rule (76 FR 8637) (Feb. 15, 2011).

2 See 21 CFR part 820.

3 See Appendix C.

4 To meet this criterion, the mobile medical apps need not be physically connected to the regulated medical device (i.e. the connection can be wired or wireless).

5 Controlling the intended use, function, modes, or energy source of the connected medical device.

6 Class I devices: General Controls, including:

  • Establishment registration, and Medical Device listing (21 CFR Part 807);
  • Quality System (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820);
  • Labeling requirements (21 CFR Part 801);
  • Medical Device Reporting (21 CFR Part 803);
  • Premarket notification (21 CFR Part 807);
  • Reporting Corrections and Removals (21 CFR Part 806); and
  • Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) requirements for clinical studies of investigational devices (21 CFR Part 812).

Class II devices: General Controls (as described for Class I), Special Controls, and (for most Class II devices) Premarket Notification.

Class III devices: General Controls (as described for Class I), and Premarket Approval (21 CFR Part 814).

 

Article by:

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Varying Maternity Leave Policies Within the Same Company

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Is it permissible for a company to have separate maternity policies for a corporate office from that of a store location? The concern is of course that a claim of discrimination would be made if different policies were used, and it was right for the question to be asked.  However, what may be surprising is that there is no requirement that employees at different company locations all be offered the same benefits. In fact, it is common for employees in a corporate office to receive different employment packages than those at other locations, such as the company’s retail store or restaurant. In fact, an employer does not have to have the same policies for all employees in the same location in many instances. The key is that a policy not have an adverse impact on any protected groups or result in unintentional discrimination.

Maternity leave can involve a combination of sick leave, personal days, vacation days, short-term disability, and unpaid leave time. Thus, exactly how a maternity leave will be structured for any one employee will likely vary.  It is important to note that if your policy allows women to take paid leave beyond what’s considered medically necessary after childbirth (for instances, to arrange for childcare or bond with the child), then you should also allow male employees to take paternity leave for similar purposes. Not allowing a male to take leave under the same terms and conditions as females, if the leave is not related a pregnancy-related disability, can be considered sex discrimination.  So, realize that in some cases your maternity leave may also require a mirroring paternity leave.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) should also always be considered. If FMLA eligible, a new parent (including foster and adoptive) may be eligible for 12 weeks of leave (unpaid or paid if the employee has earned or accrued it) that may be used for care of a new child.

Article by:
 of

10 DOs and DON’Ts for Employer Social Media Policies

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board has actively applied the National Labor Relations Act to social media policies. The Act exists to protect employees’ right to act together to address their terms and conditions of employment. What many employers fail to realize is that the Act applies to union and non-unionized employers. With the Board’s increased scrutiny of social media policies, including review of non-unionized employers’ policies, the following list of dos and don’ts is meant to assist employers in drafting or reviewing their social media policies.

1. DON’T have a policy prohibiting an employee from releasing confidential information. The Board has found that such an overbroad provision would be construed by employees as prohibiting them from discussing information that could relate to their terms and conditions of employment, such as wages.

2. DO have a policy that advises employees to maintain the confidentiality of the employer’s trade secrets and private or confidential information. The Board advises employers to define and provide examples of trade secrets or confidential information. However, the Board cautions employers to consider whether their definition of trade secrets or confidential information would include information related to employees’ terms and conditions of employment.

3. DON’T have a policy prohibiting employees from commenting on any legal matters, including pending litigation. The Board found that such a policy would unlawfully prohibit discussion about potential legal claims against an employer.

4. DO have a policy prohibiting employees from posting attorney-client privileged information. The Board recognizes an employer’s interest in protecting privileged information.

5. DON’T have a policy prohibiting employees from making disparaging remarks about the employer. The Board held that such a policy would have a chilling effect on employees in the exercise of their rights to discuss their terms and conditions of employment.

6. DO have policy that prohibits employees from making defamatory statements on social media about the employer, customers, and vendors, and generally remind employees to be honest and accurate.

7. DON’T have a policy advising employees to check with the company to see if the post is acceptable, if the employee has any doubt about whether it is prohibited. The Board held that any rule that requires permission from the employer as a precondition is an unlawful restriction of the employee’s rights under the Act.

8. DO have a policy that prohibits employees from representing any opinion or statement as the policy or view of the employer without prior authorization. Advise employees to include a disclaimer such as “The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the [Employer].”

9. DON’T have a policy prohibiting negative conversations about co-workers or supervisors. The Board held that without further clarification or examples, such a policy would have a chilling effect on employees.

10. DO advise employees to avoid posts that reasonably could be viewed as malicious, obscene, threatening or intimidating, or might constitute harassment or bullying. Provide examples of such conduct such as offensive posts intentionally mean to harm someone’s reputation or posts that could contribute to a hostile work environment on the basis of a race, sex, disability, religion or any other status protected by applicable state or federal law.

Read more: http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2013/10/ten-dos-and-donts-of-employer-social-media-policies.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+E-commerceLaw+%28E-Commerce+Law%29#ixzz2ir3v2KvK

Article By:

 of

Federal Court Narrows Claims Surrounding “HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU” Copyright Suit

MintzLogo2010_Black

Following up on a previous post regarding the lawsuit winding its way through federal court seeking clarity on whether the music publisher Warner Chappell owns or has the exclusive right to license the copyright in the ubiquitous “Happy Birthday to You” song, U.S. District Judge George H. King (Central District of California) has ordered that certain tangential claims be stayed until further notice, while the case will move forward on the central claim, essentially whether Warner’s copyright in the song is valid and enforceable or not.

Judge King’s order confirms the parties’ agreement at an October 7th hearing to bifurcate (separate) the central claim from the remaining claims (seeking an injunction against Warner, and a variety of related claims such as unfair competition, false advertising, and breach of contract) at least through the summary judgment phase of the central claim.  The central claim alone will proceed for the time being allowing the parties and the Court to focus on what is truly the dominating question in this case.

In his order Judge King also declined to apply a four-year statute of limitations to the central claim instead of the traditional copyright infringement three-year period.  Plaintiffs claimed that unlike a traditional copyright infringement action where a plaintiff alleges a defendant infringed its copyright, this is a “declaratory judgment” action involving a copyright, that is to say one where plaintiffs are preemptively bringing suit so the Court can decide whether Warner even has rights it can assert.  Basically instead of asserting its purported rights, Warner is being forced into a suit to defend its rights.  Despite the procedural change however, the analysis and issues are very similar to a traditional copyright infringement action.  The question Judge King has to resolve was, since the Declaratory Judgment Act (which permits this type of suit) does not contain its own statute of limitations, plaintiffs argued that the Court should instead use the four-year period applicable to California’s unfair competition claims (one of those ancillary claims Judge King stayed in this same order).  Judge King declined, holding that because the Declaratory Judgment Act is merely a procedural vehicle and the substantive rights being challenged are copyright-based under the Copyright Act, the best statute of limitations period is not California’s four-year period, but rather the Copyright Act’s three-year period.  He therefore dismissed two plaintiffs whose claims were time-barred by the new shorter period and gave them three weeks to re-file if they can/chose to.

Judge King’s order is clearly going to focus the parties and the court on the central issue, whether Warner has a valid enforceable copyright in the “Happy Birthday to You” song.  We will continue to closely watch this one as it proceeds.

Article By:

 of

Business and Economic Incentives Primer

Womble Carlyle

Competition among jurisdictions to recruit and retain companies is intense. To attract business to their communities, both state and local governmental authorities will often offer discretionary economic incentives for projects that generate substantial tax revenues or create significant employment opportunities. Companies requiring new or larger facilities or facing lease expirations for their existing operations should assess whether they might qualify for an “incentives package” from the various jurisdictions they are considering for their projects. The potential benefits will typically vary depending upon the project’s key capital expenditures, job creation potential and the company’s corresponding wage parameters and associated commitments. Companies with potentially qualifying projects should evaluate how to best leverage their unique strengths to negotiate all available incentive benefits and to maximize those benefits once they are secured.

Business and economic incentives are the tax, cash and in-kind benefits offered by state and local governments to induce a company to relocate to a new community or remain in its existing jurisdiction primarily to create or retain jobs and increase tax revenue. Incentives help businesses mitigate upfront capital and ongoing operating costs for its required projects. Tax incentives include a variety of income and sales/use tax credits, exemptions, reductions and abatements. These can also include other tax-related investment incentives, such as investment and tax credits, research and development tax incentives, and accelerated depreciation of industrial equipment. The Enterprise Zone (EZ), a special kind of tax incentive program (also known as Empowerment Zones and Empowerment Communities), has been used by the federal government and even more widely by many states.

Cash incentives include monetary grants, reimbursements of transportation or infrastructure costs and other financial incentives including alternative financing subsidies. One of the most common benefits in this category is the Industrial Development Bond (IDB) that is used by jurisdictions to offer low-interest loans to firms. A variation on the IDB is the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts that are used by many states. A TIF allows governments to float bonds to help companies based on their anticipated future tax impact. In-kind incentives include expedited permitting by the state, county and local municipality and customized worker training programs. Some jurisdictions also offer other in-kind benefits such as watered-down environmental regulations and “right to work” laws that inhibit union organizing. Some states also have federal grant monies they are empowered to allocate towards different programs and projects depending on a project’s possible “public” infrastructure needs and other specific criteria.

In offering incentives, cities and counties are typically driven more by investments that increase the tax base while states focus more on jobs that pay above average wages. Some jurisdictions will provide incentives only for manufacturing projects or for specific statutory lists of facilities such as manufacturing, distribution facilities, air cargo hubs, multimodal facilities, headquarters facilities and data centers. Other states will not provide incentives for retail or hospitality facilities. In general, cities and counties have more flexibility than states in the kinds of projects for which they will provide incentives. Some states have wage tests and require that health care insurance and benefits be provided at the employer’s cost or that at least a portion of the cost be subsidized.

Whether for a corporate expansion or relocation, it is critical for a company to initiate its incentive identification and negotiation efforts early in the site-selection process for its project. Specifically, to achieve the greatest negotiating leverage, a company should begin the pursuit of economic incentives at the same time it is are undertaking its site selection efforts, since it is at this point in the process that competition readily exists between the cities, counties and/or states interested in enticing the company to relocate or remain in their jurisdictions. Since the success of this process is, in part, dependent upon “competing” the relevant state and local jurisdictions, it is important for a company to make it clear to all who are acting for the company that no decision or no public announcement may be made about the company’s plans until the company has evaluated all relevant factors.

To begin the process, a company should form a project team that will work with various economic development representatives from the relevant jurisdictions to achieve the optimal incentives package. The project team should develop a formal incentives negotiation strategy that would include some if not all of the following components:

  • Identifying and analyzing all incentive opportunities available for the project.
  • Determining the company’s short and long term capital and operating costs as well as job creation estimates.
  • Preparing a preliminary “incentives” pro forma.
  • Outlining the plan for securing the incentives and evaluating the related commitments that will be necessary from the company.
  • Identifying and integrating important components of the company’s corporate culture into the negotiation requests and strategy.
  • Determining the essential needs of the project to be included as the non-negotiable points of the company’s business case.
  • Defining the “business case” for why a jurisdiction would benefit from the company’s relocation to that state/county, such as tax (income and sales) revenues to be generated and the jobs to be created by the company.
  • Identifying how to formulate the most productive partnership between the company and the community.
  • Determining how to work creatively within the state and local framework.
  • Considering the use of a third party economic impact study to create an effective business case showing the jurisdiction how to fund the incentives.

A company that is well positioned to benefit from business and economic incentives should engage a seasoned professional who has a successful track record in achieving incentive benefits from the jurisdictions relevant to its business. Working in coordination with the governmental authorities, the right advisor can assist the company in establishing timelines for critical dates, administering applications to secure the incentives, and obtaining formal jurisdictional approvals to ensure compliance is implemented and negotiated incentives are realized. The advisor will also participate, as requested, in presentations for internal and governmental board approval and provide ongoing information and updates to the company during key phases of the incentive pursuit process.

After the final incentives package has been negotiated, the company and the jurisdiction will prepare and negotiate the required incentives agreements and then pursue the formal final governmental approvals. Public relations personnel for the company and the governmental authority are typically involved at this stage to prepare supporting media releases and project announcements. Once all necessary approvals are obtained, the company must establish internal documentation and processes to satisfy the compliance requirements to realize the negotiated incentives, which typically takes the form of a compliance manual.

Business and economic incentives can be valuable tools for a company to reduce costs, increase savings and manage risks as they pursue a signature lease transaction, building acquisition or facility development. To achieve the optimal result, the incentives process must be carefully managed from inception to completion, toward the ultimate goal of creating a meaningful partnership between the company and the community in which the company will conduct its business.

This article originally was published in the August 2013 edition of “Focus on WMACCA,” the newsletter of the Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association. 

This article was written with Scott R. Hoffman with Cushman & Wakefield.

Article By:

 of