Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Zappos and It's Effect On "Browswrap" Agreements

Lewis & Roca

Key Takeaways For An Enforceable Terms of Use Agreement

In light of the recent Nevada federal district court decision In re Zappos.com, Inc., ‎Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, companies should review and update their ‎implementation of browsewrap agreements to ensure users are bound to its terms. MDL No. ‎‎2357, 2012 WL 4466660 (D.Nev. Sept. 27, 2012).

A browsewrap agreement refers to the online Terms of Use agreement that binds a web ‎user merely by his continued browsing of the site, even when he is not aware of it. Any ‎somewhat experienced web user is no stranger to the Terms of Use link that leads to the ‎browsewrap agreement. Yet, the users tend to ignore the link’s existence, and rarely think of it ‎as a “contract” with any practical effects. In Zappos, the court questioned the browsewrap ‎agreement’s validity particularly because of this tendency among web users. The court ruled the ‎arbitration clause in Zappos’ browsewrap Terms of Use was unenforceable because the users did ‎not agree to it and Zappos had the right to modify the terms at any time. ‎

Background of the Case

Founded in 1999, Zappos.com is a subsidiary of Amazon.com and one of the nation’s ‎biggest online retailers for footwear and apparel. Currently headquartered in Henderson, ‎Nevada, the company has more than 24 million customer accounts. In mid-January 2012, its ‎computer system experienced a security breach in which hackers attempted to access the ‎company’s customer accounts and personal information.

After Zappos notified its customers about the incident, customers from across the country ‎filed lawsuits against Zappos, seeking relief for damages arising from the breach. The cases were ‎transferred to and consolidated in Nevada. Zappos then sought to enforce the arbitration clause ‎contained in its Terms of Use, which would stay the litigation in federal court and compel the ‎case for arbitration. The court denied Zappos’ motion on two grounds: there was no valid ‎agreement to arbitrate due to the lack of assent by the plaintiffs and the contract was ‎unenforceable because it reserved to Zappos the right to modify the terms at any time and ‎without notice to its users.

Lessons Learned from the Browsewrap

Mutual Assent Must Be Clear 

Arbitration provisions are a matter of contract law, and the traditional elements of a ‎contract must be met even though Zappos’ Terms of Use was presented in electronic, ‎browsewrap form on the website. An essential element of contract formation is mutual assent by ‎the parties to the contract, which the court found was missing in this case as there was no ‎evidence of the plaintiffs’ assent.

The court compared the browsewrap agreement with another popular form of online terms ‎of use agreement, the “clickwrap” agreement. Clickwrap agreements require users to take ‎affirmative actions, such as clicking on an “I Accept” button, to expressly manifest their assent to ‎the terms and conditions.‎

Since Zappos’ browsewrap agreement did not require its users to take similar affirmative ‎action to show their assent to the terms and conditions, there was no direct evidence showing ‎that the plaintiffs consented to or even had actual knowledge of the agreement, including the ‎arbitration clause.‎

Link It Front and Center 

Furthermore, the court found Zappos’ Terms of Use hyperlink was inconspicuous and ‎thus did not provide reasonable notice to its users. The link was a) “buried” in the middle or ‎bottom of each page and became visible when a user scrolls down, b) appeared “in the same size, ‎font, and color as most other non-significant links,” and c) the website did not “direct a user to ‎the Terms of Use when creating an account, logging in to an existing account, or making a ‎purchase.” The court concluded that under ordinary circumstances, users would have no reason ‎to click on the link.‎

Unilateral Right to Modify or Terminate Won’t Work

Another problem with Zappos’ browsewrap agreement was that it was illusory and thus ‎unenforceable. In the agreement, the company “retain[ed] the unilateral, unrestricted right to ‎terminate the arbitration agreement” and had “no obligation to receive consent from, or even ‎notify, the other parties to the contract.” Users would unsuspectingly agree to the changes by ‎continuing to use the site. Under this provision, Zappos could seek to enforce the arbitration ‎clause, as it did here, or not enforce it by modifying the clause without notice to its users when it ‎was no longer in its interest to arbitrate. In either circumstance, the users would still be bound to ‎the agreement.

Implications for Companies

As a result of this decision, companies should carefully reassess the display and content ‎of the online terms of use they adopt to ensure their enforceability. In a narrow sense, the ‎decision means an arbitration clause in a browsewrap agreement similar to Zappos’ may be ‎deemed unenforceable. More broadly, this decision threatens the validity and enforceability of ‎other terms and conditions contained in a browsewrap agreement, which may deprive the ‎company of the agreement’s protection and favorable terms. ‎

Clickwrap agreements seem to provide the solution to Zappos’ problem. The court ‎suggested a clickwrap agreement could obtain a user’s assent to the terms and conditions. A ‎company may implement the clickwrap agreement through account registration or purchase ‎check-out, tailored to the nature of the company’s business and user interaction. The system may ‎require a user to click “I Accept” to secure the user’s assent to be bound by the agreement before ‎he can proceed further on the website. ‎

On the other hand, the court did not conclude that browsewrap agreements are never ‎enforceable. Other courts have held that browsewrap agreements are generally enforceable. ‎Enforceability largely depends on how the company presents the link and terms to the users such ‎that the users would have reasonable notice of the information. Accordingly, a browsewrap ‎agreement may be enforceable if the hyperlink is conspicuously located and displayed. ‎

In addition, companies should communicate and secure a user’s assent to any ‎modification when the user has previously accepted the terms and conditions. The user may ‎consent through another clickwrap agreement showing the modified terms. With a browsewrap ‎agreement, notice of the changes should, at the minimum, be conspicuously displayed on the ‎webpage. ‎

What This Means 

The Zappos decision reflects a change in the public policy on web activities, and users ‎who do not affirmatively agree to the online Terms of Use may no longer be bound. Consumers ‎are increasingly turning to the web for goods and services. In reaction, courts are beginning to ‎look closer into the transactions and resulting issues that occur online. In this process, courts are ‎testing and requiring new standards for these Terms of Use agreements. Companies should be ‎aware of the court’s evolving attitude towards the different types of agreements. You are ‎encouraged to seek legal guidance to properly adapt your implementation of Terms of Use ‎agreements. Failure to update your Terms of Use agreements may leave you exposed to ‎unfavorable terms that the Terms of Use is designed to prevent.‎

Will Obesity Claims Be the Next Wave of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Litigation?

Poyner SpruillIn a new federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Whittaker v. America’s Car-Mart, Inc., the plaintiff is alleging his former employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it fired him for being obese.  Plaintiff Joseph Whittaker claims the company, a car dealership chain, fired him from his job as a general manager last November after seven years of employment even though he was able to perform all essential functions of his job, with or without accommodations.  He alleges “severe obesity … is a physical impairment within the meaning of the ADA,” and that the company regarded him as being substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.

The EEOC has also alleged morbid obesity is a disability protected under the ADA.  In a 2011 lawsuit filed on behalf of Ronald Katz, II against BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems, LP (BAE Systems), the EEOC alleged the company regarded Mr. Katz as disabled because of his size and terminated Katz because he weighed over 600 lbs.  The suit alleged Mr. Katz was able to perform the essential functions of his job and had received good performance reviews.  The case was settled after BAE Systems agreed to pay $55,000 to Mr. Katz, provide him six months of outplacement services, and train its managers and human resources professionals on the ADA.  In a press release announcing the settlement, the EEOC said, “the law protects morbidly obese employees and applicants from being subjected to discrimination because of their obesity.”

Similarly, in 2010, the EEOC sued Resources for Human Development, Inc. (RHD) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for firing an employee because of her obesity in violation of the ADA. According to the suit, RHD fired Harrison in September of 2007 because of her severe obesity.  The EEOC alleged that, as a result of her obesity, RHD perceived Harrison as being substantially limited in a number of major life activities, including walking.  Ms. Harrison died of complications related to her morbid obesity before the case could proceed.

RHD moved for summary judgment, arguing obesity is not an impairment.  The court, having reviewed the EEOC’s Interpretive Guidance on obesity, ruled severe obesity (body weight more than 100% over normal) is an impairment.  The court held that if a plaintiff is severely obese, there is no requirement that the obesity be caused by some underlying physiological impairment to qualify as a disability under the ADA.  The parties settled the case before trial for $125,000, which was paid to Ms. Harrison’s estate.

In June 2013, the American Medical Association (AMA) declared that obesity is a disease.  Although the AMA’s decision does not, by itself, create any new legal claims for obese employees or applicants under the ADA, potential plaintiffs are likely to cite the new definition in support of ADA claims they bring.  In light of these recent developments, obesity related ADA claims will likely become more common.

Article By:

 of

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Issues Revised Process for Making National Coverage Determinations

vonBriesen

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published its revised process for external requests and internal reviews for new national coverage determinations (NCDs) or for reconsideration of existing NCDs.  Today’s guidance supersedes CMS’s previous process issued in 2003.

Prior to formally requesting an NCD or reconsideration, CMS encourages requesters to contact CMS staff in the Coverage and Analysis Group (CAG).  The CAG staff may identify additional needed information and supporting documentation.  The requester may also find that a formal request is not needed.  For example, CAG staff could determine that coverage of the item or service is already available or that the item or service falls outside the scope of an NCD.

If the requester decides to move forward with requesting an NCD review, the requester must provide the following, which would constitute a “complete, formal request”:

  1. A final letter of request that is clearly identified as “A Formal Request for A National Coverage Determination.”
  2. A full and complete description of the item or service in the request.
  3. The scientific evidence supporting the clinical indications for the item or service, including the proposed use of the item or service, the target Medicare population, the medical indication(s) for which the item or service can be used, and whether the item or service is used by health care providers or beneficiaries.
  4. The Medicare Part A or B benefit category or categories in which the item or service falls.
  5. Additional information if the item or service is currently under FDA review.

Once CMS receives the complete formal request, it will add the request to its tracking sheet on the CMS website and permits public comments on the request.  CMS will also initiate a formal evidence review and will generally issue a proposed decision within six months of opening the NCD review.  CMS will accept public comments for 30 days after issuing the proposed decision.  CMS will then issue a final NCD within 60 days of the end of the public comment period.  These timeframes could be extended, however, if CMS commissions a third party technology assessment, convenes the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee, or requests a clinical trial.

Today’s guidance also provides the process for requesting reconsideration of an NCD.  The reconsideration must be in writing and clearly identified.  The requester must also provide documentation meeting one of the following:

  1. Additional scientific evidence not considered at the most recent review and a “sound premise” that the evidence may change the NCD decision.
  2. Arguments that CMS’s conclusion materially misinterpreted the existing evidence at the time the NCD was decided.

CMS will generally accept or reject an external NCD reconsideration request within 60 days of receiving the request.

In certain circumstances, CMS may internally initiate review of an NCD.  CMS will also periodically review NCDs that have not been reviewed in the past 10 years.  CMS will publish a list of NCDs proposed for removal and rationale for removal and provide a 30 day public comment period.  CMS anticipates that this process will reduce the timeframe for removal or amendment of an NCD.  Currently, removal or amendment takes 9 to 12 months.

For more information, please see the guidance at this link.

Article By:

 of

Imperfect Fit: Abercrombie Store Threatens Location In Tailored-Clothing Mecca Savile Row

Womble Carlyle

We’ve all heard the various means of describing the inappropriate place for an otherwise benign thing, rendering the otherwise benign thing a hazard or a liability or just plain offensive.  In 1855, the author Robert De Valcourt referred to, “An awkward man in society is like a bull in a china shop, always doing mischief.”  Robert De Valcourt, The Illustrated Manners Book: A Manual of Good Behavior and Polite Accomplishments (1855).  In 1926, Justice Sutherland opined, “A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.”  Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).

Village of Euclid, of course, upheld the constitutionality of the zoning concept, a replacement of single purposes ordinances and private litigation for land use management.  See David Owens, Land Use Law In North Carolina (2d ed. 2011).

bull china shop retail real estate land use

“Late Ming dynasty, kaolin and pottery stone foundation, cobalt firing enamelling with Arabic lettering.  If only I could find a well-tailored suit and some skinny jeans to go with this vase.” 

Well, the “pig” or the “bull” in one particular instance is anticipated to be an Abercrombie and Fitch children’s store in the heart of London.

The “china shop” or the “parlor”?  Well, that may be Savile Row, legendary collection of fine British tailors and suitmaker to the rich and famous.  Consider this quote from Mark Henderson, chairman of “heritage tailor Gieves & Hawkes”, reported by CNBC about objection to the Abercrombie store:

“Opening a kids store on Savile Row is a somewhat bizarre thing to do. It’s a fairly narrow street, it’s got its own atmosphere to it.  It’s just fundamentally a mistake from Abercrombie – they don’t get everything right.”

We don’t purport to know the land use laws in London, we’ll leave that to the Ealing Common Land Use Barrister blog, but it’s always interesting to see just how common and universal land use issues can be.

It’s also interesting to see how different motives underpin all land use issues.  For example, one might assume the “hubub” over the Abercrombie store is a degradation of the historical nature of the narrow street, as Mr. Henderson alludes.  Well, maybe the distaste is different for another, even another from a seemingly similar perspective.  Consider this worry about “higher rents”, from John Hitchcock of “bespoke tailor Anderson & Sheppard” (man, I love the British):

“One or two of the tailors are concerned it might put the rents up, and it will do, I suppose.  There’s only so much rent we can pay. Our costs are already high as we make every suit by hand – unlike the big chains which don’t make their products on the premises.”

The Lesson of the Day

Land use decisions are nuanced legally but they are also very nuanced politically.  In this one space, one street within one small universe of British tailors, we have two very distinct motives for refusing the Abercrombie store.  Yes, both are opposed to the store, but each is opposed for a different reason, which means a political salve must address, at least, two distinct concerns.

One must fully and fairly understand the forces against which one is working, before success is at hand.  I think Sun Tzu, the Zhou Dynasty Land Use Litigator, said that.

Article By:

 of

Mexico: U.S. Natural Gas Savior?

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

Much has been made of the exponential growth in natural gas supply within the continental United States due to the horizontal drilling and fracking techniques employed in recent years. The resulting natural gas glut has reversed the conventional wisdom that America would be a net importer of natural gas for most of the 21st century with the expectation now being that America, despite being by far the world’s largest consumer of hydrocarbons, will be a significant exporter of natural gas overseas in the coming years and decades. This development has resulted in a flurry of proposed liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminals that hope to export natural gas in order to take advantage of the large spreads between prices in America and those in Europe and Asia. Those price spreads exist because a worldwide market for natural gas doesn’t exist, as opposed to oil where the relatively short-lived Brent-WTI price differential has evaporated in recent months.

However, these export terminals cannot export gas to foreign countries lacking a free trade agreement with the U.S. without permits from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The queue for approval is long with only three facilities (including most recently the Lake Charles LNG Project in Lake Charles, Louisiana) receiving approval from the Department of Energy and only one of those (the Sabine Pass project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana) receiving approval from FERC. Given the long construction lead times for these projects and political pressure from environmentalists and buyers of natural gas who want prices to remain low, it won’t be until 2016 when any significant volumes of LNG are exported from the continental United States. Rival producers such as Qatar, Australia and Indonesia are rapidly signing contracts with Japan, Korea and China to satisfy the long-term needs of those countries as America continues to delay the development of its LNG infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the historically low natural gas prices created by the production glut are forcing energy companies to find a profitable market for their natural gas in the short to medium term. They appear to have found one in America’s backyard: Mexico. Constructing pipelines to straddle the U.S.-Mexico border entail less regulatory complexities and attract less political attention than LNG exports. With the existing U.S.-Mexico natural gas pipelines almost at capacity, energy companies cannot build border pipelines fast enough, with several new pipeline projects coming online, including Kinder Morgan’s El Paso Natural Gas Co. export pipeline near El Paso, Texas, with a capacity of 0.37 billion cubic feet per day. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration all of the in-progress pipeline projects on the U.S.-Mexico border could result in a doubling of American natural gas exports to Mexico by the end of 2014.

This new export market should continue to support U.S. shale development in the near-term and medium-term future, especially in Texas, despite low natural gas prices and continued supply growth. Longer term prospects for U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico are also bright as well. Even though Mexico has large hydrocarbon reserves itself, the 1938 nationalization of its oil industry and the subsequent decades of underinvestment have seen Mexican hydrocarbon production steadily decline in the last decade. The Mexican constitution effectively prohibits private investment in hydrocarbon production and the Mexican public firmly believes in public ownership of hydrocarbons. There is widespread agreement among many Mexican politicians that private capital, especially from U.S. energy companies with the expertise to tap offshore and shale hydrocarbons, is needed to reverse the production decline, but whether public opposition can be overcome remains in doubt. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is pushing constitutional reforms to attract foreign capital, but even if those pass Mexico is years away from converting any private capital into increased production. If those reforms do not pass, Mexico will be forced to continue to look to U.S. natural gas producers to provide it with its growing energy needs.

So while a regulatory bottleneck is endangering America’s ability to be a long-term overseas exporter of natural gas, Mexico, with its growing economy and inability to tap its own reserves, seems poised to play an outsized role in a continued expansion of American natural gas production. LNG exports might be the wave of the future, but natural gas exports to Mexico are the here and now.

 of

Health Care Reform Update – Week of August 5th, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the News

Office of Personnel Management Addresses Premiums for Congressional Staffers On August 1st, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced it will release proposed regulations within the next week to allow the federal government to contribute to the health care premiums of members of Congress and their staffs. Earlier in the week, President Obama said he was working with Congress to address the issue, which had prompted concerns about a brain drain from Capitol Hill. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said he intended to place a hold on Katherine Archuleta, the nominee to be the chief at OPM, until the issue was resolved.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Unanimously Approves SGR Bill On July 31st, by a unanimous 51-0 vote, the House Energy and Commerce passed legislation that would repeal the sustainable growth rate (SGR) Medicare physician payment method and shift payment to quality-based measures.

Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

On July 29th, CMS issued a release that indicates the ACA and its gradual closure of the donut hole coverage gap has saved 6.6 million Americans over $7 million, an average savings of $1,061 per beneficiary.

On July 29th, the White House issued a blog post noting nationwide health care costs grew just 1.1% from May 2012 – May 2013. The 1.1% growth is the slowest in 50 years.

On July 30th, House Republicans released a playbook for the August recess that encourages members to hold “emergency town halls” in response to ACA implementation.August 5, 2013

On July 30th, the CMS released an application that allows organizations to become “Champions for Coverage” under the ACA.

On July 30th, CMS released an application for community health centers and other health providers that want to become certified application counselor organizations and help people searching for insurance coverage on the ACA exchanges.

On July 30th, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JTC) issued an estimate that the employer mandate delay of the ACA will cost about $12 billion.

On July 31st, HHS issued a request for information from stakeholders regarding section 1557 of the ACA, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in health care programs.

On July 31st, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released a report and interactive map on how insurance coverage would be expanded as a result of the ACA.

On July 31st, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said he is still unsure if House Republicans will use the threat of a government shutdown in an effort to defund the ACA.

On July 30th, EHealthInsurance reached a deal to sell its products on the ACA insurance exchanges. EHealth CEO Gary Lauer says his company’s involvement on the exchanges will lead to increased enrollment and improved competition in the insurance marketplace.

On August 1st, California announced six insurers that will offer coverage on the state’s Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). A summary of the Covered California plan indicates the premium prices and coverage options for hypothetical business operations.

On August 1st, 38 Republican Senators sent a letter to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler with a request for information on the government agencies involved in ACA implementation.

On August 1st, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on the role of the IRS in ACA implementation. Gary Cohen of the CMS Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) and Daniel Werfel of the IRS testified before the committee.

On August 1st, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a hearing with CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner to discuss the current state of ACA implementation.

On August 2nd, the House voted, 232-185, to prohibit the IRS from being involved in enforcement of the ACA. The vote was the 40th time the House has attempted to repeal components of the ACA.

Other HHS and Federal Regulatory InitiativesAugust 5, 2013

On July 30th, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wyeth Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay over $490 million to resolve criminal and liability issues arising from the company’s unlawful marketing of Rapamune, a drug only approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for kidney transplants.

On July 31st, CMS issued final payment rules to increase payments to skilled nursing facilities by 1.3%, at a cost of $470 million, and increase payments to inpatient rehabilitation facilities by 2.3%, a $170 million cost.

On August 1st, the FDA released 2014 user fee rates for biosimilars, brand name prescription drugs, generic prescription drugs, and medical devices.

On August 2nd, the FDA issued a rule addressing ‘gluten-free’ food labeling. The rule states foods that claim to be gluten-free but contain more than 20 parts per million of gluten will be considered misbranded products.

On August 2nd, CMS released a final rule relating to payments for acute care and long-term care hospitals in 2014. The rule increases payment to the nation’s 3,400 acute care hospitals by $1.2billion. Payment to 440 long-term care facilities is set to increase $72 million.

Other Congressional and State Initiatives

On July 31st, Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) introduced legislation to require hospitals to publicly disclose the prices charged for the most common medical procedures.

On August 1st, Democratic Senators sent a letter to President Obama urging the White House to establish set targets for Medicare and Medicaid cost savings.

On August 1st, Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced The Care Planning Act of 2013, a bill to improve palliative care and provide seriously ill patients with greater control of their own care.

On August 2nd, Michigan and Illinois announced a partnership to share Medicaid information systems, a plan expected to save millions of dollars for both states.

On August 2nd, Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Angus King (I-ME) introduced a bill, S. 1422, to require the CBO to more completely address the cost-savings of preventive healthcare.

Other Health Care News

On July 29th, doctors from the National Cancer Institute published a report suggesting the word ‘cancer’ is overused. The report argues the overuse of the term leads to unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment in many patients.August 5, 2013

On July 29th, Gallup released a poll indicating Americans have exercised less each month in 2013 than during the same months in 2012. About half of Americans say they exercise at least 30 minutes three or more days each week.

On August 2nd, the Institute of Medicine released a report on the efforts needed to tackle obesity in the United States.

Hearings and Mark-Ups Scheduled

The Senate and the House of Representatives are in recess until the week of September 9th.

David Shirbroun also contributed to this article.

Article By:
of

Prospects for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: The House of Representatives Kicks the Can Down the August Recess Road

GT Law

The U.S. House of Representatives left town last week for the long August recess without passing one immigration-related bill. House Republicans made it quite clear that the Senate- passed S. 744, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, would never be taken up by the House.

To date, the House has five immigration bills reported out of either the Judiciary or Homeland Security Committee. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill that the House Gang of 8 (now 7) has been working on for the past 18-plus months has not be introduced and the common wisdom is that it will not be the vehicle that will be used in the House.

None of the five bills have been brought to the floor for a vote. When the House returns in September, there is a feeling that the bills might be brought up in the following order:

  1. The Border Security Results Act (H.R. 1417) was introduced on April 9, 2013 by House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul and approved by the House Homeland Security Committee on May 20, 2013 by voice vote. H.R. 1417 requires results verified by metrics to end The Department of Homeland Security’s ad hoc border approach and to help secure our nation’s porous borders.
  2. The Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act (H.R. 2278), also know as The SAFE Act, was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 18, 2013. The SAFE Act seeks to improve the interior enforcement of our immigration laws by preventing the Executive Branch from unilaterally halting federal enforcement efforts. To this end, the bill grants states and localities the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
  3. The Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772) was introduced on April 26, 2013 by Rep. Lamar Smith and approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 26, 2013. This bill discourages illegal immigration by ensuring that jobs are made available only to those who are authorized to work in the U.S. Specifically, the bill requires employers to check the work eligibility of all future hires though the E-verify system.
  4. The Supplying Knowledge Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels or STEM Visas Act (H.R. 2131), also known as The SKILLS Visa Act, was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa on May 23, 2013. The SKILLS Visa Act changes the legal immigration system for higher-skilled immigration and improves programs that make the U.S. economy more competitive. The SKILLS Visa Act was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2013.
  5. On April 26, 2013, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte introduced the Agricultural Guestworker Act (H.R. 1773), also known as The AG Act. The Committee approved this bill on June 19, 2013 in a voice vote (20-16). This bill attempts to provide farmers with a new guest worker program to ease access to a lawful, agricultural workforce that employers may call upon when sufficient American labor cannot be found.

The members of the Republican leadership in the House have not been clear about the timing strategy for a potential conference with the Senate. It is not very likely, however, that a conference will occur until the end of 2013, if at all.

Article By:

 of

Picture This: The National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice Wants to Sue Employer for Issuing Social Media Policy with Photo/Video Ban

Michael Best Logohe National Labor Relations Board’s Division of Advice (the Division) recently recommended that the Board issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing its social media policy without first bargaining with two unions, and for maintaining a social media policy that included unlawful provisions. Although the Division analyzed several social media policy provisions, its criticism of two provisions in particular—a ban on using photo and video of company premises, and restrictions on employees’ use of company logos and trademarks—makes it very difficult for employers to protect their brands while at the same time complying with federal labor laws.

Giant Foods’ social media policy forbade employees from using company logos, trademarks, or graphics without prior approval from the company. The policy also prohibited employees from using photographs or video of the “Company’s premises, processes, operations, or products” without prior approval as well.

The Division concluded that these provisions were unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) should issue a complaint against Giant Foods for implementing them. As employers are becoming keenly aware, the NLRA safeguards employees’ right to engage in protected concerted activity. Such activity includes group discussions and some comments by individual employees that relate to their wages, hours, and other terms conditions of employment.

The Division concluded that banning employees from using company logos or trademarks was unlawful because: (1) employees should be allowed to use logos and trademarks in online communications, including electronic leaflets or pictures of picket signs with the employer’s logo; and (2) those labor-related interests did not raise the concerns that intellectual property laws were passed to protect, such as a business’ interest in guarding its trademarks from being used by competitors selling inferior products.

Additionally the Division concluded that restricting employees from using photo and video of company premises unlawfully prevented them from sharing information about participation in protected concerted activities, such as snapping a picture of a picket line.

Unfortunately, the Board’s expansive view will likely hamper companies’ ability to prevent damage to their brand and reputation.  Not allowing employers to ban the taking of videos and photos on their premises, or restricting the use of company logos/trademarks could lead to public relations nightmares such as the one Subway Foods recently endured after it was revealed that an employee posted a graphic picture on Instagram of his genitalia on a sub, with the tag line “I will be your sandwich artist today.”

Given the prevalence of cell phones with photo and video capabilities, and the ease of uploading photos and videos to the internet, a company that cannot control its employees’ use of those devices on their premises will be one bad employee decision away from public embarrassment.

What else can be gleaned from the Giant Foods Advice Memorandum? That the Board’s General Counsel will continue to prod employers to eliminate blanket bans on certain kinds of employee conduct from their social media policies and replace those bans with provisions that include specific examples of what employee conduct the policy prohibits. The Board and its General Counsel have previously found social media policies that restricted employee use of confidential information and complaints about an employer’s labor practices as unlawful; Giant Foods makes clear that the agency is also scrutinizing other kinds of policy provisions that potentially could infringe on an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activities.

Accordingly, employers should review their policies with counsel so that they can tailor them to restrict employee conduct that will damage the company and its brand, but not be “reasonably” read to restrict employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activities.

It’s Official: Top Union Lawyer To Be National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel

Barnes & Thornburg

And you thought Lafe Solomon was anti-employer? Buckle your seat belts folks because the employer community is in for a rough ride.

The White House has confirmed Board member Richard Griffin has been nominated to be the new General Counsel for the NLRB.  Before joining the Board as a “recess” appointee, Griffin served as General Counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers. Griffin has served on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee and has held various legal jobs with the IUOE. Griffin holds a B.A. from Yale University and a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law. With Griffin’s nomination, the President also withdrew the nomination of Lafe Solomon Jr. to be General Counsel.  Solomon had been named Acting General Counsel on June 21, 2010.  His nomination for that job went to the U.S. Senate on January 5, 2011 and again in May of this year, but the nomination was never voted upon.

As we previously reported here and here, Griffin’s nomination for the GC job comes on the heels of the deal crafted in the Senate to allow the President’s nominations for the Board to come to the floor for an up or down vote.  Republicans insisted that the President withdraw the nomination of Griffin and Sharon Block.  He agreed and replaced their nominations with those of Kent Hirozawa and Nancy Schiffer, both reportedly hand-picked by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. With the recent confirmation of all five of the nominations, the Board is at its full five-member complement for the first time in more than a decade.  However, with a solid 3 member pro-Union majority and Griffin in the General Counsel’s slot, it will be full speed ahead on President Obama’s pro-Union agenda.

Article By:

 of

Private Placement of Alternative Investment Funds in the European Union (EU): Changing Regulatory Landscape

GT Law

I. Overview

The European Commission’s Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (“AIFMD”) was designed to establish a unified framework throughout the EU for regulating previously unregulated Alternative Investment Funds (“AIF”).

The AIFMD is effective as per July 22, 2013. The AIFMD, as any other EU directive, however needs to be transposed into European Union members’ national laws before it will actually have effect. Moreover, the AIFMD leaves the member states with the flexibility to make their own choices on certain aspects. This concerns also the private placement of units in AIF´s.

In preparation for its enforcement by the individual EU member states, this memorandum will discuss the AIFMD’s effect on non-EU managers of AIFs (“AIFM”) marketing non-EU AIFs within the EU.  The memorandum will first give a broad overview of some of the AIFMD’s measures significant for non-EU AIFMs, followed by a table summarizing how the private placement of AIF´s in the major capital markets of the EU is affected the AIFMD.

It should be noted that prior to July 22, 2013, the marketing of AIF´s in EU member states already required an individual analysis for each member state. For the time being not much has changed in this respect but marketing unregulated funds to selected non retail investors has certainly become more complex due to the AIFMD. Also these distributions may no longer be expected to remain of relatively little interest to securities regulators and fund managers may therefore be required to strengthen their compliance efforts in this area.

II. Regulatory Target – AIF Managers

The AIFMD seeks to regulate a set of previously unregulated AIFs, namely, “all collective investment undertakings that are not regulated under the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) Directive.”  These include hedge funds, private equity funds, commodity funds, and real estate funds, among others.

Rather than regulating AIFs directly, however, the AIFMD regulates AIFMs—that is, entities providing either risk or portfolio management to an AIF.  According to the AIFMD, each AIF may only have a single entity as its manager.

The AIFMD applies to AIFMs that are: (1) themselves established in the EU (“EU AIFM”); (2) AIFMs that are not established in an EU country (“non-EU AIFM”), but that manage and market AIFs established in the EU (“EU AIF”); or (3) non-EU AIFMs that market AIFs that are not established in a EU country (“non-EU AIF”) within an EU jurisdiction.

This memo principally deals with the third category, non-EU AIFMs that market non-EU AIFs in the EU.

III. Exemption – Small AIFs

Pursuant to the AIFMD, AIFMs that manage small funds are exempt from the full rigor of the AIFMD regulatory regime.  A lighter regulatory regime is applicable to these AIFMs.

The AIFMD defines AIFMs that manage small funds as either: (1) an AIFM with aggregate assets under management not exceeding € 500 million, where the AIFs are not leveraged, and the investors do not have redemption rights for the first five years after their investment; or (2) an AIFM with aggregate assets under management not exceeding € 100 million.

AIFMs of smaller funds are largely exempted from the AIFMD, and will only be subject to registration, and limited reporting requirements.

IV. Marketing – Definition

As previously discussed, the AIFMD applies to non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs in one or more EU jurisdictions.

The AIFMD defines marketing as “a direct or indirect offering or placement at the initiative of the AIFM or on behalf of the AIFM of units or shares of an AIF it manages to or with investors domiciled or with a registered office in the Union.”  This marketing definition does not include reverse solicitation, where the investor initiates the investment, and the investment is not at the AIFM’s direct or indirect initiative.

Thus, for example, if an EU investor initiated an investment in a U.S. AIF, managed by a U.S. AIFM, the U.S. AIFM and AIF would be unaffected by the AIFMD.  The AIFMD would only apply to U.S. AIFMs managing U.S. AIFs, if the U.S. AIFM solicited investment in the EU.

V. Regulating Non-EU AIFMs – National Private Placement Regimes

The AIFMD is designed to phase out national private placement regimes, creating a unified regulatory regime throughout the EU.  However, the AIFMD is scheduled to come into force in stages.

Between July 22, 2013, and 2018 (at the earliest), non-EU AIFMs will be able to market their non-EU AIFs in an EU jurisdiction (“EU Target Jurisdiction”) subject to the national private placement regimes applicable in that EU jurisdiction.

Thus for example, a U.S. AIFM marketing a U.S. AIF in the UK will be able to do so subject to the UK’s private placement regime.

VI. Regulating Non-EU AIFMs – Additional AIFMD Requirements

As explained, through 2018, the AIFMD will largely permit non-EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs subject to the private placement regime in the EU Target Jurisdiction.

However, the AIFMD does include three additional requirements for the non-EU AIFMD to be able to take advantage of the EU Target Jurisdiction’s private placement regime.  These include, specific disclosure and reporting requirements, cooperation agreements, and exclusion of AIFs and AIFMs established in certain countries.  Each of these will be discussed in turn.

a. Applicable AIFMD Reporting Requirements

By its terms, the AIFMD will require even non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs pursuant to national private placement regimes to comply with certain AIFMD provisions concerning annual reports, disclosures to investors, periodic reporting to regulators, and acquisition of control over EU companies.

A non-EU AIFM will thus be required to make available: (1) an annual report for each non-EU AIF that it markets in the EU; (2) information relevant to potential investors, as well as changes in material information previously disclosed; (3) regular reports to the national regulator in the EU Target Jurisdiction; and (4) disclosure information to a listed or unlisted EU company over which the non-EU AIFM acquires control.

b. Cooperation Agreements

For non-EU AIFMs to be able to market their non-EU AIFs in an EU jurisdiction, the AIFMD requires that there be cooperation agreements in place between the regulator in the non-AIFM’s home jurisdiction, and the EU Target Jurisdiction.

ESMA has negotiated memoranda of understanding (“MOU”) with 34 regulators in a variety of jurisdictions.  These include regulators in Albania, Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, the British Virgin Islands, Canada (the provincial regulators of Alberta, Quebec and Ontario as well as the Superintendent of Financial Institutions), the Cayman Islands, Dubai, Guernsey, Hong Kong (Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Securities and Futures Commission), India, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, Kenya, Malaysia’s Labuan Financial Services Authority, Mauritius, Montenegro, Morocco, Pakistan, Serbia, Singapore, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and the United States (Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Securities and Exchange Commission).

These MOUs, however, are insufficient to permit non-EU AIFMs to market their non-EU AIFs in any EU jurisdiction.  Rather, the EU Target Country must have a separate cooperation agreement with the regulator in the non-EU AIFM’s home jurisdiction (presumably these separate cooperation agreements will be based on the MOUs negotiated by ESMA).

Thus, for example, for a U.S. AIFM to be able to market its U.S. AIF in the UK, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority must have a cooperation agreement with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission.

c. Exclusion of Non-Cooperative Country or Territory

Finally, pursuant to the AIFMD, to be able to market based on the EU Target Country’s private placement regime, neither the non-EU AIFM nor the non-EU AIF may be considered a country considered a “Non-Cooperative Country or Territory,” by the Financial Action Task Force on anti-money laundering, and terrorist financing.

In sum, through 2018, non-EU AIFMs may market their non-EU AIFs in EU jurisdictions according to the relevant EU Target Jurisdiction’s private placement regime, subject to a few additional AIFMD requirements.

VII. The AIFMD in Each EU Jurisdiction

The above discussion outlines the AIFMD’s general requirements pertaining to non-EU AIFMs marketing non-EU AIFs.

However, because to take effect the AIFMD must be transposed into the national law of each EU jurisdiction, and because through 2018 the AIFMD largely relies on national private placement rules to regulate non-EU AIFMs, there is bound to be substantial variation in the AIFMD’s application across EU jurisdictions.

The table below details relevant aspects of the AIFMD’s application in each of the EU jurisdictions (plus Norway, and Switzerland).  Supplementing the memorandum, the table serves as a basic guide for the AIFMD’s application to non-EU AIFMs seeking to market their non-EU AIFs in each of the EU jurisdictions.  The chart includes, for each country, whether it has transposed the AIFMD on time (“On time” / “Not on time”), an overview of the private placement regime, relevant reporting requirements, transitional provisions, and a list of the countries with which a cooperation agreement is in place.

Because some of the EU countries have yet to transpose the AIFMD, or have not completed the transposition, and cooperation agreement process we will indicate on the outline where completion of the process is pending.

BELGIUM

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time
  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, AIFMs must be registered locally, and are subject to a minimum investment amount of € 250,000.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

DENMARK

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Denmark permits marketing to a maximum of 8 offerees, and requires that a non-EU AIFM be licensed in its member state of reference.1
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Non-EU AIFs licensed in another EU jurisdiction pursuant to AIFM regulations must submit additional documentation to the Danish FSA, including operating and managing plans, and contact information.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Transitional provisions will permit non-EU AIFMs to market AIFs under Denmark’s current private placement regime until at least July 22, 2014 (provided that the AIFMs commenced marketing prior to the transposition date of July 22, 2013).
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

FINLAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Finland’s private placement regime permits AIFMs to market only to “professional” clients.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • The AIFMD is not expected to apply to non-EU AIFMs until 2015.
    • Transitional rules have been proposed (although not yet adopted) permitting AIFMs to market pursuant to existing private placement rules, provided that the AIFMs can show that they have made a good faith effort to comply with AIFMD.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

FRANCE

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under its present private placement regime, France does not permit AIFMs to actively solicit investment.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • It appears that a transitional period will apply until 22 July 2014, during which all French AIFMs will be able to continue marketing and / or managing any AIFs in France on the pre-AIFMD basis (for example by using reverse solicitation).
    • Other AIFMs (whether EU but outside France or non-EU) would, therefore, need to be authorized.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

GERMANY

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under the new German private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs may market to professional investors, subject to requirements.
    • To market in Germany, the non-EU AIFM must appoint an independent entity to act as a depositary (as defined in the AIFMD), and notify BaFin, Germany’s markets regulator, of the appointed depository’s identity.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Notifying BaFin of its intention to market in Germany, and include an application with a comprehensive list of information and documents.  BaFin will have up to two months to review, and decide upon the application.
    • Making certain initial and ongoing investor disclosures.
    • Complying with reporting requirements to BaFin.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-EU AIFMs that marketed funds in Germany by prior to the AIFMD’s July 22, 2013 effective date (“previously marketed funds”) will be permitted to continue marketing those previously marketed funds under existing private placement rules until July 21, 2014.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

IRELAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under Ireland’s private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs will be able to market in Ireland without restrictions additional to those of the AIFMD, discussed above.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Ireland will only require that the non-EU AIFMs comply with the AIFMD’s reporting requirements for non-EU AIFMs discussed above.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-EU AIFMs managing qualified investor alternative investment funds (“QIAIF”), as defined under the relevant Irish provisions, which were authorized prior to the July 22, 2013 transposition date will not be required to be AIFMD compliant until July 22, 2015.
    • Non-EU AIFMs managing QIAIFs authorized after July 22, 2013 will have two years from the QIAIF’s launch date to become AIFMD compliant.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

ITALY

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Under Italy’s current private placement regime, which it seems will be available to non-EU AIFMs through 2015, AIFMs may market only to “expert” investors.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Currently, AIFMs must disclose their balance sheets, certain administrative documents, and financial reports regarding their managers’ activities.
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

LUXEMBOURG

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Through 2018, Luxembourg will permit small and non-EU AIFMs to market pursuant to its private placement regime.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Luxembourg imposes certain transparency requirements on AIFMs, including disclosure of an AIFM’s net asset value, and disclosures upon gaining control of an EU company.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Beginning on July 22, 2014, in addition to complying with Luxembourg’s private placement regime, non-EU AIFMs will be required to comply with the third country provisions of the AIFMD.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries
    • Luxembourg signed cooperation agreements with all 34 of the regulators that entered into MOUs with ESMA.

THE NETHERLANDS

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Netherlands will permit certain AIFMs to market pursuant to its private placement regime provided offerings are: (1) to less than 150 persons; (2) units have an individual nominal value of at least EUR 100,000 or consist of a package of units with at value of at least EUR 100,000; or (3) offered to professional investors only.
    • Non-EU AIFMs are exempted for offerings to qualified investors only if the AIFM is not domiciled in a non cooperative country under FATF rules and the Dutch regulator and the foreign regulator entered into a MOU.
    • AIFMs licensed by the relevant securities regulators in the USA, Jersey and Guernsey may offer to any investor under a license recognition regime.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Notification to Netherlands Financial Markets Authority and reporting of investments, risk positions and investment strategy of AIF to Dutch Central Bank.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Several grandfathering provisions for non-EU AIF’s that stopped marketing prior to 22 July 2013.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

POLAND

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • So far, the Polish regulator has not published an AIFMD transposition regulation.
    • However, under the existing private placement regime, non-EU AIFs that wish to market its units in Poland may do so if:
      • The units are qualified as equity or debt securities under their respective governing law; and
      • The units are offered under the “private placement” regime, meaning a nonpublic offer to sell securities to no more than 149 identified investors
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • As mentioned above, the Polish regulator has not made an official announcement concerning AIFMS transposition.
  • However, a representative of the Polish regulator recently indicated in an interview that:
    • AIFMs currently marketing AIFs in Poland will have two years to determine whether they fall within the regulations of the AIFD; and
    • If so, the AIFMs will be required to become AIFMD compliant within the two-year period.
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

SPAIN

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Currently, no private placement regime is available, and it in not anticipated that a private placement regime will be made available in the implementation of the AIFMD.
    • Under proposed rules, registration with, and authorization from the Spanish regulator is required for non-EU AIFMs to market non-EU AIFs to professional investors only in Spain.
    • Authorization to market may be denied if:
      • The non-EU AIF’s home state applies discriminatory marketing rules against Spanish AIFs;
      • The non-EU AIF provides insufficient assurance of compliance with Spanish law, or insufficient protection of Spanish investors; or
      • The non-EU AIFs will disrupt competition in the Spanish AIF market.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

SWEDEN

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • Not on time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, there is no private placement regime for marketing AIFs in Sweden.
    • Many AIFs, simply fall outside the scope of Sweden’s regulations, and may market freely in Sweden
    • Other AIFs affected by Sweden’s regulation may only be marketed by a Swedish AIFM, or an AIFM regulated in another EU country.
    • It is unclear whether non-EU AIFMs will be able to continue to market freely after the AIFMD comes into force, or whether they will be prevented from marketing in Sweden altogether
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries – Pending

UNITED KINGDOM

  • AIFMD Transposition
    • On time.
  • Private Placement Regime
    • Provided that an AIF has been marketed by the non-EU AIFM prior to July 22, 2013 in an EEA jurisdiction, the non-EU AIFM will be able to continue to market the funds under the UK’s private placement regime until July 21, 2014 without complying with the requirements of the AIFMD.
    • For new funds marketed from July 22, 2013, the non-EU AIFM will need to comply with the reporting requirements of the AIFMD set out below.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements
    • Prior to marketing in the UK, an AIFM must give the FCA written notification of its intention to do so.
    • In the notification, the AIFM must affirm that it is responsible for complying with the relevant AIFMD requirements, and that these relevant requirements have been satisfied.
    • Once it has submitted the notification to the FCA, the AIFM may begin marketing—it need not wait for the FCA’s approval.
    • Additionally, the AIFM is subject to disclosure requirements, including:
      • Ensuring that investor disclosure in fund marketing materials meets the disclosure and transparency requirements set out in the directive;
      • Reporting either annually or semi-annually to the FCA proscribed information; and
      • Submitting and publishing an annual report for each AIF that the AIFM manages or markets.
  • Transitional Provisions
    • The non-EU AIFMs that marketed any AIF in the EU prior to the AIFMD’s July 22, 2013 effective date will be permitted to market AIFs in the UK under the pre-AIFMD rules until July 21, 2014.
    • Non-EU AIFMs taking advantage of the transitional provision may do so irrespective of whether or not the FSA has cooperation agreements in place
  • Cooperation Agreements with non-EU Countries
    • The UK signed cooperation agreements with all 34 of the regulators that entered into MOUs with ESMA.

NORWAY2

  • Private Placement Regime
    • At present, Norway does not permit soliciting investment in AIFs.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions – Pending
  • Cooperation Agreements with EU Countries – Pending

SWITZERLAND

  • Private Placement Regime
    • Non-EU AIFMs may market through the Swiss private placement regime without any additional regulation, approval, or license requirement or the investor is:
      • A License financial institution;
      • A regulated insurance institution; or
      • An investor that has concluded a written discretionary asset management agreement with a licensed financial institution, or a financial intermediary, provided that information is provided to the investor through the financial institution, or intermediary, and that the financial intermediary is:
        • Regulated by anti-money laundering regulation;
        • Governed by the code of conduct employed by a specific self-regulatory body recognized by the Swiss regulator; and
        • Compliant with the recognized standards of the self-regulatory body.
  • Relevant Reporting Requirements – Pending
  • Transitional Provisions
    • Non-Swiss AIFMs have until March 1, 2015 to:
      • Appoint a Swizz representative, and a Swiss paying agent; and
      • Comply with all relevant regulations.
    • Non-Swiss AIFMs that have yet to be subject to Swiss regulation must:
      • Contact, and register with the Swiss regulator by September 1, 2013; and
      • If not sufficiently licensed in their home country, apply for a license by March 1, 2015.
    • Cooperation Agreements with EU Countries – Pending

1 An AIFM’s member state of reference (“MSR”) is the member state where the marketing of most of the AIF takes place.  So, for example if a U.S. AIFM markets in Denmark, and Denmark is the Member State of Reference, then the Danish FSA must issue the U.S. AIFM a license prior to commencement of the U.S. AIFM’s marketing activities in Denmark.

2 Norway, and Switzerland are non-EU countries of interest.  Because they are not part of the EU, they are not required to transpose the AIFMD.

Article By:

 of