Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Does A Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Attorney Commit An Ethical Violation By Encouraging Whistleblowing Lawyers?

AM logo with tagline

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation included a comprehensive post by Lawrence A. West which tackles the question of whether attorneys can be award seeking whistleblowers.  I want to approach the topic from the other direction.  May an SEC attorney actively solicit disclosure of client confidences from an member of the California State Bar?

California lawyers are governed by the State Bar Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6000 et seq.) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California and approved by the Supreme Court of California pursuant to Sections 6076 and 6077 of the Business and Professions Code.  The federal District Courts located in California have adopted California’s statutes, rules and decisions governing attorney conduct.  Central District Local Rule 83-3.1.2, Eastern District Local Rule 180(e), Northern District Local Rule 11-4, and Southern District Local Rule 83.4(b).

Section 6068(e) provides that members of the California bar must “maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client”.   The only statutory exception permits, but does not require, an attorney to ”reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual”.

Rule 1-120 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides that a member “shall not knowingly assist in, solicit, or induce any violation of these rules or the State Bar Act,” including Section 6068(e).   Thus, an SEC attorney who is a member of the California State Bar (or subject to the local rules of the U.S. District Court) could be found to violate Rule 1-120 if she actively induces an attorney to violate of Section 6068(e).

Of course, the SEC has taken the position that its attorney conduct rules (aka “Part 205 Rules”) preempt conflicting state law.  However, there is a real question of whether the SEC acted in excess of its authority in purporting to immunize lawyers.  More importantly, it is questionable whether the SEC can preempt state law in this regard.  In 2004, I co-wrote a law review article for the Corporations Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar that considered these questions in detail, Conflicting Currents: The Obligation to Maintain Inviolate Client Confidences and the New SEC Attorney Conduct Rules, 32 Pepp. L. Rev. 89 (2004).  The other authors were James F. Fotenos, Steven K. Hazen, James R. Walther, and Nancy H. Wojtas.

If you think it is ok to violate your client’s confidences, you may want to reflect on the case of Dimitrious P. Biller.  In 2011, an arbitrator order Mr. Biller to pay his former employer $2.6 million in damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.   According to the arbitrator,Hon. Gary L. Taylor (Ret.), Mr. Biller “did the professionally unthinkable: he betrayed the confidences of his client.”  The arbitration award was confirmed by the trial court and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2012).  You may also want to consider what Justice Shinn had to say about an attorney who disclosed confidential client information after being ordered to do so by a trial court:

Defendant’s attorney should have chosen to go to jail and take his chances of release by a higher court

People v. Kor, 277 P.2d 94, 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954) (emphasis added).

Finally, you may want to put yourself in the position of a client.  How effectively represented would you feel if you knew that your lawyer could be rewarded for violating your confidences?  How would you feel about a government agency that believes it is permissible to encourage lawyers to do the “professionally unthinkable”?

Article By:

 of

FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Supreme Court Rules That Reverse Patent Settlements May Violate Antitrust Laws

Womble Carlyle

On April 29, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to review a decision that had created uncertainty as to when a manufacturer’s customer loyalty program may violate antitrust laws. Most circuits considering the issue have found that companies can use loyalty programs or long-term agreements, as long as the rebates do not price the product below cost. The Third Circuit, however, found that a manufacturer’s customer loyalty program amounted to an unlawful “de facto exclusive dealing contract,” despite the above-cost price of the product. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Third Circuit opinion to stand raises many questions as to when manufacturers may use incentive programs and which legal standard will be used to analyze these agreements. Regardless of where a company is located, if the company’s products are sold within the Third Circuit (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands), then that company may be impacted by this decision.

The case of ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 2012) cert. denied, ___ U.S. __, 2013 WL 673880 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2013), involved two manufacturers of heavy-duty truck transmissions. The defendant, a leading supplier of these transmissions in North America, signed long-term agreements with its customers. Those agreements provided incentives to its customers, offering rebates to those who purchased a specified percentage of their parts from the defendant manufacturer. The plaintiff, a competitor in the heavy-duty transmission market, brought suit, claiming that the defendant’s long-term agreements constituted illegal exclusive dealing contracts. After trial, a jury found that the agreements stifled competition and violated antitrust laws. The defendant sought to overturn the jury verdict, arguing that its agreements were lawful, because it priced its transmissions above cost. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware upheld the jury verdict, however, finding that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that defendant’s conduct unlawfully foreclosed competition. Defendant appealed to the Third Circuit.

On appeal, the defendant urged the Third Circuit to follow the First, Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, which apply a “price-cost test” when analyzing long-term agreements which offer above-cost rebates. Under the “price-cost test,” a company is not engaging in anticompetitive conduct if it prices its products above cost. Instead, the Third Circuit applied the “rule of reason” test and found that the customer loyalty program constituted a “de facto exclusive dealing arrangement.” Under the rule of reason, “exclusive dealing arrangements can exclude equally efficient (or potentially equally efficient) rivals, and thereby harm competition, irrespective of below-cost pricing.” Therefore, the Third Circuit upheld the District Court jury verdict, stating that defendant’s  “conduct unlawfully foreclosed a substantial share of the HD transmission market, which would otherwise have been available for rivals.” The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, allowing the Third Circuit’s decision to stand.

In refusing to consider the Third Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court has failed to resolve a conflict in the circuits as to how long-term agreements containing rebates or other incentives will be analyzed by the courts. This conflict removes the predictability of a single “price-cost” standard applied across all circuits and creates uncertainty for manufacturers who wish to offer loyalty programs to their customers. In the future, manufacturers hoping to offer such programs may want to ensure that their agreements can withstand both the price-cost test and rule of reason analysis.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Proceeds to Senate Floor, Heated Debate Expected to Follow

GT Law

On June 11th, the U.S. Senate voted to move the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (S. 744), the comprehensive immigration reform bill drafted by the “Gang of Eight,” to the floor for debate, where it is expected to face dozens of amendments in the coming weeks. The final vote to begin debate on the landmark legislation was 84 in favor and 15 against. Below are some of the key issues that this bill faces on its way to a final vote in the Senate:

Border Security: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has signaled support for implementing border security triggers – including a 90% apprehension rate of illegal border crossings – before putting undocumented immigrants on the path to permanent residency. Senator Cornyn’s amendment would also introduce a biometric exit system as well as a nationwide electronic employment eligibility verification program. The measure has already stirred opposition from Democratic senators and immigration advocates, who liken it to a “poison pill” that will indefinitely delay the citizenship prospects of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the “Gang of Eight,” has also indicated that he may not be able to support the legislation in its current form without strengthened border security measures. To this end, Senator Rubio and his colleague, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OH) may propose an amendment that would transfer the responsibility for drafting, but not enforcing, a border security plan from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to Congress. Several other drafters of the bill, including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), expressed a willingness to include border security triggers so long as they are “both achievable and specific.”

Taking a more expansive approach, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) plans to offer an amendment that would require Congress to draft and enforce a border security plan, as well as to vote on border security every year for the first five years after the bill takes effect. Democratic senators and immigration advocates oppose this measure, citing unpredictability and partisanship as future hurdles to implementing a path to citizenship.

Taxes: Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) plans to re-introduce two amendments that would require families to provide a valid Social Security number to receive a child tax credit and deny the earned-income tax credit to immigrants with temporary legal status, respectively. Both measures previously failed in committee on a party-line vote.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is also expected to offer an amendment that would require immigrants to demonstrate that they have paid back taxes and remained current on present obligations as they progress toward citizenship. Senator Hatch may also introduce a measure that would ban immigrants who are legal permanent residents from receiving Affordable Care Act subsidies for five years.

Guns: Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) may offer two amendments restricting access to guns for undocumented immigrants. One of the provisions would eliminate the loophole that allows certain immigrants to purchase firearms, while another would require the Attorney General to alert the Secretary of Homeland Security when an undocumented immigrant or temporary visitor to the U.S. attempts to buy a firearm. Currently, both categories of individuals are legally barred from purchasing firearms.

Same-Sex Benefits: Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is weighing whether to revive an amendment that he reluctantly declined to introduce in committee due to the opposition of his Republican colleagues. The measure would permit U.S. citizens in state-recognized same-sex marriages to apply for permanent residency on behalf of a same-sex spouse, a benefit that is currently afforded to heterosexual couples only.

Article By:

 of

Big Box Retailers and Major Fast Food Chains Targeted by Unions and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Michael Best Logo

The NLRB Rules Against Target

There are more than 1,750 Target stores nationwide, and none have been organized by a union. This fact was not lost on the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) when, on April 26, 2013, it affirmed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge that Target Corporation (Target)’s no-solicitation/no-distribution policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and ordered Target to amend its policies nationwide. The consolidated cases, known as Target Corporation and United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 1500, 359 NLRB No. 103 (2013), originated when the UFCW filed charges with the Board following an unsuccessful organizing campaign at a Target store in Valley Stream, New York.

The key issue addressed by the Board was whether Target maintained a no-solicitation/no-distribution policy that violated employees’ Section 7 rights under the Act. Target’s policy prohibited solicitation on the store’s premises at all times if it was for “personal profit,” “commercial purposes,” or “a charitable organization that isn’t part of the Target Community Relations program and isn’t designed to enhance the company’s goodwill and business.” The Board focused on the ban on solicitation “for commercial purposes,” finding that Target failed to define the phrase or provide illustrative examples to clarify what it meant. Because the phrase was undefined, the Board found that Target employees could have interpreted the phrase to ban solicitation and distribution on behalf of unions, which would violate the Act.[1]  

Ultimately, the Board ordered Target to rescind nationwide its no-solicitation/no-distribution rule and to:

[f]urnish all current employees nationwide with inserts for their current employee handbooks that (1) advise that the unlawful rules listed above have been rescinded, or (2) provide lawfully-worded rules on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful rules; or publish and distribute to all current employees nationwide revised employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful rules, or (2) provide lawfully-worded rules.

The Board also set aside the union’s unsuccessful election attempt and ordered a new election to take place under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director.

Is Walmart The Next Target?

Walmart has more than 4,500 retail locations in the United States, and like Target, none are unionized. In recent months, the UFCW-backed group OUR Walmart has been advocating for strikes in several locations. On May 28, 2013, several media outlets reported a new round of strikes coordinated by OUR Walmart in advance of Walmart’s June 7, 2013 annual shareholder meeting.

In addition to the strike efforts, the UFCW, OUR Walmart, and Walmart have filed dozens of NLRB charges against each other in 2013. In May, the labor-backed group filed a new round of charges with the NLRB. Meanwhile, Walmart has filed lawsuits against the UFCW and OUR Walmart in Florida and California state courts in recent months alleging trespass and unlawful organizing activity on Walmart property.

Though the Board is currently under scrutiny based on recent court decisions invalidating the President’s recess appointments, the charges against Walmart provide it with another opportunity to make a nationwide statement against a non-union employer. Given the Board’s recent penchant for union activism, do not be surprised if it takes a close look at Walmart’s policies and practices in the coming months.

The Fast Food Industry

On May 15, 2013 hundreds of Milwaukee fast food workers walked off their jobs and launched a one-day strike demanding a raise to $15 per hour and the right to unionize without intimidation or retaliation. This was the fifth such strike in six weeks, following strikes in St. Louis and Detroit the week before, and in New York and Chicago in April. In each of those strikes, local groups organized fast food workers with support from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the nation’s largest unions. All of these strikes were preceded or followed by the filing of a slew of NLRB charges against the employers, alleging myriad unfair labor practices.

These strikes share several common characteristics. Each was a one-day strike by fast food workers, backed by ad hoc coalitions of unions and community groups. In the case of the Milwaukee strike, the organizing group was called “Wisconsin Citizen Action,” and the campaign was called “Raise Up, MKE.” The St. Louis campaign was called “STL Can’t Survive on $7.35,” and Detroit’s was called “D15.” These strikes have all been part of “minority unionism” campaigns, where the focus is on staging actions by a minority of the workforce designed to inspire their co-workers, rather than waiting until they have gained support from a majority of the workers. The short duration of the strike is calculated to minimize the risk that striking workers will be replaced by their employers after walking off.

The spread of these fast food strikes, as well as strikes by non-union workers in retailers like Walmart, comes amid a long-term decline in strikes in the U.S. Both the fast food and retail industries are overwhelmingly not unionized. The strategy pursued by the groups organizing these strikes is thus one of spectacle or demonstration, calling attention to the wages and working conditions of the employees in these industries.

[1] Oddly, the Board overruled a second finding by the Administrative Law Judge that a policy instructing employees to report unknown persons seen loitering the parking lot also violated Section 7 of the Act. The Board noted it would not conclude that a reasonable employee would read a rule to violate Section 7 simply because the rule could be interpreted that way.

Article By:

New Cybersecurity Guidance Released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology: What You Need to Know for Your Business

Mintz Logo

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”)1 has released the fourth revision of its standard-setting computer security guide, Special Publication 800-53 titled Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations2 (“SP 800-53 Revision 4”), and this marks a very important release in the world of data privacy controls and standards. First published in 2005, SP 800-53 is the catalog of security controls used by federal agencies and federal contractors in their cybersecurity and information risk management programs. Developed by NIST, the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, the Committee on National Security Systems as part of the Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative Interagency Working Group3over a period of several years with input collected from industry, Revision 4 “is the most comprehensive update to the security controls catalog since the document’s inception in 2005.”4

Taking “a more holistic approach to information security and risk management,5” the new revision of SP 800-53 also includes, for the first time, a catalog of privacy controls (the “Privacy Controls”) and offers guidance in the selection, implementation, assessment, and ongoing monitoring of the privacy controls for federal information systems, programs, and organizations (the “Privacy Appendix”).6 The Privacy Controls are a structured set of standardized administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, based on best practices, for the protection of the privacy of personally identifiable information (“PII”)7 in both paper and electronic form during the entire life cycle8of the PII, in accordance with federal privacy legislation, policies, directives, regulations, guidelines, and best practices.9 The Privacy Controls can also be used by organizations that do not collect and use PII, but otherwise engage in activities that raise privacy risk, to analyze and, if necessary, mitigate such risk.

Description of the Eight Families of Privacy Controls

The Privacy Appendix catalogs eight privacy control families, based on the widely accepted Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)10 embodied in the Privacy Act of 1974, Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002, and policies of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Each of the following eight privacy control families aligns with one of the eight FIPPs:

  1. Authority and Purpose. This family of controls ensures that an organization (i) identifies the legal authority for its collection of PII or for engaging in other activities that impact privacy, and (ii) describes the purpose of PII collection in its privacy notice(s).
  2. Accountability, Audit, and Risk Management. This family of controls ensures that an organization (i) develops and implements a comprehensive governance and privacy program; (ii) documents and implements a privacy risk management process that assesses privacy risk to individuals resulting from collection of PII and/or other activities that involve such PII; (iii) conducts Privacy Impact Assessments (“PIAs”) for information systems, programs, or other activities that pose a privacy risk; (iv) establishes privacy requirements for contractors and service providers and includes such requirements in the agreements with such third parties; (v) monitors and audits privacy controls and internal privacy policy to ensure effective implementation; (vi) develops, implements, and updates a comprehensive awareness and training program for personnel; (vii) engages in internal and external privacy reporting; (viii) designs information systems to support privacy by automating privacy controls, and (ix) maintains an accurate accounting of disclosures of records in accordance with the applicable requirements and, upon request, provides such accounting of disclosures to the persons named in the record.
  3. Data Quality and Integrity. This family of controls ensures that an organization takes reasonable steps to validate that the PII collected and maintained by the organization is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
  4. Data Minimization and Retention. This family of controls addresses (i) the implementation of data minimization requirements to collect, use, and retain only PII that is relevant and necessary for the original, legally authorized purpose of collection, and (ii) the implementation of data retention and disposal requirements.
  5. Individual Participation and Redress. This family of controls addresses implementation of processes (i) to obtain consent from individuals for the collection of their PII, (ii) to provide such individuals with access to the PII, (iii) to correct or amend collected PII, as appropriate, and (iv) to manage complaints from individuals.
  6. Security. This family of controls supplements the security controls in Appendix F and are implemented in coordinating with information security personnel to ensure that the appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards are in place to (i) protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of PII, and (ii) to ensure compliance with applicable federal policies and guidance.
  7. Transparency. This family of controls ensures that organizations (i) provide clear and comprehensive notices to the public and to individuals regarding their information practices and activities that impact privacy, and (ii) generally keep the public informed of their privacy practices.
  8. Use Limitation. This family of controls addresses the implementation of mechanisms that ensure that an organization’s scope of use of PII is limited to the scope specified in their privacy notice or as otherwise permitted by law.

Some of the Privacy Controls, such as Data Quality and Integrity, Data Minimization and Retention, Individual Participation and Redress, and Transparency also contain control enhancements, and while these enhancements reflect best practices which organizations should strive to achieve, they are not mandatory.11 The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), tasked with enforcement of the Privacy Controls, expects all federal agencies and third-party contractors to implement the mandatory Privacy Controls by April 30, 2014.

The privacy families must be analyzed and selected based on the specific operational needs and privacy requirements of each organization and can be implemented at various operational levels (e.g., organization level, mission/business process level, and/or information system level12). The Privacy Controls and the roadmap provided in the Privacy Appendix will be primarily used by Chief Privacy Officers (“CPO”) or Senior Agency Officials for Privacy (“SAOP”) to develop enterprise-wide privacy programs or to improve an existing privacy programs in order to meet an organization’s privacy requirements and demonstrate compliance with such requirements. The Privacy Controls supplement and complement the security control families set forth in Appendix F (Security Control Catalog) and Appendix G (Information Security Programs) and together these controls can be used by an organization’s privacy, information security, and other risk management offices to develop and maintain a robust and effective enterprise-wide program for management of information security and privacy risk.

What You Need to Know

The Privacy Appendix is based upon best practices developed under current law, regulations, policies, and guidance applicable to federal information systems, programs, and organizations, and by implication, to their third-party contractors. If you provide services to the federal government, work on government contracts, or are the recipient of certain grants that may require compliance with federal information system security practices, you should already be sitting up and paying attention. This revision puts privacy up front with security.

Like other NIST publications, this revision will be looked at as an industry standard for best practices, even for commercial entities that are not doing business with the federal government. In fact, over the last few years, we have seen increasing references to compliance with NIST 800-53 as setting a contractual baseline for security. We expect that this will continue, and now will include both the Security Controls and the Privacy Controls. As such, general counsel, business executives and IT professionals should become familiar with and conversant in the Privacy Controls set forth in the new revision to SP 800-53. At a minimum, businesses should undertake a gap analysis of the privacy controls at their organization against these Privacy Controls to determine if they are up to par or if they have to enhance their current privacy programs. And, if NIST 800-53 appears in contract language as the “minimum standard” to which your company’s policies and procedures must comply, the gap analysis will at least inform you of what needs to be done to bring both your privacy and security programs up to speed.

1 The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a non-regulatory agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce, which, among other things, develops information security standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements for federal information systems to assist federal agencies in implementing the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002.

2 See Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special Publ. (SP) 800-53,
Rev. 4 (April 30, 2013), http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf.

3 The Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative Interagency Working Group is an interagency partnership formed in 2009 to produce a unified security framework for the federal government. It includes representatives from the Civil, Defense, and Intelligence Communities of the federal government.

4 See NIST Press Release for SP 800-53 Revision 4 at http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/201304_sp80053.cfm. Revision 4 of
SP 800-53 adds a substantial number of security controls to the catalog, including controls that address new technology such as digital and mobile technologies and cloud computing. With the exception of the controls that address evolving technologies, the majority of the cataloged security controls are policy and technology neutral, focusing on the fundamental safeguards and countermeasures required to protect information during processing, while in storage, and during transmission.

5 See NIST Press Release for SP 800-53 Revision 4 at http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/201304_sp80053.cfm.

6 See Appendix J, Privacy Control Catalog to Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special Publ. (SP) 800-53, Rev. 4 (April 30, 2013),http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf. Appendix J was developed by NIST and the Privacy Committee of the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council.

7 Personally Identifiable Information is defined broadly in the Glossary to SP 800-53 Revision 4 as “Information which can be used to distinguish or trace the identity of an individual (e.g., name, social security number, biometric records, etc.) alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or likable to a specific individual (e.g., date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc.). See page B-16 of Appendix B, Privacy Control Catalog to Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special Publ. (SP) 800-53, Rev. 4 (April 30, 2013),http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf. However, as stated in footnote 119 in Appendix J, “the privacy controls in this appendix apply regardless of the definition of PII by organizations.”

8 Collection, use, retention, disclosure, and disposal of PII.

9 See page J-4 of Appendix J, Privacy Control Catalog to Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special Publ. (SP) 800-53, Rev. 4 (April 30, 2013),http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf.

10 See NIST description and overview of Fair Information Practice Principles at http://www.nist.gov/nstic/NSTIC-FIPPs.pdf.

11 See pages J-4 of Appendix J, Privacy Control Catalog to Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special Publ. (SP) 800-53, Rev. 4 (April 30, 2013),http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf.

12 See page J-2 of Appendix J, Privacy Control Catalog to Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, NIST Special Publ. (SP) 800-53, Rev. 4 (April 30, 2013),http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Issues Guidance on Resource Extraction Issuer Rules

Morgan Lewis logo

FAQs clarify which entities and payments are subject to the final rules.

On May 30, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released frequently asked questions (FAQs) providing guidance on certain aspects of its final rules for resource extraction issuers (the Resource Extraction Rules).[1] The Resource Extraction Rules, which were adopted on August 22, 2012 pursuant to section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), require companies that are engaged in the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals and required to file annual reports with the SEC to disclose certain payments made to the U.S. federal government or foreign governments (and related entities) for the purpose of commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.[2] The FAQs provide guidance, among other things, as to which issuers are subject to the reporting requirements, what the meaning of “minerals” is, which payments must be reported and how they should be reported, and the consequences of a failure to timely file a Form SD.

Questions Answered by the FAQs

Which entities are resource extraction issuers?

  • Holding companies may be resource extraction issuers. Question 1 clarifies that a holding company is a resource extraction issuer if a subsidiary or other controlled entity is engaged in the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.
  • Entities engaged in associated services only are not resource extraction issuers. Questions 2 and 4 clarify that an issuer providing services associated with the exploration, extraction, processing, and export of a resource is not a resource extraction issuer. Only issuers directly engaged in the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals must disclose payments to governments. Issuers providing associated services not covered by the Resource Extraction Rules include the following:
    • Issuers providing hardware and logistics for exploration or extraction
    • Issuers providing hydraulic fracturing or drilling services for an operator
    • Issuers providing transport services, including between countries, so long as the issuer does not have an ownership interest in the transported resources

Question 4 further clarifies that transportation activities are generally not included within the definition of “commercial development” unless they are directly related to the export of a resource. Generally, however, the SEC staff would view the movement of a resource across an international border from one host country to another country by a company with an ownership interest in the resource as export.

  • The term “minerals” has been defined. Question 3 provides clarity as to the definition of “minerals” under the Resource Extraction Rules by stating that “minerals” are any materials commonly understood to be minerals. Materials extracted and gathered by means of mining activity—including any materials for which disclosure would be required under Industry Guide 7, “Description of Property by Issuers Engaged or to Be Engaged in Significant Mining Operations”[3]—are encompassed in the definition and include materials such as metalliferous minerals, coal, oil shale, tar, sands, and limestone.

Which payments are subject to the Resource Extraction Rules?

For payments to be subject to the Resource Extraction Rules, they must be made to further the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals and take the forms of taxes, royalties, fees, production entitlements, bonuses, dividends, or payments for infrastructure improvements.

  • Certain payments are excluded. Questions 5, 6, and 8 clarify that certain payments are not subject to disclosure pursuant to the Resource Extraction Rules. These include the following:
    • Payments made to majority-owned government entities for services or activities that are ancillary or preparatory to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals, such as payments for providing transportation services to supply people or materials to a job site.
    • Penalties or fines related to resource extraction.
    • Corporate-level income tax payments to governments on income not generated by the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. (However, a resource extraction issuer is not required to segregate this income and may disclose that the information includes payments made for purposes other than the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.)
  • The format for payment disclosure has been clarified. Question 7 provides that a resource extraction issuer is to present payment information on an unaudited, cash basis for the year in which the payments are made.

What are the consequences of failing to timely file a Form SD?

Question 9 provides that, if a resource extraction issuer fails to timely file a Form SD, the issuer does not lose eligibility to use Form S-3.

[1]. View the FAQs here.

[2]. For more information on the Resource Extraction Rules and the implications for affected companies, see our September 19, 2012 LawFlash, “SEC Adopts Payment Disclosure Rules for Resource Extraction Issuers,” available here.

[3]. View SEC Industry Guide 7 here.

Financial Services Legislative and Regulatory Update – Week of June 10, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the Past Week

And the beat goes on… Another week with the White House dealing with another issue, this time news that the national security apparatus is collecting and combing through telephone record metadata.  The widespread revelation about a data mining program that would make any hedge fund quant jealous drowned out more positive news of the week, including that the U.S. recovery continues its sluggish, yet positive pace with 175,000 jobs added in May.

And in an interesting comparison, as noted by the extraordinary team at Davis Polk, while the agencies were silent during the Month of May, and did not announce any new implementations of the Dodd-Frank Act, last week, three major implications of the implementation were announced.  First, the SEC publicly released its much anticipated and long awaited money market mutual fund rules.  Second, the Fed announced an almost equally anticipate interim final “push out” rule that provided significant relief to foreign-based banks with operations in the United States.  Finally, the FSOC made its first round of non-bank systemically important financial institutions (“SIFIs”) designations.

Legislative Branch

Senate

As Administration Announces New Iran Sanctions, Senate Banking Members Skeptical of their Effectiveness

On June 4th, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing to review sanctions against Iran. Witnesses and lawmakers were split regarding the efficacy of the sanctions, some arguing that their effectiveness has been proved by Iran’s continued inability to fund nuclear enrichment and other arguing that the sanctions have not had the desired result of fundamentally changing the governance of the country. Specifically, Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Senators Bob Corker (R-TN), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) all expressed concerns that the sanctions have not measurably changed Iran’s behavior. Witnesses included: David Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence for the Treasury; Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs with the Department of State; and Eric Hirschhorn, Under Secretary for Industry and Security with the Department of Commerce. The hearing comes as the Administration announced a new set of sanctions against the country. An Executive Order released June 3rd takes aim at Iran’s currency and auto sector in addition to expanding sanctions against private business supporting the government of Iran.

Senate Finance Committee Releases Income and Business Entities Tax Reform Working Paper

On June 6th, the Senate Finance Committee released the latest in a series of options papers outlining tax reform options for individual and business income taxes and payroll taxes. The proposal outlines three options for tackling the integration of individual and corporate taxes, such as making the corporate tax a withholding tax on dividends and adjusting capital gains taxes for businesses to match the individual Code. In addition, the paper discusses ways in which to reach a long-term solution for taxing derivatives.

Senate Banking Approves Nomination to Ex-Im Bank

On June 6th, the Senate Banking Committee voted 20 to 2 in favor of Fred Hochberg to continue to head the Export-Import Bank. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Senator Patrick Toomey (R-PA) both voted against the nomination. Hochberg’s nomination now moves to the full Senate where, though he is expected to be confirmed, he must be approved before July 20th or else the bank would lose its quorum for voting on items.  During the same executive session, the Committee approved by voice vote the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2013 (S. 534) which would make it easier for insurance agents to sell state-regulated insurance in multiple states.

Senator Brown Calls on CFPB to Target Debt Collectors

On June 4th, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) wrote to the CFPB, urging the Bureau to enact rules to curb customer abuses by debt collectors. In a statement accompanying the letter, Brown, Chairman of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, said he intends to hold a hearing in the next month which will shine a light on bad practices and consumer abuses in the industry. The Dodd-Frank Act gives the CFPB authority to enforce and enact rules under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Brown’s letter urged Director Cordray to pursue debt collectors as soon as possible, as the Bureau would lose its oversight authority in this space should Cordray’s nomination expire and a director not be in place.

Senate Banking Committee To Consider Flood Insurance As Soon As July

In remarks made on June 6th, Chairman of the Banking Committee Tim Johnson (D-SD) said the panel will hold hearings as soon as July to consider national flood insurance affordability. The announcement comes as a number of lawmakers express concerns that rate increases in the 2012 reauthorization are not affordable.

Senate Banking Subcommittee Looks into the State of the Middle Class

On June 6th, the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Economic Policy held a hearing titled “The State of the American Dream: Economic Policy and the Future of the Middle Class.” It was Senator Jeff Merkley’s first hearing as Chair of the Subcommittee, he said he wanted to feature witnesses whose voices were not normally heard in committee hearings and public policy debates. The witnesses included: Ms. Diedre Melson; Mr. John Cox; and Ms. Pamela Thatcher, who were subjects of the documentary movie American Winter; Dr. Atif Mian, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Princeton University; Ms. Amy Traub, Senior Policy Analyst for Demos; Mr. Nick Hanauer with Second Avenue Partners; and Mr. Steve Hill, Executive Director of Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

House of Representatives

House to Consider Multiple Financial Services Bills Next Week

Next week the House is set to consider and vote on four separate bills dealing with the Financial Industry.  Three of the these bills, The Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act (H.R. 634), The Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act (H.R. 2167), the Swap Data Repository and Clearing House Indemnification Correction Act (H.R. 742) will be brought up on the suspension calendar, which is generally used for non-controversial measures.  The other bill, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act (H.R. 1256) will be brought forward under a rule, which may allow for amendments to the bill that directs the SEC and CFTC to issue joint rules on swaps and security-based international swaps.  All are expected to pass the House.

Financial Services Subcommittee Examines Role of Proxy Advisory Firms

On June 5th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises met to examine the growing reliance on proxy advisory firms in proxy solicitations and corporate governance. Specifically, the Subcommittee sought to investigate the effect proxy advisory firms have on corporate governance standards, the market power of these firms, potential conflicts of interest, and SEC proposals seeking to modernize corporate governance standards. During the hearing Subcommittee Chairman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) voiced concern that institutions are overly reliant on proxy advisory firms in determining how to cast shareholder votes and questioned whether conflicts of interest and voting recommendations based on one-size-fits all policies affect shareholder value.

Witnesses at the hearing included: former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt,  Timothy Bartl, President of the Center on Executive Compensation, Niels Holch, Executive Director of Shareholder Communications Coalition, Michael McCauley, Senior Offices for Investment Programs and Governance of the Florida State Board of Administration, Jeffrey Morgan, President and CEO of the National Investor Relations Institute, Darla Stuckey, Senior Vice President of the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals, and Lynn Turner, Managing Director of LitiNomics. The hearing comes as SEC Commission Daniel Gallagher recognized that lawmakers and regulators need to re-examine the role of advisory firms in the corporate governance matters as “no one should be able to outsource their fiduciary duties.”

Lawmakers Introduce Legislation Targeting Foreign Cyber Criminals

On June 6th, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) along with Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Senator Ron Johnson (D-WI) introduced legislation that would impose visa and financial penalties on foreign cyber criminals who target American businesses. Specifically, the measure would deny foreign agents engaged in cybercrime from apply for visas or, if they reside in the U.S., would revoke visas and freeze financial assets. The bill also calls for the Department of Justice to bring more economic espionage criminal cases against offending foreign actors.

Online Gambling Legislation Introduced

On June 6th, Representative Peter King (R-NY) introduced legislation to create broad federal Internet gambling regulations and allow all online gambling with the exception of betting on sports and where Indian tribes opt not to participate. The legislation would also establish an office of Internet gaming housed within the Treasury. Following a 2011 ruling by the Justice Department that the 1961 Wire Act does not ban online gambling, several states, including Delaware, New Jersey, and Nevada, have moved forward with creating intra-state online gaming operations.  The movement at the state level has taken some of the momentum out of federal legalization efforts.

Executive Branch

Treasury

FSOC Selects First Group of Non-Banks to be SIFIs

On June 3rd, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) voted on the preliminary list of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) which will be subject to additional regulation by the Fed. This additional regulation will include new stress tests to monitor stability, additional capital requirements, and the need to create living wills in the event of resolution. While the Council did not release the names or the number of non-banks that have been selected, several firms have announced that they have received notice from the FSOC regarding their designation, including GE Capital, Prudential Financial, and AIG. Now that designations have been made, companies selected will have 30 days to request a hearing to contest the designation. While Secretary Jack Lew called the designations an “important step forward,” Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Jeb Hensarling criticized the move, saying perpetuating non-banks as “too big to fail” will only put taxpayers on the hook for another bailout.

Federal Reserve

Fed Approves Final Rule Clarifying Treatment of Foreign Banks Under Push-Out Rule

On June 5th, the Fed approved an interim final rule clarifying the treatment of uninsured U.S. branches of foreign banks under the Dodd-Frank Act swaps push-out measure. Dodd-Frank calls for banks to separate certain swap trading activities from divisions that are backed by federal deposit insurance or which have access to the Fed discount window. Under the clarification, the Fed states uninsured U.S. branches of foreign banks will be treated as insured depository institutions and that entities covered by the rule, including U.S. branches of foreign banks, can apply for a transition period of up to 24 months to comply with the push out provisions. The interim final rule also states that state member banks and uninsured state branches of foreign banks may apply for the transition period. The Institute of International Bankers, which represents international banks operating in the U.S., praised the Fed for offering clarity on a “widely acknowledged drafting error in the original legislation.”

Fed Vice Chairman Appears to Support Stronger Capital Rules for Large Banks

Speaking in Shanghai last week, Fed Vice Chairman Janet Yellen said that it may be necessary for regulators to impose capital requirements even higher than those set forth in the Basel III agreement. Agreeing with Fed Governors Daniel Tarullo and Jeremy Stein, Yellen said “fully offsetting any remaining “too big to fail” subsidies and forcing full internalization of the social costs of a SIFI failure may require either a steeper capital surcharge curve or some other mechanism for requiring that additional capital be held by firms that potentially pose the greatest risks to financial stability.” To that end, Yellen noted that the Fed and FDIC are “considering the merits” of requiring systemically significant firms to hold minimum levels of long-term unsecured debt to absorb losses and support orderly liquidation. Yellen who, is seen by many as the frontrunner for Fed Chairman following Bernanke’s term, is starting to generate a lot more attention as we come closer to the end of Bernanke’s reign.  However, she is not the only member of the Fed espousing this policy.  In a speech later in the week, Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser echoed Yellen’s sentiments, saying Dodd-Frank and other efforts to end “too big to fail” may not be “sufficient.” Plosser argued that current capital requirements should be made more stringent but also simpler by relying on a leverage ratio rather than the current practice of risk weighting.

SEC

SEC Proposes Long-Anticipated Money Market Mutual Fund Overhaul

On June 5th, the SEC released a proposal which would change the way the $2.6 trillion money market mutual fund industry is regulated. After months of internal disagreement within the SEC, the Commission voted unanimously to propose the plan. The goal of the proposal is to avoid future runs on the market, like that which occurred during the financial crisis, in tandem with ensuring that the industry still function as a viable investment vehicle. The Commission’s proposal sets out two alternative options for reform which could be enacted alone or in combination. The first would require institutional prime money market funds to operate with a floating net asset value (NAV). Notably, retail and government funds would still be allowed to operate with a fixed-NAV. The second alternative would require nongovernment funds whose liquid assets fell below 15 percent of total assets to impose a 2 percent liquidity fee on all redemptions. If this were to occur, a money market fund’s board would be permitted to suspend redemptions for up to 30 days. The proposal also calls for prompt public disclosure if a fund dips below the 15 percent weekly liquid asset threshold.

Coalition of Investment and Consumer Interests Call for Strong Uniform Fiduciary Standard

In a letter sent to the SEC on June 4th, a coalition of investment and consumer groups called on the Commission to enact a uniform fiduciary standard that would require broker-dealers and investment advisers to act in consumers’ best interest. The letter, signed by organizations such as AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Investment Adviser Association, is in response to an SEC request for information (RFI) requesting input on regarding the possible extension of a fiduciary duty to broker-dealers. The groups assert that, the fiduciary standard set forth in the RFI is weak compared to current law and “seems to contemplate little more than the existing suitability standard supplemented by some conflict of interest disclosures.”

District Court Hears Challenge to SEC Critical Minerals Rule

On June 7th, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard a challenge brought on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and others to the SEC’s critical minerals rule which requires companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments. Industry argues that the rule is overly burdensome and could result in proprietary information being shared with competitors. However, supporters of the rule, including Oxfam America, assert that the measure will increase transparency and help combat human rights abuses.

FDIC

FDIC Approves Non-Bank Resolution Final Rule

On June 4th, the FDIC approved a final rule establishing the criteria which will be used to determine which non-bank financial firms will be required to comply with the FDIC’s authority to liquidate large failing companies. The rule, which lays out factors used to determine if a company is “predominately engaged in financial activity,” requires companies where at least 85 percent of revenues are classified as financial in nature by the Bank Holding Company Act to comply. The FDIC’s rule closely resembles a final proposal by the Fed which established criteria for non-banks to be flagged for additional supervision under Dodd-Frank.

CFPB

CFPB Finalizes Ability-to-Repay Rule Amendments

On May 29th, the CFPB finalized rules designed to increase access to credit through exemptions and modifications to the Bureau’s ability-to-repay rule. The ability-to-repay rule, which was finalized in January 2013, requires that new mortgages comply with basic consumer protection requirements that are meant to ensure consumers do not take out loans they cannot pay back through Qualified Mortgages (QMs). In response to public and Congressional concerns about the scope of the rule, the Bureau’s finalized rules exempt certain nonprofit creditors and community-based lenders who service low- and moderate-income borrowers, facilitate lending by small creditors, banks and credit unions with less than $2 billion in assets and which make 500 or fewer mortgages loans per year, and establish how to calculate loan origination compensation. In announcing the amendments, the CFPB also delayed the effective date of provisions prohibiting creditors from financing certain credit insurance premiums in connection with certain mortgage loans. Currently, the effective date is January 10, 2014; however, the Bureau plans to solicit comment on an appropriate effective date for proposed credit insurance clarifications.

Bureau Issues Mortgage Rule Exam Guidelines

On June 4th, the CFPB issued an update to its exam procedures based on the new Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) mortgage regulations finalized in January. The guidance addresses questions about how mortgage companies will be examined such as for: setting qualification and screening standards for loan originators; prohibiting steering incentives; prohibiting “dual compensation,” protecting borrowers of higher-priced loans; prohibiting the waiver of consumer rights; prohibiting mandatory arbitration; requiring lenders to provide appraisal reports and valuations; and prohibiting single premium credit insurance.

CFPB Announced Further Study on Pre-Dispute Arbitration in Financial Products

In a notice and request for comment published on June 7th, the CFPB announced it will conduct phone surveys of credit card holders as part of its study of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements. While Dodd-Frank gave the CFPB authority to ban the use of arbitration in mortgages, Section 1028(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to conduct a study before taking additional action to limit arbitration in other financial products. According to the notice, the survey will investigate “the extent of consumer awareness of dispute resolution provisions in their agreements with credit card providers” and consumers’ assessments of these tools.

International

IMF Working Paper Calls for Taxes on Large Banks to Level Playing Field, End “Too Big to Fail”

In a working paper published at the end of May, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), suggesting that large banks in advanced economies have more incentive to take risks due to cheaper funding sources, proposed taxing large banks to “extract their unfair competitive advantage.” The authors of the paper argue that such as tax would level the playing field from the perspective of competitive policy and reduce excess incentives of banks to grow, reducing the problem of “too big to fail” and increasing financial stability. Specifically, the paper found that the implicit guarantee that “too big to fail” banks will be bailed out in the event of failure or crisis can lead to a funding advantage of up to 0.8 percent a year. In related news, On June 5th, Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA) introduced legislation (H.R. 2266) which would require certain systemically important institutions to account for the financial benefit they receive as a result of the expectations on the part of shareholders, creditors, and counterparties that the government will bail them out in the event of failure.

Upcoming Hearings

On Wednesday, June 12th at 10am, in 1100 Longworth, the Trade Subcommittee of House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing titled “U.S.-Brazil Trade and Investment Relationship: Opportunities and Challenges.”

On Wednesday, June 12th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing titled “Beyond GSEs: Examples of Successful Housing Finance Models without Explicit Government Guarantees.”

On Wednesday, June 12th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on proposals intended to support capital formation.

On Thursday, June 13th at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled “Lessons Learned From the Financial Crisis Regarding Community Banks.”

On Thursday, June 13th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on changes to the Export-Import Bank.

On Thursday, June 13th at 1pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on international insurance issues.

SEC Money Market Reform

Katten Muchin

On June 5, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed major reforms to money market regulations that would significantly alter the way money market funds (MMFs) operate. The proposal sets forth two main alternative reforms, which may be adopted alone or in combination in a single reform package. The first proposed alternative would require all institutional prime MMFs to transition from operating with a stable share price to operating with a floating net asset value. The second generally would require every non-government MMF to impose a 2% redemption fee if its level of weekly liquid assets falls below 15% of its total assets, unless its board determines that the MMF’s best interest would be served by eliminating the fee or having a lower fee. The two proposed reforms are intended to, among other things, improve risk transparency in MMFs and reduce the impact of substantial redemptions upon MMFs during times of stress. The proposal also includes reforms designed to enhance MMFs’ disclosure, reporting, stress testing, and diversification practices.

For additional information, read more.

Article By:

Don’t Overlook The Gems In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Files

Barnes & Thornburg

A recent decision out of a Louisiana federal court demonstrates that all employers who are sued in cases where the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) handled an administrative charge should promptly send out a FOIA request to obtain the EEOC’s file.

In Williams v. Cardinal Health Systems 200, LLC, a female employee reported to her employer that her husband had gotten into a fistfight with one of her co-workers, allegedly because the co-worker was sending her inappropriate text messages. The employee was fired shortly thereafter on Sept. 26, 2011.

Nine months later in June of 2012, a lawyer wrote to the employer on behalf of the former employee, suggesting that his client had suffered sexual harassment. The lawyer also suggested that the employer had retaliated against the employee for complaining of the sexual harassment when it fired her. A few weeks later, the lawyer helped the employee fill out and submit an EEOC intake questionnaire form.

After receiving the questionnaire, the EEOC advised the former employee that her questionnaire was incomplete, and that, among other things, she needed to sign and verify her allegations. Her lawyer eventually provided the necessary information, and the EEOC sent out a notice of charge of discrimination to the employer in October 2012, followed by a notice of right to sue. The employee then filed a lawsuit against the company in December 2012.

The employer filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the employee had waited too long to bring her claim. The court noted that the employee had 300 days from the date of the alleged retaliation—or until July 22, 2012, to raise her claims with the EEOC. She had contacted the EEOC before then, but her questionnaire was incomplete. The charging party and her lawyer did not complete it before July 22. Thus, her claims were time-barred and her case dismissed.

The case provides a good example of an important litigation tool. The dismissal hinged on the EEOC’s file, which proved when the employee submitted her questionnaire, what the questionnaire contained, how the EEOC responded, and when and how her lawyer supplied the additional information. Employers typically are not privy to these communications and would not even know about them unless they obtain a copy of the agency’s file. And there is the lesson: all employers who are sued should make sure to request the EEOC or charging agency file as soon as possible. You never know what gems might be hiding in there just waiting for you to find them.

Article By:

 of

California’s Future Uncertain as U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Postpones Oil and Gas Lease Auctions

AM logo with tagline

Recently, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it would postpone all oil and gas lease auctions in California until at least October 2013.  The agency cited the toll of litigation and other costs as factors behind the decision.

Many attribute the postponement to an April 2013 federal district court ruling in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-06174 PSG, in which the court held that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to analyze potential environmental impacts of “fracking” on 2,700 acres of federal lands in Monterey and Fresno Counties before leasing the lands to oil companies.  Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel, and chemicals into rock to extract oil.  The technique has been used for decades in California, and is also used in other states to recover natural gas.  However, fracking has recently been under increased scrutiny, amid concerns that the practice could contaminate groundwater.

The court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity does not void the leases that were the subject of the case, but requires BLM to go back and take a closer look at the potential impacts of fracking.  The ruling is largely limited to the specific facts that were before the court, and the case is unlikely to have sweeping application as a legal precedent, but it marks a victory for environmental groups attempting to stop, or at least delay, fracking in California.

BLM’s decision to postpone oil and gas lease auctions in California coming on the heels of the Center for Biological Diversity decision suggests that policy impacts of the case may be more widely felt.  BLM announced this month that it will put off a previously scheduled late May auction for leases to drill almost 1,300 acres of public lands near the Monterey Shale.  The Monterey Shale is one of the largest deposits of shale oil in the nation, containing an estimated 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil.  Another auction for about 2,000 acres in Colusa County was also put on hold.

“Our priority is processing permits to drill that are already in flight rather than work on new applications,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told reporters in Washington.  The decision to postpone leasing doesn’t mean that drilling on existing leases will stop, but it does raise questions about what BLM will do in the fall, when the postponement expires, and how the postponement decision will impact oil and gas production more broadly.

California accounts for 6 percent of the 247 million acres under BLM control, and oil and gas drilling on BLM lands has been on the rise as advances in horizontal drilling and fracking have made hard-to-reach deposits recoverable.  The impact of litigation such as the Center for Biological Diversity matter on BLM, and on the industry as a whole, is therefore significant.

For California at least, the future is uncertain.  “We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going,” said Governor Jerry Brown (D, California), during a March 13 press conference.  “That’s the balance that is required.”  Amid budget concerns, financially strapped government agencies may be increasingly risk-averse when it comes to potential litigation, leading to decisions like the California postponement that have industry-wide implications.

As published in Oil & Gas Monitor.