Category: Corporate Compliance

Former Head of Investor Relations Penalized by SEC for Selectively Disclosing Material Nonpublic Information, While Self-Disclosing Company Escapes Charges

Katten Muchin

The selective and early disclosure of material non-public information resulted in a Securities and Exchange Commission cease and desist order and civil penalties against the former head of investor relations at First Solar, Inc. (First Solar or the Company), an Arizona-based solar energy company. The SEC determined that Lawrence D. Polizzotto violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation FD by informing certain analysts and investors ahead of the market that First Solar would likely not receive an important and much anticipated loan guarantee commitment of nearly $2 billion from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The day after those disclosures, the Company publicly disclosed this information in a press release, causing its stock price to dip six percent.

On September 13, 2011, First Solar’s then-CEO publicly expressed confidence at an investor conference that the Company would receive three loan guarantees of close to $4.5 billion, which the DOE previously committed to granting upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Polizzotto and several other First Solar executives learned a couple of days later that the Company would not receive the largest of the three guarantees. An in-house lawyer expressly advised a group of First Solar employees, including Polizzotto, that they could not answer questions from analysts and investors until the Company both received official notice from the DOE and issued a press release or posted an update on the guarantee to its website. According to the SEC, notwithstanding this instruction, Polizzotto and a subordinate, acting at Polizzotto’s direction, had one-on-one phone conversations with approximately 30 sell-side analysts and institutional investors prior to First Solar’s public disclosure. In the conversations, they conveyed the low probability that First Solar would receive one of the three guarantees. In some instances, Polizzotto went further and said that a conservative investor should assume that the guarantee would not be granted.

Polizzotto agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the charges without admitting or denying any of the SEC’s findings. He, however, was not subject to even a temporary industry bar. The SEC did not bring an enforcement action against First Solar due to the Company’s cooperation with the investigation, as well as its self-disclosure to the SEC promptly after discovering Polizzotto’s selective disclosure. In addition, the SEC emphasized the strong “environment of compliance” at the Company, including the “use of a disclosure committee that focused on compliance with Regulation FD” and the fact that the Company took remedial measures to address improper conduct, including conducting additional compliance training.

In the Matter of Lawrence D. Polizzotto, File No. 3-15458 (Sept. 6, 2013).

Could Your Business Qualify for a 179D Green Building Tax Break?

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

If your company has built a new facility or upgraded an existing one anytime in the past six years, you might find that you qualify — at least partially — for a tax break of up to $1.80 per square foot under federal tax code section 179D, or the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction. This could be the case even if you had no concrete intention to focus on green building standards at the time.

A couple of great features of this deduction are, first, that you might be able to substantially mitigate your tax burden  as far back as six years and, second, it’s very likely that you will qualify if your facility exceeds 50,000 square feet and it meets current state building codes, according to a business tax writer for Forbes, who spent eight years as the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s tax counsel.

The 179D tax deduction gives the business an immediate deduction in the current year plus a basis reduction for the value of the facility, which can be anything from a warehouses or parking garage to an office park or a multi-family housing unit. For private-sector projects, the building owner, assuming it paid for the construction or improvements, generally gets the deduction. In public projects, the architect, engineer or contractor can obtain it by seeking a certification letter from the government unit. Nonprofits and native American tribes are not eligible.

The green building deduction was created in recognition of the fact that around 70 percent of all electricity used in the U.S. is consumed by commercial buildings. The deduction, which is up for renewal — and possible expansion — this year, has already proven that efforts to mitigate the tax burden of businesses in a technology-neutral way is an effective way to encourage energy efficiency, according to the Forbes writer.

What improvements must be made to qualify for the green building credit? Currently, the new or renovated building merely needs to exceed the 2001 energy efficiency standards developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, or ASHRAE — and most state building codes already require this. That means the vast majority of new and improved buildings already meet this requirement.

It’s also possible to partially qualify for the deduction by meeting the standards only for the building envelope itself, which includes HVAC, the hot water system, and the interior lighting system. A building could qualify based upon only one of these systems, or all three.

Source: Forbes, “179D Tax Break for Energy Efficient Buildings — Update,” Dean Zerbe, Aug. 19, 2013

 of

Resale Price Maintenance in China: Enforcement Authorities Imposing Large Fines for Anti-Monopoly Law Violations

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Recently Shanghai High People’s Court reached a decision in the first lawsuit involving resale price maintenance (RPM) since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) came into effect five years ago.  Shortly thereafter, a key enforcement agency announced RPM-related fines against six milk powder companies, five of which are non-Chinese.  Both cases clearly show that RPM can be a violation of the AML, and that RPM is currently under much greater scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  It would be prudent for all foreign corporations active in China’s consumer markets to take heed of these changes in China and conduct an immediate review of any potential RPM violations.

On 1 August 2013 the Shanghai High People’s Court reached a decision in the first anti-monopoly lawsuit involving resale price maintenance (RPM) since China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) came into effect in August 2008.  In addition to this judicial decision, on 7 August 2013 one of the key agencies in charge of enforcing the AML, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), announced RPM-related fines of USD 109 million against six milk powder companies, five of which are non-Chinese.  Both the High People’s Court and the NDRC have been striving to clarify how they will treat RPM, and specifically have focused on the issue of whether RPM should be treated as a per se violation or should be evaluated according to a “rule of reason” analysis.

Judicial Decisions in Civil Lawsuits

According to the recent decision by the Shanghai High People’s Court, in order to hold that an RPM provision is a monopoly agreement, the court must find that the RPM provision has restricted or eliminated competition.  Furthermore, the burden of proof will be on the plaintiff to show a restriction or elimination of competition arising out of the RPM.  The High People’s Court explicitly stated that this burden is the opposite from the burden of proof for horizontal monopolies, such as a cartel, in which case the burden of proof falls on the defendant to show that the agreement does not have any effect of eliminating or restricting competition.  This burden for horizontal monopolies has been further examined and confirmed by the “Judicial Interpretation of Anti-Monopoly Disputes” that was issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court on 1 June 2012.

Administrative Decisions in Enforcement Actions—Liquor and Infant Milk Formula

There have been several key RPM enforcement actions in 2013.  In February, the NDRC imposed a fine of USD 80 million on the famous Chinese liquor brands Maotai and Wuliangye for requiring distributors to resell the products above a certain price, which is common in some sectors in China.  On 2 July, according to the Price Supervision and Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the NDRC, six milk powder companies came under investigation for RPM violations of the AML.  According to the NDRC’s statements on the case, “from the evidence obtained, the milk powder companies under investigation instituted price controls over distributors and retailers, which excluded and limited market competition and therefore are alleged to have violated the Anti-Monopoly Law”.  The NDRC later announced record fines in that case of USD 109 million, which were the equivalent of between 3 per cent and 6 per cent of the companies’ revenue in 2012.

According to media reports, in the Maotai and Wuliangye cases, the NDRC provided clear indications about some of the factors that it will consider when determining whether the RPM has “eliminated or restricted competition”.   Specifically, when assessing the relevant market and market power of the two companies, the NDRC analysed the market structure and the role played by the two companies in the liquor industry, as well as the degree to which the products are substitutable with similar products and the loyalty of consumers towards the two liquors.  Based on this analysis, the NDRC concluded that the RPM provisions in the agreements with distributors of the two liquor giants eliminated and restricted competition, and thus were vertical “monopoly agreements”.

According to recent media reports, the NDRC has indicated it will “severely crack down” on and sanction vertical monopoly agreements such as RPM if they are maintained by business operators dominant in the market.  If business operators are not dominant, the NDRC reportedly indicated that it would still investigate all vertical monopoly conduct and determine if there has been any elimination or restriction of competition.

Conclusions

These civil lawsuits and administrative cases clearly show that RPM can be a violation of the AML and that RPM is currently under much greater scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  If RPM is an issue in civil lawsuits, a plaintiff will have to prove that RPM eliminates or restricts competition.  However, there are some indications that this burden of proof may be easily met.  In administrative cases, the NDRC will have to be satisfied that it has sufficient proof to show there is an elimination or restriction of competition.  However, it is unclear what level of evidence would be required to show such a restriction and it may not be a very high level, especially if the accused business operator is dominant in the market.

RPM has been a common feature of distribution agreements and other contracts in many sectors in China.  However, the recent cases clearly show there is a serious compliance risk if RPM continues to be part of a corporation’s normal practices.  This is particularly true for business operators that have a dominant market position or a group of business operators that are regarded as jointly dominant under the AML (in China, in certain circumstances, dominance is presumed with a market share as low as 10 per cent).  Unless the RPM conduct clearly falls within an exception in Article 15 of the AML, a company using RPM may face serious fines and confiscation of illegal gains.  It would be prudent for all foreign corporations active in China’s consumer markets to take heed of these changes to the enforcement priorities of the competition/antitrust authorities in China and conduct an immediate review of any potential RPM violations.

Alex An and Jared Nelson also contributed to this article.

Article By:

 of

Starting an Online Business: Licensing Requirements

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

Individuals interested in starting an online business are often confused or uninformed as to the licensing requirements for such businesses.  In many ways, an online business is like any “brick and mortar” store and the owner will probably be required to obtain certain licenses or permits to operate.

Federal Requirements

Business Licenses.  Most businesses do not require a federal business license or permit.  However, a business engaged in one of the following activities should contact the responsible federal agency to determine the requirements for doing business:  Investment Advising, Drug Manufacturing, Preparation of Meat Products, Broadcasting, Ground Transportation, Selling Alcohol, Tobacco, or Firearms.

Tax Identification Number.  A federal tax identification number, also known as an Employer Identification Number (EIN), is a federal identification number issued by the Internal Revenue Service to identify a business entity.  Nearly all businesses are required to have a tax identification number.

If a business is operated as a sole proprietorship, the owner may use his or her social security number in place of an EIN on all governmental forms and other official documents.  However, most small business advisors recommend using a federal tax identification number instead.

To obtain a federal tax identification number, a business owner should contact the nearest Local IRS Field Office or call the IRS Business and Specialty Tax Hotline at 800-829-4933.  The necessary form, IRS Form SS-4, can be downloaded directly from the Small Business Administration website.

State Requirements

Many states and local jurisdictions require a person to obtain a business license or permit before beginning business operations.  A business that operates without the required license or permit may be subjected to fines or may be barred from further business activity.  In some localities, a business operating out of a residence may require an additional permit.

While business licensing requirements vary from state-to-state, the most common types include:

·    Basic Business Operation License – a legal document issued by a local governmental authority that authorizes a person to conduct business within the boundaries of the municipality.  Many states have established small business assistance agencies to help small businesses comply with state requirements;

  • Fictitious Name Certificate – a document, usually filed with a state agency, which is required to operate a business using an assumed name or trade name (essentially, any name other than the full, formal name of the individual or company);
  • Home Occupation Permit – a permit which may be required to conduct business from a residence;
  • Tax Registration – if the state has a state income tax, a business owner must usually register and obtain an employer identification number from the state Department of Revenue or Treasury Department.  If the business engages in retail sales, the owner must usually obtain a sales tax license;
  • Special State-Issued Business Licenses or Permits – these permits may be required for a business that sell highly-regulated products like firearms, gasoline, liquor, or lottery tickets;
  • Zoning and Land Use Permits – may be required to develop a site or property for specific purposes
  • Employer Registrations – if the business has employees, the owner must usually make unemployment insurance contributions;

Additional state licenses may be required for regulated occupations such as building contractors, physicians, appraisers, accountants, barbers, real estate agents, auctioneers, private investigators, private security guards, funeral directors, bill collectors, and cosmetologists.

Article By:

 of

New Requirements for Illinois Businesses under Concealed Carry Act

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Illinois employers may be surprised to learn what action items may be necessary for their businesses following enactment of Illinois’ new Concealed Carry Act.

Facing a deadline imposed by the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 ruling that the state’s concealed carry ban was unconstitutional, on July 9 the Illinois state legislature overrode Governor Quinn’s amendatory veto to enact Public Act 98-0063, which includes the new Firearm Concealed Carry Act (“Act”) and related laws and amendatory legislation. The Act makes Illinois the 50th state to enact legislation allowing concealed carry, and permits Illinois residents and non-residents who meet specified qualifications to apply for a license to carry a “concealed firearm” — defined as a concealed loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person or within a vehicle — in the state. Among other provisions, the Act specifies qualifications, procedures and content of applications for licenses and areas where those holding licenses will be prohibited from carrying firearms. Individuals cannot apply for a concealed carry license in Illinois until the Department of State Police issues the applications (the Department has up to 180 days to do so).

Required Postings for “Prohibited Areas”

The Act prohibits authorized licensees from carrying a firearm into “prohibited areas” and further mandates clear notices at entrances of such venues that firearms are prohibited. (Required signage and accompanying rules will be issued by the Department of State Police and are not yet available.) Among others, the following are types of establishments subject to these requirements that must post clear notices prohibiting the carrying of firearms:

  • Areas controlled by public or private hospitals or their affiliates, mental health facilities, nursing homes, public or private elementary or secondary schools, pre-schools, and child care facilities.
  • Areas under the control of an establishment serving alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment’s gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol. (The Act further provides that owners of such establishments who fail to prohibit concealed firearms are subject to penalties up to $5000.)
  • Buildings, classrooms, laboratories, clinics, hospitals, artistic, athletic or entertainment venues and other areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.
  • Events authorized by Special Event Retailer’s license during the time alcohol will be sold.
  • Areas under the control of a gaming facility licensed under the Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975.
  • Public gatherings or special events conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a government permit.
  • Any stadium, arena, or the property or areas under the control of a stadium, arena, or any collegiate or professional sporting event.
  • Areas under the control of a museum, amusement park, zoo, or airport.
  • Any areas owned, leased, controlled or used by a nuclear energy storage, weapons, or development site.
  • Buses, trains, or other forms of transportation paid in whole or in part with public funds, and any areas controlled by a public transportation facility.
  • Areas where firearms are prohibited under federal law.

Prohibition by Other Owners Desiring to Maintain Gun-Free Facilities

Employers and other property owners can still prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on property under their control that is not among the enumerated “prohibited areas” provided they post the state-approved sign indicating that firearms are prohibited. (Owners of private residences desiring to prohibit firearms need not post the sign.) Because this provision of the Act applies to owners of “private real property” however, it raises questions for businesses operating on leased premises who desire to ban firearms. At a minimum, such businesses should ensure that their landlord’s concealed carry policy is consistent with their own.

Special Provisions for Parking Areas

Note that while the carrying of concealed firearms may be prohibited in buildings, facilities and properties — including parking areas — authorized licensees can still drive with concealed firearms into the parking areas, and can store the firearms and ammunition in a case in their locked vehicle or in a locked container out of plain view. Thus while licensed employees and visitors may be prohibited from bringing a firearm into a business or venue, they cannot be prohibited from keeping the firearm in their car. Employers must be sure that any policies or procedures governing handguns in the workplace do not infringe on the rights of employees to keep authorized handguns locked in their cars, even if in employer-owned parking lots.

An Evolving Area of Law

This area of the law continues to evolve. On July 16, Chicago’s City Council unanimously voted to strengthen the City’s assault weapons ban with measures that prohibit more weapons, add stricter penalties for violations, and outline student safety zones in order to meet a 10-day deadline imposed by companion amendments within Public Act 98-0063.

Article By:

 of

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Settles with HTC America Over Charges it Failed to Secure Smartphone Software

RaymondBannerMED

Smartphone manufacturer HTC agreed in February to settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that the company failed to take reasonable steps to secure software it developed for its mobile devices including smartphones and tablet computers. In its complaint, the FTC charged HTC with violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  On July 2 the FTC approved a final order settling these charges.

trade FTC smartphone HTC

The FTC alleged HTC failed to employ reasonable security measures in its software which led to the potential exposure of consumer’s sensitive information. Specifically, the FTC alleged HTC failed to implement adequate privacy and security guidance or training for engineering staff, failed to follow well-known and commonly accepted secure programming practices which would have ensured that applications only had access to users’ information with their consent. Further, the FTC alleged the security flaws exposed consumers to malware which could steal their personal information stored on the device, the user’s geolocation information and the contents of the user’s text messages.

HTC is a manufacturer of smartphones but it also installs its own proprietary software on each device. It is this software that the FTC targeted. While HTC smartphones run Google’s Android operating system, the HTC software allegedly introduced significant vulnerabilities which circumvented some of Android’s security measures.

As part of the settlement consent order, HTC agreed to issue security patches to eliminate the vulnerabilities. HTC also agreed to establish a comprehensive security program to address the security risks identified by the FTC and to protect the security and confidentiality of consumer information stored on or transmitted through a HTC device. HTC further agreed to hire a third party to evaluate its data and privacy security program and to issue reports every two years for the consent order’s 20 year term. The implication of the FTC’s policy makes it clear that companies must affirmatively address both privacy and data security issues in their custom applications and software for consumer use.

Financial Services Legislative and Regulatory Update – July 15, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the Past Week

Although there were several hearings and major implementations of Dodd-Frank rules, the leading story from the past week had to be Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filing cloture on seven Administration nominees, including Richard Cordray to continue as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  This is the start of a process that could end up with Leader Reid going for the “nuclear option” of changing the Senate rules dealing with the filibuster of certain nominations.  Based on some reports, it appears that Reid has the votes and that Cordray may be the sticking point in the negotiations.  Interestingly,  late last week Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) and the eleven other Democratic Members of the Banking Committee, wrote Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to end the Republican filibuster of Cordray’s nomination, requesting “an up-or-down vote on the nominee’s merits.”

While it remains to be seen how the filibuster cold war will resolve itself, last week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the government achieved a surplus of $116.5 billion in June, the largest in five years.  This surplus, due in part to $66.3 billion in dividend payments from the GSEs, only solidified that this fall will see yet another convergence of a debt ceiling / government funding fight as both the debt limit and end of the federal fiscal year appear to be aligned to come due at the same time.  

We also saw several important steps forward in the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, including a proposed leverage ratio rule, approval of a final rule implementing capital requirements in excess of those required by Basel III, the designation of two nonbanks as SIFIs, and the long awaited announcement of the Commodity and Futures Trade Commission’s (CFTC) cross-border derivatives rulemaking.

Legislative Branch

Senate

Senate Banking Hearing Discusses Dodd-Frank Progress, Risk Mitigation

On July 11th, the Senate Banking Committee met to discuss Dodd-Frank implementation progress and whether financial reforms have succeeded in mitigating systematic risk from large financial institutions.  Witnesses included Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Mary Miller, Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo, Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC) Chairman Martin Gruenberg, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) head Thomas Curry.  In their testimony, regulators said that they expect almost all remaining Dodd-Frank rules, including capital surcharges for systematically important banks, the Volcker Rule, and liquidity rules to be finalized by the end of the year.  Regulators also expressed confidence that the recently finalized Basel III rules, when combined with proposed stricter leverage requirements, will be an effective means of ensuring that banks carry enough capital.  Notwithstanding the assertion of the regulators that the implementation of Dodd-Frank was nearing a close, Ranking Member Crapo remarked in his opening statement that there is a growing bipartisan consensus that some parts of Dodd-Frank need to be reformed.  In particular, he mentioned the burden of regulations on community banks, short-term wholesale funding, debt to equity ratios for large banks, and the perceived continuation of “too big to fail” as areas that require address.   

Democratic Senators Request CFPB, DOL Look Into Prepaid Payroll Cards

Following a front page story in the New York Times, on July 11th, sixteen Senate Democrats wrote to the CFPB and Department of Labor (DOL) requesting that the agencies investigate fees and practices associated with pre-paid payroll cards.  The letter was particularly strong, including the assertion “that mandating the use of a particular payroll card, with no available alternative, seems clearly to violate federal law,” the lawmakers requested that CFPB Director Cordray clarify whether employers provide sufficient alternatives for payment. The letter was signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL),  Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Robert Casey (D-PA), Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Al Franken (D-MN).  It is unclear whether this letter will spur the CFPB to re-engage on its broader general purpose reloadable card ANPRM that is still pending with the agency.

Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act

On July 11th, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John McCain (R-AZ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Angus King (I-ME) introduced legislation that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act by separating FDIC insured depository divisions from riskier banking activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps dealing, and hedge fund and private equity activities.  By curbing those activities at federally insured institutions, the bill aims to eliminate the concept of “too big to fail” by making institutions smaller and thus decreasing the need, either real or perceived for a government bailout if the institution were to fail.

Senate Banking Leaders to Introduce FHA Reform Bill

Last week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman and Ranking Member Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) announced they will introduce legislation this week to provide the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) with additional authority, including the ability to charge higher premiums, to “get back on stable footing.” The FHA currently has a $943 million short fall in its insurance fund and a Treasury bailout is expected without additional Congressional action. The House has already passed a measure this year which would allow the agency to make changes to the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

House of Representatives

House Approves FSOC, PCAOB Bills

On July 8th, the House passed two bills, the first to require the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to study the effects of derivatives-related capital exemptions, and the second to bar the Public Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) from requiring public companies to regularly change auditors. The Financial Competitive Act of 2013 (H.R. 1341) passed the House by a 353 to 24 vote and directs the FSOC to study and report to Congress on an exemption for EU banks from the credit valuation adjustment (CVA) capital charge which was part of the Basel III agreements. The Audit Integrity and Job Protection Act (H.R. 1564) passed the House by a 321 to 62 vote and would do away with mandatory audit-form rotations currently required by the agency. Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters (D-CA) expressed concern that the bill would result in “diminished information” and increased costs. The legislation also directs the Government Accountability Office to update a 2003 study on the Potential Effects of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation.

House Republicans Unveil Housing Finance Reform Legislation

On July 11th, Chairman of the Financial Services Committee Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), unveiled the Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners (PATH) Act which would reform the US housing finance system by phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving to a largely private system. The legislation would continue to wind down the GSEs’ portfolios while establishing new rules for private covered bonds and mortgage bonds. The legislation would also reign in the FHA and its ability to insure loans for only low income borrowers, reducing how much of a loan the FHA can insure. Notably, the proposal would also repeal the Dodd-Frank Act’s risk-retention rule and place a two year hold on Basel III capital rules. Also worth noting is that despite earlier hopes that Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) might be able to find some common ground housing reform, Ms. Waters said she was “strongly disappointed” by Hensarling’s proposal.  The Committee would hold a hearing on July 18th to examine the legislation.

House Financial Services Subcommittee Grills CFPB Over Data Collection

On July 9th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing to examine how the CFPB collects and uses consumer data and personal information. CFPB Acting Deputy Director Steven Antonakes received heavy criticism from Committee Republicans for being unable to provide exact numbers on how many Americans the Bureau has collected information.  Republican lawmakers also criticized many of the data collection practices of the agency, citing concerns that the collection infringes on citizens’ right to privacy and attempting to draw analogies to the current NSA and IRS scandals.  Still, Antonakes and to some extent, Committee Democrats insisted that the CFPB is a data-driven agency, that the data being collected is, except when the result of a consumer contact, anonymized and that the CFPB takes very seriously its obligation to protect its data as it is vital to the Bureau’s work.                                                   

 

House Financial Services Subcommittee Explores Constitutionality of Dodd-Frank

On July 9th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to consider potential legal uncertainties in the Dodd-Frank Act.  The hearing featured testimony from three constitutional scholars, each of whom expressed concern that certain provisions of the law may be unconstitutional.  Professor Thomas Merrill, of Columbia Law School, argued that there are large constitutional concerns surrounding the orderly liquidation provision and the government’s power to seize control of an institution.  While the provision is likely legal, he said, it would undoubtedly be litigated the first time it is invoked. In addition, Boyden Gray, testified that Dodd-Frank violates separation of power by giving too much power to regulators, while Timothy McTaggart, a partner at Pepper Hamilton LLP, argued that Dodd-Frank ultimately does not violate separation of powers or the due process clause. 

House Financial Services Subcommittee Explores Small Business Capital Formation

On July 10th, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises held the second in a series of hearings exploring existing barriers to capital formation.  In his opening statement, Chairman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) made it clear that the sponsors of last year’s JOBS Act are not satisfied with the bill’s implementation and are looking for new ideas to help small businesses build capital.  Additional proposals could include increasing tick sizes, creating special exchanges for the stock of small companies, and changing filing rules for small business financial statements. Witnesses expressed additional concerns; Kenneth Moch, CEO of Chimerix, noting the cost of compliance with internal controls associated with Sarbanes-Oxley, and Christopher Nagy, President of Kor Trading, calling for patent litigation reform.

House Appropriations Subcommittee Marks Up FY 2014 Financial Services Spending Bill

On July 10th, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government met to consider the $17 billion FY2014 Financial Services and General Government spending bill, approving the legislation by voice vote. The bill funds a variety of agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and others. The legislation boosts the SEC’s budget by $50 million to $1.4 billion, a figure that is still over $300 million dollars short of the President’s budget request.  In addition, the bill would bring the CFPB into the normal appropriations process beginning in 2015, something which Republicans have sought to do since the standing up of the Bureau. Despite serving as one of the main sticking points against Director Cordray’s confirmation, the bid to move the Bureau’s funding out from the control of the Federal Reserve is unlikely to be successful.

Executive Branch

CFTC

CFTC Finalizes Cross-Border Derivatives Rule, Including Effective Date Delay

Following several weeks of rampant speculation over the fate of the CFTC’s proposal to regulate cross-border swaps trades, the CFTC voted 3 to 1 on July 12th phase in guidance governing how U.S. derivatives laws apply to foreign banks. The CFTC also approved an “exemptive order” extending the effective date for the new requirements to 75 days after the guidance is published in the Federal Register. In addition, by December 21st, the Commission hopes to approve additional “substituted compliance” requests that will enable market participants to meet the requirements put out by other countries, including the EU, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, and Switzerland.

The CFTC’s vote follows the news that the Commission reached an agreement with EU regulators on how the two regulatory zones would oversee cross-border derivatives deals. The agreement will allow uncleared transactions that are deemed to fall under certain “essentially identical” US and EU rules to be governed by just the EU. In addition, the agreement allows US market participants to directly trade on a foreign board of trade and addresses US fears over loopholes for firms engaged in high-risk overseas operations, among other things. The CFTC also released four “no-action letters” on July 11thwhich implement the agreement with the EU.

Federal Reserve

Federal Reserve Releases Minutes of June FOMC Meeting

On July 10th, the Fed released the minutes of the June 18th and 19th meeting of the Federal Open Markets Committee. Following market disruptions after Chairman Bernanke’s statements after the June meeting, the FOMC minutes shed light on how the Fed plans to proceed in winding down its quantitative easing program by stressing that continuation of the monthly billion dollar asset purchases will largely depend on continued economic growth. Regardless of the exact timing, it appears a tapering of the highly accommodative monetary policy will occur in the near- to mid-term, as the minutes state: “several members judged that a reduction in asset purchases would likely soon be warranted, in light of the cumulative decline in unemployment since the September meeting and ongoing increases in private payrolls, which had increased their confidence in the outlook for sustained improvement in labor market conditions.”

Regulators Propose Exempting Certain Mortgages from Appraisal Requirements

On June 10th, six regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule exempting certain subsets of high-priced mortgages from Dodd-Frank appraisal requirements.  The exempted mortgages include loans of $25,000 or less, certain “streamlined” refinancings, and some loans for manufactured homes. The new rule is meant to lower cost hurdles for borrowers and improve mortgage lending practices.  The proposal was released jointly by the Fed, CFPB, FDIC, OCC, Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

FDIC

Regulators Propose Leverage Ration Rule; Finalize Rule Implementing Basel III Agreement

On July 9th, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC released a new proposal which would require federally insured banks with more than $700 billion in assets to meet a 6 percent leverage ratio, double the 3 percent ratio agreed to under the Basel III. The proposed rule would currently capture eight US banks, including: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. The holding companies of these institutions would be required to meet a 5 percent leverage threshold, the Basel III 3 percent minimum plus a 2 percent buffer. The same day the FDIC and OCC finalized an interim final rule to implement the Basel III international bank capital agreement, which the Federal Reserve adopted unanimously the previous week.

Treasury

FSOC Releases Final AIG, GE SIFI Designations

On July 9th, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) voted to designate American International Group (AIG) and GE Capital as the first two nonbank financial companies required to meet additional regulatory and supervisory requirements associated with being systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). As such, these companies will be subject to supervision by the Fed’s Board of Governors and to enhanced prudential standards. In deciding to designate these two nonbanks, the FSOC noted AIG’s “size and interconnectedness” and GE’s role as a “significant participant in the global economy and financial markets.” Remarking on the designations, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said that they will help “protect the financial system and broader economy” and that the Council will “continue to review additional companies in the designations process.”

CFPB

Bureau Updates 2013 Rulemaking Schedule

On July 8th, the OIRA released an updated list of rulemakings and their status at the CFPB.  The list included a variety of items, at different stages of the rulemaking process. 

CFPB Warns it Will Closely Scrutinize Debt Collection

On July 0th, the CFPB announced that it will be heavily examining the practices used to collect debt from borrowers.  The CFBP also said that it will be looking into the activities of both third-party collection agencies, which are subject to regulations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in addition to lenders trying to collect directly from borrowers who are not covered by FDCPA. As part of this effort, the Bureau has published two bulletins outlining illegal and deceptive debt collection practices. The first bulletin outlines that any creditor subject to CFPB supervision can be held accountable for any unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in collecting a consumer’s debts. The first bulletin also warns against threatening actions, falsely representing the debt, and failing to post payments. The second bulletin cautions companies about statements they make about how paying a debt will affect a consumer’s credit score, credit report, or creditworthiness. As part of this crackdown, the CFPB will also begin accepting debt collection complaints from consumers.

SEC

Commission Finalizes JOBS Act General Solicitation Rule

On July 10th, the SEC adopted in a 4 to 1 vote a final rule to lift the ban on general solicitation and general advertising for certain private securities offerings. Commissioner Luis Aguilar was the sole no vote, saying that the rule puts investors at risk. In remarks delivered the same day, Aguilar said that the rule does not contain sufficient investor protections as is, and it is not enough to rely on “speculative future actions to implement common sense improvements” to ensure investor safety. In conjunction with this vote, the agency proposed for comment a separate rule which will increase the amount of disclosures which issuers must provide on public offerings, such as providing the SEC with 15 days advance notice of the sale of unregistered securities, and provide for other new safeguards.  Commissioners Dan Gallagher and Troy Paredes both opposed the new disclosure requirements, citing concerns that they would “undermine the JOBS Act goal of spurring our economy and job creation.” The SEC also approved in a 5 to zero vote a rule which would prohibit felons and other “bad actors” from participating in offerings.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had strong opinions about the final general solicitation rule. Democratic lawmakers, though somewhat assuaged by the additional disclosure safeguards, echoed Commissioner Aguilar’s sentiments regarding investor safety. In particular, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said in a statement that he was disappointed in Chairman Mary Jo White for advancing a rule with too few investor protections.  On the other hand, Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) accused the SEC of flaunting Congressional intent by moving forward with the additional filing and disclosure requirements, saying the requirements will “unjustifiably burden American entrepreneurs” and “neutralize congressional intent.”

SEC Delays Rules on Retail Forex Transactions

On June 11th, the SEC agreed to delay rulemaking on restrictions to retail foreign exchange (forex) trading by up to three years.  The SEC said that it would use the additional time to assess the market for off-exchange foreign currency contracts and determine if more targeted regulations are necessary.  While the vote for the extension was private, Commissioner Aguilar publically criticized the delay, saying that the transactions, while profitable, pose unnecessary risks to small investors in the economy.   

OCC

Martin Pfinsgraff to be OCC Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large-Bank Supervision

On July 11th, US Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry named Martin Pfinsgraff Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large-Bank Supervision.  Pfinsgraff has filled the role on an acting basis since January 30th, and has worked in the OCC since 2011.  Previously, he served as Chief Operating Officer for iJet International, a risk management company, and Treasurer for Prudential Insurance.  In this position, he will continue to supervise 19 of the nation’s biggest banks with over $8 trillion in combined assets.  

International

Basel Committee Considering Simplified Capital Regime

On July 8th, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released a paper positing alternative proposals to reform the international capital regime in ways which would simpler and easier to compare global capital levels. Specifically, the Committee proposed reforms such as enhanced disclosures, additional metrics, strategies to ensure effective leverage ratios, and reigning in national discretion as potential options for simplifying the framework. The paper reiterated that risk-based procedures will remain at the heart of the Basel capital framework but these will be complemented by liquidity and leverage ratio metrics.

Upcoming Hearings

  • On Tuesday, July 16th at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will meet in executive session to vote on pending nominations. Immediately following votes on nominees, the Committee will hold a hearing titled “Oversight of the Defense Production Act: Issues and Opportunities for Reauthorization.”
  • On Wednesday, July 17th at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the consumer debt industry.
  • On Wednesday, July 17th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to receive the Semi-Annual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.
  • On Wednesday, July 17th at 2:30pm, in 216 Hart, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee will hold a hearing on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization.
  • On Thursday, July 18th at 10:30am, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the Federal Reserve’s Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.
  • On Thursday, July 18th at 1pm, in 2154 Rayburn, the Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing titled “Regulatory Burdens: The Impact of Dodd-Frank on Community Banking.”
  • On Thursday, July 18th at 1pm in 2128 Rayburn, the House Financial Services Committee will holding a hearing titled “A Legislative Proposal to Protect Americas Taxpayers and Homeowners by Creating a Sustainable Housing Finance System.”
Article By:

of

Insurer Enters Into $1.7 Million Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Settlement

vonBriesen

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced yesterday that it has entered into a resolution agreement with a national managed care organization and health insurance company (hereinafter “Company”) to settle potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Investigation and Resolution Agreement

The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) conducted an investigation after receiving the Company’s breach report, a requirement for breaches of unsecured protected health information (PHI) pursuant to the Health Information Technology for Economic Clinical Health Act (HITECH) Breach Notification Rule.

The investigation indicated that the Company had not implemented appropriate administrative and technical safeguards required by the Security Rule; and as a result, security weaknesses in an online application database left electronic PHI (ePHI) of 612,042 individuals unsecured and accessible to unauthorized individuals over the internet. PHI at issue included names, dates of birth, addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, and health information. Specifically, with regard to ePHI maintained in its web-based application database, the Company did not:

  1. Adequately implement policies and procedures for authorizing access to ePHI;
  2. Perform an adequate technical evaluation in response to a software upgrade affecting the security of ePHI; or
  3. Adequately implement technology to verify the identity of the person/entity seeking access to ePHI.

HHS and the Company entered into a resolution agreement, and the Company agreed to pay a $1.7 million settlement.  Notably, the resolution agreement did not include a corrective action plan for the Company.

Stepped up Enforcement

Beginning with the September 23, 2013 Omnibus Rule compliance date, HHS will have direct enforcement authority over business associates and subcontractors.  The settlement is an indication that HHS will not hesitate to extend enforcement actions to business associates and subcontractors.

The settlement is also a reminder of HHS expectations regarding compliance with HIPAA and HITECH standards.  HHS noted “whether systems upgrades are conducted by covered entities or their business associates, HHS expects organizations to have in place reasonable and appropriate technical, administrative and physical safeguards to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic protected health information – especially information that is accessible over the Internet.”

More information regarding the Omnibus Rule and its expanded liability is available here.

Article By:

 of

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Sanctions Revlon Financial Makeover; Tips for Setting a Strong Foundation for Going Private Transaction Success

DrinkerBiddle

On June 13, 2013, the SEC entered into a cease and desist order and imposed an $850,000 civil money penalty against Revlon, Inc. (Revlon) in connection with a 2009 “going private” transaction (the Revlon SEC Order).  This article identifies some of the significant challenges in executing a going private transaction and highlights particular aspects of the Revlon deal that can serve as a teaching lesson for planning and minimizing potential risks and delays in future going private transactions.

lipstick-upper

Background of Revlon Going Private Transaction.

The controlling stockholder of Revlon, MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. (M&F), made a proposal to the independent directors of Revlon in April of 2009 to acquire, by way of merger (the Merger Proposal), all of the Class A common stock not currently owned by M&F (the Revlon Minority Stockholders).  The Merger Proposal was submitted as a partial solution to address Revlon’s liquidity needs arising under an impending maturity of a $107 million senior subordinated term loan that was payable to M&F by a Revlon subsidiary.  A portion of this debt (equal to the liquidation value of the preferred stock issued in the Merger Proposal) would be contributed by M&F to Revlon, as part of the transaction.  This was submitted as an alternative in lieu of potentially cost-prohibitive and dilutive financing alternatives (or potentially unavailable financing alternatives) during the volatile credit market following the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis.

In response to the Merger Proposal, Revlon formed a special committee of the Board (the Special Committee) to evaluate the Merger Proposal.  The Special Committee retained a financial advisor and separate counsel to assist in its evaluation of the Merger Proposal.  Four lawsuits were filed in Delaware between April 24 and May 12 of 2009 challenging various aspects of the Merger Proposal.

On May 28, 2009, the Special Committee was informed by its financial advisor that it would be unable to render a fairness opinion on the Merger Proposal, and thereafter the Special Committee advised M&F that it could not recommend the Merger Proposal.  In early June of 2009, the Special Committee disbanded, but the independent directors subsequently were advised that M&F would make a voluntary exchange offer proposal to the full Revlon Board of Directors (the Exchange Offer). Revlon’s independent directors thereafter chose to continue to utilize counsel that served to advise the Special Committee, but they elected not to retain a financial advisor for assistance with the forthcoming M&F Exchange Offer proposal, because they were advised that the securities to be offered in the Exchange Offer would be substantially similar to those issuable through Merger Proposal.  As a result, they did not believe they could obtain a fairness opinion for the Exchange Offer consideration.  The Board of Directors of Revlon (without the interested directors participating in the vote) ultimately approved the Exchange Offer without receiving any fairness opinion with respect to the Exchange Offer.

On September 24, 2009, the final terms of the Exchange Offer were set and the offer was launched.  The Exchange Offer, having been extended several times, finally closed on October 8, 2009, with less than half of the shares tendered for exchange out of all Class A shares held by the Revlon Minority Stockholders.  On October 29, 2009, Revlon announced third quarter financial results that exceeded market expectations, but these results were allegedly consistent with the financial projections disclosed in the Exchange Offer.  Following these announced results, Revlon’s Class A stock price increased.  These developments led to the filing of additional litigation in Delaware Chancery Court.

The Revlon SEC Order and Associated Rule 13e-3 Considerations.

A subset of the Revlon Minority Stockholders consisted of participants in a Revlon 401(k) retirement plan, which was subject to obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and a trust agreement (the Trust Agreement) between Revlon and the Plan’s trustee (the Trustee).  Provisions of ERISA and the Trust Agreement prohibited a 401(k) Plan participant’s sale of common stock to Revlon for less than “adequate consideration.”

During July of 2009, Revlon became actively involved with the Trustee to control the flow of information concerning any adequate consideration determination, to prevent such information from flowing back to Revlon and to prevent such information from flowing to 401(k) participants (and ultimately Revlon Minority Stockholders); certain amendments to the Trust Agreement were requested by Revlon and agreed to by the Trustee to effect these purposes.  This also had the additional effect of preventing the independent directors of Revlon from being aware that an adequate consideration opinion would be rendered for the benefit of Revlon’s 401(k) Plan participants.

On September 28, 2009, the financial advisor to the 401(k) Plan rendered an adverse opinion that the Exchange Offer did not provide adequate consideration to 401(k) Plan participants.  As a result, the Trustee informed 401(k) Plan participants, as previously directed by Revlon, that the 401(k) Plan Trustee could not honor tender instructions because it would result in a “non-exempt prohibited transaction under ERISA.”  Revlon Minority Stockholders, including 401(k) Plan participants, were generally unaware that an unfavorable adequate consideration opinion had been delivered to the Trustee.

In the Revlon SEC Order, the SEC concluded that Revlon engaged in a series of materially misleading disclosures in violation of Rule 13e-3.  Despite disclosure in the Exchange Offer that the Revlon Board had approved the Exchange Offer and related transactions based upon the “totality of information presented to and considered by its members” and that such approval was the product of a “full, fair and complete” process, the SEC found that the process, in fact, was not full, fair and complete.  The SEC particularly found that the Board’s process “was compromised because Revlon concealed from both minority shareholders and from its independent board members that it had engaged in a course of conduct to ‘ring-fence’ the adequate consideration determination.”  The SEC further found that “Revlon’s ‘ring-fencing’ deprived the Board (and in turn Revlon Minority Stockholders) of the opportunity to receive revised, qualified or supplemental disclosures including any that might have informed them of the third party financial advisor’s determination that the transaction consideration to be received by the 401(k) members . . . was inadequate.”

Significance of the Revlon SEC Order.

The Revlon Order underscores the significance of transparency and fairness being extended to all unaffiliated stockholders in a Rule 13e-3 transaction, including the 401(k) Plan participants whose shares represented only 0.6 percent of the Revlon Minority Stockholder holdings.  Importantly, the SEC took exception to the fact that Revlon actively prevented the flow of information regarding fairness and found that the information should have been provided for the benefit of these participants, as well as all Revlon Minority Stockholders.  This result ensued despite the fact that Revlon’s Exchange Offer disclosures noted in detail the Special Committee’s inability to obtain a fairness opinion for the Merger Proposal and the substantially similar financial terms of the preferred stock offered in both the Merger Proposal and the Exchange Offer transactions.

Going Private Transactions are Subject to Heightened Review by the SEC and Involve Significant Risk, Including Personal Risk.

Going private transactions are vulnerable to multiple challenges, including state law fiduciary duty claims and wide ranging securities law claims, including claims for private damages as well as SEC civil money penalties.  In the Revlon transaction, the SEC Staff conducted a full review of the going private transaction filings.  Despite the significant substantive changes in disclosure brought about through the SEC comment process, the SEC subsequently pursued an enforcement action and prevailed against Revlon for civil money penalties.

Although the SEC sanction was limited in scope to Revlon, it is worth noting that the SEC required each of Revlon, M&F and M&F’s controlling stockholder, Ronald Perelman, to acknowledge (i) personal responsibility for the adequacy and accuracy of disclosure in each filing; (ii) that Staff comments do not foreclose the SEC from taking action including enforcement action with regard to the filing; and (iii) that each may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the SEC or any other person under securities laws.  Thus, in planning a going private transaction, an issuer and each affiliate engaged in the transaction (each, a Filing Person) must make these acknowledgements, which expose each Filing Person (including certain affiliates who may be natural persons) to potential damages and sanctions.

The SEC also requires Filing Persons to demonstrate in excruciating detail the basis for their beliefs regarding the fairness of the transaction.  These inquiries typically focus on the process followed in pursuing and negotiating the transaction, the procedural fairness associated with such process, and the substantive fairness of the overall transaction, including financial fairness.  As a result of this, each Filing Person (including certain natural persons) in a going private transaction should be prepared to diligently satisfy cumbersome process and fairness requirements as part of the pre-filing period deliberative process, and later stand behind extensive and detailed disclosures that demonstrate and articulate the basis of the procedural and substantive fairness of the transaction, including financial fairness.

Damages and Penalties in Going Private Transactions Can Be Significant.

It is worth noting that civil money penalties and settlements that have been announced to date by Revlon for its Exchange Offer going private transaction is approximately $30 million.  After factoring in professional fees, it would not be surprising that the total post-closing costs, penalties and settlements approach 50 percent of the implied total transaction value of all securities offered in the Exchange Offer transaction.  From this experience, it is obvious that costs, damages and penalties can be a significant component of overall transaction consideration, and these risks must be factored in as part of overall transaction planning at the outset.

Given the risks of post-transaction damages and costs, it is essential that future going private transactions be structured and executed by Filing Persons with the foregoing considerations in mind in order to advance a transaction with full transparency, a demonstrably fair procedural process and deal consideration that is substantively fair and demonstrably supportable as fair from a financial point-of-view.

Department of State Releases August 2013 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis logo

EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India advances by more than three years.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its August 2013 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the August 2013 Visa Bulletin Say?

The cutoff date in the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to India has advanced by three years and four months in an effort to fully utilize the numbers available under the annual limit. It is expected that such movement will generate a significant amount of demand from individuals chargeable to India during the coming months.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: A cutoff date of January 1, 2008 is now in effect for individuals in the EB-2 category from India, reflecting forward movement of three years and four months. A cutoff date of August 8, 2008 remains in effect from the July Visa Bulletin for individuals in the EB-2 category from China. The cutoff date remains current for individuals in the EB-2 category from all other countries.

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category for all countries, with minor forward movement for EB-3 individuals from the Philippines and no forward movement for EB-3 individuals from the rest of the world.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)
India: January 22, 2003 (no forward movement)
Mexico: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)
Philippines: October 22, 2006 (forward movement of 21 days)
Rest of the World: January 1, 2009 (no forward movement)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

In November 2012, the EB-2 category for individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India became current. This meant that EB-2 individuals chargeable to countries other than China and India could file AOS applications or have applications approved on or afterNovember 1, 2012. The August Visa Bulletin indicates that the EB-2 category will continue to remain current for these individuals through August 2013.

China

As with the July Visa Bulletin, the August Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of August 8, 2008 for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to August 8, 2008 may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

India

From October 2012 through the present, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India has been September 1, 2004. The August Visa Bulletin indicates forward movement of this cutoff date by more than three years to January 1, 2008. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 1, 2008 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in August 2013. The August Visa Bulletin indicates that this cutoff date has been advanced in an effort to fully utilize the numbers available under the EB-2 annual limit. It is expected that such movement will generate a significant amount of demand from individuals chargeable to India during the coming months.

This significant advancement in the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India will quite possibly be followed by significant retrogression in the new fiscal year. Consequently, AOS applications filed in September 2013 may be received and receipted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; however, adjudication could be delayed. Applications for interim benefits, including employment authorization and advance parole, should be adjudicated in a timely manner notwithstanding any possible retrogression of cutoff dates.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

In May, June, and July, the cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries advanced significantly in an attempt to generate demand and fully utilize the annual numerical limits for the category. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no additional forward movement in this category, with the exception of the Philippines, which advanced by 21 days.

China

The July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2009 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date prior to January 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

India

Additionally, the July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 22, 2003 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date prior to January 22, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

Rest of the World

The July Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2009 for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World. The August Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that individuals chargeable to all countries other than China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines with a priority date prior to January 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved through August 2013.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the August 2013 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website here.

Article By:

of