Category: Corporate Compliance

New Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules to Protect Telephone Consumers from Autodial/Robocalls

Lewis & Roca

On October 16, 2013, new Federal Communication Commission rules took effect to further protect consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). See 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The changes ordered by the FCC are designed to protect consumers from unwanted autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls, also known as “telemarketing robocalls.” The new TCPA rules accomplish four main things: (1) require prior written consent for all autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines; (2) require mechanisms to be in place that allow consumers to opt out of future robocalls even if during the middle of a current robocall; (3) limit permissible abandoned calls on a per-calling campaign basis in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns; and (4) exempt from TCPA requirements calls made to residential lines by health care related entities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. None of the FCC’s actions change the requirements for prerecorded messages that are non-telemarketing, informational calls such as calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt organizations, calls for political purposes, and calls for other non-commercial purposes including those to people in emergency situations.

Under the FCC’s new rules, “prior written consent” will require two things: a clear and conspicuous disclosure that by providing consent the consumer will receive auto-dialed or prerecorded calls on behalf of a specific seller, and a clear an unambiguous acknowledgement that the consumer agrees to receive such calls at the mobile number. The content and form of consent may include an electronic or digital form of signature such as the FTC has recognized under the E-SIGN Act. See Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. However, prior written consent may be terminated at any time. In addition, the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(v)(A)(ii).

Read the full rule here.

Article By:

A Tip For Dealing with Automatic Gratuities in 2014

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

A new Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“) rule, set to take effect in January 1, 2014, may eliminate a common practice in the restaurant industry. Often, an automatic gratuity, normally 18%, is added to the bill of large parties. Automatic gratuities were adopted by restaurant employers as a means for ensuring that servers do not get stiffed on expensive bills. Servers heavily rely on tips to supplement a salary that is often times lower than the federal minimum wage.

Traditionally, automatically-added gratuities have been classified as employee tips. As such, it is up to the employees to report the money as income. Starting in January, automatic gratuities will be categorized as “service charges” – making them regular wages and subject to payroll tax withholdings. Employers will have to track and report any automatic tips and will be required to include the “service charge” payments in employees’ W-2 wages. Further, employers will no longer be able to count these tips as a credit to reduce their minimum wage obligation. It is a lose-lose situation because servers will not see their automatic gratuity money until payday; making it more difficult to survive on a small salary.

Many major chains, like Olive Garden and Red Lobster, have eliminated automatic gratuities in response to the approaching deadline. For restaurants that opt to keep the automatic gratuity system, payroll accounting will become much more complicated. Tips from automatic gratuities will have to be factored into hourly pay rates, which means hourly rates could vary based on how many large parties are served in any given hour.

It would be wise for smaller restaurants to follow the chain restaurants’ lead by eliminating automatic gratuities altogether. Doing so will not only to lessen compliance requirements and tax burdens, but will also keep employees happy by ensuring that the tips they earn can immediately be pocketed.

Article By:

 of

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Adopts Rule Amendments to Implement JOBS Act Provisions for the Elimination of Prohibitions Against General Solicitation in Private Offerings

VedderPriceLogo

On July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted final amendments to Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act in order to implement Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act directed the SEC to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation in private security offerings made under Rule 506 provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. New Rule 506(c) permits issuers to use general solicitation and general advertising in private security offerings made under Rule 506 provided that: (1) the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that investors are accredited investors; (2) each investor qualifies, or the issuer reasonably believes that each investor qualifies, as an accredited investor at the time of the sale of securities; and (3) all terms and conditions of Rules 501, 502(a) and 502(d) are satisfied.

The SEC noted that whether the steps taken by an issuer to verify accredited investor status are “reasonable” is an objective determination based on the particular facts and circumstances of each investor and transaction. Factors to be considered in this analysis are:

(1) the nature of the purchaser and type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be;

(2) the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; and

(3) the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering, and the terms of the offering, such as the minimum investment amount.

In response to commenters’ requests, Rule 506(c) also provides a non-exclusive list of specific methods that investors may use to verify an investor’s accredited investor status. This list includes:

(1) with respect to verifying income, review copies of any IRS form that reports income (e.g., W-2, Form 1099 or a copy of a filed Form 1040), along with a written representation that the investor will likely continue to earn the necessary income in the current year;

(2) with respect to verifying net worth, review copies of bank statements, brokerage or other statements of securities holdings, or CDs for evidence of sufficient net worth, along with a credit report for evidence of total liabilities; or

(3) obtain a written confirmation from a broker-dealer, an investment adviser, a licensed attorney or a certified public accountant that such entity or person has taken reasonable steps to verify the investor’s accredited investor status.

Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act also directed the SEC to revise Rule 144A(d)(1) to provide that securities resold pursuant to Rule 144A may be offered, including by means of general solicitation, to persons other than  qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) as long as the securities are sold only to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe is a QIB. The SEC adopted amendments to Rule 144A as directed under the JOBS Act.

The rule amendments became effective on September 23, 2013.

 of

Financial Services Legislative and Regulatory Law Update – September 30, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the Past Week

Working through a rare weekend session, the Congress appeared no closer to being able to avoid a shutdown of the Federal Government.  Early Sunday morning the House sent back to the Senate its version of the spending bill, including two provisions – one delaying Obamacare for one year and the other repeals the medical device tax which helps fund the law.   While there are other differences in the bills – notably how long they keep the government operating, Leader Reid has made it clear that the Senate will strip out these two provisions when it meets at 2pm on Monday.  With the midnight Monday deadline quickly approaching, all sides appear resigned to a shutdown occurring and have turned their attention to positioning for the fallout.

While the political ramifications of a shutdown are unclear – with both sides believing that they will benefit, the practical results were announced late last week as various federal agencies disclosed how they will act starting on Tuesday.  For example on Friday, Treasury announced that a government shutdown would affect some activities, but that “critical functions” would continue. The IRS would have to pull back on some functions, such as fielding taxpayer queries, but other functions like managing the government’s funds, implementing tax policy would continue.  Other offices that are not funded under annual appropriations, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), or the GSE’s, would continue to operate as normal.   The CFTC also released a shutdown plan, which outlined the “vast bulk” of oversight and surveillance responsibilities would be stopped.   Perhaps most troubling for the economy is the fact that the shutdown will also prevent the FHA from processing mortgages, and with nearly 45% of the market using FHA backed mortgages, the fear of a disruption to the real estate market, and thus potentially the economy as a whole.

Although there are options that both sides have to avert, or at least delay the shutdown, it now seems more likely than not, that the time will run out and the government will shut down for the first time since 1996 later this week.

Legislative Branch

Senate

Senate Banking Examines TRIA Extension

On September 25th, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing to examine the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).  Similar to House hearing on the subject last week, the members of the Senate Banking Committee expressed general support for a reauthorization of the program but acknowledged that there is a need to evaluate and improve the program during an extension. For example, Ranking Member Crapo noted that several changes to the program which have been discussed are modifying the business deductible, changing the aggregate loss threshold, and instituting business co-insurance. Another option considered at the hearing for overhauling TRIA was instituting pre-funding of the government backstop. Lawmakers are also considering whether TRIA’s backstop should be extended to cover chemical, biological, radiological, cyber, and nuclear attacks

Majority of Senators Urge White House to Push for Currency Manipulation Protections in TPP

On September 24th, sixty senators signed onto a letter to the White House requesting the Obama Administration work to negotiate rules against currency manipulation as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other future trade deals. The letter was led by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) could complicate the Administration’s TPP talks with Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries. The House, led by Representative Sander Levin (D-MI), sent a similar letter to the White House over the summer. Levin, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee has said that “there is no point in negotiating a TPP agreement to eliminate import duties if countries are allowed to effectively re-impose those duties by manipulating their currencies.”

Senate Budget Committee Examines the Economic Effects of Political Uncertainty

As Congress continues to debate a final version of the CR to fund the government and with the debt ceiling deadline fast approaching, the Senate Budget Committee met to hear testimony from three economists on the economic effects of political uncertainty. Witnesses included Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics; Chad Stone, chief economist for the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities; and Allan Meltzer, Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University. Witnesses warned that a default would have a large effect on “everyday Americans” as it would become more difficult to get a mortgage, stock prices decline, and unemployment grows.

Senate Banking Subcommittee Explores Economic Conditions in India

On September 25th, the Senate Banking Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance held a hearing to consider investment and market access in India. Witnesses included Dr. Arvind Subramanian, Senior Fellow with the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics; Mr. Richard Rossow, Director for South Asia with McLarty Associates; and Dr. Reena Aggarwal, Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Finance at Georgetown University. The hearing came ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama.

House of Representatives

Lawmakers Question Big Banks on Student Debit Cards

On September 26th, Democratic lawmakers on the Education and Workforce Committee, joined by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), wrote to the CEOs of several large banks requesting they explain their student debit card agreements with colleges.  Copies of the letter were sent to Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, PNC Financial Services Group, SunTrust Banks, Inc., TCF Bank, Citigroup, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., and Higher One Holdings, Inc.

CBO Briefs House Committee on Budget Outlook

On September 26th, the House Budget Committee met to hear testimony from Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Doug Elmendorf on the nation’s long-term budget outlook. CBO’s most recent report was released on September 17th and notes that although in the short-term the budget will shrink, deficits are expected to begin to grow again after 2018.

Executive Branch

Federal Reserve

Basel Framework to Be Part of Stress Tests

On September 24th, the Federal Reserve announced two interim final rules clarifying how companies should incorporate Basel III regulatory capital requirements into their capital and business projections submitted as part of stress tests.  The first rule clarifies that during the upcoming stress test cycle, large banks with more than $50 billion in assets will be required to incorporate the Basel framework into their projections. The first interim final rule also directs banks to consider capital adequacy assessed against a minimum 5 percent tier 1 common ratio. The second rule provides a one-year transition period for stress test projections for most banking organizations with between $10 billion and $50 billion in total consolidated assets. The interim final rules are effective immediately but the Fed will accept comments through November 25th.

Banking Regulators Release Joint Guidance About Financial Abuse of Older Adults

On September 24th, regulators released joint guidance to clarify privacy provisions under the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, saying that it is generally permitted for financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate authorities. Regulators noted that, as older adults can be attractive targets for financial exploitation, employees of financial institutions that are able to spot irregularities or other signs of financial abuse can help protect against elder financial fraud. The guidance was released by the Federal Reserve, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

SEC

White Lays Out Enforcement, Implementation Priorities

On September 26th, speaking at the Council of Institutional Investors fall conference, Chairwoman Mary Jo White laid out the agency’s enforcement plans. White said that the SEC plans to shift its focus, to bring more cases against individuals who are in violation of securities law and to seek more mandatory compliance measures in settlements to prevent future wrongdoings. Earlier in the week, in a speech before the 2013 Bloomberg Markets 50 Summit, White also addressed enforcement, saying she has sought to make improvements to their operations, including by revising the “neither admit nor deny” policies. White also spoke to other items on the SEC’s regulatory agenda, telling summit participants that regulators have made “lots of progress” on finalizing a joint Volcker Rule and noting that the agency’s “highest immediate priority” is finalizing rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act and the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.

CFTC

CFTC Announces Phase in of Swap Execution Facility (SEF) Rules

On September 27th, the CFTC announced that it would delay enforcement of new rules for Swap Execution Facilities (SEF).  The rules were slated to take effect on October 2nd but the Commission received significant push back from industry stake holders.  For example, on September 23rd the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) wrote to the CFTC requesting the agency delay the rules governing swap execution facilities (SEFs).  In addition, it was clear that within the CFTC, there were some who agreed with the industry’s perspective, as on September 26thCommissioner Scott O’Malia said an extension of the SEF effective date would allow market participants time for a smooth transition and then Commissioner Chilton echoed these comments on September 27th, saying that the Commission should extend the compliance date by two months as soon as possible.   Later that day, the CFTC announced that the delay would extend to October 30th for foreign exchange (fx) swaps, and until December 2nd for commodity and equity swaps.

Agriculture Committee Leadership Ask CFTC to Use Caution Crafting Customer Protections

On September 25th, the leadership of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees wrote to the CFTC urging the agency to use caution when drafting futures consumer protection rules which could have a large impact on the agriculture sector. The CFTC proposed rules in October 2012 following the collapse of ML Global and Peregrine Financial that the agriculture sector has warned could prove costly to customers. Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) advised the CFTC that it should “weigh the benefits of these regulations against both the costs to America’s farmers and ranchers and the potential impact on consolidation in the industry.”

CFPB

Bureau and Jackson, Mississippi Begin 311 Line for Financial Issues

On September 20th, the CFPB and the City of Jackson, Mississippi announced a partnership to connect consumers with the CFPB to answer questions and submit complaints about financial products and services using their local 311 service.  Residents who dial 311 with a financial problem or complaint will be transferred directly to the Bureau where the CFPB will work with consumers on financial problems and handle consumer complaints on credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts or services, private student loans, consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, and debt collection.

CFPB Denies Petition to Dismiss Investigation of Tribal Lenders

On September 26th the CFPB denied a petition from three tribal payday lenders requesting that the CFPB end their investigation into whether the companies violated consumer laws. The lenders argued that the Bureau lacked the authority to make civil investigative demands to the companies due to sovereignty of the lenders via their affiliation with Native American tribes. In announcing the Bureau’s decision to proceed with the investigation, Director Cordray said that courts have agreed that “Indian tribes, like individual states, do not enjoy immunity from suits by the federal government.”

FHA

FHA to Draw on Treasury Funds to Cover Shortfall

On September 27th, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that it will need to draw on $1.7 billion from the Treasury in order to cover shortfalls in the mortgage insurance fund. The shortfall, though expected, was larger than the anticipated $942 million estimate that was included in the President’s FY2014 budget proposal. In a letter to Congress on the announcement, FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said that the “required mandatory appropriation is an accounting transfer and does not reflect an up-to-date view” of the long-term fiscal health of the insurance fund.

NCUA

NCUA Sues Firms Over MBS Credit Union Failures

On September 23rd, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) filed lawsuits against JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, Ally and Wachovia alleging the firms sold $2.4 billion in faulty mortgage-backed securities to two failed credit unions. Speaking on the suits, NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz said that credit unions the agency supervises are sharing the costs of the losses and “the people who are responsible should be required to shoulder that burden, as well.”

Miscellaneous

CRFP Examines Tax Exempt Status of IRAs

On September 27th, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released an analysis of the preferential tax treatment of the Individual Retirement Account (IRA). The report notes that IRAs hold less than 25 percent of all the nation’s retirement assets and are used by only 5 percent of workers. The analysis notes numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation which estimates that the subsidy will cost $15 billion in lost income tax revenue in 2013, or more than $250 billion over 10 years.

Upcoming Hearings

**(Schedule subject to change contingent on status of Federal Government)**

On Monday September 30th, in H-313 of The Capitol, the House Rules Committee will meet to consider a rule for H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, and H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act.

On Tuesday October 1st at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on legislative proposals intended to create more accountability and transparency to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

On Tuesday, October 1st at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled “Housing Finance Reform: Fundamentals of a Functioning Private Label Mortgage Backed Securities Market.”

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 10am, in 106 Dirksen, the Joint Economic Committee will hold a hearing on the economic outlook.

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on the status of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 2:30pm, in 538 Dirksen, the Economic Policy Subcommittee of Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on rebuilding American manufacturing.

On Wednesday, October 9th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on legislation that would attempt to reduce impediments to capital formation.

On Thursday, October 10th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine international central banking models.

On Thursday, October 10th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on un-banked and under-banked areas in the United States.

Article By:

 of

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.