Corporate Social Responsibility Archives

Unlike a Fine Wine, Tax Issues Do Not Get Better with Age

In a recent decision, the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal”) upheld notices of deficiency issued by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (the “Department”) totaling approximately $15 million in additional tax, plus interest and penalties for tax years dating as far back as 2002. In the Matter of the Petition of Cushlin Limited, DTA No. 829939 (TAT Oct. 10, 2024). The notices of deficiency came on the heels of an audit that lasted a decade and at the end of which the Department computed additional corporation franchise tax due “based on the information it had available” inasmuch as the information provided by the company over the 10-year audit was “incomplete and/or unsubstantiated.” This case is a cautionary tale for taxpayers and a reminder that tax issues do not get better with age, and delaying or putting off addressing known issues only makes the situation worse in the end.

The company was a corporation organized under the laws of The Isle of Man and was in the business of acquiring and refurbishing three- and four-star hotels. The company also owned equity interests in 13 limited liability companies (“LLCs”) that were doing business in New York. In 2008, the Department began an audit of one of the LLCs and discovered that it had sold real property in New York but did not file a New York State partnership tax return. As a result of its ownership interest in the LLCs, the Department determined that the company was required to file New York corporation franchise tax returns on which it was required to report the gains and losses of the LLCs. The audit of the company initially covered the tax years 2002 through 2006 and was later expanded to include 2007 through 2009.

From 2010 through 2013, the company and the Department communicated multiple times, and the company repeatedly stated that it was preparing tax returns for the audit years for the LLCs and the company and that it required more time to prepare those returns. In 2013, the company provided the Department with draft tax returns for the company and the LLCs. In May 2016, after another three years passed without final tax returns being filed, the Department informed the company that it was assessing additional corporation franchise tax computed based on the amounts in the draft returns plus interest and penalties. In June 2016, the company filed final tax returns for all of the audit years, and the final returns reflected income and deductions that were larger than the amounts previously included in the draft returns.

The Department then issued three information document requests over the next two years that requested information substantiating the deductions claimed on the filed returns. In response to these requests, the Tribunal found that the company “provided only partial responses that lacked any externally verifiable substantiation” and repeated Department requests were “met with partial, inconclusive responses.” Finally, in 2018, the Department issued the notices of deficiency that assessed the amount of additional corporation franchise tax that the Department had previously computed using the company’s draft returns plus updated additional interest and penalties. The company appealed and the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) sustained the notices finding: (1) that the company had failed to meet its burden of proving that the notices were incorrect; and (2) that penalties were properly imposed as the company also failed to demonstrate that its failure to file timely returns was a result of reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

The Tribunal agreed with the ALJ, concluding that there was a rational basis for the notices because “[w]orking without returns or supporting documentation more than six years after it began, the [Department] used the available information provided by petitioner, verified by other information contained in the [Department’s] own database, to arrive at a computation of tax due from petitioner.” Moreover, the Tribunal reasoned, the Department provided the company with numerous opportunities to substantiate the amounts that the company reported on its filed returns and the company’s failure to provide substantiating information left the Department with “little choice” but to “use another method to arrive at a determination of tax liability.” Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the ALJ correctly determined that penalties were properly imposed as the company did not meet its burden to demonstrate reasonable cause.

Shorter Path to Green Card: New USCIS Guidance for EB-1 Eligibility for Foreign Nationals With Extraordinary Ability

For foreign nationals with “extraordinary ability” in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics, the path to a green card normally has a much shorter route. The EB-1 extraordinary ability category is a type of employment-based, first-preference visa that has several advantages for a “small percentage of individuals” positioned to prove their expertise within a specific area. As indicated by the elite immigrant visa category, an extraordinary amount of documentation is required to meet the high threshold for EB-1 eligibility.

To provide an example of the evidentiary criteria, this category reserved for individuals with extraordinary ability requires that individuals demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim. To do so, applicants must meet at least three of the 10 criteria, or provide evidence of a major one-time achievement, such as a Pulitzer Prize, Oscar, or Olympic medal. In addition, applicants must provide evidence showing that they will continue to work in the area of expertise.

More specifically, the applicant must provide evidence of at least three of the following:

Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence
Membership in associations in the field which demand outstanding achievement of their members
Published material about the candidate in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Judgment of the work of others, either individually or on a panel
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance to the field
Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major media
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Performance of a leading or critical role in distinguished organizations
Command of a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field
Commercial successes in the performing arts

While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been consistent in detailing the criteria to be demonstrated, the specific evidence deemed acceptable has evolved over the lifetime of this visa category. Last September, USCIS updated its policy manual on employment-based first-preference (EB-1) immigrant petitions in the Extraordinary Ability classification. Specifically, USCIS provided examples of comparable evidence and the way in which USCIS will “consider any potentially relevant evidence.”

To further clarify the acceptable types of evidence, USCIS issued another policy manual update on Oct. 2. The most recent update provided additional clarification, stating:

“Confirms that we consider a person’s receipt of team awards under the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor;
Clarifies that we consider past memberships under the membership criterion;
Removes language suggesting published material must demonstrate the value of the person’s work and contributions to satisfy the published material criterion; and
Explains that while the dictionary defines an “exhibition” as a public showing not limited to art, the relevant regulation expressly modifies that term with “artistic,” such that we will only consider non-artistic exhibitions as part of a properly supported claim of comparable evidence.”

These clarifications likely will provide more consistency in the adjudication process.

This article was co-authored by Tieranny Cutler, independent contract attorney.

Filing Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act: Stealth Beneficial Owners

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) requires most entities to file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN,” a Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury) Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) about the individual persons who own and/or control the entities, unless an entity is exempt under the CTA from the filing requirement. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to comply with this requirement.

A key issue: WHO are the Beneficial Owners?

FinCEN has issued a series of Frequently Asked Questions along with responses providing guidance on the issue of who the beneficial owners are.

Question A-1, issued on March 24, 2023, states that “[BOI] refers to identifying information about the individuals who directly or indirectly own or control a company.”

Question A-2, issued on Sept. 18, 2023: Why do companies have to report beneficial ownership information to the U.S Department of the Treasury? defines the CTA as “…part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.”

Question D-1, updated April 18, 2024: Who is a beneficial owner of a reporting company? states that “A beneficial owner is an individual who either directly or indirectly (i) exercises substantial control over a reporting company” and, in referring to Question D-2 (What is substantial control?), “owns or controls at least 25 percent of a reporting company’s ownership interests.”

Question D-1 goes on to note that beneficial owners must be individuals, i.e., natural persons. This guidance is extended by Question D-2 on Substantial Control, where control includes the power of an individual who is an “important decision-maker.” Question D-3 (What are important decisions?) identifies “important decisions” with a pictorial chart of subject matters that FinCEN considers important, such as the type of business, the design of necessary financings, and the structure of the entity. Question D-4 explores ownership interests (again with a pictorial) including equity interests, profit interests, convertible securities, options, or “any other instrument, contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or mechanism used to establish ownership.”

Who, in FinCEN’s view, has “substantial control”?

Question D-2 lists four categories of those who have substantial control:

A senior officer, including both executive officers and anyone “who performs a similar function;”
An individual with “authority to appoint or remove certain officers or directors;”
An individual who is an important decision-maker; or
An individual with “any other form of substantial control.”

“Silent partners” and/or other undisclosed principals, including some who may be using the reporting company for nefarious purposes, might be discussed here, but that is not the intended subject of this writing. Rather, this piece is intended to warn businesspersons and their advisers of potential “stealth beneficial owners” – those whose status as beneficial owners is not immediately obvious.

First, consider the typical limited liability company Operating Agreement for an LLC with enough members and distribution of ownership interests so that no member owns over 25% of the LLC’s equity. If the LLC is manager-managed, then the manager(s) is/are Beneficial Owners, but the other members are not. But what if the Operating Agreement requires a majority or super-majority vote to approve certain transactions? Assuming that those transactions are “important” (as discussed in Question D-3), then possessing a potential veto power makes EACH member a beneficial owner. Such contractual limitations on executive power necessarily raise the issue of “beneficial ownership” in corporations, in limited liability companies, and even in limited partnerships where the Limited Partners have power to constrain the general partner (who clearly is a beneficial owner).

Second, consider the very recent amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) in response to the Delaware Chancery Court’s holding in West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co (“Moelis”) Feb. 23, 2024. In Moelis, the CEO had a contract with the Company that materially limited the power of the Board of Directors to act in a significant number of matters. Vice Chancellor Travis Laster issued a 133-page opinion finding the agreement was invalid, as it violated the Delaware Law that placed management and governance responsibilities in the Board. Because such arrangements are frequently used in venture capital arrangements as part of raising capital for new enterprises, the Delaware Legislature and the State’s Governor enacted amendments to the DGCL that expressly authorize such contracts. In the Moelis situation itself, Ken Moelis was a major owner and CEO so he would have had to be disclosed as a Beneficial Owner if Moelis & Co. had not been exempt from the filing requirements of the CTA because it is a registered investment bank.

But what of a start-up venture entity where a wealthy venture investor owns a 10% interest in the entity, but has a stockholder agreement that gives him substantial governance rights including the ability to veto or even overrule board decisions? Is that venture investor not a “beneficial owner”? Somewhat even more Baroque, what about the private equity fund controlled by a dominant investor, say William Ackman or Nelson Peltz? If that fund invests in the same start-up entity and holds a 10% interest, but also has a stockholder agreement giving the fund substantial governance rights, isn’t the controlling owner of the fund a “beneficial owner” of the start-up?

Finally, consider financing with a “bankruptcy remote entity” where the Board of that entity includes a contingent director chosen by the finance source. The contingent director does not participate in any part of the governance of the entity unless the entity finds itself in financial distress. The organizational documents of the entity provide that at that point, the contingent director can veto any decision to file for bankruptcy protection. At that point, the contingent director apparently becomes a “beneficial owner” of the entity, with the CTA filing requirements applicable. A more interesting question is whether the contingency arrangement in the organizational documents makes the contingent director a “beneficial owner” from the inception of the financing. Further, with respect to bankruptcy, key questions remain unanswered, such as whether the trustee in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding or a liquidating trustee in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding has a reporting obligation under the CTA.

This piece is not intended to identify all the situations that may give rise to “Stealth Beneficial Owners.” Rather, its intent is to raise awareness of the complexities involved in answering the initial question – WHO is a “beneficial owner”?

The Double-Edged Impact of AI Compliance Algorithms on Whistleblowing

As the implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) compliance and fraud detection algorithms within corporations and financial institutions continues to grow, it is crucial to consider how this technology has a twofold effect.

It’s a classic double-edged technology: in the right hands it can help detect fraud and bolster compliance, but in the wrong it can snuff out would-be-whistleblowers and weaken accountability mechanisms. Employees should assume it is being used in a wide range of ways.

Algorithms are already pervasive in our legal and governmental systems: the Securities and Exchange Commission, a champion of whistleblowers, employs these very compliance algorithms to detect trading misconduct and determine whether a legal violation has taken place.

There are two major downsides to the implementation of compliance algorithms that experts foresee: institutions avoiding culpability and tracking whistleblowers. AI can uncover fraud but cannot guarantee the proper reporting of it. This same technology can be used against employees to monitor and detect signs of whistleblowing.

Strengths of AI Compliance Systems:

AI excels at analyzing vast amounts of data to identify fraudulent transactions and patterns that might escape human detection, allowing institutions to quickly and efficiently spot misconduct that would otherwise remain undetected.

AI compliance algorithms are promised to operate as follows:

Real-time Detection: AI can analyze vast amounts of data, including financial transactions, communication logs, and travel records, in real-time. This allows for immediate identification of anomalies that might indicate fraudulent activity.
Pattern Recognition: AI excels at finding hidden patterns, analyzing spending habits, communication patterns, and connections between seemingly unrelated entities to flag potential conflicts of interest, unusual transactions, or suspicious interactions.
Efficiency and Automation: AI can automate data collection and analysis, leading to quicker identification and investigation of potential fraud cases.

Yuktesh Kashyap, associate Vice President of data science at Sigmoid explains on TechTarget that AI allows financial institutions, for example, to “streamline compliance processes and improve productivity. Thanks to its ability to process massive data logs and deliver meaningful insights, AI can give financial institutions a competitive advantage with real-time updates for simpler compliance management… AI technologies greatly reduce workloads and dramatically cut costs for financial institutions by enabling compliance to be more efficient and effective. These institutions can then achieve more than just compliance with the law by actually creating value with increased profits.”

Due Diligence and Human Oversight

Stephen M. Kohn, founding partner of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto LLP, argues that AI compliance algorithms will be an ineffective tool that allow institutions to escape liability. He worries that corporations and financial institutions will implement AI systems and evade enforcement action by calling it due diligence.

“Companies want to use AI software to show the government that they are complying reasonably. Corporations and financial institutions will tell the government that they use sophisticated algorithms, and it did not detect all that money laundering, so you should not sanction us because we did due diligence.” He insists that the U.S. Government should not allow these algorithms to be used as a regulatory benchmark.

Legal scholar Sonia Katyal writes in her piece “Democracy & Distrust in an Era of Artificial Intelligence” that “While automation lowers the cost of decision making, it also raises significant due process concerns, involving a lack of notice and the opportunity to challenge the decision.”

While AI can be used as a powerful tool for identifying fraud, there is still no method for it to contact authorities with its discoveries. Compliance personnel are still required to blow the whistle, given societies standard due process. These algorithms should be used in conjunction with human judgment to determine compliance or lack thereof. Due process is needed so that individuals can understand the reasoning behind algorithmic determinations.

The Double-Edged Sword

Darrell West, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute’s Center for Technology Innovation and Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies warns about the dangerous ways these same algorithms can be used to find whistleblowers and silence them.

Nowadays most office jobs (whether remote or in person) conduct operations fully online. Employees are required to use company computers and networks to do their jobs. Data generated by each employee passes through these devices and networks. Meaning, your privacy rights are questionable.

Because of this, whistleblowing will get much harder – organizations can employ the technology they initially implemented to catch fraud to instead catch whistleblowers. They can monitor employees via the capabilities built into our everyday tech: cameras, emails, keystroke detectors, online activity logs, what is downloaded, and more. West urges people to operate under the assumption that employers are monitoring their online activity.

These techniques have been implemented in the workplace for years, but AI automates tracking mechanisms. AI gives organizations more systematic tools to detect internal problems.

West explains, “All organizations are sensitive to a disgruntled employee who might take information outside the organization, especially if somebody’s dealing with confidential information, budget information or other types of financial information. It is just easy for organizations to monitor that because they can mine emails. They can analyze text messages; they can see who you are calling. Companies could have keystroke detectors and see what you are typing. Since many of us are doing our jobs in Microsoft Teams meetings and other video conferencing, there is a camera that records and transcribes information.”

If a company is defining a whistleblower as a problem, they can monitor this very information and look for keywords that would indicate somebody is engaging in whistleblowing.

With AI, companies can monitor specific employees they might find problematic (such as a whistleblower) and all the information they produce, including the keywords that might indicate fraud. Creators of these algorithms promise that soon their products will be able to detect all sorts of patterns and feelings, such as emotion and sentiment.

AI cannot determine whether somebody is a whistleblower, but it can flag unusual patterns and refer those patterns to compliance analysts. AI then becomes a tool to monitor what is going on within the organization, making it difficult for whistleblowers to go unnoticed. The risk of being caught by internal compliance software will be much greater.

“The only way people could report under these technological systems would be to go offline, using their personal devices or burner phones. But it is difficult to operate whistleblowing this way and makes it difficult to transmit confidential information. A whistleblower must, at some point, download information. Since you will be doing that on a company network, and that is easily detected these days.”

But the question of what becomes of the whistleblower is based on whether the compliance officers operate in support of the company or the public interest – they will have an extraordinary amount of information about the company and the whistleblower.

Risks for whistleblowers have gone up as AI has evolved because it is harder for them to collect and report information on fraud and compliance without being discovered by the organization.

West describes how organizations do not have a choice whether or not to use AI anymore: “All of the major companies are building it into their products. Google, Microsoft, Apple, and so on. A company does not even have to decide to use it: it is already being used. It’s a question of whether they avail themselves of the results of what’s already in their programs.”

“There probably are many companies that are not set up to use all the information that is at their disposal because it does take a little bit of expertise to understand data analytics. But this is just a short-term barrier, like organizations are going to solve that problem quickly.”

West recommends that organizations should just be a lot more transparent about their use of these tools. They should inform their employees what kind of information they are using, how they are monitoring employees, and what kind of software they use. Are they using detection? Software of any sort? Are they monitoring keystrokes?

Employees should want to know how long information is being stored. Organizations might legitimately use this technology for fraud detection, which might be a good argument to collect information, but it does not mean they should keep that information for five years. Once they have used the information and determined whether employees are committing fraud, there is no reason to keep it. Companies are largely not transparent about length of storage and what is done with this data and once it is used.

West believes that currently, most companies are not actually informing employees of how their information is being kept and how the new digital tools are being utilized.

The Importance of Whistleblower Programs:

The ability of AI algorithms to track whistleblowers poses a real risk to regulatory compliance given the massive importance of whistleblower programs in the United States’ enforcement of corporate crime.

The whistleblower programs at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) respond to individuals who voluntarily report original information about fraud or misconduct.

If a tip leads to a successful enforcement action, the whistleblowers are entitled to 10-30% of the recovered funds. These programs have created clear anti-retaliation protections and strong financial incentives for reporting securities and commodities fraud.

Established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Act, these programs have been integral to enforcement. The SEC reports that whistleblower tips have led to over $6 billion in sanctions while the CFTC states that almost a third of its investigations stem from whistleblower disclosures.

Whistleblower programs, with robust protections for those who speak out, remain essential for exposing fraud and holding organizations accountable. This ensures that detected fraud is not only identified, but also reported and addressed, protecting taxpayer money, and promoting ethical business practices.

If AI algorithms are used to track down whistleblowers, their implementation would hinder these programs. Companies will undoubtedly retaliate against employees they suspect of blowing the whistle, creating a massive chilling effect where potential whistleblowers would not act out of fear of detection.

Already being employed in our institutions, experts believe these AI-driven compliance systems must have independent oversight for transparency’s sake. The software must also be designed to adhere to due process standards.

For more news on AI Compliance and Whistleblowing, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

DOJ Plan to Offer Whistleblower Awards “A Good First Step”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) will launch a whistleblower rewards program later this year, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, announced today. Monaco stated that other U.S. whistleblower award programs, such as the SEC, CFTC, IRS and AML programs, “have proven indispensable” and that the DOJ plans to offer awards for tips not covered under these programs.

“This is a good first step, but the Justice Department has miles to go in creating a whistleblower program competitive with the programs managed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC),” said Stephen M. Kohn.

“We hope that the DOJ will follow the lead of the SEC and CFTC and establish a central Whistleblower Office that can accept anonymous and confidential complaints. Such a program has been required under the anti-money laundering whistleblower law for over three years, but Justice has simply failed to follow the law,” added Kohn, who also serves as Chairman of the Board of the National Whistleblower Center.

According to Monaco, “under current law, the Attorney General is authorized to pay awards for information or assistance leading to civil or criminal forfeitures” but this authority has never been used “as part of a targeted program.” The DOJ is “launching a 90-day sprint to develop and implement a pilot program, with a formal start date later this year,” she stated.

While the specifics of the program have yet to be announced, Monaco did state that the DOJ will only offer awards to individuals who were not involved in the criminal activity itself.

“The Justice Department’s decision to exclude persons who may have had some involvement in the criminal activity is a step backwards and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding as to why the Dodd-Frank and False Claims Acts work so well,” continued Kohn. “When the False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 it was widely understood that the award laws worked best when they induced persons who were part of the conspiracy to turn in their former associates in crime. Justice needs to understand that by failing to follow the basic tenants of the most successful whistleblower laws ever enacted, their program is starting off on the wrong foot.”

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

SEC Issues Long-Awaited Climate Risk Disclosure Rule

INTRODUCTION

On Wednesday, 6 March 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved its highly anticipated final rules on “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors” by a vote of 3-2, with Republican Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda dissenting. Accompanying the final rules was a press release and fact sheet detailing the provisions of the rulemaking. The final rules will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and will include a phased-in compliance period for all registrants.

This is likely to be one of the most consequential rulemakings of Chairman Gary Gensler’s tenure given the prioritization of addressing climate change as a key pillar for the Biden administration. However, given the significant controversy associated with this rulemaking effort, the final rules are likely to face legal challenges and congressional oversight in the coming months. As such, it remains unclear at this point whether the final rules will survive the forthcoming scrutiny.

WHAT IS IN THE RULE?

According to the SEC’s fact sheet:

“The final rules would require a registrant to disclose, among other things: material climate-related risks; activities to mitigate or adapt to such risks; information about the registrant’s board of directors’ oversight of climate-related risks and management’s role in managing material climate-related risks; and information on any climate-related targets or goals that are material to the registrant’s business, results of operations, or financial condition.
Further, to facilitate investors’ assessment of certain climate-related risks, the final rules would require disclosure of Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a phased-in basis by certain larger registrants when those emissions are material; the filing of an attestation report covering the required disclosure of such registrants’ Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, also on a phased-in basis; and disclosure of the financial statement effects of severe weather events and other natural conditions including, for example, costs and losses.
The final rules would include a phased-in compliance period for all registrants, with the compliance date dependent on the registrant’s filer status and the content of the disclosure.”

NEXT STEPS

The final rules are likely to face significant opposition, including legal challenges and congressional oversight. It is expected that there will be various lawsuits brought against the final rules, which are likely to receive support from several industry groups, or potentially GOP-led state attorneys general who have been active in litigating against environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies and regulations. It is also possible that the final rules could face criticism from some climate advocates that the SEC did not go far enough in its disclosure requirements.

Further, it is expected that the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) will conduct oversight hearings, as well as introduce a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), to attempt to block the regulations from taking effect. HFSC Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) indicated that the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a field hearing on March 18 and the full Committee will convene a hearing on April 10 to discuss the potential implications of the rules. If a CRA resolution were to pass the House and garner sufficient support from moderate Democrats in the Senate to pass, it would likely be vetoed by President Biden.

Ultimately, the SEC climate risk disclosure rules are unlikely to significantly change the trajectory of corporate disclosures made by multinational companies based in the U.S., most of whom have already been making sustainability disclosures in accordance with the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. The ongoing problem for investors is that such disclosures are not standardized and therefore are not comparable. Consequently, many of these large issuers may continue to enhance their sustainability disclosures in accordance with standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board and the Global Reporting Initiative as an investor relations imperative notwithstanding the SEC’s timetable for implementation of these final rules.

A more detailed analysis of the SEC rules is forthcoming from our Corporate and Asset Management and Investment Funds practices in the coming days.

Oil Pollution Act: Tips for Spill Response, Compliance, and Enforcement

Oil spills commonly occur when least expected and, even in smaller quantities can significantly disrupt business operations and create risks for enforcement and/or litigation. It’s important that companies are prepared and know the environmental requirements for when the least expected happens, including understanding what actually is “oil” (hint: it’s broader than you might think!), who to notify, legal authorities at play, and best practices to ensure compliance and minimize exposure to regulators and/or private parties.

What is “Oil” Anyway?

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) make up the federal statutory framework for oil spills. However, many companies may not realize that both petroleum-based and non-petroleum-based substances are regulated as “oil” under the CWA and OPA. As a result, many companies may not realize that they are subject to these laws and, therefore, fail to adequately prepare for compliance and/or response both pre- and post-spill.

Specifically, Section 311(a)(1) of the CWA defines oil as “oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” 40 CFR § 112.2 further defines oil as “oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: fats, oils, or greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils, mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil.” This definition is notably broader than what many may consider “oil” (i.e., crude oil and refined petroleum products) and encompasses animal fats, vegetable oils, and non-petroleum oils.

When to Notify?

The CWA and OPA require companies to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of oil spills as soon as they are discovered (i.e., within 15 minutes). This applies to all discharges that reach navigable waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) or adjoining shorelines and (1) cause a sheen; (2) violate applicable water quality standards; or (3) cause a sludge or emulsion beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines. In practice, this typically results from a sheen, which 40 C.F.R. § 110.1 defines as an “iridescent appearance on the surface of water.” The Oil Pollution Prevention regulations (discussed further below) also identify discharges from regulated facilities that require reporting, though there are exceptions—for example, when the discharge is in compliance with a permit under Section 402 of the CWA.

Under state and local laws, notification may be much more stringent. For example, California requires immediate reporting of “any significant release or threatened release” of a hazardous material, which includes oil. This can be subjective and requires a fact- and legal-specific evaluation of whether the release qualifies as “threatened” and/or “significant.” In Georgia, immediate notification is required either when the oil creates a “significant sheen on top of state waters” or when the amount discharged is unknown—further creating different criteria for when reporting is required. Regardless of what triggers notification, it is important that companies understand that different agencies—federal, state, and local—may each have different reporting requirements, and accurate and timely reporting is absolutely crucial. Often, failure to timely report is the first violation sought by agencies and can result in increased penalties and additional scrutiny.

What Authorities Are at Play?

At the federal level, two agencies primarily exercise authority over oil spills—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Coast Guard (CG). Depending on the location of the spill, the EPA or CG may lead federal oversight with the EPA overseeing inland spills and CG overseeing offshore spills. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration may also exercise authority for pipeline or railroad releases, respectively.

As mentioned above, Section 311 of the CWA and OPA—enacted in 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill—make up the federal statutory framework for oil spills. In practice, these authorities are best categorized into two areas: (1) oil spill response; and (2) oil spill prevention and preparedness. It is important for companies to understand the expectations for both (discussed in more detail below), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (often referred to as the National Contingency Plan or NCP), which outlines the federal government’s cleanup strategy for responding to oil spills, including other cleanups under CERCLA. The goal of the NCP is to ensure that resources are available and responses are consistent. Thus, when the federal government oversees a cleanup, the federal On-Scene Coordinator will expect that all response efforts, including those conducted by the responsible party, are consistent with the NCP.

At the state level, most utilize their respective water laws to address oil spills, though some states, like Louisiana, have laws comparable to OPA. At the local level, municipalities have notification and emergency response authorities that will be applicable. In the end, it’s very important that companies understand that several layers of government may have some form of oversight depending on the size, impact, and location of an oil spill.

OPA v. CWA

While the CWA and OPA are complimentary, including OPA amending the CWA, companies should understand the goals and implications of both. Generally, the CWA focuses on oil spill enforcement for cleanups and penalties, and the OPA broadens national and regional capability for preventing, responding to, and paying for oil spills.

For the CWA, Section 311(b)(3) expressly prohibits the discharge of oil (or hazardous substances) into or upon WOTUS and adjoining shorelines in quantities that may be harmful.¹ For oil, this generally means discharges to WOTUS that cause sheening or violate applicable water quality standards. Sections 311(c) and (e) of the CWA provide extensive authority to the federal government to respond to these discharges, including threatened discharges, by issuing orders—either unilaterally or by consent—to owners, operators, or persons in charge of the facility from which the discharge occurs.

Sections 311(b)(6) and (7) of the CWA further empower the federal government to pursue significant penalties—both administrative and civil—for spills that reach WOTUS and/or when responsible parties fail to comply with an order. If gross negligence or willful misconduct is involved, you can expect even greater penalties—commonly more than three-fold—not to mention possible criminal liability. Internally, the EPA utilizes the Civil Penalty Policy for Sections 311(b)(3) and (j) of the CWA and factors outlined in Section 311(b)(8) of the CWA, including the seriousness of the violation, economic benefit to the responsible party, history of prior violations, and efforts to minimize or mitigate the discharge, to evaluate enforcement and penalty calculations.

Akin to the CWA, Section 2702(a) of OPA also makes responsible parties liable for removal costs and natural resource damages resulting from any discharge of oil, including a substantial threat of discharge, to WOTUS and adjoining shorelines. Notably, this includes not only costs incurred by the federal government, but also costs or damages to private parties, including damages for the loss of personal property, loss of revenues/profits due to injury, and cost of additional services during or after a spill. OPA further aims to strengthen national and regional response strategies, amend the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, require facilities to develop prevention and response plans, and establish a fund for damages and cleanup costs—each discussed below.

While it is typically always the priority of the federal government to have responsible parties pay for and conduct their own spill cleanups, when a responsible party is unknown, unable, or refuses to pay, funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) can be utilized to pay for the response. The OSLTF is managed by the CG’s National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) and the NPFC thereby manages any oversight or cleanup costs incurred by the federal government. Thus, if an oil spill occurs at your facility and the federal government incurs costs responding or overseeing, the NPFC will be the entity that seeks recovery of those costs—even if the EPA later pursues penalties for the same discharge pursuant to Sections 311(b)(6) and (7) of the CWA. In addition, when a non-liable party performs a cleanup or incurs damages as a result of an oil spill, that party may file a claim for reimbursement directly against the responsible party and/or seek reimbursement from the NPFC.

Lastly, regarding liability, both the CWA and OPA are strict liability and provide limited liability defenses for acts of God, acts of war, or acts/omissions of third parties—comparable to CERCLA. Even so, it’s important to note that Section 309(g)(6) of the CWA states that the federal government may not seek enforcement, including penalties, if the state “has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action” under a comparable state law. This includes issuing a final order or directing a responsible party to pay a penalty. As mentioned above, states typically pursue oil spill violations via their respective water laws, which may be considered comparable. State penalties may often be substantially less than those sought by the federal government—thus, early engagement with the state can be advantageous depending on the circumstances.

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

Section 311(j) of the CWA and OPA, as outlined in 40 C.F.R. Part 112, require facilities that store oil in significant quantities to prepare Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans to prevent accidental releases from reaching WOTUS or adjoining shorelines. Facilities with a greater risk of release and impact to WOTUS may also be required to develop a Facility Response Plan (FRP) to prepare for “worst-case spills.” At the outset, companies should confirm whether these regulations are applicable to their operations and facilities.

SPCC plans are required for facilities that are: (1) non-transportation-related (i.e., they store, process, or consume oil rather than simply move it from one facility to another); and (2) collectively store more than 1,320 gallons of oil above ground or 42,000 gallons below ground that could reasonably be expected to discharge oil to a WOTUS or adjoining shorelines. This can include oil drilling and production facilities, oil refineries, industrial, commercial, and agricultural facilities storing/using oil, facilities that transfer oil via pipelines or tank trucks (including airports), and facilities that sell or distribute oil, like marinas. Practically, these regulations require facilities to have a written plan certified by a professional engineer (apart from qualified facilities), maintain adequate secondary containment for oil storage, maintain updated lists of the federal, state, and local agencies that must be contacted in case of a spill, and follow regular inspection requirements, among other requirements.

In addition to SPCC, FRP plans are required for facilities that could reasonably expect to cause “substantial harm” to the environment by discharging oil into or upon WOTUS. They either have: (1) total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons and transfer oil over water to/from vessels; or (2) total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to 1 million gallons and either do not have sufficient secondary containment, are located at a distance such that a discharge could cause “injury” to habitat or shut down a drinking water intake, or within the past five years, have had a reportable discharge greater than or equal to 10,000 gallons. If so, given that FRP is self-identifiable, the facility must prepare and submit its FRP plan to its applicable EPA regional office. Among other things, these plans include evaluating , medium, and worst-case discharge scenarios, descriptions and records of self-inspections, drills, and response training, and diagrams of the facility site plan, drainage, and evacuation plan.

EPA commonly conducts inspections at subject facilities to ensure that SPCC and FRP plans are effectively implemented. Should your facility have an oil spill, plan on an inspection very soon to evaluate compliance and mitigation efforts with your respective requirements.

Suggested Actions

Beyond being aware of the above implications and requirements, below are several actions to consider to ensure compliance and minimize possible enforcement and/or litigation when the least expected occurs.

Act Fast: Should an oil spill occur, regardless of size, act fast to respond, mitigate, and determine if notification is required. This includes immediate internal coordination with those responsible for responding, as well as outreach to your environment counsel and/or consultant. If the determination for reporting is close, it is recommended that you report (with a qualified caveat) rather than withhold.
Education and Training: Ensure your staff is trained to effectively respond to, report, and prevent oil spills. Oil spills happen despite best attempts otherwise. When the inevitable happens, make sure facility staff are prepared to respond and mitigate the potential impacts of the spill, including having spill reporting hotlines and other contact numbers easily accessible and staff trained on where all information is located. Also, learn from past spills and/or near spills by conducting evaluations and identifying lessons learned to be utilized to prevent future spills.
Prepare for Outside Communication: If the spill is significant or causes public impacts, be prepared for outreach by the public, including local news and community groups. Notifications to the NRC are available online and impacts to public or private property often lead to alerts to local news and organizations. Ensure your public affairs contact(s) are aware and develop necessary communication, including desk statements, should the spill create public attention.
Review Compliance: Evaluate your current compliance with federal, state, or local requirements, including the development, assessment, and update (if needed) of SPCC and/or FRP response plans. This includes determining if either or both are required at your facility. Should a spill occur, it is important to make sure your response plans are up-to-date and ready for implementation.
Regular Audits and Updates: Periodically audit your spill response and prevention measures (SPCC and FRP plans), including any changes to facility operations, secondary containment features, or volumes of oil stored, to identify and correct inaccuracies and ensure that your plans are up-to-date. For FRP, this includes submitting updates to the appropriate EPA regional office within 60 days of each change that may materially affect the response to a worst-case discharge.
Insurance: Though not always necessary, consider appropriate insurance coverage to mitigate potential financial liabilities.
Consultation: If you have any doubts about your obligations during an oil spill or need assistance with compliance, please do not hesitate to contact your environment counsel or consultants for guidance and support.

¹ While this discussion focuses on the impacts of oil spills, it’s important to remember that Section 311 of the CWA (though not OPA) also applies to hazardous substances—discharges to a WOTUS that exceed a reportable quantity pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 117.3—though the federal government may typically utilize the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), or combination thereof, to pursue such releases.

A New Year for Whistleblowers? Emergency Action Needed to Make Current Whistleblower Laws Work

In 2021 the White House, in conjunction with every major executive agency, approved The United States Strategy on Countering Corruption. In this authoritative and non-partisan Anti-Corruption Strategy, the United States for the first time formally recognized the key role whistleblowers play in detecting fraud and corruption. Based on these findings it declared that it was the official policy of the United States to “stand in solidarity” with whistleblowers, both domestically and internationally. As part of the Anti-Corruption Strategy the United States recognized that whistleblower qui tam reward laws must play a major role in combating financial frauds, such as money laundering. The proven ability of whistleblowers to detect fraud among corporate and government elites led the United States government to formally identify them as key players in preventing fraud, strengthening democratic institutions, and combating corruption that threatens U.S. national security.

Despite these findings, leading federal agencies responsible for enforcing whistleblower rights have failed to implement the U.S. Anti-Corruption Strategy’s whistleblower-mandates. Many of their current rules and practices directly undercut and undermine the very whistleblower rights identified by the White House Strategy as playing an essential role in combating corruption.

The 118^th Congress will end on January 3, 2025. Thus, there is one year remaining for Congress and the current-sitting executive officers to act on a number of pending whistleblower initiatives, all of which have strong bipartisan support, are based on the plain meaning of laws already passed by Congress, and which are individually or collectively essential for the implementation of the U.S. Anti-Corruption Strategy. Outside of political interference by those who stand to lose when whistleblowers are incentivized and protected, there is no legitimate reason why these reforms cannot be quickly approved. The actions listed below are needed for the Strategy to be implemented, but whose approval has been stalled or blocked by resistant executive agencies or a timid Congress:

AML Whistleblower Regulations. The Treasury Department must enact regulations fully implementing the money laundering and sanctions whistleblower provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. This law has been in effect since January 1, 2021, but Treasury has failed to implement the required regulations. Congress did its job, but Treasury has dropped the ball on approving the regulations necessary to ensure that the law is enforced. President Biden must demand that his Secretary of Treasury fully implement the anti-corruption Strategy his White House has approved as a critical national security measure.
Justice Department Whistleblower Regulations. Since January 1, 2021 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been required, as a matter of law, to accept anonymous and confidential whistleblower disclosures concerning violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, including illegal money laundering and the use of crypto currency exchanges to facilitate violations of law. In December 2022, this requirement was by law extended to whistleblowers, worldwide, who wish to report violations of sanctions covering Russia, Hamas, ISIS, and other covered entities. In contempt of its legal requirements the Justice Department has ignored this law, and has failed to adopt regulations permitting anonymous whistleblowing. Congress did its job, Justice has dropped the ball. President Biden must demand that his Attorney General fully implement the anti-corruption Strategy his White House has approved as a critical national security measure.
SEC Whistleblower Regulations. Although the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Whistleblower Program has radically improved since its failure to respond to whistleblower disclosures regarding the fraudster Bernie Madoff, regulations approved over 12-years ago continue to violate the statutory rights granted whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Act and strip otherwise qualified whistleblowers of their rights. For example, although the law gives whistleblowers the right to provide “original information” to the SEC through a news media disclosure, the SEC has never enforced this right. This has resulted in numerous extremely important whistleblowers to be denied protection or compensation. In the context of foreign corruption, DOJ statistics inform that 20% of all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases (which are covered under Dodd-Frank) are based on news media disclosures. Based on these numbers, one in five whistleblowers who report foreign corruption are illegally denied compensation under current SEC rules. An audit by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development released data regarding how whistleblowers were being harmed by the SEC’s interpretation of the law, including the failure to protect whistleblowers who make initial reports to international regulatory or law enforcement agencies, even if these agencies work closely with the United States. The SEC can resolve these issues by issuing clarifying decisions and exemptions consistent with the plain meaning of the Dodd Frank law and Congress’ clear intent. President Biden must demand that his appointments to the SEC fully implement the anti-corruption Strategy his White House approved.
Stop Repeal by Delay. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the SEC both fail to compensate whistleblowers in a timely manner. These delays, which the IRS admits average over 10-years, cause untold hardship to whistleblowers, many of whom have lost their jobs and careers, and their only hope for economic survival is the compensation promised under law. In response to these untenable and unjustifiable delays, Congress has introduced two laws to expedite paying legally required compensation to whistleblowers, the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act and S. 625, the IRS Whistleblower Reform Act. Both amendments have strong bipartisan support and should be/could be passed quickly. See https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-warren-reintroduce-bill-to-strengthen-sec-whistleblower-program and https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-wyden-wicker-cardin-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-strengthen-irs-whistleblower-program.
Strengthen the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblower qui tam provision has proven to be the most effective law ever passed protecting the government from greedy contractors, fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, and from criminal procurement practices. Over $70 billion has been recovered by the taxpayers directly from fraudsters, and countless billions has also been paid in criminal fines. Two bipartisan amendments to the FCA are languishing in Congress. The first is designed to prevent federal contractors from colluding with government officials when trying to justify their frauds. The second permits the federal government to administratively sanction contractors in smaller cases, where prosecutors rarely file charges in court. The Administrative False Claims Act, S. 659, has been unanimously passed by the Senate but is stalled in the House of Representatives. The False Claims Act Amendment targeting collusion has strong bipartisan support, but is awaiting votes in Congress. See https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-close-loophole-in-fight-against-fraud https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/bipartisan-fraud-fighting-bill-unanimously-passes-senate.
Pass the CFTC Fund Improvement Act. The whistleblower reward law covering violations of the Commodity Exchange Act has proven successful beyond the wildest dreams of Congress. Billions upon billions in sanctions has been recovered from fraudsters who have manipulated markets ripping off consumers across the globe. These unprecedented whistleblower-triggered prosecutions have created an unintended problem: there are inadequate funds available to compensate whistleblowers as required under law. It is unconscionable for Congress to pass a law mandating that whistleblowers obtain compensation when they risk their jobs, reputations, and even their lives to serve the public interest, but then refuse to allocate funding to pay the mandatory rewards. The CFTC Fund Improvement Act, S. 2500, which has strong bipartisan support, would fix this problem. It needs to be immediately passed. Congress must live up to its promises. See https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-nunn-and-hassan-lead-bipartisan-bicameral-effort-to-bolster-successful-whistleblower-program.
Demand that Federal Agencies Respect, Honor, and Compensate Whistleblowers. One of the most unacceptable and unjustifiable hardships facing whistleblowers is the continued resistance to protecting whistleblowers in numerous (most) federal agencies. This is exemplified by the complete failure of agencies to use their discretionary powers to protect or compensate whistleblowers. The Department of Commerce/NOAA can reward whistleblowers who report illegal fishing or “IUU” fishing violations and crimes committed by large ocean fishing boats operated by countries like China. Yet they have repeatedly failed to implement their whistleblower laws. The same can be said of the Department of Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service which have ignored the Lacey and Endangered Species Acts’ strong whistleblower reward provisions, allowing billions in illegal international wildlife trafficking to fester. Likewise, the Coast Guard largely ignores the whistleblower provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, turning down numerous whistleblower tips and failing to conduct investigations. Worse still, is the Justice Department’s penchant for prosecuting whistleblowers – even those who report crimes voluntarily to the Department pursuant to whistleblower disclosure laws. President Biden must take action and demand that all executive agencies use their discretionary authorities permitted under law to incentivize and protect whistleblowers consistent with the anti-corruption Strategy his administration has approved.

A first step in changing the anti-whistleblower culture that undermines the public interest within most federal agencies is for the President to enforce the National Whistleblower Appreciation Day resolution that has been unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate over the past ten years. The resolution urges every executive agency to acknowledge the contributions of whistleblowers and educate their workforce as to these contributions. See https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ten-years-running-grassley-wyden-lead-whistleblower-appreciation-day-resolution (S. Res. 298).

The importance of President Biden’s requiring all federal agencies to institute to Senate resolution is clear, based on the text of the resolution asking that all agencies “inform[] employees, contractors working on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States, and members of the public about the legal right of a United States citizen to ‘blow the whistle’ to the appropriate authority by honest and good faith reporting of misconduct, fraud, misdemeanors, or other crimes; and acknowledging the contributions of whistleblowers to combating waste, fraud, abuse, and violations of laws and regulations of the United States.”

These seven reforms all have bipartisan support and/or can be immediately implemented through executive action. There is simply no justification for delaying the implementation of these minimum and absolutely necessary reforms.

But the buck does not stop at the top. Strong and vocal public support can push all of these bipartisan reforms across the finish line. The American people – across all demographics, stand behind whistleblowers. How do we know this? The highly respected Marist polling agency conducted a scientifically valid survey of “likely American voters.” Their findings speak for themselves:

86% of Americans want stronger whistleblower protections
44% of “likely voters” state that the position of candidates on this issue would impact their vote.

Despite the divisions within American society the Marist Poll findings demonstrated that the American public is united in supporting whistleblowers:

84% of people without a college education want stronger protection for whistleblowers
89% of people with a college education want stronger protection for whistleblowers
85% of people earning under $50,000 want stronger protection for whistleblowers
89% of people earning over $50,000 want stronger protection for whistleblowers
86% of people living in urban areas want stronger protection for whistleblowers
83% of people living in rural areas want stronger protection for whistleblowers
86% of women want stronger protection for whistleblowers
87% of men want stronger protection for whistleblowers
88 % of Independents want stronger protection for whistleblowers
78 % of Republicans want stronger protection for whistleblowers
94 % of Democrats want stronger protection for whistleblowers

The only thing holding back effective whistleblower laws in the United States is the lobbying power of special interests and powerful government officials’ hostility toward dissent. This must end. Whistleblowing has proven to be the most effective means to detect waste, fraud, abuse and threats to the public health and safety. The United States Strategy on Countering Corruption represents a roadmap for action. It’s time for the President, Congress and those running agencies such as the Department of Treasury and the SEC to get the job done.

by: Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

For more news on Current Whistleblower Laws, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Climate Disclosures Continuing to Increase Among Major Companies

According to a recent ESG report from the Conference Board, the number of major companies issuing climate change risk factor disclosures has increased significantly over the past two years. Specifically, of the companies in the S&P 500, only 64.2% disclosed climate change risk disclosures in 2021, but fully 84% did so in 2023. Similarly, over the same time frame, the percentage of companies disclosing climate change risk factors among the Russell 3000 increased from 29.6% to 64.0%. Other relevant ESG factors–e.g., the disclosure of climate change policy, climate change opportunities, or board responsibility for climate-related risks–displayed similar levels of increase over the same time period. Notably, though, the Conference Board also acknowledged that larger companies were more likely to engage in this type of disclosure than smaller companies, and, unsurprisingly, that “[c]limate risk disclosure was most prevalent in sectors with existing regulatory and reputational risks related to climate change, including utilities (93%), real estate (77%), and energy (75%).”

This increase in climate change risk disclosure–even in the absence of action by a national regulator in the United States, as the SEC has still not promulgated requirements for climate disclosures–indicates the appetite for this sort of disclosure among investors despite the lack of a national mandate. (Of course, many of these companies may also be subject to other mandatory disclosure regimes, such as the EU or California.) Still, other types of ESG disclosures or governance changes that are arguably more intrusive remain less common–the number of companies that link executive compensation to carbon footprint and emission reduction performance metrics remains below 50% for the S&P 500 and under 25% for Russell 3000 companies.

While this report contains a significant amount of useful information and statistics, there are certain key take-aways that are readily apparent: (1) the pressure to disclose ESG metrics has increased over time; (2) this pressure exists even without federal regulation; and (3) increasing number of companies are disclosing certain, albeit not all, ESG metrics.

Climate risk disclosures increased in 2022 from the previous year, with S&P 500 companies still the most likely to disclose; specifically, 60% of companies in the Russell 3000 Index still did not report climate risk in 2022, compared to only 26% of companies in the S&P 500. Climate risk disclosure was most prevalent in sectors with existing regulatory and reputational risks related to climate change, including utilities (93%), real estate (77%), and energy (75%). The lowest rates of climate risk disclosure were in health care (15%), communication services (23%), and IT (24%).

Legal News Reach Episode 7: Creating A Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment

National Law Review Web Content Specialist Shelby Garrett closes out Legal News Reach Season 2 with an impactful minisode featuring Stacey Sublett Halliday, Principal and DEI Committee Chair with Beveridge & Diamond. Diversity, equity, and inclusion look different for every law firm, and smaller firms like B&D have to be even more resourceful in their approach to fostering dynamic work environments. How can firms use organizational partnerships to augment their internal DEI strategies?

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Shelby Garrett

Thank you for turning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Shelby Garrett, Web Publication Specialist with the National Law Review, and this episode I’m super excited because I will be speaking to Stacey Halliday, an environmental justice attorney with leadership roles with the American Bar Association and the Environmental Law Institute. Hi, Stacey.

Stacey Halliday

Hi, Shelby, thank you so much. And thank you National Law Review for having me today.

Shelby Garrett

Of course! To kick things off, would you mind telling us a little bit about your background in legal and what led you to pursue a career in law?

Stacey Halliday

Sure. I’m a shareholder at Beverage & Diamond, and we’re an environmental law firm. I’m based out of Washington DC. As you mentioned, a large part of my practice involves counseling clients on environmental justice, identifying risks, opportunities, and helping them incorporate EJ in their work. And I also have a broader practice on ESG issues and product stewardship, so things like sustainability disclosures, ratings and rankings, green marketing compliance and circular economy, that sort of thing. I started the firm a million years ago, longer than I’d like to admit, and had the privilege of also spending two years in the middle of that as an Obama appointee at the US Environmental Protection Agency in the Office of General Counsel so…bounced around a little bit. It’s been a long journey, I sort of wandered into environmental law by happenstance, but it’s been an incredible journey so far.

Shelby Garrett

That’s awesome. We’re super excited to have you today, because we also worked previously on an article about the EPA. So this is perfect to actually get to see each other face to face and talk to each other. Today, we’re going to be talking about DEI initiatives. To start off with that, could you give us a basic definition for people who maybe aren’t familiar with it and tie us into how that relates to law firm operations?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, absolutely. And I should mention, one of the other hats that I wear at the firm, besides a shareholder is also Chair of our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion committee. So that’s sort of my D E and I hat, I have been on the committee for the 10 years on and off that I’ve been at the firm. So for D E and I, in terms of definitions, it’s–I hate to give you the lawyer answer, but it’s an “it depends” kind of thing, right? So DEI efforts are defined in such a broad variety of ways and are very unique to each organization. So some folks call it DEI, some say DEIA to include accessibility, there’s variations on the theme. But at B&D, DEI is really focused on building and fostering an inclusive culture that allows everyone to be their authentic selves at work, removing obstacles that inhibit equal opportunities for all and promoting and supporting those from historically underrepresented groups outside of the traditional DEI bucket. So defined by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, identity, disability, or otherwise. So that’s sort of how we think about it at our firm. And I’d say the way that plays out is I as chair, and my deputies, and our committee work with the Management Committee of the firm, the Chief Talent Officer, the firmwide managing principal who oversees the management of the whole firm, and members of committee, we’re the largest committee at the firm, its attorneys and staff. And we work with developing internal and external policies and practices across the firm. We have a Working Parents Group, an Employee Engagement Committee focused on staff and a Women’s Initiative to develop more targeted programming, but that’s kind of how it’s structured across the operations of the firm.

Shelby Garrett

That’s awesome, and that’s great to hear some examples because like you said, it kind of is tailored to each firm and what the community of employees needs. So it sounds like it would be a really large undertaking, because it has to be pretty authentic and genuine with straightforward conversations that might be a little bit harder, with some self-reflection. What is a good place for companies to start out? What is step one?

Stacey Halliday

Step one, really, in my perspective is, tone from the top is a really big I think, ground floor for a lot of this. I came from an HBCU, I went to Howard University School of Law, very proud graduate. And after my clerkship, I met Ben Wilson, who was the Managing Partner of Beverage & Diamond. And Ben is legendary. He’s just a staunch and uncompromising advocate for diversity and for supporting attorneys of color. And he’s the reason I went to Beverage & Diamond because I saw so significant leadership of the firm, he is an individual, but across the firm from his leadership had embraced and embedded diversity as a priority in addition to doing excellent work for our clients. So that I think has continued. He retired, I think it was within the last year, which is very hard as somebody who worked very closely with him. But we’ve really seen the firm continue to demonstrate that absolute commitment, and you see it in the numbers. In our firm about 36% of our shareholders are women, 50% of our Managment Committee are women or minorities, we continue to get very positive accolades for our DEI work even after so I think we see that commitment from the top and that helps all of us understand, incorporate remember that DEI is something important every day.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely, that’s a really great point, and very nice to hear how you got involved with the firm. When a firm is looking to measure their success, are there any indicators– I imagine it probably depends on what exactly they’re tasked with or what their initiative is. But is there anything that overall could help measure that success?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, it’s it’s funny, coming into this with a DEI hat but also doing ESG work, I think a lot about metrics and how do you set targets and measure your progress and hold yourself accountable. And because we’re so small, we’re fewer than 150 lawyers or so, we partner a lot. And that’s we use third party groups that are really specialize in this work and specialize in best practices for law firms to measure our progress and hold ourselves accountable. And a leading example of that is our participation in the Mansfield program. So the Mansfield certification program–I see you nodding Shelby, so that’s something you’ve heard of before. It’s based on the Rooney rule for the uninitiated, so the–I know nothing about football, but I have heard it’s based on the football Rooney rule, and that requires consideration of candidates from historically underrepresented groups for certain leadership roles. So we’re Mansfield 5.0 Certified, Mansfield Plus, and that means that not only do we consider certain underrepresented groups for at least 30% of all significant leadership roles, lateral recruiting and business development opportunities, for the Plus certification, we exceeded that requirement by actually achieving 30% or more representation. So that’s been a program we’ve been involved in at least the last four or five years, and the requirements continue to elevate every year. So it’s really an incredible way to not only track our progress, but also keep ourselves challenged because the goalposts continue to move to keep us challenged and leaning forward into this kind of work.

Shelby Garrett

That is really awesome. Yeah, when I was preparing for this, I was looking at the Mansfield website, I think it’s run by Diversity Lab maybe? So I was looking through all of their documentation on their website so that’s awesome. While we’re talking about Beverage & Diamond specifically, I know you mentioned the tone from the beginning was very inclusive. Is there any additional training or education that is provided to employees, whatever you’re comfortable talking about, specific to the firm?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, of course. I think we have a number of different programs, we have the committee and we have an annual survey across the firm that helps us understand where there might be need or interest in getting additional training and support in this space. So from an internal perspective, that’s something that’s more dynamic and focused on our particular firm and its community. So that could be anything from implicit bias training, to learning about more accessibility issues, or neurodiversity or something like that. So that’s something that we develop, and work as committee to build over the course of the year. But I think again, partnerships are a really big part of how we support our community in getting the best practices and cutting edge work in the space and support for each of our individual community members. So we partner with groups like LCLD, the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, which is just unbelievable. The program is amazing. So we have Fellows, Pathfinders, and we have Summer 1Ls that are part of this LCLD partnership, and the Fellows and Pathfinder program supports individuals in either mid-career or senior level or entry level attorneys with things like professional development programs, leadership training, relationship building opportunities, and that’s for attorneys from historically underrepresented groups. So it’s really amazing, I haven’t actually I haven’t done it, but a lot of my close colleagues and friends have done it and they talk about the relationships they’ve built, the support they’ve gotten, in addition to what they get internally at the firm being just invaluable and a great resource. So that’s something that’s a good example of the kind of things that we do plus our internal training to really support those in our community.

Shelby Garrett

Sorry, I think I missed it. Was that a third-party group?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, it’s unbelievable. It’s like there’s a couple of different programs like this and MCCA, Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and there’s–the acronyms, its an alphabet soup–CCWC Corporate Counsel Women of Color. There’s a couple of different programs like this that focus on different historically underrepresented attorney groups and communities. But LCLD is something where we’ve had a really in-depth relationship and pipeline coordination. So the 1L program through LCLD, we have a 1L Summer Associate. So usually they’re 2Ls, you’re a second-year law student when you come to summer at a law firm and then hopefully you get an offer afterwards for a job. But we have a 1L come in through the LCLD program from a historically underrepresented group. And it’s a great way to build a pipeline for talent in our community organization, especially in the environmental law space where diversity is a challenge.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely. That is amazing. One of the things I think you mentioned towards the beginning was a program for working moms. Do you mind explaining a little bit more about that, is that like a third-party?

Stacey Halliday

It’s actually internal. We created a Working Parents Group, we had a Women’s Committee initially, and the Women’s Committee was dealing with a lot of coming together to talk about all of the challenges that women inherently face. But we were also finding that we had a lot of men who are parents, as well, who were kind of, you know, still tackling a lot of these challenging issues, especially coming into the pandemic, when we’re all working remotely. And I have two young kids under three… it’s a challenge, it’s a journey. And actually having that community to talk about what kind of resources we might need, how we might support one another, how we can share best practices and lessons learned, and just support each other in the work environment, which is inherently stressful in a law firm. But if we’re all being understanding and know more about what we’re facing, we can all kind of tackle it together. So the working parents group was an outgrowth, I think of the pandemic and of having a community of young parents, and of more veteran parents who could all sort of share these lessons learned and worked together on solutions.

Shelby Garrett

That is awesome to hear both the internal kind of programs and then also the third-party kind of programs. How does the firm’s DEI work align with its overall business strategy and its goals? I know we just talked about the 1Ls and having them have that exposure and the opportunity to network and really get involved early, but looking more broadly at overall business strategy and goals.

Stacey Halliday

I think it’s such an interesting time in this space, because where there might have been more skepticism, especially at a law firm where your time is billed in six minute increments, to dedicating time and resources to DEI, now we’re seeing some pressure from clients, some external pressure, that really sends home the business case for the importance of diversity and for supporting DEI from a retention perspective. And I think Beverage & Diamond is unique in that we’ve always embraced DEI as one of our core principles that are important to the firm. But were there any naysayers, it’s now you know, we’re really seeing that clients are bringing down the hammer. They’re asking for more transparency. We have dense, pages long surveys asking us to disclose information about our diversity performance, and how many people from historically underrepresented groups are on our pitch teams, how many folks are actually billing time, are they getting considered for promotion, like they, they want to know that level of detail. And if they don’t see it, there’s either a penalty in terms of fees or you don’t get the work. And I think that is something that has shifted, in concrete ways, the industry. You’re seeing a huge proliferation of Chief Diversity Officers, So C-suite level leadership and management in law firms that actually looks at this topic the way it is, a sophisticated practice, that’s on top of legal practice. So I think the business case is now kind of firmly being established across the industry more so than it has in the past. Just a really interesting trend.

Shelby Garrett

That is really interesting. When I was like reading different articles to prepare for this, I hadn’t heard of that. So that’s really great to hear that there’s some external pressure and investment in this bigger priority. You were talking kind of a little bit about, you know, billing hours. So building these DEI initiatives require some resources and support. What kind of resources and support can a firm offer to employees who might be affected by these issues? I know kind of just like, taking the time for the Working Parent Group. But what resources really go into that?

Stacey Halliday

I think for us, again, we’re fairly small. So you know, where you have these huge multinational global firms that have hundreds of 1000s of people who would be part of an affinity group or any type of program that’s associated with different subpopulations of a diverse community, we’ve got like five. So it’s not necessarily the same sort of thing in terms of the scale of the programs, which is why we end up doing more partnerships so that, you know, the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance might have a program or something like that, or we’ll say, “Hey, if you’re interested in doing this training, or engaging this community more aggressively, we absolutely support you, as an individual, doing that kind of work, because we don’t have the infrastructure necessarily to do it.” But some larger firms and companies do things like backup childcare, something like that, like, I think Bright Horizons or something like that, you know, you can go and, if your school’s closed, or if your kids sick, you can find some way to get some coverage so that you can still go to work. There’s all kinds of flexible leave policies and that sort of thing that really does help in terms of giving people the space that they need, still thinking from the parent context. Affinity groups are something that we have decided to date not to really form more broadly, just because again, the numbers aren’t there. But for us our partnerships are the way that we do it. But a lot of other large organizations do things like affinity groups that have more of a build-out in terms of permanent programs throughout the year. So in terms of brass tacks for us, we have the committee, with its mix of associates and staff members, and we have a budget every year to support those external engagements and partnerships and certification programs and that sort of thing. But it really does run the gamut, I think, especially at larger shops, where they have more numbers to really build out more infrastructure and training programs and curricula and support benefits, like childcare.

I worked at a law firm before I went to law school, and it was a much larger law firm. And I think historically, there’s been a really strong divide between attorneys and staff at a lot of law firms, which I think can be problematic and unnecessary. It inhibits, I think, community and diversity in a lot of different ways. But B&D has been fantastic. Our DEI committee is fully integrated with staff and attorneys. And we have some pretty significant empowerment and promotion of non-lawyers at the firm in this space to try and get a better perspective on our community. We’re basically half non-lawyers. So it’s really important to make sure that we’re not only capturing the voices of those members of our community through the committee, but also investing in the non-lawyers. And so we have a couple of professional development programs and we encourage external training in the same way that we support our attorneys. So it’s, I think, something that gets lost a lot in the conversation for law firms, because they’re so focused on the folks who are billing, but it’s a much bigger biosphere, for the law firm to be successful. It’s a lot more to it than just the legal work. So I think it’s really been important to make sure those voices are captured, the broader diversity of the firm is captured through thinking about your staff, and not just your attorneys.

Shelby Garrett

That is an amazing point I had not even considered, there’s an additional kind of hierarchy of opinions being taken into account. That’s really interesting. As we start to come to a close, are there any final thoughts you wanted to share?

Stacey Halliday

I’m so grateful to the National Law Review, specifically to you, Shelby, for bringing this conversation to bear. And I think it’s really important for our community to really think about effective practices here so that we generate and support more diverse communities so that we have more diversity of thought, as well as other types of diversity in the way that we solve problems and do our work. And I’m happy that we had a chance to have this chat and celebrate the work that’s being done in the space.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, that’s really great. I am very grateful that you joined us today, I appreciate you taking the time to really walk through all of this because it is pretty unfamiliar to me. So it’s really great to get the basic understanding of where firms can start if they haven’t started yet, and some inspiration of where they can go. So I really do appreciate that. And thank you so much for joining us today. For listeners who are interested in finding you and maybe some of your thought leadership in the environmental justice area, where can they look for you?

Stacey Halliday

Thank you for the plug, I will absolutely take it! bdlaw.com. So please check out B&D’s site, the Environmental Justice Practice Group has its own site. And we also have a podcast, another shameless plug for our joint podcast with the Environmental Law Institute called Ground Truth. That will be kicking back up in 2023, but we bring on folks and have some deep thoughts on EJ and what’s ahead and what’s coming down the pike. So hopefully check us out there as well.

Shelby Garrett

Fantastic. Thank you so much. Again, we really appreciate your time, and we will be back in a couple of weeks for a new episode of Legal News Reach.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

For more Legal News Reach episodes, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

A key issue: WHO are the Beneficial Owners?

Who, in FinCEN’s view, has “substantial control”?

Share this:

Like this:

Strengths of AI Compliance Systems:

Due Diligence and Human Oversight

The Double-Edged Sword

The Importance of Whistleblower Programs:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

WHAT IS IN THE RULE?

NEXT STEPS

Share this:

Like this:

What is “Oil” Anyway?

When to Notify?

What Authorities Are at Play?

OPA v. CWA

Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations

Suggested Actions

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: