Category: law firm

Now is a Good Time to Confirm Your S Corporation Status

On October 11, 2022, the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2022-19 providing taxpayers with liberalized procedures for resolving common S corporation issues. Previously, taxpayers would have needed costly IRS letter rulings for certainty on their S corporation status. The new procedures are simpler and less expensive.

The IRS has separately assured taxpayers that LLCs that are classified as S corporations may also qualify for this liberalized relief.

Inadvertent loss of S corporation status can have significant tax consequences and can make your business a less attractive acquisition target. For example, an S corporation that reverts to a C corporation may be subject to a double layer of tax going back several years. As a result, potential acquirers of any S corporation invariably request representations on the validity of the S corporation status.

The new Revenue Procedure describes common situations that the IRS has historically treated as not affecting the validity of S corporation status or qualified S corporation Qsub status, such as:

  1. One class of stock requirement in the governing provisions (including the concept that commercial contractual agreements are not treated as binding agreements unless a “principal purpose” of the agreement is to circumvent the one class of stock requirement);

  2. Disproportionate distributions inadvertently creating a second class of stock;

  3. Certain inadvertent errors or omissions on Form 2553 or Form 8869;

  4. Missing administrative acceptance letters for S corporation or Qsub elections;

  5. Federal income tax return filings inconsistent with an S election; or

  6. Governing provisions that allow for non-identical treatment of shareholders, such as differing liquidation rights (allowing for retroactive corrections).

For these common situations, there are now simpler and cheaper procedures to preserve S corporation status. For example, for certain small errors such as missing officer signatures, S corporations may follow the same simplified procedures as the late election relief procedures in Revenue Ruling 2013-30. Those procedures do not require a private letter ruling request, but only the original election form with a reasonable cause statement. As another example, if the issue is non-identical governing provisions and no disproportionate distributions were made, the S corporation may simply be retroactively treated as an S Corporation if it meets certain eligibility requirements and keeps a copy of a signed statement in its files.

Shareholders of uncertain S corporations should consider taking advantage of these new relaxed and cheaper procedures for curing S corporation mistakes. Each different type of error has a different cure with specific requirements.

Article By Christie R. Galinski and Samuel L. Parks of Miller Canfield

For more corporate law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

ADA Compliance for Law Firm Websites in 2022

Legal reasoning involves applying the law to the facts to determine the rights and duties of those involved in a situation. Lawyers frequently take the position that the application of rules should settle disputes and that policies will be considered, if at all, only when there is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the applicability of the rule. The lawyer might take the position that it is always preferable to seek the result that would further the underlying policies, even if that result would be contrary to the clear language of the rules.

But what if no explicit rules currently exist?

That is the issue with website compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Act does not offer specific guidelines to follow; however, websites are expected to be easily accessible to everyone, including those who are disabled. The failure to create an ADA-compliant website could expose an organization to discrimination lawsuits, financial liabilities, and severe damage to its reputation.

What is the ADA?

The ADA compels certain businesses, including banks, hotels, restaurants, public transit, law firms, and others to make accommodations for people with disabilities. According to the National Law Review, the Act is divided into three parts:

  • Title I prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on disability and requires them to provide reasonable accommodation to certain employees under specific circumstances.
  • Title II covers state and local governments.
  • Title III covers “places of public accommodation,” which the ADA does not define, but are generally private businesses or organizations that provide goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations to the public. These places commonly include schools, restaurants, health care providers, social service agencies, law firms, and more.

The ADA is commonly associated with physical locations and the accommodations that certain businesses must make for people with disabilities, which include wheelchair accessibility, reserved parking, and service animals. Companies that fall under ADA Title I and operate 20 or more weeks per year with at least 15 full-time employees, or Title III – those that fall under the category of public accommodation – must be ADA-compliant.

Although physical “brick-and-mortar” locations are nearly always considered places of public accommodation, the debate is ongoing as to whether a business’s website is a place of accommodation. If so, the digital content must be accessible to all users.

A law firm website must be designed so that those who are disabled can access it easily to comply with ADA requirements. While there are no well-defined regulations that describe precisely what an ADA-compliant website should include, businesses that fall under ADA Title I or ADA Title III are required to develop a website that offers “reasonable accessibility” to people with disabilities.

Compliance Tools & Plugins

Because the ADA doesn’t offer specific guidelines for website compliance, many organizations follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG), updated to 2.1 in 2018. While WCAG isn’t a legal requirement, its requirements have been followed in the European Union and other nations since 1999 and still serves as a reference for businesses that want to improve accessibility to their website.

Under WCAG 2.1, website accessibility concerns generally fall into four groups. These include issues that are:

  • Perceivable – issues that affect users’ ability to locate and process the information on a website, e.g., many visually-impaired individuals use screen readers to distinguish between the text and the background to help them navigate online content.
  • Operable – challenges that impair users’ ability to navigate a site, e.g., functions and navigations such as online forms should be accessible via keyboard-only commands, and users who need additional time to complete them should be allowed to do so.
  • Understandable – users should be able to comprehend the information on the site, e.g., error messages that provide an explanation and directions for correcting an error should be offered.
  • Robust – can be interpreted by various devices and platforms according to the varying needs and abilities of users, e.g., the alt text that should pop up to let users know what it is when read by assistive technology when they hover over an image.

Here are more suggestions regarding what to include to help ensure ADA website compliance:

  • “Alt” tags for every media file and map
  • Descriptive HTML tags for online forms
  • Hyperlinks with descriptive anchor text
  • “Skip navigation” links on all website pages
  • Heading tags to organize text
  • Accessible PDF files
  • Subtitles, transcripts, and audio descriptions for videos
  • Accessible fonts for all applications
  • HTML tables with column headers, row IDs, and cell information
  • Captions written in English for audio files
  • Call-to-action buttons with easily accessible names and ARIA labels
  • A website accessibility policy
  • Easy to find contact information

Meeting these guidelines will make a firm’s website more accessible to those with vision or hearing impairments, as well as cognitive, language, or learning disabilities.

Court Rulings Regarding Website ADA Compliance

According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the number of accessibility-related lawsuits filed against websites has increased dramatically in recent years. Plaintiffs are basing these lawsuits on two legal theories:

  1. Title IIIs “equal access and general nondiscrimination mandate
  2. A requirement that places of public accommodation must provide auxiliary aids and services as necessary (for no extra charge)

Although neither Title III nor its regulations mention websites and mobile applications, the phase “auxiliary aids and services” includes “accessible electronic and information technology,” which covers websites and mobile apps.

ADA Title III Lawsuits Filed Each Year Graph
Image by Seyfarth via adatitleiii.com

A recent ABA analysis of court filings related to ADA website compliance found:

  • Federal courts across the country were inundated with more than 8,000 website accessibility lawsuits between 2017 and 2020.
  • In 2020, three states – New York, Florida, and California – brought more than 85 percent of all the ADA website compliance lawsuits.
  • Since 2018, website and mobile app accessibility disputes have accounted for approximately 20 percent of all ADA Title III cases initiated in federal courts, which now regularly exceed 10,000 suits each year.

These statistics do not consider a significant number of website and mobile app cases pursued in state courts, cases settled before filing in court, and DOJ enforcement proceedings that are resolved prior to court filing.

Here are some examples of court rulings related to ADA compliance and websites:

Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.

In June 2107, a Florida court ruled in favor of a blind plaintiff who brought an ADA violation lawsuit against Winn-Dixie. The man claimed that aspects of the supermarket chain’s site weren’t compatible with screen readers, leaving him unable to order his medications online or download rewards cards. The trial court agreed that the website was inaccessible to those with impaired vision and ordered that it be brought into compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Level AA.

Although Winn-Dixie complied with the court order, in April 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s decision, finding that Winn-Dixie was not in violation of the ADA because it did not need accessibility aids to conduct business. After that, however, Winn-Dixie posted an accessibility statement on its website that commits to adhere to WCAG 2.0 AA by using testers from the disability community to check the accessibility of their website periodically.

Robles v. Domino’s Pizza

Domino’s Pizza lost a website accessibility lawsuit in 2019 after years of exhaustive litigation when a federal district court in California granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment after it determined that the website was indeed not fully accessible. The court ordered Domino’s to make its website compliant with the WCAG 2.0 to connect customers to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants.

The court held that the ADA applied to Domino’s website and app because the Act requires places of public accommodation, like Domino’s, to offer auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to blind individuals. Although customers primarily access the Domino’s website and app outside its physical restaurants, the court found that the Act pertains to the services of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation.

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials

In 2017, Victor Andrews, who is blind, filed a lawsuit against Blick Art Materials for website inaccessibility. Andrews alleged that because Blick’s website was inaccessible, he could not navigate and purchase items on the defendant’s website independently. When Blick made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Judge Jack Weisenstein denied it and made this statement:

Today, internet technology enables individuals to participate actively in their community and engage in commerce from the comfort and convenience of their home. It would be a cruel irony to adopt the interpretation of the ADA espoused by Blick, which would render the legislation intended to emancipate the disabled from the bonds of isolation and segregation obsolete when its objective is increasingly within reach.

The ruling in this case and others illustrates that businesses need to consider their websites equivalent to a place of public accommodation, which puts them at risk of being sued, even without explicit web accessibility regulations.

Latest DOJ Guidelines

In 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a rulemaking process to address ADA requirements for website accessibility, including technical standards for accessible websites. However, that effort stalled for seven years during the Obama administration (even though the administration continued to pursue investigations and enforcement actions against businesses with inaccessible websites).

The Trump administration abandoned the process to interpret the ADA entirely in 2017. In 2018, the DOJ revealed that it would not give official guidance regarding website accessibility under the Act, releasing this statement:

The Department is evaluating whether promulgating regulations about the accessibility of Web information and services is necessary and appropriate. Such an evaluation will be informed by additional review of data and further analysis. The Department will continue to assess whether specific technical standards are necessary and appropriate to assist covered entities with complying with the ADA.

Since the DOJ’s withdrawal, the number of lawsuits involving website accessibility increased dramatically, raising awareness regarding website accessibility among businesses but also causing confusion surrounding what features an ADA-compliant website should include. As a result, numerous website accessibility consulting companies emerged promising inexpensive solutions. However, some have been challenged in court.

In June 2018, some bipartisan members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions encouraging the DOJ to release clear website accessibility regulations to diminish the unclear nature of current legislation. On September 25, 2018, the DOJ responded by stating that, at this time, the DOJ would not be issuing web accessibility regulations under the ADA: “The Department has consistently taken the position that the absence of a specific regulation does not serve as a basis for noncompliance with a statute’s requirements.”

In March 2022, the DOJ issued further web accessibility guidance under the ADA. The “new” guidance references both the WCAG – which are voluntary – and Section 508 standards, which set standards for federal websites, and indicates that the DOJ supports the notion that sites of public accommodation must be accessible, and in the absence of explicit regulations, websites can be flexible in how they choose to comply with the ADA’s requirements. However, the guidance does not clarify what such flexibility or choice entails and– not necessarily the direction regulation-seekers are looking for, since it provides no substantially new information regarding the vagueness of website accessibility requirements under the ADA.

Final Thoughts

As accessibility regulations for websites remain unclear, it can be easy for organizations to assume that they cannot be sued for noncompliance. However, with no specific standards to follow, law firms and other businesses must do their best to interpret the ADA, practice website accessibility as they see fit, and try to avoid website accessibility-related lawsuits.

One more thing to consider: ambiguity runs both ways, and even though an organization might think its website is accessible, a disabled person might think otherwise, providing the grounds for a lawsuit. Organizations aren’t granted immunity simply because of a lack of clarity in legislation. Instead, uncertainty allows for interpretation by anyone, including the courts.

This article was authored by Jan Hill of Lawmatics.

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 — Lawmatics

Love and Basketball … and Romantic Workplace Relationships? Key Takeaways for Employers from the Boston Celtics’ Recent Suspension of its Head Coach

The Boston Celtics recently suspended its head coach Ime Udoka for the entire 2022-2023 season and although the team did not disclose whether the suspension will be paid or unpaid, it noted that he will be subject to a “significant financial penalty” as a result of multiple unspecified violations of the organization’s policies stemming from Udoka’s conduct towards a female member of the organization.

Originally believed to have been a consensual relationship, it was subsequently reported that the female staff member accused Udoka of making unwanted advances, including inappropriate comments towards the staff member.  In response, the Celtics organization acted quickly and launched an internal investigation, which found “a volume of violations” of various policies.  Please note, it is unknown as to whether the Celtics had a consensual relationship policy in place for employees.

The Celtics scandal comes at a time when workplace harassment claims (as reported by the EEOC) are on the rise, yet consensual office romantic relationships remain fairly common.  While most employees do not want their employers placing limits on whom they may seek as a romantic partner, from an employer’s viewpoint, the risks of such romances are clear, as they can easily cause real issues in the workplace: interoffice gossip, lack of productivity, reduced moral, allegations of favoritism, or worse, claims of sexual harassment.

Fortunately, employers have several options available to minimize risk. Employers can rely on various types of anti-fraternization policies (also known as workplace romance or consensual relationship policies) and/or love contracts.  Separate, but related, employers should also implement robust anti-harassment policies and training for all employees (including management).

Relationship Policies

Some employers choose to implement a policy banning all romantic relationships between employees regardless of position or authority.  These policies discourage personal and romantic workplace relationships and threaten discipline against employees who violate the policy. Other employers opt for a more flexible policy, which only prohibits romantic relationships where one individual has the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the other’s employment, including but not limited to, compensation, assignments, and promotions. This latter policy is more common as it is often less intrusive and aimed at preventing favoritism or claims of sexual harassment or retaliation.

Regardless of the policy used, most employers also include a disclosure requirement, which then allows the employer to determine the best course of action forward (e.g. eliminating the reporting relationship)..

Further still, some employers, in addition to their relationship policy, have used “love contracts” that couples sign to confirm their consensual relationship status, affirm their awareness of the company’s sexual-harassment and workplace conduct policies and other expectations related to conducting themselves in the workplace, indicate that they understand the consequences if they fall short of the company’s expectations.

Employer Actions After A Relationship Disclosure

Such policies and related documents allow employees to come forward as early as possible so employers can proactively address a situation.  For example, it allows employers to remove any supervisory oversight or doubt that such a relationship is consensual, while also setting expectations with both employees about their conduct in the workplace during the relationship, and if and after the relationship ends.  As part of this expectation setting discussion, even in the absence of a reporting relationship, employers should make sure to provide a copy of its anti-harassment policy to the dating employees and have them reaffirm they will comply with its terms and conditions.  Employers should also confirm with each employee that they will immediately disclose when the relationship ends or is otherwise no longer consensual.

Anti-Harassment Policies & Training

Ultimately, and regardless of what policy an employer adopts, all employers should have a clear anti-harassment policy that, among other things, defines and clearly prohibits sexual harassment and requires all employees to report sexual harassment, including any unwanted advances or comments.

Such policies should include a complaint procedure that is readily accessible to employees and provides multiple avenues for raising complaints.  It should confirm that the company will promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints and will not retaliate against any individual who reports or participates in an investigation of harassment (including sexual harassment).

It is crucial that employers think about responding in a fashion similar to the Celtics’ in promptly investigating and addressing alleged misconduct.  For example, the Celtics quickly engaged independent outside counsel to conduct a thorough investigation, which positioned the Celtics well to determine its appropriate next steps.  Critically, the Celtics did not appear to allow the employee’s status within the organization to interfere or impact its decision to enforce its policies and impose serious penalties.  By following the Celtics’ lead, employers can, among other things, create an environment where employees feel safe to complain and further eliminate the possibility of misconduct in the workplace, while also enhancing any legal defense in the event a lawsuit follows.

Having written policies is key, but it is equally important that employees, particularly supervisors or managers, are thoroughly trained on how to recognize potentially problematic situations, including when employees are dating, and how to respond to and further report potential policy violations.  Some jurisdictions even make training a statutory requirement.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The reality is that romantic relationships in the workplace occur and those employers that are proactive in anticipating such relationships and responding to them when they occur will be best positioned to limit potential liability.  Employers should consider taking the following actions:

  • Adopting a consensual relationship policy that is best suited for the company;
  • Ensure the use of a robust anti-harassment policy;
  • Periodically conduct anti-harassment training; and
  • Be prepared to monitor and respond upon learning of a relationship between your employees.

Article By Delaney M. Busch of Mintz

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Ankura Cyber Threat Intelligence Bulletin: August – September 2022

Over the past sixty days, Ankura’s Cyber Threat Investigations & Expert Services (CTIX) Team of analysts has compiled key learnings about the latest global threats and current cyber trends into an in-depth report: The Cyber Threat Intelligence Bulletin. This report provides high-level executives, technical analysts, and everyday readers with the latest intel and insights from our expert analysts.

Download the report for an in-depth look at the key cyber trends to watch and help safeguard your organization from constantly evolving cyber threats with the latest cyber intelligence, ransomware, and threat insights.

 Our latest report explains the following observations in detail:

Law Enforcement Works with Threat Intelligence to Prosecute Human Traffickers

In the age of high-speed internet and social media, criminals have evolved to use information technology to bolster their criminal enterprises and human traffickers are no different. Whether it be through the clearnet or dark web, human traffickers have leveraged the internet to scale their operations, forcing law enforcement to reevaluate how to best combat this problem. In response to the changes in trafficker tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs), governments across the world have responded with legislation and policies in an attempt to better thwart the efforts of these criminals. Researchers from Recorded Future’s Insikt Group have published compelling reports as a proof-of-concept (PoC) for a methodology on how law enforcement agencies and investigators can utilize real-time threat intelligence to leverage sources of data in order to aid in tracking, mitigating, and potentially prosecuting human sex traffickers. Download the full report for additional details on law enforcement efforts to prosecute human traffickers and more on the Insikt Group’s findings.

Emerging Threat Organization “MONTI”: Sister Organization or Imposter Threat Group?

Over the past several weeks a new, potentially imposter, threat organization has mimicked the tactics, techniques, procedures (TTPs), and infrastructure of the Conti Ransomware Group. Tracked as MONTI, this doppelganger organization emerged in the threat landscape in July 2022 after compromising a company and encrypting approximately twenty (20) hosting devices and a multi-host VMWare ESXi instance tied to over twenty (20) additional servers. While the July attack pushed the group into the limelight, analysts believe that attacks from the doppelganger organization go back even further into the early summer of 2022. Similarities discovered between Conti Ransomware and the alleged spinoff Monti Ransomware include attack TTPs alongside the reuse of Conti-attributed malicious payloads, deployed tools, and ransom notes. Additionally, the encrypted files exfiltrated by Monti contain nearly identical encryption, which could indicate code re-usage. Read the full report to find out what CTIX analysts expect to see from this group in the future.

Figure 1: Conti Ransom Note

Figure 2: Monti Ransom Note

Iranian State-Sponsored Threat Organization’s Attack Timeline Targeting the Albanian Government

In July 2022, nation-state Iranian threat actors, identified by the FBI as “Homeland Justice”, launched a “destructive cyber-attack” against the Government of NATO-member Albania in which the group acquired initial access to the victim network approximately fourteen (14) months before (May of 2021). During this period, the threat actors continuously accessed and exfiltrated email content. The peak activity was observed between May and June of 2022, where actors conducted lateral movements, network reconnaissance, and credential harvesting.

This attack and eventual data dumps were targeted against the Albania-based Iranian dissident group Mujahideen E-Khalq (MEK), otherwise known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran. MEK is a “controversial Iranian resistance group” that was exiled to Albania and once listed by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for activity in the 1970s but was later removed in late 2012. Albania eventually severed diplomatic ties with Iran on September 7, 2022, and is suspected to be the first country to ever have done so due to cyber-related attacks. For a more detailed analysis of this attack and its ramifications, download our full report.

 Figure: Homeland Justice Ransom Note Image

Banning Ransomware Payments Becomes Hot-Button Issue in State Legislature

There is a debate occurring in courtrooms across the United States regarding the ethics and impacts of allowing businesses to make ransomware payments. North Carolina and Florida have broken new ground earlier this year passing laws that prohibit state agencies from paying cyber extortion ransom demands. While these two (2) states have been leading the way in ransomware laws, at least twelve (12) other states have addressed ransomware in some way, adding criminal penalties for those involved and requiring public entities to report ransomware incidents. Download the full report to discover what experts think of government ransomware payment bans and the potential effects they could have on ransomware incidents.

Threat Actor of the Month: Worok

ESET researchers discovered a new cluster of the long-active TA428 identified as “Worok.” TA428 is a Chinese advanced persistence threat (APT) group first identified by Proofpoint researchers in July 2019 during “Operation LagTime IT”, a malicious attack campaign targeted against government IT agencies in East Asia. Download the full report for an in-depth look at Worok’s tactics and objectives, and insights from our analysts about the anticipated future impact of this group.

New List of Trending Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

IOCs can be utilized by organizations to detect security incidents more quickly as indicators may not have otherwise been flagged as suspicious or malicious. Explore our latest list of technical indicators of compromise within the past sixty (60) days that are associated with monitored threat groups and/or campaigns of interest.

Article By Ted Theisen and Jason Hale of Ankura

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Ankura Consulting Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

USTR Seeks Comments on Section 301 Tariffs on Chinese Goods; Portal Opens Nov. 15

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced Oct. 17 that starting Nov. 15, it will begin soliciting comments on the effectiveness of Section 301 tariffs the Trump administration placed on Chinese goods. The notice and request for comments relate to USTR’s ongoing four-year statutory review of the Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.

In the Federal Registrar Notice, USTR said it is seeking “public comments on the effectiveness of the actions in achieving the objectives of the investigation, other actions that could be taken, and the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.”

The USTR is specifically interested in comments on the following:

  • The effectiveness of the actions in obtaining the elimination of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • The effectiveness of the actions in counteracting China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • Other actions or modifications that would be more effective in obtaining the elimination of or in counteracting China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
  • The effects of the actions on the U.S. economy, including on U.S. consumers.
  • The effects of the actions on domestic manufacturing, including in terms of capital investments, domestic capacity and production levels, industry concentrations, and profits.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. technology, including in terms of U.S. technological leadership and U.S. technological development.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. workers, including with respect to employment and wages.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. small businesses.
  • The effects of the actions on U.S. supply chain resilience.
  • The effects of the actions on the goals of U.S. critical supply chains.
  • Whether the actions have resulted in higher additional duties on inputs used for additional manufacturing in the United States than the additional duties on particular downstream product(s) or finished good(s) incorporating those inputs.

The continuing assessment of these additional duties has been criticized by some business groups and lawmakers who believe they have hurt both U.S. businesses and U.S. consumers but have not checked China’s behavior. They also have called for the reinstatement of previously issued exclusions and for a new, robust tariff exclusion process. Some labor and civil society groups, however, want the tariffs to remain in place. The fate of these tariffs is closely tied to the Biden administration’s ongoing review and the overall U.S.–China trade relationship. The controversial tariff program that covers upwards of $300 billion worth of imports from China has sparked lawsuits from more than 3,500 importers.

The comment period begins on Nov. 15 and extends until Jan. 17. USTR said it will post specific questions on its website Nov. 1 before the portal opens.

Article By Laura Siegel Rabinowitz, Donald S. Stein, and Madeline Orlando of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more trade regulation news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

FinCEN Issues Final Rule on the Corporate Transparency Act Requiring Businesses to Report Beneficial Ownership Information

On September 30, 2022, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published its final rule implementing Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). The final rule, which will take effect on January 1, 2024, will require “tens of millions” of companies doing business in the U.S. to report certain information about their beneficial owners. The reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial beneficial ownership reports with FinCEN. Reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will be required to file initial beneficial ownership reports within 30 days of formation.

The CTA was passed by Congress on January 1, 2021, as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. After publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and receiving public comments, FinCEN adopted the proposed rule largely as proposed, with certain modifications intended to minimize unnecessary burdens on reporting companies.

What Entities are Reporting Companies? The final rule describes two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign.

  • A domestic reporting company is any entity that is a corporation, a limited liability company, or other entity (such as limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships and business trusts) created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

  • A foreign reporting company is any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or American Indian tribe.

What Entities are Exempt? The final rule exempts twenty-three separate categories of entities from the definition of the reporting company. Many of the exempted entities are already subject to federal or state regulations requiring disclosure of beneficial ownership information, such as banks, credit unions, depositary institutions, investment advisors, securities brokers and dealers, accounting firms, governmental entities, tax-exempt entities, and entities registered with the SEC under the Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the rules set forth an exemption for “large operating companies” that can demonstrate each of the following factors:

  • Employ more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S.

  • Have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S.

  • Filed a federal income tax or information return in the U.S. for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales (excluding gross receipts or sales from sources outside the U.S.)

Finally, under the so-called “subsidiary exemption,” entities whose ownership interests are controlled or wholly owned by one or more exempt entities may also qualify for exemption. If a reporting company was formerly exempt but loses its exemption, it must file an updated report that announces the change and includes all the information required in a reporting company’s initial report.

Who are Beneficial Owners? The final rule requires reporting companies to report each individual who is a beneficial owner of such reporting company. A “beneficial owner” is any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over the reporting company or owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company. An individual exercises “substantial control” if such individual:

  • Serves as a senior officer (except for corporate secretary or treasurer)

  • Has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board of directors (or similar body)

  • Directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the reporting company

  • Has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company

Additionally, an individual may exercise substantial control over a reporting company, directly or indirectly, including as a trustee of a trust or similar arrangement, through:

  • Board representation

  • Ownership or control of a majority of the voting power or voting rights of the reporting company

  • Rights associated with any financing arrangement or interest in a company

  • Control over one or more intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control over a reporting company

  • Arrangements or financial or business relationships, whether formal or informal, with other individuals or entities acting as nominees

  • Any other contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship, or otherwise

The final rule exempts five categories of individuals from the definition of beneficial owner: (i) minors, (ii) nominees, intermediaries, custodians, and agents, (iii) certain employees who are not senior officers, (iv) heirs with a future interest in the company, and (v) certain creditors.

Who are Company Applicants? In addition to the beneficial owner information, the final rule requires reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, to report identifying information about each “company applicant.” A “company applicant” is:

  • Any individual who directly files the document to create a domestic reporting company or register a foreign reporting company with a secretary of state or similar office in the U.S.

  • Any individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing

The final rule provides further clarification as to certain individuals who, by virtue of their formation roles, fall under the definition of “company applicants.” For example:

  • If an attorney oversees the preparation and filing of incorporation documents and a paralegal files them, the reporting company would report both the attorney and paralegal as company applicants.

  • If an individual prepares and self-files documents to create the individual’s own reporting company, the reporting company would report the individual as the only company applicant.

The final rule removes the requirements that i) entities created before the effective date report company applicant information and ii) reporting companies update their company applicant information (except to correct inaccuracies), each of which were set forth in the proposed rules.

When are Initial Reports Due? When an initial report must be filed depends on the status of the reporting company as of January 1, 2024:

  • If Created or Registered on or after January 1, 2024 – It must file a report within 30 calendar days from the earlier of: i) the date on which the company receives actual notice that its creation or registration has become effective, or ii) the date a secretary of state or similar office first provides public notice, such as through a publicly accessible registry, that the company has been created or registered.

  • If Created or Registered Prior to January 1, 2024 – It must file a report not later than January 1, 2025.

What Information Must be Reported? An initial report must include the following information with respect to the reporting company:

  • The full legal name of the reporting company

  • Any trade name or “doing business as” name of the reporting company

  • The street address of the principal place of business of the reporting company (if outside the U.S., the street address of the primary location in the U.S. where it conducts business)

  • The state, tribal, or foreign jurisdiction of formation of the reporting company (a foreign reporting company must also report the state or tribal jurisdiction where it first registers)

  • The IRS Taxpayer Identification Number (“TIN”) of the reporting company (including the EIN of the reporting company, or if a foreign reporting company without a TIN, a tax identification number issued by a foreign jurisdiction and the name of such jurisdiction)

For each company applicant (of a reporting company registered or created on or after January 1, 2024) and each beneficial owner of a reporting company, the following information must be reported:

  • The full legal name of the individual

  • The date of birth of the individual

  • The current business street address (for a company applicant who forms or registers an entity in the course of such company applicant’s business) or residential street address (for all other individuals including beneficial owners)

  • A unique identifying number from, and image of, an acceptable identification document (e.g., a passport)

If a reporting company is directly or indirectly owned by one or more exempt entities and an individual is a beneficial owner of the reporting company exclusively by virtue of such individual’s ownership interest in the exempt entity, the reporting company’s report may list the name of the exempt entity in lieu of the beneficial ownership information set forth above.

When do Companies have to Report Changes? If there is any change with respect to required information previously submitted to FinCEN concerning a reporting company or its beneficial owners, including any change with respect to who is a beneficial owner or information reported for any particular beneficial owner, the reporting company is required to file an updated report within 30 calendar days of when the change occurred.

What are the Penalties for Violations? The final rule provides for a fine of up to $10,000.00 and/or imprisonment of up to two years for any person who willfully: (i) provides or attempts to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, or (ii) fails to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. The penalties may also extend to individuals causing a reporting company’s failure to report or update information and senior officials of a reporting company at the time such failure occurs.

What is Coming Next from FinCEN? FinCEN is expected to publish the forms and instructions to be used for reporting beneficial ownership information well in advance of the effective date. FinCEN will further establish a secure nonpublic database for storage of the beneficial ownership information. Finally, FinCEN will issue rules on who may access the information (a limited group of governmental authorities and financial institutions), under what circumstances, and how the parties would generally be required to handle and safeguard the information.

What Should Reporting Companies be Doing Now? Existing companies should begin evaluating whether they are a “reporting company” and if so, determining who are their beneficial owners. Such reporting companies, including any other reporting companies that may be created or registered before the effective date, will have until January 1, 2025, to file an initial report. As noted, reporting companies created or registered on or after the effective date will have 30 calendar days after the date of creation or registration to file an initial report.

Article By Thomas G. Appleman, Arthur L. Griem, and Vera S. Hansen of Miller Canfield

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

4 Frequently Asked Questions About MSO Investigations and 3 Defense Strategies

In the last decade, Management Services Organizations, or MSOs, became popular service providers and investment tools for the medical and health care field. Unfortunately, the way some MSOs are structured, they can violate several important laws against healthcare fraud, like the Stark Law or the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Because this is such a novel issue in the medical field, lots of healthcare providers have questions about it. Some want to know how they can defend themselves if they get accused of wrongdoing for their activity with an MSO.

Dr. Nick Oberheiden is an MSO investigation lawyer at Oberheiden P.C. Here are some questions that he frequently gets asked and a few defense strategies that can help.

FAQs About MSO Investigations

1. What are MSOs?

An MSO is a company that provides administrative services to medical professionals. They can help healthcare providers with their:

  • Human resources
  • Operations
  • Coding and billing services
  • Office space management
  • Compliance
  • Contract management

Healthcare companies can either contract with an MSO to provide these services or can outright sell the administrative wing of their practice to an MSO so they can focus on the medical side of their business.

2. Why are MSOs Problematic?

MSO arrangements can become legally problematic when they act as an investment tool for medical professionals. Physicians could buy an ownership stake in an MSO that provided services to, say, a pharmacy. Those physicians could then begin referring patients to that same pharmacy.

In theory, that referral is going to a company – the pharmacy – that neither the physician nor his or her immediate family members have a financial interest in. In reality, though, the distinction gets blurred if the MSO – and therefore the physician – makes money off the referral. This can arguably amount to a kickback, which is unlawful.

3. Is Law Enforcement Actually Looking Into MSOs?

Yes, the justice department or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently begun investigating MSOs that appears to be a medium for illegal kickbacks from one healthcare provider to a referring physician.

Together with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the DOJ has taken the position that MSOs that are only indirectly recouping physicians for referrals is enough to violate anti-kickback laws. In one case, the agencies are pursuing False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729) violations in addition to violations of the Stark Law (42 U.S.C. § 1395nn) and the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b).

However, not all MSOs have come under the scrutiny of federal law enforcement. The DOJ has not declared a blanket rule that all MSOs are unlawful. Instead, it is only targeting those that show the signs of potential healthcare fraud.

4. What are the Potential Penalties for Investing in the Wrong MSO?

At this stage, it is hard to tell. MSOs are still a new development, and we are only seeing the very first charges getting filed against physicians who invest in the “wrong” MSOs. Courts have not yet ruled whether MSOs can facilitate a kickback or amount to a false claim.

If courts do go along with the DOJ’s interpretation of the law, then physicians can face steep penalties for sending business to another healthcare facility that contracts with an MSO that they own or invest in.

The Anti-Kickback Statute is a criminal law that carries up to five years in prison for a conviction, as well as fines of up to $25,000 and program exclusion. The Stark Law is a civil law that, while it does not carry criminal sanctions or jail time, does impose:

  • Denial of payments provided
  • Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains
  • Civil penalties of up to $15,000 for each violation
  • Treble damages
  • Program exclusion

Defense Strategies for Investigations into Your MSO

If you do have an ownership stake in an MSO and are concerned about a potential investigation, or if you are interested in investing in one of these new companies and want to do it right, there are several things that you can do. While every case is unique, here are three defense strategies and compliance procedures that MSO investigation attorney Dr. Nick Oberheiden often recommends considering.

1. Look for Signs That an MSO is Problematic

Not all MSOs are attracting the attention of federal law enforcement. Instead, it is the ones that do not comply with the requirements of anti-kickback statutes and illegal referrals.

Some signs that an MSO is lacking in that department include:

  • A lack of a compliance officer in the company
  • No training regarding important laws like HIPAA, the Stark Law, or the Anti-Kickback Statute
  • The MSO is paid on a percentage basis, rather than through a flat fee (payments should be at fair market value rates)
  • The MSO charges unreasonably high service fees
  • There are incentives for investing physicians to refer clients to the company

All of these are strong signs that the MSO is at risk of civil or even criminal action for healthcare fraud and illegal referrals. Unfortunately, many of these signs also give an investing physician the power to increase his or her return on the investment – a feature that makes the investment seem especially lucrative.

2. Tighten Up the Compliance

If you are invested in an MSO and suddenly see proof that it was too good to be true, you are not powerless. You are a partial owner, after all. You can push the company to tighten up its compliance with anti-kickback laws. In the best cases, this can successfully protect you and avoid scrutiny from law enforcement. Even if it does not, though, it can reduce the restitution that you can be made to pay, and the efforts to fix the MSO can be used to show your good intentions.

3. Stress the Distance Between an MSO’s Ownership and Its Clients

At this point, we still have not seen whether law enforcement’s interpretation of the law will get adopted by a court. Until we know for sure that an indirect payment is enough for anti-kickback liability, a strong defense should be that the MSO’s ownership was too far removed from the MSO’s clients to amount to a violation of the law.

As Dr. Nick Oberheiden, an MSO investigation attorney at Oberheiden P.C., says, “The law is still very much in flux at this point. Kickbacks are generally seen to be direct payments for referrals, and the whole point of the MSO investment opportunity was to avoid that exact setup.”

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more healthcare and health investigations legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

AUVSI and DOD’s Defense Innovation Unit Announce Collaboration for Cyber Standards for Drones

The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), the world’s leading trade association for drones and other autonomous vehicles, announced a collaboration with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to further commercial cyber methodologies to design a shared standard. AUVSI’s effort is meant to expand the number of vetted drones that meet congressional and federal agency drone security requirements.

This pilot program would extend relevant cyber-credentialing across the U.S. industrial base and assist the DOD and other government entities in streamlining and accelerating drone capabilities across the board. Overall, this collaboration will help make the drone industry more secure. The program will work with numerous cybersecurity firms to conduct technical cyber assessments before the DIU, DOD, and other government entities conduct additional vetting as necessary.

Currently, the Blue UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) Cleared List has 14 drones on it and 13 more drones are scheduled to be added. The Blue UAS Cleared List is routinely updated and contains a list of DOD-approved drones for government users. These drones are section 848 FY20 NDAA compliant, validated as cyber-secure and safe to fly, and are available for government purchase and operation. However, even with these additions, the demand for additional cleared drones with new capabilities and technology has outpaced the DIU’s ability to scale the program. This collaboration seeks to close that gap and offer cybersecurity certification in close cooperation with the DIU. With off-the-shelf drones serving as critical tools to help conduct diverse government operations, partnership with AUVSI and cybersecurity experts will make it easier for government users to use commercial technology and achieve effective operations in a secure manner.

Article By Kathryn M. Rattigan of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity and data privacy news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

SEC Awards $825,000 to Whistleblower

On October 11, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a $825,000 whistleblower award issued to an individual who voluntarily provided the agency with original information about securities fraud.

The SEC Whistleblower Program offers monetary awards to qualified whistleblowers whose disclosures contribute to the success of enforcement actions. SEC whistleblower awards are for 10-30% of the funds collected by the government in the relevant enforcement action.

According to the SEC award order, the whistleblower “expeditiously provided detailed information that prompted the opening of the investigation.” Furthermore, the whistleblower “thereafter met with Commission staff in person and provided additional information after submitting the initial TCR.”

In addition to monetary awards, the SEC Whistleblower Program offers anti-retaliation protections to whistleblowers, including confidentiality. Thus, the SEC does not disclose any information that could identify a whistleblower.

Since the whistleblower program was established in 2010, the SEC has awarded more than $1.3 billion to over 280 individual whistleblowers. In August 2021, SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated that the program “has greatly aided the Commission’s work to protect investors” and noted that “the SEC has used whistleblower information to obtain sanctions of over $5 billion from securities law violators” and “return over $1.3 billion to harmed investors.”

Article By Mary Jane Wilmoth of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.