Category: Regulatory

EBSA Moving Forward with Rules to Protect Retirement Savings

An article featured recently in The National Law Review by the U.S. Department of Labor regarding Retirement Savings:

 

 

 

The Employee Benefits Security Administration is moving forward with regulations and proposals that will increase the quality of advice being provided to individual retirement account investors and 401(k) plan sponsors and participants. Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis C. Borzi delivered this message to the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries last week during the group’s Los Angeles Benefits Conference. A final rule requiring financial services firms to disclose fees to retirement plan sponsors will be out soon, and EBSA is working toward re-proposing a separate rule that would re-define who is a fiduciary for the purposes of giving advice to retirement savers. These rules combined with other regulatory efforts will help ensure that employers and workers are able to make informed decisions and obtain the best possible advice when choosing how they save.

© Copyright 2012 U.S. Department of Labor

Going Private: U.S. Listed Chinese Companies

An article by  Sheppard Mullin’s Shanghai Office of  Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP regarding U.S. Listed Chinese Companies That Want to Go Private was published recently in The National Law Review:

 

 

Many U.S. listed Chinese companies have their eye on going private, with a growing number of such transactions having recently closed. This is the combined result of the current weakness of the U.S. capital markets, significant losses in the value of many U.S. listed Chinese companies, and pessimistic market forecasts that have resulted in trading at values below what controlling shareholders, management or private equity firms may think certain companies are worth.

 

Why Companies May Go Private

 

  • To save costs. There are considerable costs associated with being listed on a U.S. exchange, including ongoing regulatory compliance and defending against shareholder lawsuits and other litigation. Further, in the case of leveraged buyouts, acquirers and targets may realize tax and accounting benefits of a more leveraged capital structure, as compared to a public company.
  • Strategic business reasons and the ability to manage the company. Private companies are not required to publicly disclose competitive information, are provided more flexible corporate governance, and can focus on business objectives rather than investor relations issues and the short-term pressures of appeasing shareholders. Moreover, a going private transaction can allow for the restructuring of a company’s businesses in ways that would adversely affect its stock prices in the short run if it remained a public company.
  • The ability to realize value. Going private may allow shareholders to realize a better price for their shares then they would otherwise realize from continuing to hold the shares or selling them on an exchange. Further, companies may go public because analysts consider a company’s share valuations to be low when compared to what the company could generate from other equity markets such as Hong Kong or Mainland China.

 

Challenges

 

Going private presents companies with challenges as well, including the inability to utilize the public markets to obtain immediate financing, a diminished public profile, and less transparency. Further, the going private process can be arduous and many such transactions are challenged in court.

 

Structures

 

A going private transaction may take various forms. Factors that influence the choice of structure include the need for outside financing, the composition of shareholders, and the likelihood of a competing bid for the company. Going private transactions are commonly structured as buyouts (either mergers or tender offers), and in some cases as reverse stock splits.

 

Special Committees

 

In order to mitigate litigation risks for the breach of fiduciary duties, boards need to ensure the fairness of a transaction to the company’s shareholders, particularly where transactions involve controlling shareholders. As such, it is common for a board to appoint a special committee of independent directors.

 

Listing in Mainland China or Hong Kong

 

Some companies plan subsequent listings in Hong Kong or Mainland China, where they speculate the valuation for their companies may be higher. For companies that were delisted or suspended from U.S. exchanges, the stigma associated with such could pose a challenge with respect to a subsequent listing, as stock exchanges and regulators require issuers to disclose their history.

 

Conclusion

 

Some basic questions that the directors and senior management of all U.S. listed Chinese companies should be asking themselves when considering going private, include: what is the most appropriate going private structure? What is a price that is demonstrably fair? Is the special committee of the board sufficiently independent? How should detailed records be maintained of board and special committee meetings, transaction negotiations and other proceedings? How can the risk of litigation be minimized?

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

ISS Updates Proxy Voting Guidelines for 2012

Recently found in the National Law Review an article by David A. Cifrino, PC, Thomas P. Conaghan, Andrew C. Liazos, Anne G. Plimpton  and Heidi Steele of McDermott Will & Emery regarding Proxy Voting Guidelines:

ISS has released its annual update to its proxy voting guidelines for the 2012 proxy season.  The update reflects changes in ISS’s pay-for-performance evaluation methodology, responses to say-on-pay votes and say-on-pay frequency votes and a number of social and environmental policies.

Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) has issued its annual update to its proxy voting guidelines, which have important implications for companies preparing for the 2012 proxy season. The updated policies apply to shareholder meetings held on or after February 1, 2012.   The annual update reflects changes in ISS’s approach towards the evaluation of executive compensation, responses to say-on-pay votes and say-on-pay frequency votes and a number of new or updated social and environmental policies. The full text of the policy updates may be accessed here.

The 2012 updates require attention by issuers before the start of upcoming proxy season.  An issuer that benefitted from a favorable ISS say-on-pay voting recommendation in 2011 may receive a negative ISS say-on-pay voting recommendation in 2012 despite no change to its corporate performance or executive pay program.  At the same time, some issuers with total shareholder return performance less favorable than in 2011 may be able to secure a favorable ISS say-on-pay voting recommendation.  To do so, it may be necessary to address additional corporate performance and executive pay matters for the first time in upcoming proxy statements.  If an issuer secured less than seventy percent shareholder support for the 2011 say-on-pay vote, failure to address the issuer’s response to that vote consistent with the 2012 updates may result in an against or withhold voting recommendation by ISS with respect to compensation committee members (or, in egregious cases, the entire board).

Key changes reflected in the 2012 updates are summarized below.

Pay-for-Performance

One of the most important changes in the updated ISS proxy guidelines is the change in the manner of analyzing pay-for-performance to provide a “more robust view of the relationship between executive pay and performance” from both a short-term and long-term perspective.  The updated ISS policy, as reflected below, is more detailed in its analysis.

2011 ISS pay-for-performance analysis 2012 ISS pay-for-performance analysis
Peer Group Alignment:
  • Total shareholder return (TSR) over a one- and three-year period compared to a company’s peer group
  • The alignment of a company’s TSR and the CEO’s total pay with that of its peers over a one-year and three-year period
  • CEO total pay as compared to the peer group median

 
CEO pay aligned with Total Shareholder Return:
  • The relationship between CEO pay and TSR over recent and long-term periods
  • The degree of alignment between the trend in CEO pay and the trend in annualized TSR over a five year period.

Under the revised guidelines, ISS will identify a company’s peer group as 14-24 companies selected based on market capitalization, revenue (or assets for financial firms) and Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS).  In most, if not all, cases this group will be different than the peer group a company uses in its determination of executive compensation.

If ISS finds that pay and performance are “misaligned” based on the above new criteria, it will evaluate additional qualitative factors such as performance goals in relation to overall compensation, time-based versus performance equity awards, financial results of the company and any other relevant factors to determine whether the compensation practices support long-term value creation and are aligned with shareholder interests.  Mitigating factors may be considered as well, such as the mix of performance- and non-performance-based pay, biennial grant practices, impact of a newly hired chief executive officer (CEO) and the rigor of performance programs.

The revised guidelines state that in general, a new CEO will not exempt the company from consideration under the analysis “as the compensation committee is also accountable when a company is compelled to significantly ‘overpay’ for new leadership due to prior poor performance.”

While the new policy provides more detailed criteria for ISS’s analysis, the new policy does little to provide predictability for companies in assessing where they will land on ISS’s evaluation spectrum for pay-for-performance.  ISS will continue to evaluate pay-for-performance on a case-by-case basis. ISS expects to provide additional guidance on is pay-for-performance methodology in December 2011.

Compensation Committee Members and 2012  Say-on-Pay Vote

ISS’s 2012 Policy Survey indicates that shareholders expect explicit responses from companies describing measures to improve their pay practices where the prior year’s say-on-pay proposal failed to garner “meaningful support” (i.e. opposition vote greater than 30 percent).  If a company’s 2011 say-on-pay proposal received less than 70 percent of the votes cast, ISS will recommend votes on a case-by-case basis for compensation committee members (and in extreme cases, for the full board) and management say-on-pay proposals.

ISS’s recommendation will take into account a company’s disclosure as to its response to the say-on-pay voting results, including substantive disclosure of company discussions with major institutional investors regarding the reasons behind the low levels of support and specific board actions taken to address the compensation practices that prompted the lack of support.

In the wake of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) and ever-increasing scrutiny on executive pay, ISS’s updated policy is a reflection of the growing demand for engagement by companies with their shareholders regarding compensation practices and policies.  It is important to remember that this change in ISS policy is occurring at the same time as SEC proxy rules require issuers to disclose the extent to which the compensation committee has taken into account the say-on-pay voting results from the 2011 proxy season.  It is prudent for issuers with relatively low levels of support from shareholders to take special care in disclosing the compensation committee’s response to the 2011 “say-on-pay” vote, particularly with respect to outreach efforts with investors.  Issuers may also want to consider if any additional action by the compensation committee is appropriate prior to its 2012 proxy filing.

Company Response to Frequency of Say-on-Pay Votes

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules require companies to provide shareholders the opportunity to vote on the frequency with which advisory say-on-pay votes will be held.  ISS will recommend voting against any incumbent director on a board that implemented a say-on-pay vote less frequently than the frequency which received the greatest number shareholder votes.

Proxy Access

Earlier this year, the SEC lifted its stay on its 2010 amendments to Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, restricting the exclusion of proxy access bylaw proposals in proxy statements in 2012.  Because the debate on proxy access is still fluid, ISS’s policy is intended to provide ISS with flexibility on proxy access proposal recommendations and does not provide guidance on specific elements of proposals that it would support.   ISS will continue to recommend votes on these proposals on a case-by-case basis, but will focus on specific factors in its analysis, such as the percentage and duration thresholds for stock ownership, the maximum proportion of directors that shareholders may nominate each year and the method of determining which nominations will be included on the ballot if multiple shareholders submit nominations.    ISS expects to issue additional guidance in January 2012 on this matter, based on its examination of the texts of specific proposals.

Risk Oversight for Directors

ISS notes that a number of failures in risk oversight by boards in recent years have given rise to greater emphasis on the board’s risk oversight function, and points to recent well publicized corporate scandals as examples of such failures.  As a result, ISS revised its list of failures that could lead to a recommendation to vote against an incumbent director in an uncontested election to explicitly include risk oversight.

ISS’s criteria for determining whether a corporate disaster or scandal has a causal nexus to a board’s oversight function is unclear.  Nevertheless, companies should ensure that their board’s risk oversight policies are up-to-date and clearly described in their public filings.

Social/Environmental Policy Updates

ISS also adopted or updated several social and environmental policies.  These reflect the increased “traction” of shareholder initiatives seeking more transparency on corporate governance processes with respect to certain social and political issues.  Among the new/updated policies are:

Political Spending– the updated ISS policy provides for a general recommendation to vote in favor of proposals that request disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities rather than recommending votes on a case-by-case basis as had been the previous ISS policy.

Lobbying Activities –the updated ISS policy recommends a vote in favor of proposals relating to any effort by a company to inform or sway public opinion as opposed to recommendations only for formal political lobbying activities as had been the previous ISS policy.

Hydraulic Fracturing – a new policy regarding the natural gas extraction technique, typically called fracking, to vote in favor of proposals that request greater disclosure of a company’s fracking operations and measures taken to mitigate community and environmental risks. The recommendation will take into account several factors, including (i) the company’s disclosure compared to its peers and (ii) controversies, fines or litigation related to its fracking operations.

Workplace Safety – a new policy recommendation to vote in favor of proposals requesting workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts.

Water Issues – a new policy to recommend, on a case-by-case basis, voting on proposals that request a company establish a new policy regarding or provide a report on water-related risks and concerns.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

U.S. Department of Education Amends its FERPA Regulations to Allow for Certain Additional Student Disclosures

Published in the National Law Review an article by attorney Stephen A. Mendelsohn of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding  Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section 1232g:

 

GT Law

The United States Department of Education (DOE) has completed its administrative procedures and has enacted new regulations that amend current regulations enforcing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section 1232g. These new regulations, which are effective on January 3, 2012, allow for greater disclosures of personal and directory student identifying information and regulate student IDs and e-mail addresses, among other issues. The new regulations are found at 34 CFR, Part 99, sections 99.3, 99.31, 99.5, 99.6 and 99.37. Colleges and universities need to quickly consider the impact of these new regulations upon their current student privacy policies and existing notices. Failure to do so may result in complaints and DOE enforcement proceedings.

FERPA

FERPA is a longstanding federal statute which provides that a parent or eligible student, if over the age of 18, has a right to inspect and review the student’s education records and to have them amended and withdrawn, under certain circumstances. FERPA is applicable to all public K-12 school districts and virtually all post secondary institutions, as they receive federal funds under programs administered by the DOE. FERPA generally prohibits the disclosure of personally identifying information (PII) contained in “education records,” without aparent’s or student’s written consent, to certain third parties. There are a number of statutory exceptions for emergency medical and health reasons and for law enforcement activities, among others. PII includes a student’s name, social security number, parents’ names, family addresses, birth dates, place of birth, a parent’s maiden name, and any other data that make a student’s identity easily traceable.

FERPA makes a distinction between PII and “directory information.” DOE regulations allow for the disclosure of directory information, without needing a student’s or parent’s consent, unless the parent or student has opted out of such disclosure. A school subject to FERPA must provide a written notice to parents or students setting forth its disclosure policies concerning directory information with the procedures for opting out and contesting the student’s education records.

The New Regulations

A. Directory Information and Student IDs

The new regulations clarify that an institution may, under certain circumstances, designate and disclose student ID numbers, or other unique personal identifiers, as directory information to be displayed on a student’s ID card or badge as long as the ID card is not the sole method of obtaining access to the student’s education records and is used with other credible identifiers. The regulations also provide that a parent or student may not opt out of the disclosure of such directory information.

The DOE left it up to the schools to determine what specifically should be included on a student ID. It also stated that FERPA does not require schools to force students to wear IDs. With regulations enacted in 2008, institutions may use directory information to access online electronic systems and to allow a school to require a student to disclose his/her name, identifying information and institutional e-mail address in and out of class. The DOE further clarified that an institution need not make directory information available on student IDs, but may do so if it so chooses.

B. Studies and Audit and Evaluation Exceptions

The new regulations also allow for the disclosure of PII, without student or parent consent, where institutions have contracted with organizations to conduct studies or audits of the effectiveness of education programs. However, the regulations require a written agreement with the organization containing mandatory provisions intended to guard the privacy of student records. The regulations also provide institutions with detailed, required provisions aimed at preventing PII from ending up in the hands of persons or entities not intended or permitted to receive them, and guidelines for addressing data breaches. A careful review of the regulations is necessary before an institution enters into any agreement to provide PII access to an organization that is conducting a study or an audit and evaluation.

C. Notices

The new regulations contain a model notification of rights form for post secondary institutions to provide to students and parents. Given the changes in the DOE’s regulations described in this Alert, current notice forms must be re-examined to determine whether they are in compliance. Also, the DOE’s model form has a number of optional provisions that each institution should evaluate based on their specific needs.

Conclusion

FERPA and the DOE’s regulations are complex and create the potential for administrative sanctions. The new regulations give expanded authority to institutions to make disclosures, but a careful approach to crafting policies and disclosures is necessary to avoid administrative penalties, as well as possible lawsuits by students and parents.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved

Barnes & Thornburg Labor Relations’ Top Ten Traditional Labor Stories of 2011 (Part 1)

‘Tis the season for year-end recaps, and we here at BT Labor Relations couldn’t resist taking our own look back at the year in traditional labor. As we move into 2012, here’s our countdown of the top ten traditional labor issues that made the news this year. Numbers 10 through 6 are below; check back tomorrow for our top five.

10. The Board sues Arizona over secret ballot constitutional amendment

2011 started off with a bang in January when the Board’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon threatened to sue four states (Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah) over their secret ballot union election constitutional amendments. All four states added provisions to their state constitutions mandating that union elections be held by secret ballot only, after constitutional amendments passed by public referendum at the November 2010 election. These constitutional amendments were in response to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) proposed in Congress in 2009, which would have required an employer to recognize a union if a majority of employees signed cards stating their desire for representation. This “card check” method of recognition is currently allowed by the NLRA, but employers have the option of demanding that election of the union be confirmed by a secret ballot. EFCA would have taken this option away from employers (as well as enacting other pro-union changes to the NLRA).

EFCA never became law, but the constitutional amendments in these states passed anyway, purportedly preserving the right of a secret ballot election for employers in those states. The amendments as they currently stand do not conflict with the NLRA, but the NLRB nevertheless took exception to them, claiming that such state provisions are preempted by federal law. After a back and forth discussion with the states’ Attorneys General during the early part of 2011, the NLRB filed suit against Arizona in May, asking the court to declare that Arizona’s constitutional amendment was preempted by federal law and therefore unenforceable.

Although EFCA never became law, the NLRB has made attempts to individually implement many of the pro-union changes proposed in the bill, and Arizona has become the battleground for card checks. So far, the NLRB’s lawsuit appears to have some traction. The Arizona federal court hearing the case has deniedArizona’s motion to dismiss and litigation continues. Stay tuned in 2012 as this issue continues to develop …

See B&T’s previous coverage of this issue here.

9. The NLRB strikes a blow to mandatory arbitration policies in Supply Technologies

Companies love mandatory arbitration policies in contracts and in May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in AT&T v. Concepcion upholding such policies in consumer contracts. Employers also see the appeal of mandatory arbitration clauses and many union contracts include such provisions. However, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge reminded employers of the limits of such policies in a decision in June, finding in Supply Technologies LLC that an employer’s arbitration policy violated the NLRA by unlawfully restricting employees’ rights by suggesting that an employee had to bring any unfair labor practice charge through the arbitration procedure, and thus could not make that charge with the Board. This decision served as a warning for employers hopeful after theConcepcion decision that arbitration provisions should be carefully reviewed before being included in collective bargaining agreements. Employers should know that just because SCOTUS approves, doesn’t mean the Board will.

See B&T’s previous coverage of this issue here.

8. Congress sits up and takes notice (although no new legislation is actually passed)

With a new majority in the House of Representatives after the 2010 elections, certain Republican members of Congress have made the NLRB their new target this year. Several hearings were held by Congressional Committees to discuss what many characterize as the pro-union, “activist agenda of the National Labor Relations Board.” The Board’s complaint against Boeing was a frequent target, as well as its decisions regarding posting requirements, “quickie” elections, and “micro” bargaining units.

Additionally, Republicans in both the House and the Senate have introduced bills to amend the NLRA to reverse these controversial actions taken by the NLRB in 2011. The Democrats weren’t able to get EFCA passed when they had a majority of both houses, so it is unlikely that any of this legislation will actually be passed by a divided Congress, but the NLRB’s continued perceived pro-union actions have made traditional labor a key issue as we move into the 2012 election season.

See B&T’s previous coverage of this issue here.

7. General Counsel memo regarding mandatory language in settlement agreements puts additional pressure on employers

This year, the Board has placed additional pressure on employers looking to settle NLRB proceedings with the issuance of a memo by General Counsel Solomon in January which requires mandatory language in settlement agreements whereby an employer in effect agrees in advance that if it is even accused of violating the agreement, all of the prior charges against it have merit. Although the Board characterized this language as necessary for effective enforcement of such agreements, this requirement likely has the effect of simply making employers less willing to settle a case. And it was another example of the Board’s aggressive efforts to secure rights for unions in 2011.

See B&T’s previous coverage of this issue here.

6. Specialty Healthcare decision opens the door for “micro” bargaining units

One of the Board’s more controversial decisions of 2011 was issued in August regarding appropriate bargaining units. In Specialty Healthcare (357 NLRB No. 83), the Board overturned 20 years of precedent regarding determination of an appropriate bargaining unit in non-acute health care facilities. The Board increased the burden on employers who wish to challenge a bargaining unit petitioned for by a union to include more employees. Under the new standard, employers have the burden to prove that the employees the employer believes also should be part of the unit share an “overwhelming community interest” with the petitioned for employees. The previous rule (as articulated by the Board inPark Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991)), applied a lower standard: whether the community of interest of the employees the employer sought to include was “sufficiently distinct from those of other employees” in order to justify their exclusion from the bargaining unit.

The upshot is that this decision allows unions to pursue so-called “micro” bargaining units, and it will be easier for unions to certify bargaining unit(s) piecemeal, even when a majority of employees in a facility do not desire union representation. This decision helps unions trying to “get a foot in the door” by allowing them to target vulnerable employer sub-groups.

This decision was targeted by legislation introduced in Congress to reverse it, but for now, it remains current Board law and sets up new challenges for employers seeking to avoid unionization.

See B&T’s previous coverage of this issue here.

Disagree with our picks? Let us know in the comments what traditional labor issues you think were most important in 2011. And don’t forget to check back tomorrow for our top five!

© 2011 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

CEQ Issues Draft Guidance to Promote Efficient NEPA Environmental Reviews

Recently posted in the National Law Review  an article by attorney Melissa C. Meirink of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding the draft guideance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ):

GT Law

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently issued draft guidance designed to promote more efficient environmental reviews of projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before deciding to adopt a proposal or to take action. NEPA is triggered when there is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Although the current NEPA-implementing regulations provide methods for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews, the CEQ’s proposed guidance will emphasize and clarify those methods. Specifically, the guidance outlines the following principles for agencies to follow when conducting a NEPA review:

  • NEPA encourages simple, straightforward, and concise reviews
  • The NEPA process should begin early and should be integrated into project planning
  • NEPA reviews should adopt, use, and incorporate existing documents and studies
  • Targeted scoping can assist to focus environmental reviews on appropriate issues
  • Agencies should develop expeditious timelines for environmental reviews
  • Agencies should respond to comments in proportion to the scope and scale of the environmental issues raised

In addition, the draft guidance clarifies that many provisions of the existing regulations referring to an environmental impact statement (EIS) can also apply to an environmental assessment (EA).  The draft guidance also provides measures to eliminate duplication of efforts and to promote better interagency interaction.

The draft guidance would promote a clear and more streamlined environmental review process under NEPA that would benefit agencies, project proponents, and others interested in the NEPA process.  The CEQ is accepting public comment on the draft guidance until January 27, 2012. 

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Thirty-Two Health Care Organizations to Participate in Pioneer ACO Program

Barnes & Thornburg LLP‘s Heather Fesko Delgado recently posted in the National Law Review  an article about  32 health care organizations from around the country will participate in the Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) program.

According to a U.S. Department of Health & Human Services media release that was issued earlier today, 32 health care organizations from around the country will participate in the Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) program.

Under the program, which is operated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center, groups of health care providers that have formed ACOs will be rewarded by Medicare based on how well they are able to both improve the health of their Medicare patients and lower their health care costs. HHS hopes the program will save up to $1.1 billion over the next five years by encouraging health care specialists “to provide better, more coordinated care for people with Medicare.”

The 32 Pioneer ACOs were selected from a pool of over 80 applicants. According to the media release, “selected Pioneer ACOs include physician-led organizations and health systems, urban and rural organizations, and organizations in various geographic regions of the country, representing 18 states and the opportunity to improve care for 860,000 Medicare beneficiaries.”

The first performance period of the Pioneer ACO Model will begin Jan. 1, 2012.

Additional information on the Pioneer ACO model can be accessed by downloading the CMS Fact Sheet here.

© 2011 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

The Credit Mark Predicament: A Bank Recapitalization Hurdle

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by The Financial Institutions Group of Schiff Hardin LLP regarding community banks are searching for capital:

 

 

 

Many community banks are searching for capital either as a cushion to cover credit losses, to meet higher capital standards set by regulatory enforcement actions, or to support balance sheet growth driven by open or closed bank acquisitions, branch purchases or organic expansion.

Any community bank that intends to raise capital has to deal with investor skepticism over the bank’s credit quality. That skepticism gets addressed in most cases by a third-party credit review performed at the direction of the bank, with the results later confirmed by the investor’s own review firm. Because third-party credit reviews have become a gating issue to raising capital, management teams are making decisions about what firm to hire for the work, the scope of the review and how to strategically manage the risks inherent in these reviews.

Many of the risks and strategic approaches for managing third-party credit reviews may not be obvious to bank management, which is for the first time retaining a firm to perform this type of review with the very specific purpose of inducing investors to invest. Likewise, management may not be fully informed as to how the portfolio review will be used by potential investors to evaluate the merits of their investment.

It is hard to over-emphasize the importance of management being careful and strategically thoughtful in: the selection of its third-party credit review firm; the timing of the review in relation to an impending regulatory exam, year-end audit or capital-raising transaction; the scope and methodology of the review; and the use of the results of the review once completed. There are nuances galore in this process and the very survival of the bank can rest in the balance if the process is mishandled.

The attached article surveys the key issues management should consider before retaining a third-party credit review firm, and explains how these reports are used by potential investors in making determinations about investing in a particular bank. In addition, the article reviews common mistakes made in retaining third-party credit review firms.

In assessing a particular third-party credit review firm for hire, the following are ten key questions:

  1. Are the bank’s files and documentation in good shape before the third-party credit review begins? If questionable, will several days of advance “triage” of the portfolio be useful in assessing whether the bank will show well based on the order of its documents, all in an effort to avoid judgmental credit downgrades based on file quality?
  2. Does the firm have a senior project manager with strong verbal communication skills that will facilitate discussion of the review results with the board of directors and any potential investors?
  3. Will the firm commit to remaining engaged and active throughout the recapitalization process, to serve in a rebuttal capacity with third-party credit review firms retained by potential investors, and to update its work if necessary as the recapitalization process progresses?
  4. Will the firm provide value to the bank solely by providing a credit valuation, or would the bank benefit from a firm that has not only valuation experience but also skills and capabilities to provide post-valuation loan workout services, including assisting in developing recovery strategies on an individual NPA basis?
  5. Should the firm provide a verbal conclusion on its credit mark before committing its conclusions to writing?
  6. Should the firm be retained by the bank’s legal counsel as opposed to directly by the bank?
  7. Should the firm review and value only the NPA portfolio, or should the review extend to the performing portfolio as well, and, accordingly, assess migration risk of the performing book?
  8. Is the bank seeking capital from institutional investors that will insist on a brand name credit review firm in order to give the review results credibility?
  9. Will the firm review only “paper” in the files or will it spend time with both the bank’s chief credit officer and other credit professionals in reaching valuation determinations?
  10. Finally, will the bank’s personnel have the time and capacity to respond to the document calls by the third-party credit review firm given the other demands on management’s time, recognizing the burden these reviews place on management?

© 2011 Schiff Hardin LLP

NLRB Approves Significant Changes to Representation Election Procedures

Recently published  in The National Law Review an article byJ. Kevin Hennessy, Kenneth F. Sparks, Mark L. Stolzenburg and Lyle S. Zuckerman of Vedder Price P.C. regarding NLRB’s vote at a public meeting on November 30, 2011:  

In June 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought to significantly change the procedures for representation elections under the National Labor Relations Act. The purpose of the Proposed Rulemaking was to limit the time that an employer has to express its views to employees regarding unionization during a campaign. The NLRB held two days of hearings in July 2011 regarding the proposed rule and received over 65,000 written comments.

At a public meeting on November 30, 2011, by a 2-1 party-line vote, the NLRB voted in favor of a resolution to adopt many provisions of the rule proposed in June. While some of the more controversial provisions were not included, the amendments that the NLRB approved in its November 30 resolution will quicken the election process.

That said, the Board still must draft a final rule and vote on it. However, with the recess appointment of Board Member Craig Becker expiring on December 31, 2011, the Board will lose its three-member quorum and therefore will be unable to adopt rules or otherwise conduct business in any significant manner after that date. Senate Republicans have announced that they will remain in session between now and the 2012 elections, depriving President Obama of the ability to make any additional recess appointments to the NLRB. As a result, employers should expect that the Board will move quickly to prepare and vote on a final rule within the next few weeks.

The resolution that the Board adopted on November 30 contains six procedural amendments to be included in the final rule regarding changes to the election process:

1.  The final rule would amend the existing rule regarding the purpose of pre-election hearings, making them for the sole purpose of determining “whether a question concerning representation exists that should be resolved by an election.” The primary effect of this rule is to preclude litigation about most voter-eligibility issues, such as supervisory status, during pre-election hearings. It is unclear whether this would preclude parties from litigating the overall appropriateness of the petitioned-for bargaining unit. The resolution appears to be more restrictive than the rule proposed by the Board in June 2011, which would have allowed the parties to litigate eligibility issues in a pre-election hearing if those issues involved at least 20 percent of the proposed voting unit.

2.  Under current rules, parties may file post-hearing briefs as a matter of right. The amended rule leaves to the discretion of the hearing officer whether post-hearing briefs will be permitted. In most cases, the parties will be allowed to make closing arguments at the end of the hearing, and briefs will be permitted only where unique or complicated issues are involved.

3.  Current rules require parties to file separate appeals to seek Board review regarding pre-election and post-election issues. The amended rules eliminate all pre-election review by the Board, and will consolidate all issues for review, including election objections, in a single, post-election appeal. According to Chairman Pearce, this will avoid appeals of issues “that become moot as a result of the election.”

4. The fourth amendment eliminates the 25- to 30-day waiting period between issuance of a Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and the scheduling of an election. The purpose of this waiting period is to allow parties to request review of the Regional Director’s decision by the Board, a process that is eliminated by the third amendment.

5. The fifth amendment would limit to “extraordinary circumstances” occasions when requests for special permission to appeal to the Board would be granted. Under this standard, the Board would entertain pre-election appeals only when the issue would “otherwise evade review.”

6. Currently the Board must consider any post-election requests for review. The sixth amendment would make Board review of post-election appeals discretionary, permitting the Board to summarily dispose of appeals “that do not present a serious issue for review.” This is the same standard that currently exists for pre-election reviews.

Several components of the rule proposed in June were not included in the Board’s resolution adopted on November 30. Those are (i) inclusion of employee e-mail address and telephone number on voter-eligibility lists provided to the union before the election, (ii) reducing the time that an employer has to provide the voter eligibility list to the union from seven to two days, (iii) requiring parties to state their positions regarding pre-election issues prior to the hearing and (iv) requiring an employer to provide a “preliminary voter list” before the pre-election hearing. However, on November 30, the Board reserved its right to continue considering these elements of the June rulemaking session.

As NLRB Member Brian Hayes noted at the November 30 public meeting during which the Board voted to adopt the resolution, the median time between the filing of a petition and an election in 2010 was 38 days, and about 95 percent of all elections occur within 56 days. The time target in most cases is for an election to occur within 42 days of the filing of a petition. The amendments approved in the Board’s resolution may have little effect on elections in which the parties agree about the composition of the voting unit and other details without a hearing. However, where there is a dispute over the eligibility of certain voters, elections will occur much more quickly than in the past. In addition, the amendments may increase uncertainty for employers during campaigns. Issues of supervisory status will not be resolved until after an election is over. As a result, employers may be placed at increased risk of unfair labor practice allegations for the conduct of individuals who were not deemed supervisors until long after a campaign concluded.

As a result of these rules that the NLRB is soon to adopt, employers should review their contingency plans for organizing drives and give serious thought to the content of condensed campaigns. Shorter election campaigns may soon be a reality.

© 2011 Vedder Price P.C.

Health Care Information Privacy and Security Forum

The National Law Review is pleased to inform you of American Conference Institute’s Health Care Information Privacy and Security Forum Conference on Monday, December 05 to Tuesday, December 06, 2011 at the Union League, Philadelphia, PA.

ACI

Our Nation is poised to harness the power of information technology to improve health care. Transforming our health care system into a 21st century model is a bold agenda… [I]t is more important than ever to ensure consumer trust in theprivacy and security of their health information and in the industry’s use of new technology.

Statement on Privacy and Security, Building Trust in
Health Information Exchange, July 8, 2010.
We Have Entered the Era of Health Information Technology and Face New and Daunting Challenges in Keeping Health Information Private and Secure. Assess Your Current HIPAA Compliance Program to Ensure Best HIT Practices as You Prepare for New Privacy and Security Responsibilities in the Age of HITECH.

Privacy and security of health care information are critical concerns for HIPAA covered entities and an ever expanding circle of business associates.  Knowing the basics of the HIPAA are no longer enough in the age of HITECH when mandates giving rise to the predominance of EHRs and HIEs are taking center stage in the privacy and security challenges with which privacy, information, and security officers, and their counsel must contend every day.  The modes and modalities for storing health care information are becoming more and more complex in the age of HIT — as are the safeguards for keeping this information from unauthorized disclosure.

Now is Not the Time for Regulatory Paralysis, but for Action.

Industry stakeholders are analyzing their obligations under the draft accounting and disclosure rule and awaiting the release of the final HIPAA privacy rule. However, they know that they cannot remain paralyzed with anticipation, but must act upon the information they have and that which they are already obligated to do. Now is the time to ensure that all systems are in compliance with existing law and regulation and flexible enough for reconciliation with new requirements.

Attend ACI’s Health Care Privacy and Security Forum and Get the Critical Information that You Need to Meet Your HIPAA
and HITECH Privacy and Security Challenges Head-On. 

ACI’s Health Care Privacy and Security Forum has been designed to help you navigate the legal and business complexities associated with HIPAA, HITECH (as well as state privacy and security laws and regulations) and the ever evolving legal and regulatory privacy and security landscape. Our faculty of privacy and security experts will walk you through legal and business challenges associated with the anticipated regulations; HIT infrastructure and EHRs; HIEs; business associates; breach; encryption; and enforcement.

Benefit from Special Training and Strategy Sessions that Will Address the Essentials of HIPAA and HITECH and Critical Privacy and Security Compliance Audit Competencies.

To enhance and complete your conference experience, we are pleased to offer the following training and strategy sessions:

•    HIPAA and HITECH Boot Camp: Intensive Training in Privacy and Security Essentials for Health Care Professionals which will provide you with the legal and regulatory backdrop for the more in-depth HIPAA and HITECH controversies discussed in the main conference. This is the perfect course for attendees who are new to health care privacy and security matters or for more experienced professionals who are in need of a refresher; and

•    The Working Group on Auditing, Updating and Perfecting Your Existing HIPAA / HITECH Privacy and Security Compliance Program which will help you implement best practices to ensure that your current health care privacy and security program is in-check with current law and regulations and prepare you for HITECH-mandated HHS compliance audits applicable to both HIPAA covered-entities and business associates.

As an added bonus, your conference registration includes
your choice of one of these sessions.

Reserve Your Place Now at this Critical HIPAA and HITECH Event.
Clearly, this is the health care privacy and security conference that every legal or business advisor to a HIPAA covered entity or business associate cannot afford to miss. Register now by calling 1-888-224-2480, faxing your registration form to 1-877-927-1563 or logging on to www.AmericanConference.com/HIPAA-HITECH.