Category: Regulatory

Dodd-Frank Update — Several Regulatory and Legislative Proposals of Note

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorneys  Sylvie A. Durham, Genna Garver and Dmitry G. Ivanov of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding  the OCC, FDIC and SEC’s proposed a joint rule implementing theVolcker Rule:

GT Law

REGULATORS PROPOSE VOLCKER RULE:

On October 11, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a joint proposed rule implementing the long awaited Volcker Rule. This proposal establishes exemptions from the prohibition on proprietary trading and restrictions on covered fund activities and investments as well as limitations on those exemptions. In addition, the proposal requires certain banking entities to report quantitative measurements with respect to their trading activities and to establish enhanced compliance programs regarding the Volcker Rule, including adopting written policies and procedures. Appendices to the proposal provide the quantitative measurements to be used to report trading activities, commentary regarding the factors the agencies propose to use to distinguish permitted market making-related activities from prohibited proprietary trading and the minimum requirements and standards for compliance programs. Comments should be received on or before January 13, 2012. A copy of the proposed rule is available here.

FSOC PROPOSES RULE TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE CERTAIN NON-BANK FINANCIAL COMPANIES:

On October 11, 2011, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) issued its second proposed rule and interpretive guidance to provide additional details regarding the framework that FSOC intends to use in the process of assessing whether a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability, and further opportunity for public comment on FSOC’s approach to making determinations to require supervision and regulation of certain nonbank financial companies in accordance with Title I of Dodd-Frank, previously proposed on January 26, 2011. The proposed rule, previously proposed on January 26, 2011, has been modified to provide additional details about the processes and procedures through which FSOC may make this determination under Dodd-Frank, and the manner in which a nonbank financial company may respond to and contest a proposed determination. Importantly, the interpretive guidance sets out a three-stage process of increasingly in-depth evaluation and analysis leading up to a proposed determination that a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. The first stage would involve a quantitative analysis by applying thresholds that related to the framework categories of size, interconnectedness, leverage and liquidity risk and maturity mismatch. A company will be evaluated further in stage 2 only if it both meets the total consolidated assets threshold ($50 billion in global consolidated assets for U.S. global financial companies or $50 billion in U.S. total consolidated assets for foreign nonbank financial companies) and any one of the other enumerated metrics. Stage 2 would involve a wide range of quantitative and qualitative industry-specific and company-specific factors. Stage 3 would focus on the company’s potential to pose a threat to the U.S. financial system. Comments are due by December 19, 2011. A copy of the proposed rule is available here.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DERIVATIVES RULEMAKING:

A bill was introduced in the Senate to extend the deadline for rulemaking on derivatives to July 16, 2012. The Dodd-Frank Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 1650) would require the SEC, the CFTC and other relevant regulators to jointly adopt an implementation schedule for derivatives regulations by December 31, 2011, which would, among other things, specify schedules for publication of final rules and for the effective dates for provisions in Dodd-Frank on derivatives. The proposed bill would also allow the regulators to issue exemptions with respect to swap transactions, activities or persons from the Dodd-Frank Act derivatives provisions, would exempt end-users of swaps from margin requirements, would revise the definition of major swap participants to “prevent Main Street businesses that are using derivatives to hedge business risks from being regulated like swap dealers,” and would exempt inter-affiliate transactions from the definition of “swaps.” The bill would also create the Office of Derivatives within the SEC to “administer rules, coordinate oversight and monitor the developments in the market.” The text of the bill is available by clicking here.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO FREEZE REGULATORY RULEMAKING:

Two bills were introduced in the House of Representatives to freeze regulatory rulemaking actions during a “moratorium period” and to repeal certain existing regulations. The Job Creation and Regulatory Freeze Act of 2011 (H.R. 3194)would establish a moratorium period until January 20, 2013, prohibiting regulators from adopting any “covered regulations,” which would include final regulations that, among other things, would have an adverse effect on employment, economy or public health or are likely to “have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more.” At the same time, the bill would allow rulemaking, to the extent necessary “due to an imminent threat to human health or safety, or any other emergency” or if it promotes “private sector job creation,” encourages economic growth or reduces “regulatory burdens.” The Stop the Regulation Invasion Please Act of 2011, or STRIP Act of 2011 (H.R. 3181) would also establish a two-year moratorium period for all new rulemaking, except in certain limited circumstances. In addition, that bill would repeal, with certain exceptions, all rules that became effective after October 1, 1991. The existing rules that would continue in effect would need to be justified before the Congress based on cost-benefit analysis. The H.R. 3194 is available by clicking here; and the H.R. 3181 is available by clicking here.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

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.

EEOC and Cracker Barrel Sign National Mediation Agreement

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Cracker Barrel Old Country Store signing of a National Universal Agreement to Mediate:

WASHINGTON – Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the signing of a National Universal Agreement to Mediate (NUAM) to streamline the handling of employment discrimination claims.

With the signing of this agreement, Cracker Barrel joins more than 200 national and regional private sector employers, including several Fortune 500 companies, who have made similar arrangements with the EEOC. This agreement provides the framework for both organizations to informally resolve any workplace issues that may arise from time to time through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) rather than through a traditional lengthy, formal EEOC investigation or potential litigation. The NUAM includes all Cracker Barrel locations.

“Nationwide mediation agreements like this are a classic win-win,” said Nicholas Inzeo, Director of the EEOC’s Office of Field Programs. “NUAMs are a non-adversarial and efficient way for companies to handle discrimination charges using the EEOC as a partner and advisor. EEOC mediation encourages a positive work environment, and the company saves time and money. Everyone benefits. We are gratified that a major employer such as Cracker Barrel has joined the growing ranks of companies that are making use of this innovative system.”

Cracker Barrel Vice President and General Counsel Michael J. Zylstra said, “Cracker Barrel is committed to providing a fully inclusive workplace, where diversity is welcomed and everyone is treated with courtesy and respect. This innovative agreement builds upon our existing policies and procedures to effectively and fairly resolve employee concerns and demonstrates our shared goal to create a bias-free workplace. We look forward to developing an even stronger relationship with the EEOC.”

Under the terms of the NUAM, any eligible charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC in which Cracker Barrel is named as an employer/respondent will be referred to the EEOC’s mediation unit. The company will designate a corporate representative to handle all inquiries and other logistical matters related to potential charges in order to facilitate a prompt scheduling of the matter for EEOC mediation.

Expanding mediation is a key component of the EEOC’s efforts to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. The EEOC has entered into 233 national and regional Universal Agreements to Mediate (UAMs) with private sector employers, including several Fortune 500 companies. Additionally, EEOC district offices have entered into 1,743 mediation agreements with employers at the local levels within their respective jurisdictions. Since the full implementation of the EEOC’s National Mediation Program in April 1999, more than 136,000 charges of employment discrimination have been mediated, with nearly 70 percent being successfully resolved.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Nasdaq: CBRL) was established in 1969 in Lebanon, Tenn., and operates 604 company-owned locations in 42 states. For more information, visit www.crackerbarrel.com.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC and its mediation program is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Legal Issues Surrounding Social Media Background Checks

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Michelle Sherman of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP regarding establishing an internal procedure for using the Internet to make employment decisions is one more piece of a sound ethics and compliance program that addresses how your company is using social media.

Agatha Christie had a novel take on invention being the mother of necessity. She disagreed and said, “[I]nvention, in my opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save oneself trouble.” She may have been onto something when you think about businesses that are turning to outside vendors to research employees and job candidates for them. Whether or not these outside vendors are the best solution, however, remains to be seen.

  1. Companies Should Have An Internal Procedure For Researching Job Candidates And Employees On The Internet

We recommended earlier this year that businesses establish an internal procedure for making employment decisions based on Internet research, so they would not run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit job discrimination based on protected factors. The protected factors include, for example: (1) Race, color, national origin, religion and gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (2) Sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, cancer, political affiliation, genetic characteristics, and gender identity under California law. Most states have their own list of protected factors, which should be considered depending on where your company has employees.

Not surprisingly, the legal risks of making employment decisions using the Internet have become a real concern for businesses, especially when you consider that 54% of employers surveyed in 2011 acknowledged using the Internet to research job candidates. The actual number of employers using the Internet is probably higher, and sometimes companies may not even be aware that their employees are researching job candidates and factoring that information into their evaluations. This is yet another reason to establish an internal procedure for researching job candidates, and communicating your procedure to employees who are participating in the employment process.

There is nothing wrong with researching people on the Internet so long as it is done properly. The Internet has a wealth of useful information, some of it intentionally posted by job applicants for employers to consider such as LinkedIn profiles.

With this “necessity” to do Internet searches properly, some businesses have turned to outside vendors to do the research for them, and, thereby, try to reduce their legal exposure and the administrative inconvenience of doing it themselves. At least one of these vendors has received letters concerning its business practices from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and, more recently, two U.S. Senators.

  1. The Business Practices Of Outside Vendors That Provide Social Media Background Checks Are Being Examined For Compliance With Privacy And Intellectual Property Laws

On May 9, 2011, the staff of the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection sent a “no action” letter to Social Intelligence Corporation (“Social Intelligence”), “an Internet and social media background screening service used by employers in pre-employment background screening.” The FTC treated Social Intelligence as a consumer reporting agency “because it assembles or evaluates consumer report information that is furnished to third parties that use such information as a factor in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for employment.” The FTC stated that the same rules that apply to consumer reporting agencies (such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)) apply equally in the social networking context. These rules include the obligation to provide employees or applicants with notice of any adverse action taken on the basis of these reports. Businesses should also be mindful of similar state consumer protection laws that may be applicable (e.g. California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act).

The FTC concluded by stating that information provided by Social Intelligence about its policies and procedures for compliance with the FCRA appears not to warrant further action, but that its action “is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred,” and that the FTC “reserves the right to take further action as the public interest may require.” This FTC “no action” letter was reported fairly widely, and probably increased the comfort level of businesses that wanted to use an outside service for Internet background checks.

On September 19, 2011, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) and Al Franken (D-Minn) sent a letter to Social Intelligence with 13 questions regarding whether the company is taking steps to ensure that the information it is gathering from social networks is accurate, whether the company is respecting the guidelines for how the websites and their users want the content used, and whether the company is protecting consumers’ right to online privacy. The letter raises some legitimate concerns, and requests a prompt response from Social Intelligence to the questions presented.

  1. Legal Assurances That Your Company May Want To Seek If Using An Outside Vendor

Some of the questions also warrant due consideration on the part of businesses receiving reports from outside vendors about how much weight they want to give the information provided. Further, what the business may want in the form of legal assurances from the outside vendor that no laws (e.g. FCRA, privacy, copyright, or other intellectual property laws) have been violated in gathering the information or providing screenshot copies of pages from social networking sites.

Some of the questions from the Senators which raise these concerns include, for example:

1. “How does your company determine the accuracy of the information it provides to employers?” [Social Intelligence is reportedly collecting social networking activity dating back 7 years, and, therefore, may capture something that was later removed, or was a “tag” post through a picture that the job candidate was not responsible for making public, and may have removed once it came to his attention.]

2. “Is your company able to differentiate among applicants with common names? How?” [e.g. Have they researched the correct “Jane Smith” of the hundreds on Facebook since social security numbers or other specific identifying information is not useful on social networking sites as it is with the standard background check.]

3. “Is the information that your company collects from social media websites like Facebook limited to information that can be seen by everyone, or does your company endeavor to access restricted information.”

4. “The reports that your company prepares for employers contain screenshots of the sources of the information your company compiles…These websites are typically governed by terms of service agreements that prohibit the collection, dissemination, or sale of users’ content without the consent of the user and/or the website….. Your company’s business model seems to necessitate violating these agreements. does your company operate in compliance with the agreements found on sites whose content your company compiles and sells?”

5. There appears “to be significant violations of user’s intellectual property rights to control the use of the content that your company collects and sells. …. These pictures [of the users], taken from sites like Flickr and Picasa, are often licensed by the owner for a narrow set of uses, such as noncommercial use only or a prohibition on derivative works. Does your company obtain permission from the owners of these pictures to use, sell, or modify them?”

  1. Conclusion

Establishing an internal procedure for using the Internet to make employment decisions is one more piece of a sound ethics and compliance program that addresses how your company is using social media. If using an outside vendor to perform social media background checks is part of that policy, you should assure yourself that the company is acting in compliance with the relevant laws.  

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Office of Foreign Assets Control: Understanding the Federal Agency

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Simi Z. Botic and D. Michael Crites of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding  the climate surrounding our nation’s safety has drastically changed since 9/11: 

Since September 11, 2001, the climate surrounding our nation’s safety has drastically changed. In an effort to promote United States foreign policy and national security goals, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has responded to the changing political environment. Although OFAC is not a recent development, the agency certainly operates with the present security sensitivities in mind.

OFAC operates within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, administering and enforcing economic and trade sanctions. Blocking necessary assets exemplifies one trade sanction often imposed by OFAC. In particular, sanctions are enforced against targeted foreign countries, terrorist regimes, drug traffickers, distributers of weapons of mass destruction, and other individuals, organizations, government entities, and companies that threaten the security or economy of the United States.

By enforcing the necessary economic and trade sanctions, OFAC restricts prohibited transactions. OFAC defines a prohibited transaction as a “trade or financial transaction and other dealing in which U.S. persons may not engage unless authorized by OFAC or expressly exempted by statute.” OFAC is largely responsible for investigating the “prohibited transactions” of individuals, organizations, and companies who operate in foreign nations. OFAC also has the ability to grant exemptions for prohibited transactions on a case-by-case basis.

Administrative subpoenas, vital OFAC investigation tools, allow OFAC to order individuals or entities to keep full and complete records regarding any transaction engaged in, and to furnish these records at any time requested. Both the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, 5 U.S.C. § 5, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(2), grant OFAC the authority to issue administrative subpoenas.

Adam J. Szubin is the current director of OFAC. In his capacity as director, Mr. Szubin is authorized by 31 CFR § 501.602 to hold hearings, administer oaths, examine witnesses, take depositions, require testimony, and demand the production of any books, documents, or relevant papers relating to the matter of investigation. Once OFAC has issued an administrative subpoena, the addressee is required to respond in writing within thirty calendar days from the date of issuance. The response should be directed to the named Enforcement Investigations Officer, located at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Office of Enforcement, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Should an addressee fail to respond to an administrative subpoena, civil penalties may be imposed. If information is falsified or withheld, the addressees could receive criminal fines and imprisonment. OFAC is authorized to penalize a party up to $50,000 for failure to maintain records. Therefore, should you find yourself the recipient of an OFAC administrative subpoena, it is imperative that you do not delay in responding. Typically, OFAC requests detailed information about payments or transactions, along with documentation to support such information. The subpoena response should be drafted by your attorney. The addressee of the letter should not have direct communication with OFAC. Counsel for the addressee should also follow up with the individual OFAC officer to make sure that all necessary paperwork was received.

Lastly, entities are encouraged to make voluntary disclosures when there has been an OFAC violation. Once a subpoena has been issued, disclosures are no longer considered voluntary. If information is turned over in response to an administrative subpoena, it may then be referred to other law enforcement agencies for possible criminal investigation and prosecution. Therefore, if there is a possible violation of OFAC, it is in your best interest to consult with counsel about the proper steps to take moving forward.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Costs

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Emily Holbrook of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding anti-money laundering  initiatives take more precedence in the corporate world:

 

Each year, anti-money laundering (AML) initiatives take more precedence in the corporate world, particularly within the financial industry. According to Celent, global spending on AML compliance, including operations and technology, will reach a staggering $5.8 billion within the financial sector by 2013.

Overall, the AML compliance burden is expected to expand at a rate of 7.8% annually while global spending on AML software is projected to expand at a rate of 10.4% per year. But what is the motivation behind such a drive? The research firm found that 42% of respondents cited regulatory requirements, and 25% pointed to reputational risk and brand protection as the main driver for AML compliance spending. And in further findings, financial institutions cited the integration of their AML and anti-fraud operations and technologies as a long-term goal.

“Although intuitively attractive, many institutions may find it difficult to build a business case for integrating AML with anti-fraud,” said Neil Katkov, senior vice president for Celent. “Fortunately, the compliance-driven development of modern AML software, analytics and case management has created a new generation technology that can often deliver better results than legacy anti-fraud systems.”

It seems it’s out with the old and in with the new — and expensive — AML

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

Administrative Law Judge Finds Employer Unlawfully Discharged Employees Based on Facebook Posts

Recently posted  in the National Law Review an article by Stephen D. Erf, Heather Egan Sussman and Sabrina E. Dunlap  of McDermott Will & Emery regarding the NLRB found that an employer unlawfully terminated five employees because they posted comments on Facebook:

In a first of its kind ruling, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that an employer unlawfully terminated five employees because they posted comments on Facebook related to working conditions.  This is a landmark decision because, up to this point, employers have only been able to rely on the prosecution trends of the General Counsel’s office, including a recently issued report on the topic, and not actual decisions by the adjudicative body of the NLRB.

This landmark case involved an employee of Hispanics United of Buffalo (HUB) (a nonunionized organization), who posted a message on Facebook sharing critical comments made by a coworker concerning employees’ poor job performance and asking for the employees’ reactions.  Five employees commented on the post, defending their job performance and criticizing the critical employee and their working conditions, including work load and staffing problems.  HUB later discharged the Facebook poster and the employees who responded to the post, stating that their comments constituted harassment of the critical coworker.

Based on an unfair labor practice charge filed by one of the employees, the NLRB’s Buffalo Regional Director issued a complaint in May 2011. The ALJ heard the case in July and, on September 2, issued a written decision finding that the employees’ Facebook posts were protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they concerned a conversation among coworkers about the terms and conditions of employment and the employees’ conduct was not sufficiently inappropriate as to lose the protection of the NLRA.  The ALJ awarded the employees back pay and ordered HUB to reinstate the five employees.  The ALJ also ordered HUB to post a notice at its Buffalo facility explaining to employees their rights under the NLRA and committing not to violate those rights in the future.

While NLRB complaints related to social media have been on the rise, this is the first ALJ decision specifically addressing employees’ use of Facebook.  As a result, employers are wise to consider the ALJ’s decision when disciplining employees based on social media activity.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

ANALYSIS: 'ObamaCare' label is sticking

Posted on September 29, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by Wendell Potter  of Center for Public Integrity regarding backers of the president’s health plan are loosing the public relations battle:

Backers of the president’s health plan are losing the public relations battle

The Kaiser Family Foundation just released the findings of its annual survey of businesses to determine how much the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage has gone up. There were some unexpected findings.

Tea Party members protest President Obama’s health care mandate in Cincinnati. Tom Uhlman/AP

One was that the average cost of annual premiums for family coverage is now more than $15,000. The 9 percent increase in the cost of health insurance over last year caught many people by surprise, because it represented a bigger hike in premiums than in recent years.

What seems clear is that insurers decided last year to charge their customers considerably more than necessary this year to be able to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations; insurance companies are also concerned that such increases will be more difficult once health care reform is fully implemented in 2014.

Here’s another surprise. Kaiser found that 50 percent of small employers are aware that they are now eligible for a tax credit from the federal government—thanks to the Affordable Care Act—if they provide subsidized coverage to their employees. I can hardly believe the awareness of the tax credit is that high.

As I have traveled across the country in recent weeks, speaking to a wide range of audiences, one thing has become abundantly clear: the provisions of the Affordable Care Act already in effect are anything but abundantly clear to people.

That’s because opponents of health care reform have won the public relations battle in defining the Affordable Care Act.

While the most recent Kaiser survey did not seek the views of the general population nor ask employers what they think or know about the Affordable Care Act, other polls show that advocates of the new law have been losing ground in the battle for public support.

This week I have been speaking at Florida churches —  a Catholic church in Winter Park, outside Orlando, Monday night, and a Unitarian Universalist church in Clearwater Tuesday night.  The hosts wanted an overview of what’s in the new law and what’s not—to provide factual, unbiased information and also to dispel many of the myths that have gained traction, starting before the law was even enacted.

What the hosts told me—and what I learned from talking to people who attended the forums—is that the Obama Administration and the national groups that backed  the legislation have essentially been missing in action when it comes to explaining the benefits of the law.

Kaiser’s finding that 50 percent of small businesses were familiar with the tax credit would certainly come as a shock to Dr. Patrick Cannon, advocacy director for Florida CHAIN (Community Health Action Information Network). He has been traveling the state trying to reach small business owners and educate them about the tax credit.

He has found almost no one even knows about it. This undoubtedly helps explain why the number of small businesses offering coverage to their employees dropped significantly in the most recent Kaiser survey.

Cannon believes that one of the reasons is that reform advocates missed an important opportunity to brand the Affordable Care Act in positive terms—starting with the most basic term of all, the name of the law itself.

As Cannon pointed out, opponents of the law  use a single term to describe the law: ObamaCare. The term has so seeped its way into the vernacular that even some of the law’s advocates have started using that pejorative label. The groups that support the law, he notes, use a wide range of terms to describe it.

Cannon is embarking on an effort among supporters to be consistent in calling it the Affordable Care Act.

Because opponents have been able to define the law on their own terms (or term), advocates are finding it increasingly difficult to have civil conversations with people about it—including with independents.

Liz Buckley, executive director of Focus Orlando, told me that, “If you even try to have conversations with people about it, people think you’re just trying to reelect Obama. They just shut down the conversation.”

Why the administration has been so inept or disengaged is baffling. It’s true that people will be skeptical of information about the law that comes straight from the White House, but the folks behind the Obama campaign in 2008 seemed to know how to get third parties motivated and active on behalf of the candidate.

Where are those folks now? If the White House is serious about making sure the law goes forward—and making sure the Obama legacy is a positive one—they better get in gear and turn public awareness and attitudes around. Otherwise, pretty soon,it may be too late.

Reprinted by Permission © 2011, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

Mortgage Industry to Face Centralized Repository for State Regulatory Enforcement Actions – Deadline for Comments is September 20, 2011

Posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney  Thomas J. McKee, Jr., Gil Rudolph and Michael R. Sklaire of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding State Regulatory Registry LLC (SRR);

 

 

Deadline for Comments is September 20, 2011

On July 22, 2011, the State Regulatory Registry LLC (SRR) issued a Request for Public Comments on a proposal to collect, centralize and publish all state regulatory enforcement information concerning mortgage loan originators. By creating a central source of investigation information, the SRR aims to provide a repository of background information for both consumers and other state and federal regulators. Before implementing, the SRR has asked for public comments to be submitted by September 20, 2011.

In 2008, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System & Registry (NMLS) was created under the federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (“SAFE Act”), with the purpose of “provid[ing] consumers with accessible information . . . regarding the employment history of, and publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against loan originators.” 12 U.S.C.A. § 5101(7). As part of implementing this purpose, the NMLS intended to use the SRR as the vehicle through which to include all regulatory actions taken by state regulators against companies and individuals that could be gathered and published. Previously, actions by state regulators could only be found, if at all, through a search of the individual state regulators’ websites.

The proposal to incorporate state regulatory reporting into the NMLS, which would take effect in Spring of 2012, consists of twelve major policies and processes, which include, among others:

  1. The state agency that took the action will be responsible for inputting such information into the NMLS. The SRR will not verify, validate, or amend any of the enforcement actions, as such information can only be changed by the inputting agency.
  2. Whether an action will actually be included in the NMLS can vary from state to state, depending on state-specific statutes and regulations. Further, each state will determine which actions will be shared only with other regulators, and those that will be made available to the general public.
  3. Reported actions will not be limited to those actions that are public. Instead, a regulator will have the ability, at their discretion, to include information that is to be shared only among regulators or among agency employees.
  4. A recommendation that any postings be made within five (5) days of receipt of a state agency’s final order.
  5. Provide a standardized set of information to be posted, including, for example, (a) the enforcing agency, (b) a description of the Order, and (c) the amount of any fine or other penalty.
  6. The SRR recommends that actions taken against companies should be posted on a prospective basis, while actions taken against loan originators should be posted as of the date each state’s SAFE Act became effective.
  7. All respondents named in an action will be included in any reporting, and the action will be tied to the records of both the named company and/or individuals.
  8. A company or individual will be notified of any posting in the system and will be able to view any publicly posted actions against it in the NMLS. The SRR proposal does not, however, contain a mechanism for a company or individual to learn of the non-public postings against it.
  9. State regulators will have the ability to post multi-state actions through NMLS. Each state involved in such an action is responsible for posting the action pursuant to its own reporting policies.

At first glance, the proposed registry presents a number of benefits to companies. For example, by having a central repository for all state regulatory actions, companies will have easy, up-to-date, access to the types of enforcement actions being pursued across the country, including the resulting fines and penalties assessed. Such information can be invaluable when defending an enforcement action and evaluating settlement proposals with state agencies. Companies will be able to see enforcement trends and use such information to modify their practices. The new system will greatly simplify a company’s ability to learn from the conduct of others.

Such benefits, however, do not come without a host of potential drawbacks. Specifically, while the system seeks to compile standard information regarding enforcement actions, it does not set forth a standard for reporting. Instead, its reliance upon individual state standards for reporting could lead to competitive disadvantages where, despite identical conduct, one company is tagged with a report while another is not solely due to a difference in state reporting standards.

The discretion given to regulators under the system could have similar effects. Giving regulators the discretion to input information (including non-adjudicated information) that will only be shared among regulators or agency employees could result in information being shared without verification, accountability, or opportunity to cure. Successfully defending an enforcement action would not necessarily preclude the sharing of negative comments about a company on the system. Companies will not be privy to such secret, albeit formalized, statements that could be prejudicial to how such entities are viewed and/or treated by other regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, the repository could be a potential treasure trove of information for future plaintiffs and will certainly be a frequent target of discovery in lawsuits.

Companies should carefully examine the potential ramifications each of the proposed policies may have on their business.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Protesting at ODRA?: Learning the Lay of the Land

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Marko W. Kipa and Ryan E. Roberts of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP regarding filing with the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition when the FAA makes an award.

 

Your company submitted a proposal to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to provide widgets and related services. The opportunity had corporate visibility and was critical to your sector’s bottom line. After several agonizing months of waiting for an award decision, you learn that the FAA made an award to your competitor. You immediately accept the first debriefing date offered by the Agency. As that date approaches, you begin to strategize and weigh your options – should you file the bid protest at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) or the Court of Federal Claims? The answer – neither. When the FAA makes an award, any protest must be filed with the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition – otherwise known as ODRA. There are several similarities and differences between, on the one hand, the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims, and, on the other hand, ODRA.

First, you are entitled to an automatic stay of performance if you timely file your protest at the GAO (unless the stay is overridden by the Agency).  To obtain a stay of performance at the Court of Federal Claims, you will most likely need to prevail on a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. It is very difficult, however, to obtain a stay of performance at the ODRA. ODRA presumes that performance will continue pending resolution of the protest, and a protestor must separately brief the issue of whether a stay should be granted.  Unless the protester can demonstrate “a compelling reason to suspend or delay all or part of the procurement activities,” ODRA will allow performance to continue. 14 C.F.R. § 17.13(g); 14 C.F.R. § 17.15(d).  A review of ODRA’s suspension decisions shows that stays of performance are rarely granted. In other words, you should expect that ODRA will not grant a stay of performance.

Second, FAA procurements are not governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). Rather, the FAA is subject to the Acquisition Management System (“AMS”), which “establishes the policies, guiding principles, and internal procedures for the FAA’s acquisition system.” 14 C.F.R. § 17.3(c). While the FAR and the AMS share some overlapping concepts, there are notable differences between the two. For example, the AMS does not recognize the FAR’s distinction between “discussions” and “clarifications,” and instead categorizes all exchanges as “communications.” Furthermore, the AMS encourages communications with potential offerors, including one-on-one communications, stating that they “should take place throughout the source selection process” to “ensure that there are mutual understandings between the FAA and the offerors about all aspects of the procurement, including the offerors’ submittals/proposals.”   AMS § 3.2.2.3.1.2.2. ODRA has routinely denied protests where a disappointed offeror has claimed to have been the subject of unfair treatment when the FAA only communicated with one offeror. See, e.g., Consolidated Protests of Consecutive Weather, Eye Weather Windsor Enterprises, and IBEX Group, Inc., 02-ODRA-00254.

Third, ODRA has a robust alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) program that is central to its resolution of bid protests. ODRA makes a variety of ADR techniques available to the parties, including mediation, neutral evaluation and mini-trials. 14 C.F.R. § 17.31(b). Additionally, ODRA’s rules were amended recently to place an even greater emphasis on ADR. The new rule officially instructs parties to use ADR as the primary means for settling protests and disputes, and allows parties to file “predisputes” so that they may engage in nonbinding, confidential discussions. 76 Fed. Reg. 55217 (Sept. 7, 2011) (to be codified at 14 C.F.R. Part 17). Although you can decline to participate in ODRA’s ADR program, it is well-worth your time and resources to consider pursuing this option.

Fourth, you should be aware of the various procedural rules at ODRA, as they differ from those of the GAO. Most notably, ODRA spurns the GAO standard of calendar days for business days (thereby excluding weekends and federal holidays). In this regard, a party must file its post-award protest within (i) 7 business days of when it knew or should have known of the basis for its protest, or (ii) not later than 5 business days from the date of the debriefing. 14 C.F.R. § 17.15(a)(3). Once filed, a contractor should be prepared to act – the FAA’s response to the protest is due 10 business days after the initial status conference, and the contractor’s comments on the FAA’s response are due five business days later. 14 C.F.R. § 17.17(e); 14 C.F.R. § 17.37(c). Contractors can also expect ODRA to issue a decision relatively quickly, as the ODRA Dispute Resolution Officer assigned to the case must issue a decision within 30 business days of the FAA’s response to the protest. 14 C.F.R. § 17.37(a),(i).

In conclusion, ODRA differs markedly from the GAO and COFC as a bid protest forum. An understanding of those differences is critical to the preservation and pursuit of your bid protest rights. Since ADR at ODRA has resulted in some form of agency corrective action in roughly 40% of the cases filed at the ODRA from 1997-2007, a failure to appreciate the differences in the rules and the consequent forfeiture of your protest rights can be highly prejudicial. See here.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.