Category: Uncategorized

Seller Beware? 4 Key Features of Business Sale Transactions that Sellers Should be Familiar with Before Negotiating

You have prepared your business for sale and have determined an enterprise value with which you are comfortable. Perhaps you have already found a buyer and signed a letter of intent, or at least agreed in principle on the overall purchase price for the business.

While determining the overall value of your company is an important step, negotiating the final terms of the business sale is just as important and oftentimes is far more arduous. Some business owners, especially first-time sellers, are surprised by the complexity of the sale process and are unprepared for negotiating through the many common provisions that affect how, when, and even if the full purchase price is ultimately disbursed to the seller.

This article analyzes key deal terms of a business sale and provisions that affect the timing and ultimate payment of the purchase price. This article also reviews the responsibilities of the parties after the deal closes, so that sellers can anticipate what the buyer is likely to demand and how to negotiate from a position of strength. It is important for sellers to keep in mind that nearly all of the items described here are designed to allocate risk. Buyers want to receive the value they expected from purchasing the business and allocate risk to the seller if there is an unexpected obstacle in the transition to new ownership. Sellers want to avoid business-related risks after closing and retain as much of the full purchase price as possible.

Understanding these key provisions allow sellers to identify early in the process which provisions may be more or less risky based on their understanding of the business, which provisions to prioritize, and how to build a negotiating platform that fits their expectations and goals. Sellers should consult with financial and legal consultants for the most recent market trends and figures related to the topics in this article.

Feature #1: Economic Terms.

Generally, buyers want to avoid going after a seller post-closing to recover funds already disbursed because the funds may no longer be available; to accomplish this, buyers want to maintain control over some portion of the purchase price funds until their window for making claims against the seller has expired. This section outlines common economic terms in purchase agreements that affect the timing of payments to the seller and portion of the overall price ultimately paid by the buyer.

Escrow Holdback. A certain portion of the purchase price will be placed in escrow at closing and held for a period of time in order to fund post-closing claims against the seller without requiring the buyer to go directly after the seller for proceeds already disbursed. The escrow holdback is usually a key provision of the deal and heavily negotiated by both parties given the funds in escrow are at risk and not available to the seller until the escrow holding period expires. The amount of funds held in escrow will vary depending on deal size, industry, business risk, negotiating leverage and other factors.

Escrow Holding Period. In connection with the amount of funds held in escrow, sellers should consider the amount of time that is acceptable to the seller for the escrow funds to be unavailable to the seller at risk for buyer claims. A longer holding period can often be a trade-off on the part of the seller to get a better position on a different priority during negotiations, but the seller must balance their short-term cash needs against the longer holding period. The escrow holding period can range from months to a few years after the closing date.

Target Working Capital. The seller is generally expected to provide working capital to fund the operations of the business immediately after closing, and the seller and buyer should work together to come to a realistic working capital number. At closing, the buyer will calculate the actual working capital in the business using an agreed-upon formula, at which time the parties will “true up” the working capital to match their agreed-upon target number. If the actual working capital at closing is deficient compared to the agreed-upon target working capital, the seller must pay the difference to the buyer. If the actual net working capital is in excess of the targeted amount at closing, the buyer will pay the excess amount to the seller, increasing the seller’s proceeds from the business. Keep in mind that working capital adjustments, unless otherwise agreed to, are generally considered separate from indemnity claims and are usually paid within 90 to 120 days after closing.

Set-off Rights. A purchase agreement may contain broad set-off rights in favor of the buyer, allowing the buyer to set-off funds owed to the seller but still in the buyer’s possession (such as working capital excess, or earned but unpaid earn-outs) against claims the buyer has against the seller. Setoffs are another way for buyers to mitigate risk by controlling funds.  Sellers should be careful that set-off provisions are consistent with indemnity provisions to avoid having more funds at risk than anticipated.

Earn-outs. The parties may agree to pay a portion of the purchase price in future year earn-outs, such as annual bonuses to the seller for meeting certain financial metrics in post-closing business operations. Buyers may favor earn-out provisions if the seller is going to remain an employee of the ongoing business, as it aligns interests in working toward the continued success of the business. For sellers, earn-outs can be a great way to negotiate a better purchase price and push a portion of the seller’s tax liability into future years; however, the benefits must be balanced against the likelihood of meeting the earn-out metrics and the seller’s short-term financial needs. An earn-out can also bridge the gap if the parties disagree about the value of the business.

Feature #2: Indemnification.

Indemnification provisions provide the buyer recourse against the seller for post-closing expenses and liabilities resulting from the seller’s misrepresentations or inaccuracies when providing the buyer with information (or withholding material information) during due diligence. As discussed further below, buyers will often try to expand their indemnity coverage through various legal provisions.

Representations and Warranties (RWs). RWs are assurances that the seller makes and on which the buyer relies when purchasing the business and are the basis for the buyer’s indemnification claims after taking over operations. A seller’s breach of RWs resulting in costs to the buyer triggers indemnification claims to recover the damage caused by the seller’s breach. RWs are generally divided into two types: fundamental and non-fundamental.

  • Fundamental. RWs are critical to the buyer’s willingness to consummate the transaction, and which, if breached, usually call into question the legitimacy or enforcement of the entire business sale. Breaches of fundamental RWs carry higher indemnification liability for the seller in order to place the buyer in a position as if the transaction never occurred. Fundamental RWs commonly include representations regarding ownership of the business equity, authority to enter into the transaction, and non-existence of other ownership claims against the business. They may also include other key issues or risks that the buyer feels are especially important to the deal.

  • Non-fundamental. RWs are statements and disclosures made by the seller that the buyer relies on for a smooth transition of ownership and operations of the business immediately after the closing date; generally, this includes all RWs made by the seller in the purchase agreement that are not fundamental RWs.

Ideally, sellers will want to make as few fundamental RWs as possible; the goal is to (i) limit the seller’s top-end exposure to a handful of statements that the seller is generally comfortable making, and (ii) cap the remainder of its aggregate liability to the indemnity cap amount. Sellers can be creative in reducing the number of fundamental representations they need to make by working with buyers to find alternative ways to mitigate buyer risk and seller liability; for example, exploring insurance options can be a sound strategy.

Indemnity Threshold. The indemnity threshold sets the minimum amount of aggregate damages a buyer must accrue against a seller before the buyer can recover any damages for indemnity claims. There are two main types of indemnity threshold:

  • Deductible. The “deductible” method of indemnity operates much like consumer insurance. The buyer must absorb all aggregate damages up to the “deductible” (indemnity threshold) amount, and the seller indemnifies the buyer for all claims in excess of the indemnity threshold.

  • First Dollar. The first dollar method of indemnity requires the seller to pay all damages once the buyer’s aggregate damages reach the threshold amount. Illustratively, this can be thought of as a tipping bucket. The buyer must “fill” the bucket with damages against the seller. Once the amount of damages fills the bucket (reaches the indemnity threshold amount), the bucket “tips” and all damages down to the “first dollar” become the liability of the seller.

Ideally, sellers want the deductible type of indemnity threshold because it reduces their overall risk. However, sellers may be able to leverage a concession on first dollar indemnity in exchange for a higher threshold amount, which can ultimately produce a better outcome because the likelihood of any liability is reduced as the threshold amount increases. Additionally, sellers should try to negotiate indemnity threshold provisions in tandem with other indemnity provisions.

Indemnity Cap. Whereas the indemnity threshold sets the minimum amount of damages a buyer must accrue before the seller is liable, the indemnity cap limits the maximum amount the buyer can recover due to the seller’s breach of RWs. The indemnity cap is often a heavily negotiated provision, as it caps the risk for the seller, and conversely, raises the cost to the buyer for the most expensive seller breaches. For fundamental representations, the indemnity cap usually equals the full purchase price of the business. For non-fundamental representations, the indemnity cap is commonly a fraction of the deal value. Matching the indemnity cap to the escrow holdback amount can provide benefits to both parties: the buyer does not need to recover any funds directly from the seller; and, barring breach of a fundamental representation, the funds disbursed to the seller at closing are not at risk.

Indemnity Period. The indemnity period is the amount of time that the buyer has to make a claim against the seller for breach of the seller’s RWs. Generally, fundamental representations survive until, at minimum, the statute of limitations expires on the underlying claim. For example, if one of the seller’s fundamental representations is that all taxes have been timely paid, the indemnity period for the seller’s tax representations might be the time limit that the IRS could audit or bring a claim for unpaid tax liability accrued through the closing dates.

Non-fundamental representations often have a much shorter indemnity period, which may match the escrow holding period or expire according to some other defined schedule, usually not longer than a couple of years after closing. Sellers want the shortest possible indemnity period; however, defining which RWs are fundamental versus non-fundamental may be more productive than spending negotiating capital on shortening the indemnity period, where there is often less room to maneuver.

Feature # 3: Legal Provisions.

This section covers terms only a lawyer could love—obscurely worded and buried deep in the bowels of the purchase agreement far removed from the exciting topics like financial terms; however, these legal provisions affect the overall application of the economics and liabilities of the deal, which can have sweeping consequences for the seller if not properly understood and negotiated.

For sellers, ideally both of the terms discussed below – knowledge disclaimers and materiality scrapes – would be removed from any purchase agreement; however, transaction trends show that about half of all purchase agreements contain at least one of these legal provisions, if not both. Depending on the seller’s negotiating leverage, they may have to decide whether to walk away from the deal or get comfortable with these provisions and try to use them as leverage for a better position on other negotiating points.

Knowledge Disclaimers/Sandbagging Provisions. Knowledge disclaimer provisions (commonly referred to as “sandbagging” provisions) generally prescribe that a buyer’s right to recover from a seller is not affected by the buyer’s knowledge, whether by the seller’s disclosure or the buyer’s own due diligence, of the inaccuracy or noncompliance by the seller of a representation or warranty. Stated more simply, the buyer is saying to the seller, “Even though we knew about the inaccuracy of your representations before we closed the deal, we can still sue you for any damages resulting from those misrepresentations after closing.” From the buyer’s point of view, this encourages proper due diligence and may be added protection. From the seller’s perspective, this makes due diligence an expensive but largely meaningless exercise, wherein buyers can identify deal flaws but consummate the transaction anyway and then sue the seller post-closing.

From a practical standpoint, sellers can mitigate this risk by properly disclosing exceptions to their RWs in disclosure schedules, which are incorporated into the purchase agreement and make the seller’s RWs accurate with the incorporated disclosures.

Materiality Scrape. A materiality scrape is a stand-alone provision that purports to eliminate materiality qualifiers from some or all other provisions of the agreement when: determining a breach of a seller representation or warranty; assessing damages for a breach; or both.

Because this concept is a legal art form, the following example will illustrate how this provision operates: The seller represents to the buyer that the company is in material compliance with all required permits at the date of closing. The company requires a permit to store a barrel of industrial cleaning chemicals that the business uses infrequently in its operations. Right before closing the seller files a renewal application for the chemical permit, but the application is filed three days late which results in the buyer being assessed a $20 late application fee after closing when the permit is finally processed and renewed.

Generally, this breach would not be considered material, as the permit is likely not material to operations and the permit is not adversely affected by a late renewal application. Additionally, the damages ($20) would also not be material, as it is a very small amount relative to the business’ day-to-day expenses and operations. Therefore, the seller would not have breached its representation regarding permit compliance. However, if the purchase agreement contains a materiality scrape, then for purposes of determining a breach of the permit compliance representation, we would ignore the word “material” and in theory the buyer would have a claim against the seller for each technical breach of the seller’s RWs, including permit compliance. Additionally, if the materiality scrape also affects the determination of damages, the buyer would include every damage claim, no matter how small (including the $20 late fee in our example above), to its aggregate claims against the seller, potentially filling the indemnity threshold bucket much faster than if only material claims were considered.

In fact, materiality scrapes can have the effect of filling the indemnity threshold quickly, so a seller may want to try to mitigate this risk by pushing for a higher indemnity threshold as a tradeoff.

Feature #4: Ancillary Documents.

Depending on how the business sale is structured, there may be substantial ancillary documentation in connection with the transaction, such as transition agreements, consulting agreements, employment agreements, shareholder agreements, and non-competition/non-solicitation agreements, to name a few. Although an in-depth review of these agreements is outside the scope of this article, it is important for sellers to analyze how the ancillary documentation operates in connection with the purchase agreement and how it affects the financial goals of the seller, such as illiquidity of assets, inability to re-enter the market, ongoing obligations or liabilities, and liquidation event triggers that are out of the seller’s control, among others.

For example, if the seller receives the buyer company’s stock as partial consideration for the sale of the business, the seller will likely be required to execute a shareholders agreement which may contain “black out” periods or call options where a buyer can force the seller to sell their shares. Sellers should not wait until just before closing to review and negotiate the terms of ancillary documentation; instead, sellers should request drafts of and review any other ancillary documentation concurrently with the purchase agreement so that all terms of the deal can be analyzed together in connection with the seller’s overall strategy.

Conclusion

When preparing to sell a business, the big issues, such as finding the right buyer and company valuation, are key considerations; however, the terms of the sale can be just as important for the seller, especially as it relates to ongoing risk and short-term financial planning. Buyers want the benefit of their purchase and prefer to hold back some portion of the purchase price until their window for bringing claims against the seller expires. Sellers want to ultimately receive the full purchase price and feel secure in moving on after closing without the threat of claims against their proceeds.

By preparing for key purchase agreement terms ahead of time, sellers can identify which terms to prioritize, which terms to sacrifice for negotiating leverage, and areas where creative solutions may be appropriate. And perhaps more importantly, sellers can plan the terms of the deal around their financial needs and expectations.

Copyright © 2019 Ryley Carlock & Applewhite. A Professional Association. All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Jessica Ann Benford and Joshua J. Hencik.

Federal Privacy Law – Could It Happen in 2019?

This was a busy week for activity and discussions on the federal level regarding existing privacy laws – namely the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). But the real question is, could a federal privacy law actually happen in 2019? Cybersecurity issues and the possibility of a federal privacy law were in the spotlight at the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. This week also saw the introduction of bipartisan federal legislation regarding Internet of Things (IoT)-connected devices.

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on GDPR and CCPA

Let’s start by discussing this week’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington. On March 12, the Committee convened a hearing entitled GDPR & CCPA: Opt-ins, Consumer Control, and the Impact on Competition and Innovation.  The Committee received testimony from several interested parties who discussed the pros and cons of both laws from various perspectives. One thing was clear – technology has outpaced the law, and several of those who provided testimony to the Committee argued strongly for one uniform federal privacy law rather than the collection of 50 different state laws.

Some of the testimony focused on the impact of the GDPR, both on businesses and economic concerns, and some felt it is too early yet to truly know the full impact. Others discussed ethical concerns regarding data use, competition, artificial intelligence, and the necessity for meaningful enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

One thing made clear by the testimony presented is that people want their data protected, and maybe they even want to prevent it from being shared and sold, but the current landscape makes that difficult for consumers to navigate. The reality is that many of us simply can’t keep track of every privacy policy we read, or every “cookie” we consent to. It’s also increasingly clear that putting the burden on consumers to opt in/opt out or try to figure out the puzzle of where our data is going and how it’s used, may not be the most effective means of legislating privacy protections.

Model Federal Privacy Law

Several of the presenters at the Senate hearing included legislative proposals for a federal privacy law. (See the link included above to the Committee website with links to individual testimony). Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also released its version of a model federal privacy law. The model legislation proposal contains consumer opt-out rights and a deletion option, and would empower the FTC to enforce violations and impose civil penalties for violations.

IoT Federal Legislation Is Back – Sort of

In 2017, federal legislation regarding IoT was introduced but didn’t pass. This week, the Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2019 was introduced in Congress in a bipartisan effort to impose cybersecurity standards on IoT devices purchased by the federal government. The new bipartisan bill’s supporters acknowledge the proliferation of internet-connected things and devices and the risks to the federal government of IoT cybersecurity vulnerabilities. This latest federal legislation applies to federal government purchases of IoT devices and not to a broader audience. We recently discussed the California IoT law that was enacted last year. Effective January 1, 2020, all IoT devices sold in California will require a manufacturer to equip the device with “reasonable security feature or features” to “protect the device and any information contained therein from unauthorized access, destruction, use modification or disclosure.”

The convergence of the new California law and the prospect of federal IoT legislation begs the question of whether the changes to California law and on the federal level would be enough to drive change in the industry to increase the security of all IoT devices. The even bigger question is whether there is the political will in 2019 to drive change to enact a comprehensive federal privacy law. That remains to be seen as the year progresses.

 

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Deborah A. George of Robinson & Cole LLP.

Three Strategies to Develop Renewable Energy Projects on Potentially Contaminated Lands

Developing renewable energy on contaminated lands has proven to be both effective and cost-effective for companies pursuing a new solar or wind energy project. The utility-scale solar farm constructed on the 120-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Superfund site is a great example, and there are thousands more that are ripe for redevelopment.

Renewable energy continues to grow in volume and importance in the U.S. as corporations drive demand for sustainable energy, with 166 companies to date committing to go 100 percent renewable as part of a global initiative called RE100. At the same time, states and local governments are driving policy that prioritizes sustainable energy development. Two recent Illinois bills, the Path to 100 Act (HB 2966/SB1781) and Clean Energy Jobs Act (HB3624/SB2132), seek to incentivize the development of new renewable energy and move the state to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. Other states, including California, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin, have called for or passed similar laws.

Using Superfund sites, brownfields, retired power plants, and landfills offers potential benefits to developers and community stakeholders:

  • Preserve Open Space: Large-scale renewable energy facilities – often called “utility scale” projects – can require a lot of land that may displace or impact agricultural lands, open space, or other “greenspace.” Developing renewable energy on potentially contaminated properties can help to preserve the “greenspace” while returning blighted lands to sustainable and productive use.

  • Lower Costs and Shorter Timeline: Developers can significantly lower costs and timelines because contaminated sites are usually already served by existing infrastructure, like substations, power lines, and roads, which would otherwise need to be constructed. Streamlined permitting and zoning can also reduce costs and timelines because potentially contaminated property is often already zoned for industrial or commercial use, which likely poses fewer obstacles to constructing renewable energy structures. Decreased land costs, programs for the procurement of renewable energy credits generated from developing renewable energy projects on brownfields or potentially contaminated properties, and federal and state brownfield tax incentives can drive costs down even further.

  • Greater Community Support: Communities may be quicker to get behind renewable energy projects that are sited on potentially contaminated lands because, rather than taking agricultural land out of production, the projects can clean up the otherwise abandoned sites, boost surrounding property values, increase tax revenues, and provide low-cost clean power.

Despite these benefits, developers often build renewable energy facilities on greenspaces rather than brownfields because of concerns related to potential liabilities or contamination. Below are three strategies that developers can use to move past those concerns and develop a successful renewable energy project on potentially contaminated lands.

  1. Screen Sites for Renewable Energy Potential

Screen potentially contaminated properties to see whether they’d be a good fit for your renewable energy project. For example, confirm that a property has enough usable space and is close enough to transmission or distribution lines to support development. Determine whether a site is free from land-use restrictions that would preclude the use of your chosen renewable energy. Ensure the community doesn’t already have a plan in mind to redevelop the property you’re assessing. And inspect the property for evidence of potential contamination, like soil surface staining or debris stockpiles. If a site has not yet been assessed, you will need to investigate the site to determine whether redevelopment is appropriate. To help, the EPA has published guidance to assist prospective developers in screening prospective sites for solar and wind projects on potentially contaminated lands.

  1. Coordinate the Cleanup and Renewable Energy Development

Developing renewable energy can occur at any stage of a property cleanup, from site inspection and preliminary assessment to post-construction completion. However, identifying and coming to a site at the beginning of or early on in the cleanup process has its advantages. It allows you to engage the community and other stakeholders, including potentially responsible parties, from the start of the redevelopment. It also allows you to coordinate and integrate the cleanup and renewable energy development decisions. For example, you can work with the governmental agency overseeing the site to fold renewable energy design requirements into the remedial design, rather than having to construct renewable energy structures on top of and around the completed remedy. Getting in early will ensure that the renewable energy project is compatible with the remedial design, institutional controls, monitoring activities, and engineering controls.

  1. Protect Yourself from Liability Exposure

Many prospective developers, purchasers, and lenders stay away from or tread cautiously around building on contaminated properties for fear of liability under federal or state cleanup laws. However, many state cleanup programs provide liability protections for new owners or lessees, like a developer, who are not responsible for prior contamination at a site. The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) also generally limits EPA enforcement at certain qualifying brownfield sites, known as “eligible response sites”, where a party is conducting a response action in compliance with a state cleanup response program. Contact a lawyer and work with state government early on in the process to see what liability protections are available to you and how to qualify.

Other contaminated properties may be addressed under the CERCLA cleanup program. CERCLA has several self-implementing liability protections for developers and the like who acquire contaminated property but did not cause the contamination, including a protection for “bona fide prospective purchasers.” Ensure that you take the required steps to qualify for the BFPP protection, which will include, among other things, working with an environmental consultant to conduct “all appropriate inquiries” through a Phase I environmental site assessment. CERCLA can also offer liability protections for people who lease contaminated properties.

 

© 2019 Schiff Hardin LLP
This post was written by Alex Garel-Frantzen and Amy Antoniolli of Schiff Hardin LLP.

Brexit: Bracing for IP Changes

The United Kingdom is due to leave the European Union on March 29, 2019 (Brexit day). If the UK does leave the EU under the currently proposed terms, then the UK would enter a so-called transition period ending on December 31, 2020 and the current status quo would effectively be maintained during this period. However, the UK Parliament recently refused to ratify the current terms of withdrawal and there remains a risk that there will be a “no-deal” Brexit that would not include any transition period. From an intellectual property perspective, these uncertainties and tentative changes should be taken into consideration in the upcoming weeks when developing international filing strategies.

Trademarks

A no-deal Brexit has substantial implications for the continued protection and enforcement of EU trademarks in the UK. However, the position as it stands under the current agreement will be as follows:

  • EU trademark registrations currently on the register will have a duplicate UK registration automatically added to the UK register (no new filing required);
  • Current EU applications will have the same procedure once registered, even if the registration date is post-Brexit; and
  • For trademark applications post-Brexit, two filings will have to be made to cover the former 28 countries of the EU (one UK direct application and one EU application).

Under these prospective events moving forward, it is not anticipated that the EU Intellectual Property Office will decrease their costs for an EU application (because the territories covered decrease from 28 to 27). Accordingly, it may prove cost effective to file any anticipated EU applications before the March 29, 2019 deadline to avoid the need to file two applications.

Patents

There will be no change to the application processes for UK and European patents. Patents covering the UK are granted by two organizations: the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO). Applications for patents can be filed directly with the UKIPO or EPO, or can be made pursuant to an international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Neither of these organizations are EU institutions and they will continue to function after Brexit.

Domain Names (.eu)

To register an .eu domain name, a person or entity must reside in or be established within the European Union. As a result, effective from March 30, 2019 (in the event of a no-deal Brexit) to January 1, 2021 (in the event the withdrawal agreement is ratified), entities that are established only in the UK – and natural persons who reside in the UK – will no longer be eligible to register .eu domain names, or to renew .eu domain names registered if they are .eu registrants, before Brexit day.

EURid, the registry manager of .eu domain names, has published a notice on its website which states that a no-deal Brexit will have the following consequences:

  1. UK registrants of .eu domain names will have until May 30, 2019 to update their contact details to an EU address or to transfer their domain names to an EU resident. During this period, their domain names will remain active but cannot be transferred to a UK registrant and will not be automatically renewed (but instead moved to “withdrawn” status).
  2. As of May 30, 2019 all registrants that do not demonstrate their eligibility will be deemed ineligible and their domain names will be withdrawn (that is, they can no longer support any active services such as websites or email), but they will remain in the .eu registry database and may be reactivated if the eligibility criteria are satisfied. On March 30, 2020 all the affected domain names will be revoked and will become available for general registration (which gives rise to a risk of cybersquatting).
© 2019 Varnum LLP
This post was written by Charles F. Gray and Erin Klug of © 2019 Varnum LLP.
Read more about Brexit on our National Law Review Global Page.

Compliance with the New Proposed DOL Salary Threshold May Create Challenges for Many Employers

As we wrote in this space just last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed a new salary threshold for most “white collar” exemptions.  The new rule would increase the minimum salary to $35,308 per year ($679 per week) – nearly the exact midpoint between the longtime $23,600 salary threshold and the $47,476 threshold that had been proposed by the Obama Administration.  The threshold for “highly compensated” employees would also increase — from $100,000 to $147,414 per year.

Should the proposed rule go into effect – and there is every reason to believe it will – it would be effective on January 1, 2020.  That gives employers plenty of time to consider their options and make necessary changes.

On first glance, dealing with the increase in the minimum salaries for white-collar exemptions would not appear to create much of a challenge for employers—they must decide whether to increase employees’ salaries or convert them to non-exempt status. Many employers that reviewed the issue and its repercussions back in 2016, when it was expected that the Obama Administration’s rules would go into effect, would likely disagree with the assessment that this is a simple task. The decisions not only impact the affected employees, but they also affect the employers’ budgets and compensation structures, potentially creating unwanted salary compressions or forcing employers to adjust the salaries of other employees.

In addition, converting employees to non-exempt status requires an employer to set new hourly rates for the employees. If that is not done carefully, it could result in employees receiving unanticipated increases in compensation—perhaps huge ones— or unexpected decreases in annual compensation.

The Impact on Compensation Structures

For otherwise exempt employees whose compensation already satisfies the new minimum salaries, nothing would need be done to comply with the new DOL rule. But that does not mean that those employees will not be affected by the new rule. Employers that raise the salaries of other employees to comply with the new thresholds could create operational or morale issues for those whose salaries are not being adjusted. It is not difficult to conceive of situations where complying with the rule by only addressing the compensation of those who fall below the threshold would result in a lower-level employee leapfrogging over a higher-level employee in terms of compensation, or where it results in unwanted salary compression.

Salary shifts could also affect any analysis of whether the new compensation structure adversely affects individuals in protected categories. A female senior manager who is now being paid only several hundred dollars per year more than the lower-level male manager might well raise a concern about gender discrimination if her salary is not also adjusted.

The Impact of Increasing Salaries

For otherwise exempt employees who currently do not earn enough to satisfy the new minimum salary thresholds, employers would have two choices: increase the salary to satisfy the new threshold or convert the employee to non-exempt status. Converting employees to non-exempt status can create challenges in attempting to set their hourly rates (addressed separately below).

If, for example, an otherwise exempt employee currently earns a salary of $35,000 per year, the employer may have an easy decision to give the employee a raise of at least $308 to satisfy the new threshold. But many decisions would not be so simple, particularly once they are viewed outside of a vacuum. What about the employee who is earning $30,000 per year? Should that employee be given a raise of more than $5,000 or should she be converted to non-exempt status? It is not difficult to see how one employer would choose to give an employee a $5,000 raise while another would choose to convert that employee to non-exempt status.

What if the amount of an increase seems small, but it would have a large impact because of the number of employees affected? A salary increase of $5,000 for a single employee to meet the new salary threshold may not have a substantial impact upon many employers. But what if the employer would need to give that $5,000 increase to 500 employees across the country to maintain their exempt status? Suddenly, maintaining the exemption would carry a $2,500,000 price tag. And that is not a one-time cost; it is an annual one that would likely increase as those employees received subsequent raises.

The Impact of Reclassifying an Employee as Non-Exempt

If an employer decides to convert an employee to non-exempt status, it faces a new challenge—setting the employee’s hourly rate. Doing that requires much more thought than punching numbers into a calculator.

If the employer “reverse engineers” an hourly rate by just taking the employee’s salary and assuming the employee works 52 weeks a year and 40 hours each week, it will result in the employee earning the same amount as before so long as she does not work any overtime at all during the year. The employee will earn more than she did previously if she works any overtime at all. And if she works a significant amount of overtime, the reclassification to non-exempt status could result in the employee earning significantly more than she earned before as an exempt employee. If she worked 10 hours of overtime a week, she would effectively receive a 37 percent increase in compensation.  And, depending on the hourly rate and the number of overtime hours she actually works, she could end up making more as a non-exempt employee than the $35,308 exemption threshold.

But calculating the employee’s new hourly rate based on an expectation that she will work more overtime than is realistic would result in the employee earning less than she did before. If, for instance, the employer calculated an hourly rate by assuming that the employee would work 10 hours of overtime each week, and if she worked less than that, she would earn less than she did before—perhaps significantly less. That, of course, could lead to a severe morale issue—or to the unwanted departure of a valued employee.

 

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 

Municipal utilities need to be concerned with PFAS

Municipalities face increasing challenges under the growing regulatory focus of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies on the emerging contaminants Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, known by the acronym “PFAS.” This newsletter will describe some of those challenges for municipalities and the announcement  and the importance of following good protocol when sampling and analyzing for these compounds.

What are PFASs and why are they considered harmful?

PFASs are a group of chemicals that have been used since the middle of the 20th century in many industrial applications and consumer products including stain proofing for water proof carpeting, clothing, upholstery, leather treatment, food paper wrappings, firefighting foams (commonly used at military bases, airports, fire stations and refineries), car washing cleaners, metal plating and non-stick cookware (such as Teflon). Some research has suggested probable links between exposure to PFAS and diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancers and pregnancy induced hypertension. As a result, the family of PFAS chemicals have been classified by EPA as an “emerging contaminant.”

EPA has set a lifetime health advisory (LTHA) level (the level below which no harm is expected) for two PFASs in drinking water: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The PFOA/PFOS LTHA level is 70 parts/trillion, which is equivalent to about 3 ½ drops of water in an Olympic swimming pool. The low threshold is a signal of the risk potential for this emerging contaminant as well as the difficulty in confidently determining the concentrations of PFOA/PFOS in water samples and the challenges in undertaking cost effective remediation when PFASs are discovered.

PFAS concerns for municipal utilities

In November 2018, President Trump signed the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA). This legislation will require smaller communities to test their water systems for chemicals like PFOA and PFOS. Prior to the signing of this AWIA legislation, only water systems with more than 10,000 community customers were required to test for PFAS chemicals. Under this new legislation, smaller water utility communities who serve between 3,000 – 10,000 customers must also begin testing for these emerging contaminants.

In addition, on Feb. 4, 2019, the EPA announced its PFAS Action Plan. See here. In particular, EPA has announced its intention to develop a maximum contaminant level for PFOS and PFOA, including the LTHA reference point of 70 parts/trillion as a federally enforceable drinking water standard, under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In a memorandum dated Feb. 20, 2018, the state of Michigan announced a monitoring proposal for waste water treatment plants that accept potential sources of PFAS to begin testing their facilities for PFAS containing chemicals. Michigan also has begun testing leachate from landfill facilities that accept municipal solid waste. The results of these preliminary tests have recorded the presence of PFAS in leachate generated by many of these landfills. Since leachate is commonly sent to wastewater treatment facilities for treatment, this discovery of PFAS in leachate could raise additional concerns for municipal treatment facilities, particularly since PFAS compounds are not specifically addressed in municipal wastewater treatment. The concern is that the PFAS is eluding treatment and is present in the effluent or other waste streams, or is adsorbing to the biosolids and sludges generated by the WWTP, which are thereafter frequently land spread with uncertain impacts.

An additional concern for municipalities, separate from wastewater, relates to historic (and potentially closed) waste landfills owned and operated by municipalities. Certain studies suggest that discarded carpet (such as Stainmaster products) and clothing (such as products treated with Scotchgard) are leading sources of PFAS contamination, including the leachate, in landfills.

Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has convened a PFAS Technical Advisory Group to discuss a broad range of PFAS concerns in Wisconsin. The first quarterly meeting of the Advisory Group occurred on Feb. 22, 2019. More information on the PFAS Technical Advisory Group can be found here.

All of these developments suggest that municipal utilities should be concerned about the legal implications of detections of PFAS. Given the extraordinarily low health advisory standards that apply to this class of chemicals (parts per trillion), these municipal utilities must take great care in deciding when to test for these materials and, if a decision is made to test, the quality assurance and quality control measures that should be taken to ensure reliable results.

Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

 

This post was written by Arthur J. Harrington Daniel C.W. Narvey and Edward (Ned) B. Witte of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Read more on PFAS regulation on the Environmental type of law page.

Are New Jersey Uber Drivers Covered By Workers’ Compensation Insurance?

You might ask yourself the above question if you are considering signing up to drive for the transportation service Uber. Uber promises that anyone with a valid driver’s license, personal car insurance, a clean record, and a four-door car can meet the New Jersey requirements to drive for Uber.

The Uber driver makes his or her own hours and is free to pick up or drop off a rider anywhere they chose and the driver can work as much or as little as they choose. Uber requires its drivers to carry the appropriate automobile insurance to cover the driver’s liability to other parties, damage to the vehicle and injury to the driver.

Uber provides commercial auto liability insurance for drivers to protect against injury to others. Uber drivers are paid a percentage of the fares they generate and receive a 1099 form yearly from Uber so that they can declare their earnings and pay their own taxes on the money they earn.

Since Uber does not consider its drivers employees, or provide workers’ compensation coverage in the event an Uber driver is injured, it is important to know what you are giving up by being an Independent Contractor/Uber driver.

Workers’ compensation coverage in New Jersey includes weekly wage replacement paid at 70% of wages, medical care paid 100% by the workers’ compensation carrier, and partial or total permanency benefits paid for a period of time if the injured worker is left with an impairment after all of the medical treatment is provided.

The courts in New Jersey have not decided any workers’ compensation cases for Uber drivers, however, they have decided cases for other employees who drive for other car services. Although the facts of each individual case vary, the case explained below gives an idea of the factors the court considers when deciding if a driver is an independent contractor or an employee.

The courts have outlined a 12-part test to determine if a person is an employee or an independent contractor, for the purpose of whether or not New Jersey workers’ compensation coverage applies. These factors include the employer’s right to control the manner of the work, the extent of supervision needed, who furnishes the equipment, how the person is paid, whether there is paid vacation and sick time, and whether the “employer” pays Social Security taxes, and the intention of the parties.

In a recent court case in New Jersey, the Appellate Division found that a limousine driver for the XYZ Two Way Radio Company was an independent contractor and not an employee when the driver was injured in a serious motor vehicle accident. The court analyzed the above factors and found that XYZ Two Way Radio Company exercised little control over the driver since he could work as many or as few hours as he wanted.

The Court noted that the driver supplied his own equipment, including his own vehicle and auto insurance, and that the company only provided a small car computer that was used to communicate with the office. The driver was paid a percentage of the fares he generated, and was free to reject any pick-up sent to him by the company. The driver was sent a 1099 form every year and no Social Security or wage taxes were paid by the company.

Based on all of these circumstances the Court found that the driver for XYZ Two Way Radio was an independent contractor, and not an employee entitled to workers’ compensation coverage. This was despite the fact that that the driver worked for the company for 23 years, was told what type of car he must drive and what to wear, and worked a fairly regular schedule.

Comparing the above case to the factors relevant to the Uber driver, courts in New Jersey may consider Uber drivers independent contractors and not employees subject to workers’ compensation coverage. Uber is still taking the position that its drivers are Independent contractors, not subject to workers’ compensation in New Jersey.

However, this has not yet been the subject of an Appellate Court decision. If you work for Uber and get injured in an accident while working, your own automobile coverage would provide some medical care, and possibly some weekly wage replacement benefits, but probably not to the level of coverage provided under the workers’ compensation laws in New Jersey.

Your own automobile policy would not provide the permanency benefits provided under the workers’ compensation statute in this state. Probably not a deal breaker for many given the flexibility offered by Uber, but at least Uber drivers should be aware of the workers’ compensation benefits they may be giving up.

 

COPYRIGHT © 2019, Stark & Stark.
This post was written by Marci Hill Jordan of Stark & Stark.

DOL’s Long-Awaited Overtime Proposed Rule Announced

Recent developments on the wage and hour front will soon require employers to reexamine exemption classifications within their workforce.

On March 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) released its long-awaited proposed amended rule to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). If this proposed rule takes effect, the minimum salary threshold required for workers to qualify for the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions (executive, administrative and professional) will be increased to $35,308 annually (or $679 per week). The current salary threshold under the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions is $455 per week ($23,660 annually), and has not seen an increase since 2004.

The proposed rule also will increase the salary threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption, from the current $100,000 to $147,414 per year. Further, under the proposed rule, employers will be allowed to count certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) toward up to 10 percent of the new salary threshold.

By way of background, in May 2016, the DOL under President Obama issued a rule intended to increase the salary threshold to $913 per week ($47,476 annually). Other changes to the rule included an increased salary threshold for highly compensated workers from $100,000 to approximately $134,000 and a schedule for automatic increases to the salary threshold.

Days before the rule was set to take effect, a Texas federal district court preliminarily enjoined the rule, and later confirmed its ruling on the basis that the new regulations placed too much emphasis on the salary requirement and would have resulted in the reclassification of substantial groups of employees who otherwise performed duties qualifying for exempt status. At the time, the DOL predicted that its rule would cover about four million workers who were presently non-exempt.

While the DOL’s newly proposed rule is set to take effect in January 2020, it is subject to a 60-day comment period and may face legal challenges from business and worker advocate groups alike. Given that some increase to the salary threshold is imminent, employers should nevertheless remain proactive and audit their exempt worker population. As we have noted in prior publications, employers have a number of options available in addressing this issue. As a first step, employers should identify all positions in their organizations that are classified as exempt but pay less than $35,308, review employees’ job descriptions for compliance under each exemption’s duties test, and determine the number of hours exempt employees are working.

 

© 2019 Vedder Price.
This post was written by Sadina Montani and Monique E. Chase of Vedder Price.
Read more labor and employment news, including updates on the DOL’s Overtime Rule, on our labor and employment page.

Getting Political: Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Democrat Jeff Greene Personally Hit with TCPA Class Action

As I have written numerous times, where the TCPA intersects politics things can get spicy.

Imagine it–using a draconian statute to assault your political rivals and bludgeon old foes with ligation designed to extract millions of dollars from their pocket based upon campaign phone calls.

Suing political candidates under the TCPA has become a bit of a ritual in America over the last few years. Obama faced a TCPA suit. As did Trump. More recently Beto O’Rourke faced such a suit. As did an organization supporting the Kavanugh confirmation.  Heck, even the Human Society’s text campaign supporting California’s Prop 12 was *ahem* neutered by a TCPA class action.

In furtherance of that great tradition,  a Florida resident named Lynda Maceda filed suit yesterday against bested Florida gubernatorial candidate Jeff Greene. According to his wiki page Jeff is a successful business guy and real estate investment type. According to Ms. Maceda’s Complaint, however, he’s a robocaller that sent the following message without consent:

“Hi, this is Democrat Jeff Greene running for governor. I’ll stand up to Donald Trump and for Florida’s families. Joseph, if you want world-class schools, commonsense gun reform and to protect women’s choice, please vote for me with your absentee ballot! Can we count on your support?”

The Complaint alleges that thousands of similar complaints were sent all of them without express consent. Ms. Maceda hopes to represent a failsafe clas of all individuals that received the texts without express consent. If these allegations are proven Ms. Maceda hopes to hold Mr. Greene accountable for “amounts [] greater than $15,000,000.” Gees.

Notably, Mr. Greene is sued personally for these violations–usually these TCPA claims are asserted against a candidate’s campaign rather than against the candidate individually.

The Complaint can be found here: Class Action Complaint against Florida Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Jeff Greene

 

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
This post was written by Eric J. Troutman of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.
Read more Litigation news on the National Law Review’s Litigation Type of Law page.

Recent Utah Decision Enforces the Importance of Eminent Domain Provisions In Commercial Leases

A recent Utah case serves as a cautionary tale of the importance of eminent domain provisions in commercial leases. In Utah Dep’t of Transportation v. Kmart Corp., 2018 UT 54, 428 P.3d 1118, the Utah Supreme Court examined a provision in Kmart’s shopping center lease which provided the lease terminated if eminent domain left Kmart’s “points of ingress and egress to the public roadways…materially impaired.” In 2010, the Utah Department of Transportation (“UDOT”) condemned property which provided access to the property Kmart leased. Both Kmart, as tenant, and its landlord, FPA, sought compensation from UDOT for the condemnation of the access point. In 2012, the Utah Supreme Court held that Utah’s just compensation statute required courts and appraisers to determine the value of a condemnation award for each party’s property interest separately using the “aggregate-of-interests approach” and remanded it to the district court for further proceedings. Upon remand, after review of separate appraisals of FPA’s and Kmart’s respective property interests, the district court determined UDOT’s condemnation “materially impaired access and caused the [l]ease to terminate” and awarded Kmart $1.4 million plus interest. UDOT appealed.

On appeal, UDOT urged the Utah Supreme Court to adopt the “termination clause rule” which had been adopted by other jurisdictions. Under that rule, when a lease’s termination clause is triggered, the tenant loses its claim to just compensation because any of the tenant’s continuing interest in the leased property is extinguished.

Kmart argued the 2012 Utah Supreme Court decision, where the “aggregate of interests” approach was adopted, rendered UDOT’s “termination clause rule” argument meaningless. Kmart argued that a condemnation clause’s sole purpose is to determine the landlord’s and tenant’s separate shares of condemnation awards. Because the “aggregate of interests approach” determined the value of each party’s interests separately, there was no reason to contract for each party’s share of the award. Thus, said Kmart, the condemnation clause in its lease should have no effect.

The Utah Supreme Court disagreed with Kmart and instead adopted UDOT’s “termination clause rule.” In rejecting Kmart’s argument, the court explained the “aggregate of interests” rule addressed only the value of a party’s property interest. In contrast, the “termination clause rule” dictated whether a tenant even had a property interest following condemnation. Put another way, the “termination clause rule” determines what is owned where the valuation method determines what is owed.

In examining Kmart’s lease, the Utah Supreme Court determined the termination clause was triggered when condemnation left “points of ingress and egress to the public roadways…materially impaired.” Because the district court already concluded UDOT’s taking left access “materially impaired,” the termination clause—in terminating Kmart’s lease—extinguished Kmart’s property interest. Consequently, the Utah Supreme Court held Kmart was not entitled to just compensation since it no longer had an interest in the property.

Issues relating to condemnation clauses in leases have also arisen in Wisconsin. In 1980, the Wisconsin Supreme Court tacitly acknowledged that it had “become customary” to include condemnation clauses in leases. Like Utah, Wisconsin courts hold that these clauses can terminate the tenant’s interest and bar any claim the tenant would have had to a portion of a just compensation award.

The importance of reviewing condemnation clauses in leases is often undervalued. Unclear drafting of condemnation clauses may also result in landlords having to share condemnation proceeds with tenant. Maxey v. Redevelopment Auth. of Racine, 94 Wis. 2d 375, 288 N.W.2d 794 (1980). Clauses that fail to contemplate Wisconsin’s specific eminent domain rules can also result in the inability of landlords to collect attorney fees. Van Asten v. State, 214 Wis. 2d 135, 571 N.W.2d 420 (Ct. App. 1997).

The Kmart case serves as a warning as to the drastic effects that a condemnation clause can have on the compensation of leasehold interests in a condemnation. To avoid the potentially devastating results of a poorly worded condemnation provision, landlords and tenants should request their real estate attorneys review the condemnation provisions in their leases to confirm that their rights are adequately protected.

 

©2019 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
This post was written by Joseph J. Rolling of von Briesen & Roper, s.c.
Read more real estate news on NLR’s Real Estate type of law page.