Greenwashing and the SEC: the 2022 ESG Target

A recent wave of greenwashing lawsuits against the cosmetics industry drew the attention of many in the corporate, financial and insurance sectors. Attacks on corporate marketing and language used to allegedly deceive consumers will take on a much bigger life in 2022, not only due to our prediction that such lawsuits will increase, but also from Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations and penalties related to greenwashing. 2022 is sure to see an intense uptick in activity focused on greenwashing and the SEC is going to be the agency to lead that charge. Companies of all types that are advertising, marketing, drafting ESG statements, or disclosing information as required to the SEC must pay extremely close attention to the language used in all of these types of documents, or else run the risk of SEC scrutiny.

SEC and ESG

In March 2021, the SEC formed the Climate and Environmental, Social and Governance Task Force (ESG Task Force) within its Division of Enforcement. Hand in hand with the legal world’s attention on greenwashing in 2021, the SEC’s ESG Task Force was created for the sole purpose of investigating ESG-related violations. The SEC’s actions were well-timed, as 2021 saw an enormous increase in investor demand for ESG-related and ESG-driven portfolios. There is considerable market demand for ESG portfolios, and whether this demand is driven by institute influencers or simple environmental and social consciousness among consumers is of little importance to the SEC – it simply wants to ensure that ESG activity is being done properly, transparently and accurately.

Greenwashing and the SEC

The SEC has stated that in 2022, it will be taking direct aim at greenwashing issues on many different levels in the investment world. As corporations and investment funds alike increasingly put forth ESG-friendly statements pertaining to their actions or portfolio content, the law has thus far failed to keep pace with the increasing ESG statement activity. It is into this gap that the SEC sees itself fitting and attempting to ensure that the public is not subject to greenwashing. In order to tackle this objective, expect the SEC to focus on the wording used to describe investments or portfolios, what issuers say in filings, and the statements made by investment houses and advisors related to ESG.

From this stem several topics that the SEC’s ESG Task Force will scrutinize, such as: whether “ESG investments” are truly comprised of companies that have accurate and forthright ESG plans; the level of due diligence conducted by investment houses in determining whether an investment or portfolio is “ESG friendly”; how investment world internal statements differ from external public-facing statements related to the level of ESG considerations taken into account in an investment or portfolio; selling “ESG friendly” investments with no set method for ensuring that the investment continues to uphold those principles; and many others.

2022, the SEC, and ESG

Given the SEC’s specific targeting of ESG-related issues beginning in 2021, we predict that 2022 will see a great degree of SEC enforcement action seeking to curb over zealous marketing language or statements that it sees as greenwashing. Whether these efforts will intertwine with the potential for increased Department of Justice criminal investigation and prosecution of egregious violators over greenwashing remains to be seen, but it is nevertheless something that issuers and investment firms alike must closely consider.

While there are numerous avenues to examine to ensure that ESG principles are being upheld and accurately conveyed to the public, the underlying compliance program for minimizing greenwashing allegation risks is absolutely critical for all players putting forth ESG-related statements. These compliance checks should not merely be one-time pre-issuance programs; rather, they should be ongoing and constant to ensure that with  ever-evolving corporate practices, a focused interest by the SEC on ESG, and increasing attention by the legal world on greenwashing claims, all statement put forth are truly “ESG friendly” and not misleading in any way.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Sixth Circuit Clarifies When Statute of Limitations Commences in False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

On January 10, 2022, the Sixth Circuit held in El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 2022 WL 92565 (6th Cir. Jan 10, 2022) that the statute of limitations period for a False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation case commences when the whistleblower is first informed of the retaliatory adverse employment action.

El-Khalil’s False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

While working as a podiatrist at Oakwood Healthcare, El-Khalil saw  employees submit fraudulent Medicare claims, which he reported to the federal government. In 2015, Oakwood’s Medical Executive Committee (MEC) rejected El-Khalil’s application to renew his staff privileges.  After commencing a series of administrative appeals, El-Khalil found himself before Oakwood’s Joint Conference Committee (JCC) on September 22, 2016. The JCC, which had the authority to issue a final, non-appealable decision, voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges.  On September 27, 2016, the JCC sent El-Khalil written notice of its decision.

Three years later, on September 27, 2019, El-Khalil sued Oakwood for retaliation under the False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation law.  Oakwood moved for summary dismissal on the basis that the claim was not timely filed in that the JCC’s decision became final when it voted on September 22, 2016 and therefore the filing on September 27, 2019 was outside of the 3-year statute of limitations. The district court granted Oakwood’s motion and El-Khalil appealed.

Sixth Circuit Denies Relief

In affirming the district court, the Sixth Circuit held that the text of the FCA anti-retaliation provision (providing that an action “may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred”) is unequivocal that the limitations period commences when the retaliation actually happened. It adopts “the standard rule” that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff “can file suit and obtain relief,” not when the plaintiff discovers the retaliation. The retaliation occurred on September 22 when the JCC voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges, and the JCC’s September 27 letter merely memorialized an already final decision.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that the False Claims Act’s whistleblower protection provision does not contain a notice provision. As soon as Oakwood “discriminated against” El-Khalil “because of” his FCA-protected conduct, he had a ripe “cause of action triggering the limitations period.” The court noted that if an FCA retaliation plaintiff could show that the employer concealed from the whistleblower the decision to take an adverse action, the whistleblower might be able to avail themself of equitable tolling to halt the ticking of the limitations clock.

Implications for Whistleblowers

Some whistleblower retaliation claims have a short statute of limitations and therefore it is critical to promptly determine when the statute of limitations starts to run.  For most whistleblower retaliation claims that are adjudicated at the U.S. Department of Labor, the clock for filing a complaint begins to tick when the complainant receives unequivocal notice of the adverse action.  Udofot v. NASA/Goddard Space Center, ARB No. 10-027, ALJ No. 2009-CAA-7 (ARB Dec. 20, 2011).  If a notice of termination is ambiguous, the statute of limitations may start to run upon the effective date of the termination as opposed to the notice date.  Certain circumstances may justify equitable modification, such as where:

  1. the employer actively misleads or conceals information such that the employee is prevented from making out a prima facie case;
  2. some extraordinary event prevents the employee from filing on time;
  3. the employee timely files the complaint, but with the wrong agency or forum; or
  4. the employer’s own acts or omissions induce the employee to reasonably forego filing within the limitations period.

See Turin v. AmTrust Financial Svcs., Inc., ARB No. 11-062, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-018 (ARB March 29, 2013).

When assessing the statute of limitations for whistleblower retaliation claims, it is also critical to calculate the deadline to timely file a claim for each discrete adverse action or each act of retaliation.  However, in an action alleging a hostile work environment, retaliatory acts outside the statute of limitations period are actionable where there is an ongoing hostile work environment and at least one of the acts occurred within the statute of limitations period.  And when filing a retaliation claim, the whistleblower should consider pleading untimely acts of retaliation because such facts are relevant background evidence in support of a timely claim.

Article By Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law

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

© 2022 Zuckerman Law

January 2022 Legal News Roundup: Law Firm Moves, Hiring & Recognition

Happy 2022 to all of our readers! We hope you all had a safe and healthy New Year. Read on for more legal industry updates.

Recent Law Firm Moves and Hiring

Van Ness Feldman law firm elected three new partners in their Seattle office:

“Clara, Steven, and Chris have distinguished themselves not only through their professional accomplishments, but by their relationships with clients and colleagues. They reinforce the firm’s collaborative culture,” said Van Ness Feldman Seattle Managing Partner Tadas Kisielius.

Stubbs, Alderton & Markiles (SA&M)  have expanded their firm with the additions of Apparel and Fashion lawyer Mark Brutzkus and litigator Nick Rozansky to their office in Southern California.

Mr. Brutzkus represents consumer product companies in various e-commerce and sourcing issues, and has advised apparel, textile and consumer product clients during various stages of the corporate process.

“SA&M is an excellent platform for me to expand my consumer product practice, particularly because the Firm has unparalleled experience working with venture-backed emerging growth, middle-market public, large technology, and entertainment and digital media companies, as well as investors, venture capital funds, investment bankers, and underwriters. More and more of my clients are asking for ancillary practice areas and specialized attorneys who can help with long term, holistic goals,” said Mr. Brutzkus.

Mr. Rozansky advises corporate clients on various issues including litigation matters, risk avoidance, IP protection, and more. When necessary, Mr. Rozansky handles more high-stakes cases such as infringement issues, contract cases and shareholder disputes.

“This move provides my clients with much needed corporate and M&A expertise, and greatly expands my litigation capacity by joining three renowned litigation partners and several extremely capable litigation associates,” said Mr. Rozansky.

“Mark and Nick share the values that make up our unique and coveted culture at Stubbs Alderton, and we look forward to Mark and Nick making immediate and lasting contributions to our Firm,” said Scott Alderton, SA&M’s Managing Partner.

Gilbert LLP elected Heather Frazier to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2022. Ms. Frazier focuses on insurance recovery in mass-tort proceedings, complex alternative dispute resolution, and other matters. Ms. Frazier has been with Gilbert since 2015.

“I am thrilled to join the partnership at Gilbert alongside the most innovative and dynamic lawyers I have had the fortune to know. I look forward to continuing to contribute to the firm’s growth and unique culture in this new role and assisting our clients in resolving the unresolvable,” said Ms. Frazier.

“In her time with us, Heather has established herself not only as an excellent lawyer, but also as an outstanding Gilbert citizen. She has been a true asset to all of us, serving our clients and our community with talent, dedication and tenacity.  We look forward to a long, exciting and mutually satisfying relationship with our newest partner,” said firm founder Scott Gilbert.

Bernstein Shur law firm announced the election of four attorneys to shareholder:

“This is an outstanding group of lawyers. They’ve each shown impressive dedication not only to their clients but also to our local communities and the legal profession. I’m confident they will continue to use their deep knowledge and skills to deliver high-quality legal counsel to help our clients meet their business goals,” said Bernstein Shur CEO Joan Fortin.

Legal Industry Recognition and Awards

Polsinelli’s intellectual property department recently ranked in three of Patexia Inc.’s reports: ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report, IPR Intelligence Report and CAFC Intelligence Report.

The firm received multiple awards, including ranking among the Best Performing and Most Active Law Firms in several categories in Patexia Inc.’s 2021 ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report. Polsinelli also ranked among the Best Performing and Most Active Law Firms, which evaluated 243 law firms and 1,471 attorneys on activity and performance within the Hatch-Waxman/ANDA space.

“Our team continues to work hard and provide excellent client service, which is on display as we continue to rank highly in Patexia’s various reports,” said our Intellectual Property Department Chair Pat Woolley. “As one of the nation’s largest IP practices, our commitment to focusing on our clients’ businesses and service needs has again enabled us to earn recognition as one of the best performing firms.”

Dinsmore earned a diversity award from Crain’s Cleveland Business in its issue recognizing seven “notable businesses championing diversity and inclusion.” Dinsmore recently earned Mansfield Rule 4.0 Certification Plus for the 2021 iteration of the diverse leadership hiring initiative.

The firm also launched a  Pre-Law Minority Program to help students of color at four Kentucky universities, as well as creating a fellowship with Procter & Gamble and the Ohio Innocence Project at Cincinnati Law for a recent diverse law school graduate to gain experience in civil rights litigation and policy.

Everyone has a customer in the business world, and the customer population is becoming more diverse,” partner Richik Sarkar told Crain’s. “Look around your company. If everyone seems the same, especially in leadership, you’ll have a problem serving your customer, and if you don’t take steps to understand your customers, you’ll face failure sooner rather than later.”

Six Wiggin and Dana attorneys are included on the Best Lawyers in America® 2022 Family Law Edition.

They include the following partners:

And one associate is included on the Best Lawyers 2022 “Ones to Watch” list:

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and the Supreme Court of New Jersey appointed Stark & Stark Shareholder Bhaveen Jani to the Supreme Court of New Jersey to the Supreme Court Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

“I am honored to have just been appointed to an important Supreme Court Committee where I will be able to protect the people in New Jersey and the legal profession from the unauthorized practice of law,” said Bhaveen. “Great responsibility comes with being an attorney, especially for our clients and the community, and this committee will work to protect those we serve.”

Mr. Jani’s three year term began January 1, 2022, and will end on December 31, 2024. Mr. Jani is part of a number of professional organizations in New Jersey, which qualified him for the position. These organizations include the New Jersey State Bar Association, the South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey, the New Jersey Association for Justice, the American Association for Justice, the Hunterdon County Bar Association and the Mercer County Bar Association.

The committee performs three major functions, including supplying advisory opinions, inquiry into complaints and investigation of the unauthorized practice of law.

Shumaker attorney Melanie Griffin was appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as the Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). Ms. Griffin has advised businesses in a variety of commercial law issues and also has substantial employment law and trust and estate experience as well. Ms. Griffin has been recognized by many organizations over the years for her outstanding leadership efforts.

“I’m so pleased for Melanie to have this opportunity to service the citizens of the state of Florida,” said Ron Christaldi, Shumaker’s Tampa Managing Partner and President of Shumaker Advisors Florida. “With her depth of experience and her understanding of the business community, she will be an excellent leader of this important state agency.”

Shelli Erffmeyer and Renee Stallions, employees at Varnum LLP, were recently named Unsung Legal Heroes by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. The publication’s award recognizes non-attorney legal professionals who frequently surpass expectations and go above and beyond in their roles. Ms. Erffmeyer, a legal assistant supporting Varnum’s Litigation practice group, has been noted for her outstanding initiative and dedication, especially through the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Stallions, a senior systems applications analyst in the firm’s Information Technology Department, has been noted for her considerable flexibility and work ethic, ensuring Varnum’s technology continues to operate efficiently across all offices.

“Both Shelli and Renee are very deserving of this recognition. Their exemplary service and commitment to the firm was especially appreciated this past year throughout the challenges of the pandemic,” said Scott Hill, Varnum Executive Partner. “As we congratulate Shelli and Renee, we are once again reminded of the vital role of our support staff. Their contributions are critical to the success of our firm.”

Much Shelist, P.C. has announced its new membership in the Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA). The LFAA, which seeks racial equality and systemic change in the law, helps to coordinate allied law firms in order to enact change that benefits underserved and oppressed communities. Previously, Much has assisted the LFAA in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, which argues that the Court should consider the retroactive application of Ramos v. Louisiana (which holds that non-unanimous jury verdicts are unconstitutional).

“We’re proud to join the nearly 300 Alliance firms working together to address systemic racism in the law,” said Steve Blonder, chair of the firm’s social responsibility initiative, Much Community. “It’s our privilege and our responsibility to continue working for the rights of marginalized people.”

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

Article By Hanna Taylor,  Rachel Popa and Chandler Ford of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more articles on the legal industry, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Preliminary Injunctions on Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

On January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) in a 5-4 decision, staying the preliminary injunctions issued for 24 states by the District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana.  Therefore, the CMS vaccine mandate is in full effect for all states except Texas, which was not part of the cases before the Court.  The Rule requires nearly all workers at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities—whether medical personnel, volunteers, janitorial staff, or even contractors who service the facilities—to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.

The Court based its holding on two main points.  First, the Court held that Congress clearly authorized CMS to put conditions on funding it provides to the Medicare and Medicaid certified facilities.  The Court opined that perhaps CMS’s “most basic” function is to ensure that regulated facilities protect the health and safety of their patients, noting that Medicare and Medicaid patients are often some of the most vulnerable to infection and death from COVID-19.  Because CMS determined that a vaccine mandate is necessary to protect patient health and safety, the Court held the mandate “fits neatly within the language of the [authorizing] statute.”  The Court acknowledged that CMS has never required vaccinations in the past, but attributed this in part to the fact that states typically already require necessary vaccinations like hepatitis B, influenza, and measles for healthcare workers.

Second, the Court held that the mandate is not arbitrary and capricious, and cautioned the district courts that their role is merely to make sure an agency acts within the “zone of reasonableness.”  The Court found the administrative record sufficient to explain CMS’s rationale for the mandate and also accepted that getting the vaccine mandate in place ahead of winter and flu season satisfied the “good cause” standard for skipping the notice and comment period.

Healthcare employers subject to the Rule should immediately start implementing vaccine requirements if they have not already.  It is anticipated that in all states but Texas, CMS will likely begin enforcement of the vaccine mandate in approximately 30 days.  On December 28, 2021, CMS released guidance to state surveyors with enforcement standards to use starting 30 days from the memo, though at the time the memo only applied to the 25 states that were not enjoined.  Healthcare employers should also keep in mind that this is not the end of the road: the Court’s holding only means that the CMS vaccine mandate is in force while the 5th and 8th Circuits complete their review of the underlying state challenges to the mandate.  While the Supreme Court’s opinion sends a strong message that lower courts should uphold the mandate, there is no guarantee they will do so.

The legal landscape continues to evolve quickly and there is a lack of clear-cut authority or bright line rules on implementation.  This article is not intended to be an unequivocal, one-size-fits-all guidance, but instead represents our interpretation of where applicable law currently and generally stands.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including, without limitation, potential liability should an employee become ill, requirements regarding family leave, sick pay and other issues.

Article By Keeley A. McCarty and Ashley T. Hirano of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

7 Tips to Avoid Employer Mandate Assessments and Penalties under the Affordable Care Act

As we discussed in a prior article, it is now more important than ever for employers to ensure they fully and accurately complete IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C — forms required to be filed and/or furnished to employees under the Affordable Care Act. A failure to do so can lead to eye-popping proposed employer shared responsibility payment (ESRP) assessments, as well as information reporting penalties.

To avoid such costly mistakes, employers should keep the following seven tips in mind when completing or reviewing Forms 1094-C and 1095-C:

Form 1094-C

  1. Be very sure that the “Yes” box is checked on Line 23, column (a) to state that minimum essential coverage was offered for all 12 months.

This is far and away the single most important data entry on both forms. The box should always be checked for an employer who provides minimum essential health coverage to all full-time employees in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Failing to check this box may result in an automatic ESRP assessment of up to $2,700 per full-time employee for 2021. The amount is adjusted annually.

  1. Know when to check the box on Line 22 for “Qualifying Offer Method.”

If an employer is eligible to use the Qualifying Offer Method, it should check this box only if it is reporting offers of coverage on Forms 1095-C using code 1A.

Form 1095-C

  1. Conduct a coding audit and know where to prioritize.

Each of the below tips and other points of review for Forms 1095-C should be addressed prior to the furnishing and filing of the forms. Only by reviewing and understanding the codes can an employer have confidence that it will avoid an ESRP assessment or accuracy-related information return penalties. Of course, depending on the number of employees, reviewing the coding for all employees may be impracticable. Thus, employers should prioritize the following situations for review:

  • Forms for employees who were hired, terminated, or who experienced a change in status during the year;
  • Forms where code 1H is reported; and
  • Forms for employees who are more likely to be eligible for the premium tax credit (e.g., employees earning less than $51,040 in 2021).
  1. Review for “red flag” coding combinations on lines 14 and 16.

The following code combinations are triggers for an ESRP assessment and should never be used by an employer who provides minimum essential health coverage to all full-time employees: 1H/__, 1H/2C, 1H/2F, 1H/2G, and 1H/2H. All of these code combinations report that no offer of coverage was provided but fail to state a valid reason for why an ESRP should not apply. Where no offer of coverage is made, only one of the following code combinations should be used: 1H/2A, 1H/2B or 1H/2D.

  1. Review for incomplete coding on lines 14 and 16.

For employers who are not using the Qualifying Offer Method, both code series (series 1 and series 2) on lines 14 and 16 should always be completed for all months on the Forms 1095-C of all full-time employees. However, if an employer is using the Qualifying Offer Method, then it will be acceptable in many instances to use only code 1A and to leave the series 2 code blank.

  1. Make sure the safe harbor code reported on line 16 actually applies.

In more recent years, the IRS has begun scrutinizing the series 2 safe harbor codes reported by employers on line 16. For example, the IRS will automatically reject an employer’s use of code 2G, the federal poverty line safe harbor, if the monthly employee required contribution reported on the Form 1095-C exceeds $104.53 for a month in 2021.

  1. Ensure the waiting period is coded correctly on lines 14 and 16.

If an employee is in a waiting period on any day of a month, the month should be coded as 1H/2D to signify that the employee is in a limited non-assessment period. This code can only be used for up to four consecutive months for each period of employment. If an employee was terminated and rehired in the same year, the employer should determine whether the waiting period and code 1H/2D can be applied again under the rules for determining periods of employment.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

SCOTUS Cert Recap: Civil Procedure, Bankruptcy, And Worker’s Comp

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted three of the cert. petitions it considered at its first conference of the new year.

The Court agreed to hear issues involving: 1) the grounds for relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), 2) the limits on Congress’ authority to apply different bankruptcy rules to different parts of the country, and 3) the scope of states’ authority to apply their workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities.

Such issues are not the most high-profile the Court will address this term, as underscored by the absence of cert-stage amicus briefs in all three of the cases (though this is less uncommon than one might think; by our calculations, about 40 percent of the cert. petitions granted for plenary review last term lacked cert-stage amicus briefs). For governmental entities, bankruptcy practitioners, and federal court civil litigators, however, the cases are worth noting and following.

Rule 60(b) Motions for Relief from Final Judgment

In Kemp v. United States, the Court finally agreed to resolve what the cert. petition characterizes as a 50-year circuit split on whether the “mistake” prong of Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s legal error. Rule 60(b) sets out six categories of reasons why a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under 60(b)(1) and “any other reason that justifies relief” under 60(b)(6). The lower courts agree that 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) authorize relief for at least some legal errors, but disagree about which of those provisions does so.

And that seemingly picayune distinction can matter. The Federal Rules require all 60(b) motions to be made “within a reasonable time” but set a hard one-year time limit for relief sought on 60(b)(1) grounds. This means that if Rule 60(b)(1) does not encompass legal errors, motions alleging legal errors would fall under Rule 60(b)(6) and would not need to meet the bright-line one-year rule – though such motions would then be subject to the Supreme Court’s additional requirement that 60(b)(6) motions establish “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief. Accordingly, the question in this case can mean the difference between a timely and untimely 60(b) motion, and civil litigators should be on the lookout for the Court’s answer.

Congress’ Authority to Adopt “Uniform” Bankruptcy Rules

The Court will also take up Siegel v. Fitzgerald, where it will consider the meaning of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause, which authorizes Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The petitioner in this case contends that Congress violated this “uniformity” requirement by dividing the nation’s bankruptcy courts into two slightly different categories. Most operate under the U.S. Trustee program, while six (all in North Carolina and Alabama) operate under the Bankruptcy Administrator program.

In 2017, Congress increased the quarterly fees paid by debtors in large Chapter 11 bankruptcies from $30,000 to $250,000, and while this increase was immediately applicable to all pending and future cases in Trustee districts, it was imposed in Administrator districts nine months later, and then only to future cases. In Siegel the Court will decide whether this difference renders the 2017 statute unconstitutionally “non-uniform” (and, if the Court concludes it is unconstitutional, there will be a further difficult question to tackle concerning how such a defect should be remedied). Notably, even the respondent (who is represented by the U.S. Solicitor General) urged the Court to take this case, observing that though Congress eliminated the difference in 2020, the question presented in this case could affect the status of approximately $324 million in quarterly fees imposed nationwide under the 2017 statute.

In light of such figures, bankruptcy professionals across the country – especially those with cases subject to the 2017 statute – will likely have a strong interest in what the Court will say.

Limits on States’ Application of Workers’ Compensation Laws to Federal Facilities

In United States v. Washington, the Court agreed to hear the federal government’s challenge to a Washington workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to contractors at a federally owned nuclear-waste cleanup site. Under longstanding principles of intergovernmental immunity, state regulation of federal facilities is generally permissible only where such regulation is clearly authorized by Congress. And the federal government contends that the relevant statute here – which allows states to regulate workers’ compensation at federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State” – does not permit states to single out federal facilities for unique treatment. The state of Washington, meanwhile, counters that states routinely apply different rules to different employers, and it argues that the federal statute simply authorizes such context-sensitive regulation at private and federal facilities alike.

The dispute accordingly consists of competing interpretations of a narrow federal statute (40 U.S.C. § 3172(a)), and it is therefore difficult to see how the case could have much broader significance outside the workers’ compensation context. Contractors working at federal facilities, however, may be interested to see whether the Supreme Court opens the door for future challenges to state workers’ compensation laws.

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Article By Kian Hudson of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

For more articles on SCOTUS, visit the NLR Litigation / Trial Practice section.

U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down COVID-19 Shot-or-Test Rule

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency “vaccine-or-test” rule mandating private employers with 100 or more employees to institute a policy requiring their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing.

The Court ruled 6-3 to block the vaccine-or-test rule on the basis that OSHA had exceeded its authority in enacting the emergency rule. The Court described the rule as “a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees.” Had the rule not been rejected by the nation’s highest court, it would have required roughly 84 million workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing and wear a mask at work. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

While blocking the vaccine-or-test rule for large private employers, the Court ruled 5-4 to allow a separate rule to take effect which mandates the COVID-19 vaccine for workers in nursing homes, hospitals, and other facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments from the federal government. The Court reasoned that the regulation serves to protect patients and ensure that healthcare providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients. The Court noted: “It would be the very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID–19.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.

©2022 Roetzel & Andress
For more articles on SCOTUS, visit the NLRLitigation / Trial Practice section.

Let’s Eat Grandma = Let’s Eat, Grandma?

To the possible dismay of grammar purists, a federal court recently found that an insurance policy provision meant the same thing whether or not it included a comma before a key phrase. After poking fun at insurance policies (“long been the butt of jokes”), the court recognized that they can “provide fodder for scores of attorneys, grammarians, and logophiles” like when “the placement (or omission) of one comma can make the difference.” This case is an example.

The policy covered Constantin for claims related to “services directed toward expertise in banking finance, accounting, risk and systems analysis, design and implementation, asset recovery and strategy planning for financial institutions.” Constantin sought coverage for an underlying litigation that involved “services directed toward expertise in . . . accounting.” But that litigation did not involve services “for financial institutions.”

So the question was whether “for financial institutions” applied just to the service immediately preceding it or to all services identified in the provision, including accounting services. The court found that it modified the entire series, explaining that “while commas at the end of a series can avoid ambiguity, the use of such commas is discretionary.”

Bottom line: While a comma can save grandma’s life, it couldn’t save coverage here.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Article By Patrick M. McDermott and Casey L. Coffey of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more articles on insurance, visit the NLR Insurance Reinsurance & Surety section.

How Does SEO Help Law Firms? 10 Benefits

How Does SEO Help Law Firms?

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is one of the most effective marketing strategies for law firms. Think about it: What better way to reach potential clients than in Google?

After all, people use Google to search for lawyers and legal service providers in their area – more than any other platform. SEO empowers law firms to rank high in the search results and attract clients who are already looking for services like theirs.

But SEO doesn’t just help law firms attract new clients. There are many benefits to adopting a law firm SEO strategy.

1. Organic Traffic

SEO is first and foremost focused on improving a website’s Google rankings and driving organic traffic. Most often, the goal is to rank high, consistently, in Search and earn organic visitors for the long term.

Lawyers can optimize their website for the search terms (“keywords”) people are using to search for their services. For example, if you are a family lawyer in Denver, you can attempt to rank for “denver family lawyer,” “family lawyer in denver,” “family law attorney denver” and the like.

Organic (unpaid) marketing is great because it doesn’t require a hefty ad spend in order to yield results. You can adopt your own SEO strategies to rank your website or choose to hire an SEO professional to aid the process.

2. Improved User Experience

Believe it or not, SEO is not just about pleasing the Google gods. In actuality, your goal should be to provide the best website experience, content, and information to your prospective visitors. Google’s algorithm serves to rank content that best matches what users are searching for.

SEO necessarily improves user experience (UX) because UX is included in Google’s known ranking factors. The speed, interactivity, and accessibility of your website are all important in terms of pleasing visitors and letting Google know your website is optimized.

A great UX keeps users on your website for longer and encourages them to “opt in” (contact you) rather than going to your competitors.

3. Faster Website Speed

Google assesses a website’s Core Web Vitals in order to determine that a website is fast and that its content is easily rendered to users. In other words, it wants to ensure that when users land on your site, it doesn’t take decades for your content to load.

Slow website speed can be a huge deterrent to potential clients. If your website takes too long, they are likely to go elsewhere. Also, slow website speed often means you have “heavy” images and code on your site, which can essentially glitch out or fail to load when users interact with them.

An effective SEO strategy works to improve your website’s Core Web Vitals across the board so you’re sure to provide a fast, user-friendly website experience to your visitors.

4. Better Content Marketing

The success of your SEO is largely driven by content. The content on your web pages and on your blog posts work to attract the right kinds of users to your site, improve your site’s authority, and so much more.

When you care about SEO, you care about your content, and in turn, create better content for users and for search engines. Better content not only ranks higher in Search, but it is more readily shared by users. Plus, your written content is often what ultimately convinces people to hire you.

5. Earned Links and Authority

Backlinks (links from other websites) are essentially votes of confidence from outside sites that your website is informative, factual, and valuable to users. Every SEO strategy aims to earn these authority-boosting links to show Google your website is legit.

Earned authority can improve your website’s appearance in search. At the same time, links from other websites can drive additional traffic to your website. Blogging, content marketing, and outreach are just a few ways law firms can earn backlinks for SEO.

6. Referral Traffic

Referral traffic is traffic that comes in via outside links or from other websites. SEO can help drive referral traffic to your site, because other sites begin to notice your content and want to link to it.

At the same time, most law firms adopt a localized SEO strategy that involves submitting their business information to local directories. These directories can then send more visitors (and leads) to your website.

Also, publishing expert-level content can grab the attention of other blogs and publications, which may then choose to feature you. Then, you can get this referral traffic via interviews, podcasts, and guest posts.

7. More Phone Calls

Law firm SEO often requires a localized strategy in order to target users in a specific service area. To do this, law firms can produce geo-specific content on their websites, submit to local directories, and even create a Google My Business listing.

Local SEO helps law firms get noticed in local search. With local listings, law firms can share their business contact information to drive more phone calls and leads.

In short, visitors don’t even need to visit your website if they are able to find your phone number directly from Google!

8. Improved Client Intake

Website optimization makes it far easier to collect lead information and file it away for better client intake. By including contact forms and contact information on your website, you can generate more digital leads and save this information to your client management system.

If you are strictly relying on phone calls, you’re likely missing out on a ton of potential leads. Contact forms, chat bots, and opt-ins make it easier than ever to gather lead information in real-time. You can even automate text messaging or email follow-up to reach potential clients faster.

9. Local and Foot Traffic

Local SEO also makes it easier for potential clients to find your physical office. You’re able to post your address and other business information so people can visit you in person, without ever having to go to your website.

Localization also sends geo-specific “cues” to Google telling it where your business exists and the areas it serves. If you have this information, it makes it more likely you will appear in the right local search results for the right audience. This is especially true if you work in a competitive market, but your competitors have not implemented SEO.

10. Reviews and Ratings

Reviews and SEO present a “chicken and the egg” situation; great reviews influence SEO, and SEO helps law firms earn reviews. There’s no way to go wrong!

Positive client reviews indicate to Google (and users) that your law firm is trustworthy, real (important!), and highly revered. SEO, in turn, encourages law firms to reach out and generate more positive reviews so they can improve their rankings.

Think those 5-star ratings don’t matter for Search? Think again! Not only do potential clients want to see those shining reviews, but Google values your business’s reputation as well. So don’t forget about reviews when it comes to your SEO.

SEO helps put your law firm on the map

SEO helps law firms beyond just traffic and lead generation; it provides a well-rounded marketing strategy that improves your business’s overall digital presence. And a better digital presence means more opportunities to attract new legal clients!

Every law firm should adopt SEO in order to improve user experience, website speed, content, and local visibility. This is one of the best ways to drive sustainable, organic traffic and put your website on the (Google) map.

Copyright 2022 © Hennessey Digital

Article By Jason Hennessey of Hennessey Digital

For more articles on SEO, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Powered by