Employers Helping Employees—Are Disaster Relief Payments and Loans Exempt From Puerto Rico Income Tax?

With the havoc wrought by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, employers are exploring options to provide emergency relief to those employees who have encountered financial hardship to meet their necessities and repair their homes in the wake of the disaster. Occasionally, aid from employers to employees comes in the form of disaster-relief monetary payments and interest-free loans. In light of the state of emergency in Puerto Rico declared by local authorities, on October 4, 2017, the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury released Administrative Determination No. 17-21 (AD 17-21), which provides necessary and well-timed guidance on the taxation of this type of assistance.

Qualified Disaster Assistance Payments

Disaster assistance payments, which meet the requirements of AD 17-21, are not includable in an employee’s taxable income and, thus, are exempt from Puerto Rico income tax. Under AD 17-21, any payment made by an employer to an employee, or directly to a provider of goods and/or services, will be considered “qualified” and not treated as taxable compensation provided that:

  1. payments are made in lieu of wages lost by the employee while he or she is not able to work due to the disaster;
  2. payments are made to (a) cover necessary and reasonable expenditures of the employee or the employee’s relatives for food, medications, gas, lodging, medical expenses, the care of children or dependents, power generators, funeral services, and/or the repair of destruction to the employee’s principal residence incurred as a result of Hurricane Maria, as long as the payment is made directly to the provider of goods and/or services; (b) to the employee himself or herself and to mitigate damages or losses resulting from Hurricane Maria, subject to a monthly cap of 1,000; and/or (c) for other purposes, as recognized by AD 17-21;
  3. payments are received by the employee (or the provider of goods and/or services, as appropriate) at any time between September 21, 2017, and December 31, 2017; and
  4. payments are in no way attributable or related to the level of the employee’s position or salary. 

Employers that make qualified disaster assistance payments must report such payments no later than January 31, 2018, by submitting a sworn statement to the Puerto Rico treasury stating the names and social security numbers of the employees who received qualified payments and the total amount of the payments.  Qualified disaster assistance payments made in compliance with AD 17-21 are tax-deductible for the employer.

Interest-Free Loans

Interest-free loans of up to $20,000 (either individually or in the aggregate) granted by an employer to an employee, from September 21, 2017, through June 30, 2018, to cover necessary and reasonable expenses of the employee or the employee’s family and expenditures for the construction or repair of the employee’s principal residence due to damage from Hurricane Maria are exempt from Puerto Rico income tax.

Employers may grant interest-free loans to employees in addition to qualified disaster assistance payments.

This post was written by Enrique A. Del Cueto-Perez & Ryan J. Correia of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved., © 2017
For more Labor & Employment legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

GM Labeling Update: Ingredient Disclosure Debate

  • As previously reported on this blog, legislation requiring labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods and food ingredients was signed into law on July 29, 2016.  This law directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop regulations and standards to create mandatory disclosure requirements for bio-engineered foods by July 2018. On June 28, 2017, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) posted a list of 30 questions to obtain stakeholder input to facilitate the drafting of mandatory disclosure requirements to implement the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law. One of those questions is:
    • “Will AMS require disclosure for food that contains highly refined products, such as oils or sugars derived from bioengineered crops?”
  • USDA has not yet posted the comments it has received, which were due by August 25, 2017; however, several organizations have posted the comments they submitted in response to the questions. Among the organizations supporting disclosure were the Grocery Manufacturers Assn. (GMA), the International Dairy Foods Assn. (IDFA)and the Consumers Union. Noting that excluding highly refined ingredients (HRI) from the scope of the mandatory disclosure standard would result in roughly 80% fewer products being subject to the disclosure requirements under the federal law, GMA wrote, “A clear, simple, and consistent mandatory disclosure standard that includes HRI will assist manufacturers in educating consumers about biotechnology as a safe and beneficial method of plant breeding.”
  • In contrast, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) are opposed to mandatory disclosure of HRI. ITIF suggested that some refined products do not contain residual DNA sequences and that “[t]here are not analytical methods that would allow such products to be identified as coming from ‘GM’ plants or animals vs. others.”
  • While USDA develops mandatory disclosure requirements for bio-engineered foods, a number of class action laws suit have been filed suggesting that products containing GM ingredients are falsely labeled as natural. For example, last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a bid by Conagra Brands Inc. to avoid a class-action lawsuit concerning cooking oil labeled 100% natural that contains GM ingredients (see S. News). And earlier this month, Frito-Lay North America agreed to not make any non-GMO claims on certain products “unless the claim is certified by an independent third-party certification organization”(see Food Navigator).
  • We will continue to monitor developments on the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard and report them to you here.
This post was written by the Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman of Keller and Heckman LLP., © 2017
For more Biotech, Food & Drug legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

CNN Investigates Expanding Use of Nuedexta in Nursing Homes

A recent investigation by CNN brought to light the expanding and allegedly inappropriate use of the prescription drug Nuedexta in nursing homes throughout the country. Nuedexta is FDA-approved to treat a rare condition known as pseudobulbar affect (PBA).

What is Pseudobulbar Affect?

Pseudobulbar affect is characterized by sudden and uncontrollable laughing or crying. It is associated with people who have multiple sclerosis (MS) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALM), known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Avanir Pharmaceuticals has been aggressively targeting elderly nursing home residents with the drug, the CNN investigation found, although PBA reportedly impacts less than 1 percent of Americans, based on a calculation using the drug maker’s own figures.

What the Investigation Revealed

Nuedexta prescription use in nursing homes is rising at a rapid rate, even though Avanir Pharmaceuticals acknowledges that the drug has not been extensively studied in elderly patients, according to CNN.

CNN found that Avanir Pharmaceutical’s sales force is focused on expanding the drug’s use among elderly patients suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, coupled with “high-volume prescribing and advocacy efforts by doctors receiving payments from the company.”

Since 2012, more than half of all Nuedexta pills have gone to long-term care facilities, according to data obtained from QuintilesIMS, which tracks pharmaceutical sales. Total sales of Nuedexta reached almost $300 million that year.

In response to requests to be interviewed for the CNN article, Avanir reportedly responded by email with a statement that PBA is often “misunderstood” and that the condition can affect people with dementia and other neurological disorders that are common in nursing home residents.

Nuedexta is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat anyone with PBA, including those with neurological conditions such as dementia. But geriatric physicians, dementia researchers, and other medical experts reportedly told CNN that PBA is extremely rare in dementia patients.

How Can Nuedexta Impact Nursing Home Residents?

One study of 194 patients with Alzheimer’s disease found that patients taking Nuedexta suffered more than twice as many falls as those patients taking a placebo.

CNN reports that Lon Schneider, director of the University of Southern California’s California Alzheimer’s Disease Center, reviewed information from several hundred reports obtained by CNN through the Freedom of Information Act. Schneider expressed concern about potential interactions between Nuedexta and other medications intended to treat problematic behaviors. These medications may include antipsychotic drugs, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety medication which are often given to nursing home residents to suppress anxiety or aggression that may occur with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia types.

Why Are Doctors Prescribing Nuedexta to Nursing Home Residents?

According to CNN’s analysis of government data, between 2013 and 2016, Avanir and its parent company, Otsuka, paid almost $14 million to physicians for Nuedexta-related consulting, promotional speaking, and other services. The companies also spent $4.6 million on travel and dining costs. CNN found that in 2015 nearly half the Nuedexta claims filed with Medicare came from doctors who had received money or other perks.

According to the investigation, state regulators have found that doctors may inappropriately diagnose nursing home residents with PBA to justify the use of Nuedexta to treat confusion, agitation, and unruly behavior. Further, doctors may inappropriately diagnose nursing home residents with PBA to justify the use of Nuedexta to treat confusion, agitation, and unruly behavior. A diagnosis of PBA may be used because “off-label” prescriptions written by doctors using Nuedexta to treat patients who have not been diagnosed with PBA would typically not be covered by Medicare.

What Adverse Events Have Been Reported With Nuedexta Use By Nursing Home Patients?

Soon after Nuedexta came on the market, doctors, nurses, and nursing home patients’ family members began filing reports including rashes, dizziness, and falls as well as comas and death. CNN found that Nuedexta was listed as a “suspect” medication in nearly 1,000 adverse event reports received by the FDA. These reports disclosed side effects, drug interactions, and other issues. According to CNN, the FDA declined to comment on adverse events or the approval process for Nuedexta.

This post was written by Denise Mariani  of STARK & STARK, COPYRIGHT © 2017
For more legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

Education Secretary Signals Shift in Title IX Policy for Dealing with Sexual Misconduct Allegations

On September 7, 2017, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos announced a marked policy shift in how the Department of Education will approach Title IX enforcement with regard to sexual misconduct. DeVos indicated that the Department plans to withdraw the controversial Dear Colleague Letters issued during the Obama administration. Instead, the Department will issue formal regulations that will establish a new Title IX framework for educational institutions investigating and responding to sexual misconduct allegations. The full text of Secretary DeVos’s speech can be found here.

Title IX has been a dominant topic in higher education since 2011, when the Obama Administration issued the “Dear Colleague Letter” explaining that a failure to adequately address sexual misconduct on campus constituted discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs under Title IX.[1] Among other things, the Dear Colleague Letter set forth how schools should respond to sexual misconduct, dictated specific procedures schools must follow to investigate and adjudicate such misconduct, and established various other requirements such as climate surveys, standards of proof, and survivor sensitivity. The Letter made clear that a failure to meet these expectations, and the expanded guidance issued by the Department in 2014, could result in a loss of federal funding, and thus had a swift and substantial impact on the way educational institutions responded to reports of sexual assault or harassment.

In a speech at the George Mason University School of Law on September 7, 2017, Secretary DeVos said that schools will still be required to address sexual misconduct. However, she announced the Department would be rescinding the Dear Colleague Letters and instead regulate through actual regulations, subject to notice and comment. Secretary DeVos lamented that “for too long, rather than engage the public on controversial issues, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights has issued letters from the desks of un-elected and un-accountable political appointees.” She made it clear that “the era of ‘rule by letter’ is over.” DeVos emphasized the Department’s ongoing commitment to protecting victims of sexual violence. But she also clearly signaled that the Department will pay more attention to the due process rights of the accused, including questioning the “preponderance of the evidence” standard that the Department required all schools to use in adjudicating sexual misconduct cases. DeVos promised to work more closely with educational institutions, rather than operating “through intimidation and coercion.” And she said the Department would be open to exploring alternative methods of enforcing Title IX, including the possibility of voluntary regional centers where outside professionals would be available to handle Title IX investigations and adjudications.

DeVos did not indicate exactly what the new Department rules might entail, or when they will come into effect, nor has there been an official withdrawal of the Dear Colleague Letter yet. DeVos did indicate, however, that the Department will base the new rules on public feedback and will take into account the views of educational institutions, professionals, and individual students. In her closing remarks, DeVos noted that the Department of Education’s “interest is in exploring all alternatives that would help schools meet their Title IX obligations and protect all students. [The Department] welcome[s] input and look[s] forward to hearing more ideas.”[2]

Schools should take advantage of the Secretary’s call for comments, as the Department moves towards the development and implementation of a different and hopefully clearer set of rules governing the enforcement of Title IX. However, schools should also anticipate a period of uncertainty until final rules are issued. Moreover, schools should be aware of the continuing (and possibly conflicting) state law obligations that have been put into place following the Dear Colleague Letter. For example, many states including Connecticut and New York have passed legislation mandating use of the preponderance of the evidence standard in evaluating sexual misconduct on college campuses. We anticipate further, more detailed guidance in the next few weeks as the Department of Education works to implement Secretary DeVos’s policy announcements.

[1] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 106.

[2] Secretary DeVos Prepared Remarks on Title IX Enforcement, available here.

 This post was written by Benjamin Daniels, Aaron Bayer, & Dana M. Stepnowsky of Wiggin and Dana LLP., © 1998-2017

The Supreme Court Enters the Digital Age

Electronic filing is coming to the U.S. Supreme Court! Effective November 13, 2017, amendments to the Supreme Court’s rules take effect that require represented parties (and their amici) to submit petitions, briefs, and most other filings through the Court’s electronic filing system. The Rules explain that the new e-filing requirements are “[i]n addition to the filing requirements” already set forth in the Rules. Accordingly, parties and their amici will still be required to submit forty copies of their briefs on paper in booklet form, and they now must additionally submit one paper copy on 8.5 x 11 inch paper (in case the Clerk’s office needs to scan the brief for any reason). The paper submission remains the “official filing” for purposes of determining timeliness, but e-filing is supposed to occur “contemporaneously” with the paper filing. Pro se parties will continue to file submissions exclusively on paper; those submissions will be scanned by the Clerk’s office and posted on the Court’s web site.

Attorneys practicing before the Supreme Court will be required to register for an account on the Court’s electronic filing system. The Court warns that it could take two days for a new account to be approved, so attorneys should register well in advance of a filing deadline. Attorneys of record will also now be required to file notices of appearance using the Court’s e-filing system. Under the previous regime, the submission of a brief with an attorney’s information constituted a notice of appearance. Now, an attorney need not file a notice of appearance to submit a case-initiating document, such as a cert petition, but must make an appearance before filing any other document.

While the advent of e-filing creates a few new procedural hurdles, it also presents some obvious benefits to litigators. Primarily, all documents e-filed with the Court will be made available to the public free of charge, which will make it easier to access briefs and petitions filed in other cases. Moreover, counsel who enter an appearance will receive immediate notifications of any activity in the case. Under the old system, a party would not learn of an adversary’s filing until it arrived on paper by courier sometimes three days later, unless opposing counsel was courteous and emailed a courtesy copy.

E-filed documents will be posted immediately to the Supreme Court’s web site. (The lone exception is a document that commences a new case, which will first be reviewed by the Clerk’s office and the case assigned a number before the document becomes available to the public). Accordingly, the Court has promulgated new rules and guidelines to ensure that confidential information does not accidentally become public. Specifically, new Rule 34.6 incorporates the privacy protections found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in most cases. Moreover, documents containing material under seal must not be submitted electronically but only in paper form.  (This also holds true also for redacted forms of briefs submitted for the public record).

Given the Supreme Court’s arcane procedural rules, Proskauer’s Appellate Department recommends that any party or amicus practicing before the Court use an appellate printer to assist with filings. Printers are typically well-versed in the Court’s procedural minutiae and will be able to help you navigate the Court’s new e-filing process.

This post was written by John E Roberts of Proskauer Rose LLP., © 2017
For more legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

Trump Administration Limits Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Coverage Mandate

On Friday October 6, 2017, the Trump administration released two interim final rules expanding the exemptions allowed under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (the “ACA’s”) contraceptive coverage mandate. Under the ACA, employer group health plans generally are required to cover contraceptives, sterilization, and related patient education and counseling, with exemptions provided for religious houses of worship. The exemption was expanded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 34 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), which held health plans of closely held for-profit corporations are not required to cover contraceptives if doing so would contradict the owner’s religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The interim final rules, released by the Treasury Department, Department of Labor (DOL), and HHS, are effective immediately and provide exemptions from the contraceptive coverage mandate to many employers with “sincerely held religious beliefs” or “sincerely held moral convictions”. The interim final rules limit the exemption for “sincerely held moral convictions” to houses of worship, tax-exempt entities, and closely held for-profit corporations, but permit publicly traded for-profit entities to use the exemption for “sincerely held religious beliefs.” According to the Trump administration, the United States has had a long history of providing protections in the regulation of health care for individuals and entities with objections based on religious beliefs or moral convictions. To take advantage of the new exemption, eligible employers must notify employees that they will no longer provide contraceptive coverage but need not inform the federal government. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) requires that a Summary of Material Modification (SMM) is provided within 60 days of a “material reduction” in covered services or benefits provided under a group health plan. A material reduction includes the elimination of benefits payable under a group health plan. According to an Obama administration report released last year, 55 million women have gained access to no-cost birth control as a result of the contraceptive coverage mandate. It is not clear how many entities may claim the exemptions, but HHS has predicted about 200 entities (affecting 120,000 women) may do so based on the number of entities that filed lawsuits.  Written comments on the interim final rules are due December 5, 2017.

This post was written by Cassandra Labbees of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved., ©2017
For more legal analysis go to The National Law Review

New California Laws Provide Protections to Immigrant Employees

On October 5, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed 11 bills essentially making California a sanctuary state.  The California Values Act (SB 54) aims to protect undocumented immigrants living in California.  Brown stated that “this bill strikes a balance that will protect public safety while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day.”  The law, which will become effective on January 1, 2018, stops state and local enforcement agencies from using state resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

While the California Values Act has received a good deal of press, it is the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450), that is most relevant to employers.

With the signing of the IWPA, California became the first state to explicitly affirm the rights of immigrant workers at the worksite. The bill imposes an affirmative obligation on California employers to provide employees notification that ICE has determined they are lacking work authorization, thereby giving them advance warning that ICE may be considering their apprehension and removal from the U.S. through a workplace raid. Beyond union support, the IWPA is designed to protect an immigrant workforce essential to California’s economy – especially its agriculture. “According to [California] state Controller Betty Yee, undocumented immigrants’ labor is worth more than $180 billion a year.”

To protect immigrant employees, the IWPA:

  • Requires employers to ask for a warrant before allowing federal immigration officials into a workplace to interview employees
  • Bars employers from sharing employees’ confidential information (i.e. Social Security numbers) without a subpoena except for I-9s or other documents when a Notice of Inspection has been provided
  • Establishes penalties ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 for employers that:
    • Fail to give employees public notice within 72 hours of an upcoming federal immigration inspection of employee records including written notice to any Collective Bargaining Representative
    • Fail to provide affected employees with a copy of any Notice of Inspection and a copy of any inspection results within 72 hours

In late September, just prior to the signing of these bills, ICE implemented “Operation Safe City.” During the four-day operation about 500 people were arrested in California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, in cities and counties specifically targeted for their sanctuary policies.  Thomas Homan, ICE’s Acting Director stated:  “Sanctuary jurisdictions that do not honor detainers or allow us access to jails and prisons are shielding criminal aliens from immigration enforcement and creating a magnet for illegal immigration . . . As a result, ICE is forced to dedicate more resources to conduct at-large arrests in these communities.” Now, in response to the California Values Act and the IWPA, ICE announced it would have to target California neighborhoods and worksites.

This post was written by Brian E. Schield of Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017
For more Immigration legal analysis go to The National Law Review

Trump Administration Issues “Principles” in Exchange for Relief for DACA Recipients

Deferred action for DACA recipients will start to expire in March 2018 and there is still no certainty about what will happen to them.  Amidst legal challenges to the rescission of DACA, the introduction of a number of statutory fixes, and a supposed “deal” between President Trump and Democratic leaders to protect the “Dreamers,” there is now a new twist.  The Trump Administration has announced a list of principles to include in any deal for the Dreamers.  Those principles, some of which derive from the President’s various Executive Orders, include:

  • Construction of a wall across the US southern border;
  • Improve infrastructure and security on the northern border;
  • Eliminate loopholes that make it difficult to return Unaccompanied Alien Children (primarily from Central America) and their families to their home countries;
  • Hire 10,000 immigration agents and 300 Federal prosecutors;
  • Hire 370 Immigration Judges and 1,000 ICE attorneys;
  • Increase scrutiny of asylum petitions and impose penalties for baseless or frivolous claims;
  • Terminate “catch and release” policies;
  • Expand grounds of inadmissibility and deportability;
  • Deny federal aid to sanctuary jurisdictions;
  • Discourage visa overstays by classifying overstays as misdeameanors;
  • Require use of E-Verify by all employers and increase penalties for a pattern or practice of violations;
  • Eliminate extended family “chain migration” and establish a new merit-based green card system; and
  • Eliminate the diversity lottery.

It is not clear whether these principles represent a first offer in a negotiation or if these principles are non-negotiable. Some Democrats in Congress have threatened the possibility of a government shutdown in December if DACA recipients receive no relief. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has pieced together parts of other proposed legislation and introduced what he believes would be a compromise bill, the Border Security and Deferred Action Recipient Relief Act. This Act provides:

  • DACA recipients or other children who have been in the U.S. since 2012 can obtain Conditional Resident Status for 10 years by pursuing vocational or higher education, are gainfully employed or by enlisting in the military. Upon meeting certain conditions, after the 10 years, they will be eligible to apply for Green Cards.
  • $1.6 billion for border security measures: 74 miles of border fortifications and funding to plan for further construction.
  • Construction of border access roads to simplify CBP patrols of the border.
  • Targeting of gangs and cartels for deportations.
This post was written by Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017
For more Immigration legal analysis go to The National Law Review

U.S. Suspends Nonimmigrant Visa Services in Turkey; Turkey Responds by Suspending Visas to U.S. Citizens

The U.S. Embassy announced it was suspending all nonimmigrant visa services in all U.S. diplomatic posts in Turkey. Turkey responded within a few hours of the U.S. Embassy’s announcement by saying it would no longer issue visas to U.S. citizens, including the physical “sticker” visas at border posts as well as the online Turkish electronic visa (e-visa).

It’s important to note that while the U.S. has halted its visa services in Turkey, it appears that the U.S. State Department is still issuing visas to Turkish nationals outside of Turkey. The U.S. has not indicated how long the suspension will last. Nevertheless, Turkish nationals who are currently in the US with expiring visas in their passports and who need to travel internationally should consider applying at another post as a third-country national. While applying as a third-country national is not ideal because such applications can be subject to delays, applying at another post may become necessary if the suspension of visa services in Turkey continues.

This post was written by Rebecca B. Schechter  of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved., ©2017

Employees Sue for Fingerprint Use

Employees of Peacock Foods, an Illinois-based food product manufacturer, recently filed a lawsuit against their employer for alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Under BIPA, companies that collect biometric information must inter alia have a written retention policy (that they follow). As part of the policy, the law states that they must delete biometric information after they no long need it, or three years after the last transaction with the individual. Companies also need consent to collect the information under the Illinois law, cannot sell information, and if shared must get consent for such sharing.

According to the plaintiff-employees, Peacock Foods used their fingerprints for a time tracking system without explaining in writing how the saved fingerprints would be used, or if they would be shared with third parties. According to the employees, this violated BIPA’s requirement for explaining -in the consent request- how information would be used and how long it would be kept. The employees also alleged that Peacock Foods did not have a retention schedule and program in place for deleting biometric data. The employees are currently seeking class certification.

Putting it Into Practice: This case is a reminder that plaintiffs’ class action lawyers are looking at BIPA and possible complaints that can be brought under the law. To address the Illinois law – and similar ones in Texas and Washington – companies should look at the notice and consent process they have in place.   

This post was written by Liisa M. Thomas & Mukund H. Sharma of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP., Copyright © 2017

For more Labor & Employment legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

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