The National Law Forum

Limited Relief for Small Employers from ACA Restrictions in 21st Century Cures Act

The 21st Century Cures Act, just signed into effect by President Obama, provides limited relief to employers who wish to pay premiums for individual health insurance policies obtained by their employees or for other qualifying medical expenses their employees may incur. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken the position that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) bars these types of arrangements.

The relief applies only to employers who have fewer than 50 employees and do not offer a group health plan to any employees.

Further, the arrangement must meet certain conditions:

It must generally be offered on the same terms to all “eligible employees” (generally as defined under the non-discrimination rules applicable to self-funded group health plans).
It must be funded only by the employer (without involving any salary reduction contributions).
The employee must provide “proof of coverage.”
It provides payment or reimbursement only for eligible medical expenses (including health insurance premiums).
Payments cannot exceed $4,950 per year or $10,000 for a family (both adjusted for inflation).
The employer must provide employees with a specified notice on a timely basis.
In addition, the relief previously granted to small employers under IRS Notice 2015-17 has been retroactively extended to plan years beginning on or before Dec. 31, 2016.

If your company is a small employer under the ACA (50 full-time employees or less), it may pay, subject to the dollar limitations and other requirements summarized above, part or all of employees’ individual health insurance policy premiums and/or other qualified out-of-pocket medical costs related to their health insurance without being subject to excise taxes.

ARTICLE BY Stephen J Evans, Jonathan W. Igoe & Sarah Roe Sise of Armstrong Teasdale

How Does the 21st Century Cures Act Affect Employee Benefits?

There are two key benefits takeaways for employers in the bipartisan 21^st Century Cures Act, which President Obama signed into law on December 13, 2016.

The act, which passed both houses of Congress by large majorities, is designed to increase funding for medical research, ease the development and approval of experimental treatments, and reform federal mental healthcare policy.

Mental Health Parity Rules

Employers can expect increased enforcement, along with stricter interpretations, of the existing federal mental health parity rules in coming months and years.

Though the act does not expand requirements under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, Title XIII of the act directs the secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Treasury to issue guidance within 12 months related to compliance with the mental health parity rules. The act also calls for increased coordination between federal and state authorities in enforcing the mental health parity rules.

In addition, when a group health plan or insurer is found to have violated the mental health parity rules five times, the secretaries are directed to audit the plan’s or insurer’s documents the following year to “help improve compliance” with the rules. By including such specific compliance measures directly within the act, Congress appears to be encouraging increased enforcement of the mental health parity rules in the coming months and years.

The act does make one substantive “clarification” to the existing mental health parity rules. If coverage is offered for eating disorder treatment, then the treatment (including residential treatment) must be provided consistent with the mental health parity rules.

Standalone HRAs for Small Employers

The Affordable Care Act effectively prohibited employers from offering employees health reimbursement arrangements that were not integrated with other group health plans (standalone HRAs).

The act rolls back that rule slightly—though only for employers that are not “large employers” for ACA purposes (generally, those that have 50 or more full-time equivalent employees) and that do not offer any health plan to employees.

Title XVIII of the act creates qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangements (QSEHRAs) which are available for plan years starting after 2016. A QSEHRA is an arrangement funded solely with employer money that provides for payment or reimbursement of medical care expenses, up to $4,950 per year for individuals ($10,000 per year for families). In addition, a QSEHRA must generally be provided to all eligible employees of the employer on the same terms, and the employer must provide notice to the eligible employees. These QSEHRAs could permit reimbursements for individual health insurance premiums, which is also generally not permitted under the ACA. In addition, QSEHRAs are not subject to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act’s (COBRA) continuation coverage requirement.

These rules will take effect on January 1, 2017, which means that eligible employers could begin offering a QSEHRA next month. For small employers that offered a standalone HRA before January 1, 2017, the act will extend certain transition relief. HRAs that qualify under Notice 2015-17 will continue to qualify for transition relief through the end of 2016.

ARTICLE BY Timothy J. Stanton & Jessica E. Kuester of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

FLSA Overtime Rules Enjoined, NY Overtime Laws, National Origin Discrimination: Employment Law This Week [VIDEO]

District Court Enjoins FLSA Overtime Rules

Our top story: A federal court in Texas has temporarily enjoined new exemption rules issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The rules, which would have dramatically increased salary thresholds for overtime exemptions, were set to go into effect on December 1. The district court judge found that the 21 states that brought the suit established a prima facie case that the DOL overstepped its authority in establishing the new rules. Because the Fair Labor Standards Act makes no reference to salary thresholds, the court found that any new thresholds might have to be created by Congress and not the DOL. If the injunction is made permanent, it could be the beginning of a lengthy appeals process, which would leave employers in limbo.

New York State Overtime Laws Likely to Proceed

While overtime expansion is stalled at the federal level, New York State’s plan to increase salary thresholds remains on track. The comment period for the proposed increase closed on December 3. Under the rule, thresholds for exempt employees would rise to $825.00 per week for large employers in New York City and $787.50 per week for employers in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties. If the New York State Department of Labor proceeds with the new rule, it will go into effect on December 31 of this year.

EEOC Issues Updated Guidelines on National Origin Discrimination

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released updated guidance on national origin discrimination. The new guidelines address legal developments on issues like human trafficking and harassment in the workplace. The guidance includes over 30 examples of national origin discrimination, as well as best practices to reduce the risk of violation. The guidance also states that, if an employee’s accent “materially interferes” with his or her ability to communicate in spoken English and effective spoken communication in English is a job requirement, an employer can legally move that worker.

USCIS Increases Stability for Foreign Workers

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued a final rule that makes it easier for employers to sponsor and retain skilled foreign workers. The rule gives added job flexibility and protection to foreign workers in H-1B status or who are stuck in a long green card application process. USCIS’s rule also expands the eligibility of certain employers for H-1B cap exemptions and adds grace periods, so certain skilled workers can remain in the country for limited periods while in between jobs.

Tip of the Week

Last week, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, the U.S. House of Representatives passed new mental health reform legislation intended to step up enforcement of rules requiring that insurers cover mental health care at the same level as they cover physical health care. The legislation could impact employers’ health insurance plans. For this week’s Tip of the Week, James Gelfand, Senior Vice President of Health Policy for The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC), has some advice on how employers should update their plans in 2017 in order to remain compliant:

BY George Carroll Whipple, III of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Fast-Food Restaurant CEO Tapped to Head Labor Department: What to Expect

President-elect Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Andrew Puzder, Chief Executive Officer of CKE Holdings, the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, to head the U.S. Department of Labor.

Puzder was a lawyer in St. Louis and represented the founder of Carl’s Jr. He later became the general counsel for CKE and then its CEO. He has criticized state and local minimum wage increases, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and government overregulation, among other things.

If Puzder is confirmed as Secretary of Labor, employers should look for the following changes.

Wage and Hour

Puzder is no fan of the DOL’s regulation expanding overtime protection.
Employers are holding their breath as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considers an appeal by the DOL of a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by a Texas district court judge enjoining the DOL from implementing its highly publicized regulation expanding overtime coverage. Puzder’s nomination as Secretary of Labor could affect the regulation’s fate. In May 2016, the DOL issued a Final Rule more than doubling the required salary level required to satisfy the exemptions from overtime for “white collar” employees from $23,660 to $47,476. The Rule was set to become effective December 1, 2016. On November 22, 2016, however, days before the effective date, a Texas district court judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, blocking the regulation. The DOL filed an appeal, asking for expedited briefing, and the Fifth Circuit granted that request, requiring all briefing to be completed by January 31, 2017, just days after inauguration, with oral argument to be scheduled quickly after briefing is completed.
Whether the DOL under a Trump Administration would support the overtime Rule is unclear. However, Puzder has been an open critic of the overtime regulation. Writing in Forbes Magazine in May 2016, after the DOL published the final regulation, Puzder stated the regulation would not help workers, and “will simply add to the extensive regulatory maze the Obama Administration has imposed on employers, forcing many to offset increased labor expense by cutting costs elsewhere.” In practice, he said, “this means reduced opportunities, bonuses, benefits, perks and promotions.”
Fearing the DOL under Trump might abandon the appeal, and citing Puzder’s writings on the overtime rule specifically, the Texas AFL-CIO has filed a motion with the district court to intervene as a defendant and defend the Rule even if the DOL back out. Puzder’s criticisms of the regulation, and a Republican-controlled Congress, could mean one of Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez’s signature regulations, for which the DOL worked for over two years developing, may be at an end. The new Congress could simply pass legislation that would invalidate the rule and present it to Trump, regardless of the outcome of the Fifth Circuit appeal.
Puzder also has been a critic of large increases to the minimum wage.

Employee Benefits

Puzder has criticized the ACA repeatedly as another government mandate that has caused labor cost increases and led to job cuts. The DOL, along with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), is responsible for the majority of the regulations issued under the ACA. With Puzder heading the DOL, Trump will have an ally and partner in dismantling the ACA.
Puzder’s anti-regulation perspective likely will mean strong opposition to the DOL’s fiduciary rule, which expands the scope of who acts as a fiduciary and has significantly affected the financial services industry. Currently slated to go into effect in April 2017, the fiduciary rule will be at the top of the Secretary’s list of priorities.
Generally, Puzder’s favoring of market forces, as opposed to government regulation or mandated benefits, signals a penchant toward steering the DOL in ways that favor competition between employers for talent based on compensation and benefit packages. Appointments of the assistant Secretary of Labor of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and members of the ERISA Advisory Council also are eagerly anticipated as they are key in the direction of rulemaking and enforcement of ERISA and other employee benefit initiatives.

Federal Contracts (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs)

A new, more business-friendly Director of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) likely will be focused on the regulatory burdens on mid-size and small businesses. This should shape an agenda of deregulation that may roll back regulations, including those governing paid sick leave, minimum wage, pay transparency, sex discrimination, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) discrimination.
A shift in how OFCCP approaches its auditing function also may come from a new leader. For example, a move away from the OFCCP’s current Active Case Enforcement system to one closer to that used by the George W. Bush administration (Active Case Management) would bring more efficient, high-level compliance reviews in most instances, with deeper dives reserved for the few audits with major indicators of potential discrimination.
There also may be a change in OFCCP enforcement priorities. OFCCP likely will not look to push boundaries, create new law through litigation, or publicly shame employers. We can expect a shift in the OFCCP’s push to address the gender pay gap and it may step back from comparable worth theories of pay discrimination. Finally, such programs as the Class Member Locator, the online registry of employers that OFCCP had cited for a discrimination violation, likely will disappear.

Immigration

As the CEO of CKE, Puzder brings a unique perspective on the role of foreign-born workers in U.S. businesses. Puzder has stated frequently that immigrants play a vital role in growing U.S. businesses, spurring innovation and creating jobs. Puzder will be an important and potentially moderating voice related to immigrant and nonimmigrant work visas.

Labor

The nomination of Puzder and the recent deal to keep an Indiana facility from closing to retain more U.S. jobs signal both Trump’s and nominee Puzder’s focus on ensuring that labor relations fits within a broader economic picture.
Puzder believes, as does Trump, that free enterprise will result in job growth. It is likely that the new Secretary of Labor will seek to remove burdensome regulations and be more business-friendly. For example, we anticipate changes to the DOL’s efforts to expand the definition of joint employer status, which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also has expanded under the Obama Administration. Consistent with this approach, Trump (immediately after his inauguration) may repeal many of President Barack Obama’s executive orders, including (among others) Executive Order 13658 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors), Executive Order 13673 (Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces), and Executive Order 13502 (Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects).

Workplace Safety and Health

Puzder currently heads a company that is not heavily regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). He has stated, however, that new regulation may not be the best way to effect policy change and that view could trickle down to OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Non-Competes and Protection Against Unfair Competition

Puzder would be unlikely to latch onto the assault against non-compete agreements advanced by the Treasury Department in its March report and by the White House in its May report and October “state call to action.” Given his business background, Puzder would understand the utility of non-compete agreements, even with respect to low-wage earners, because they serve to protect the employer’s investment in training such workers.

Disability, Leave and Health Management

Puzder may be more willing to reduce or eliminate the burdens associated with the paid sick leave executive order that is scheduled to go into effect for new contracts after January 1, 2017. The Executive Order currently makes it very difficult for businesses to identify when paid sick leave accrues (pushing many employers to provide more than required), makes it difficult to coordinate with state and local paid sick leave laws, and makes it easier for employees to abuse the system and use the benefit to thwart any attendance policy. Businesses that operate in multiple states likely would welcome some form of federal measure that simplifies paid sick leave benefit administration, aligns federal, state, and local benefits, and provides an ERISA-type preemption.
Under Puzder, the DOL likely will be more business-minded with respect to issues under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This would result in the administration taking less aggressive stances (including in terms of litigation) on these laws and fewer attempts to expand the coverage of these statutes.

ARTICLE BY General Employment Litigation Practice Group Jackson Lewis

Wal-Mart to Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

CHICAGO – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay a former employee $75,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.

EEOC’s lawsuit charged Wal-Mart with violating federal discrimination law when the giant retailer failed to accommodate Nancy Stack, a cancer survivor with physical limitations, and subjected her to harassment based on her disability. Stack worked at a Walmart store in Hodgkins, Ill.

As a workplace accommodation, Stack needed a chair and a modified schedule. EEOC alleged that while the store provided Stack with a modified schedule for a period of time, it revoked the accommodation for no stated reason. Further, according to EEOC, the store did not ensure that a chair was in Stack’s work area, telling her that she had to haul a chair from the furniture department to her work area, a task that was difficult, given her disability. Making matters even worse, EEOC alleged that a co-worker harassed Stack by calling her “cripple” and “chemo brain.”

Wal-Mart’s alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include denying reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and subjecting them to a hostile work environment. EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Civil Action No. 15-cv-5796.)

Wal-Mart will pay $75,000 in monetary relief to Stack as part of a consent decree settling the suit, signed by U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman on Dec. 6th. The two-year decree also provides additional, non-monetary relief intended to improve the Hodgkins store’s workplace. Under the decree, the store will train employees on disability discrimination and requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA. The Walmart store will also monitor requests for accommodation and complaints of disability discrimination and report those to EEOC.

“Wal-Mart refused to provide simple, effective and inexpensive accommodations in the form of a chair and modified schedule and failed to protect Stack from mocking because she had cancer,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney of EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Both the failure to provide accommodations and to stop the harassment violated federal law, and we are pleased with today’s settlement. Ms. Stack will receive monetary recompense from Wal-Mart, and the company will be required to educate its workforce on employees’ rights and on its own obligations under the law.”

You can review this press release in its entirety on the EEOC website here.

EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of employment discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

US Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl

This morning, the US Supreme Court announced that it denied certiorari in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, which was on appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The denied petitions were filed this fall by both the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and Colorado, with the Colorado cross-petition explicitly asking the Court to broadly reconsider Quill. In light of this, many viewed this case a potential vehicle to judicially overturn the Quill physical presence standard.

Practice Note: Going forward, the Tenth Circuit decision upholding the constitutionality of Colorado’s notice and reporting law stands, and is binding in the Tenth Circuit (which includes Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma as well). While this development puts an end to this particular kill-Quill movement, there are a number of other challenges in the pipeline that continue to move forward.

In particular, the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided that the Ohio Commercial Activity Tax, a gross-receipts tax, is not subject to the Quill physical presence standard. A cert petition is expected in this case, and could provide another opportunity for the US Supreme Court to speak on the remote sales tax issue. In addition, litigation is pending in South Dakota and Alabama over economic nexus laws implemented earlier this year. A motion hearing took place before the US District Court for the District of South Dakota last week on whether the Wayfair case should be remanded back to state court. If so, the litigation would be subject to the expedited appeal procedures implemented by SB 106 (2016), and would be fast tracked for US Supreme Court review. Tennessee also recently adopted a regulation implementing an economic nexus standard for sales and use tax purposes that directly conflicts with Quill that is expected to be implemented (and challenged) in 2017. While Governor Bill Haslam has praised the effort, state legislators have been outspoken against the attempt to circumvent the legislature and impose a new tax. Notably, the Joint Committee on Government Operations still needs to approve the regulation for it to take effect, with the economic nexus regulation included in the rule packet scheduled for review by the committee this Thursday, December 15, 2016.

All this action comes at a time when states are gearing up to begin their 2017 legislative sessions, with many rumored to be preparing South Dakota-style economic nexus legislation for introduction. While DMA is dead as an option, the movement to overturn Quill continues and the next few months are expected to be extremely active in this area.

ARTICLE BY Stephen P. Kranz, Mark Yopp & Eric Carstens of McDermott Will & Emery

Multi-Level Tipping: Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. XI [VIDEO]

In this Presidential transition season, we bring you a very special episode of the Insider Trading Cartoon Series.

David Smyth has a wide-ranging enforcement and litigation practice that focuses on representation of individuals and corporations facing action by federal and state authorities.

ARTICLE BY David Smyth of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP

Part 1 – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series Vol. I — Classical Theory

Part 2 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. II — Temporary Insiders

Part 3 – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. III — Very Temporary Insiders

Part 4 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. IV — Rank-and-File Employees [VIDEO]

Part 5 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. V — Misappropriation Theory [VIDEO]

Part 6 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. VI — Misappropriation (Part Deux) [VIDEO]

Part 7 – Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. VII — Misappropriation Theory (Part the Third)

Part 8 – Negligence Based Charges – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. VIII [VIDEO]

Part 9 – Tender Offers – The Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. IX [VIDEO]

Part 10 – Tipping (Pre-Newman): Insider Trading Cartoon Series, Vol. X

Negotiation By Tweet: The Uncertain Future of U.S. Cuba Relations

After the announcement of Fidel Castro’s death on November 26, 2016, President Barack Obama sent a message to the Cuban people highlighting his administration’s efforts to improve relations between the United States and Cuba. “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him…[T]he Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America,” Obama said.

President-Elect Donald Trump took a different tack, tweeting simply, “Fidel Castro is dead!”

The following Monday, as the first U.S. direct commercial flight in over 50 years landed in Havana, Mr. Trump tweeted: “If Cuba is unwilling to make a better deal for the Cuban people, the Cuban/American people and the U.S. as a whole, I will terminate deal.” It is unclear what he means by the “deal.” President Obama’s relaxation of restrictions on Cuba is not part of a single deal. Rather, the President’s decision to increase engagement and shift policy toward the island nation has been implemented through a gradual series of Presidential Executive Orders, regulatory changes, and shifts in licensing policy.

Mr. Trump’s threat to terminate the “deal” might be read as a threat to reverse the steps the Obama administration has taken to ease travel and trade restrictions on Cuba. That threat has created a great deal of uncertainty for the future of U.S.-Cuba relations. During his campaign, Mr. Trump sent mixed signals about his approach on Cuba. In September 2015, Mr. Trump reportedly commented that “the concept of opening Cuba is fine.” His stance hardened closer to the election (as he fought for votes in the key electoral state of Florida), reportedly saying that he would close the newly opened U.S. Embassy in Havana and undo President Obama’s policies on Cuba.

Other influences may tend to harden Mr. Trump’s views further. His choice of Reince Priebus has a reputation as a Cuba hawk, as do influential members of the Republican Congressional delegation, including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Mr. Trump’s choice to head the National Security Council, Michael Flynn, has written that he sees Cuba as a country “allied with” Radical Islamists in a war against the United States.

Theoretically, undoing President Obama’s efforts would be easy for the new Trump administration. There is no legal barrier to reversing most or all of the Obama administration’s Cuba initiatives.

On the other hand, it is somewhat possible that the businessman in President-elect Trump could influence his views on Cuba, especially considering that his own organization reportedly investigated business opportunities in the Cuban hospitality sector as recently as six months ago. Since hospitality is one of the major sectors benefitting from Obama administration’s Cuba policies, it might provide fertile ground for further opening of the relationship.

There may be a possible approach lying between normalization and retrenchment. As noted by the US-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Mr. Trump may choose to require that the Cuban government meet certain requirements as conditions to continuing the existing initiatives. Such conditions might include concrete steps on human rights. At the same time, enforcement of existing restrictions (which are many) could be beefed up through allocations to the chronically underfunded and understaffed Office of Foreign Assets Control within the U.S. Department of Treasury. But negotiating this middle path will be delicate. The Cuban leadership is extremely sensitive to criticism of its human rights record, but there are small signs of movement. For example, when President Obama visited the island in March 2016, he met personally with dissidents critical of both Castro and the United States. And Fox News reported after Fidel Castro’s death that Raul Castro’s regime has moved away from the worst abuses, including executions of dissidents and long-term sentences of political prisoners. But according to the same report, under the Raoul Castro regime, harassment and short-term detention reportedly continues to be used to disrupt the activities of dissident groups. Navigating those issues will place high demands on the diplomatic skills of Mr. Trump’s administration.

According to a recent Pew Research poll, there is broad approval across party lines for reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba and ending the embargo. Many sectors of the American business community would likely oppose rolling back President Obama’s changes, which have broken down economic and social barriers between the United States and Cuba. Travel to Cuba is immensely popular. Many companies have invested millions to enter the Cuban market, with the U.S. government’s authorization. As White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest argued, “unrolling” Obama’s policy is “just not as simple as one tweet might make it seem.” But this may not be enough to sway Mr. Trump.

For American businesses exploring opportunities in Cuba, it is important to be mindful that the next administration is likely to freeze any expansion of Cuba initiatives, at least while the new President sorts out his priorities. In the best case, existing policies might be made contingent on Cuba meeting certain human rights and other objectives important to the new President. Some of the more permissive Obama administration policies could be rescinded, and there may be increased enforcement by OFAC of the restrictions that remain. We also expect that after Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017, work on pending OFAC license applications is likely to be frozen until a clear agenda is set. While the uncertainty is unsettling, we will continue to look to a future, as President Obama stated, “in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends – bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity.”

ARTICLE BY J. Scott Maberry & Fatema K. Merchant of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Mississippi and Louisiana Attorneys General Among Those Filing Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in New Jersey Sports Wagering Case

Attorney General Jim Hood of Mississippi and Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana joined their counterparts from West Virginia, Arizona, and Wisconsin in filing a brief of Amici Curiae in support of the State of New Jersey’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari in its sports wagering case. In the case styled Governor Christopher J. Christie, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., an en banc panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the Professional and Amateur Sports Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3702, as prohibiting States from modifying their existing laws to repeal prohibitions on sports wagering. As a result of this interpretation, the Supreme Court has been petitioned for writ of certiorari in this case to determine whether the Act commandeers the regulatory authority of the States in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The crux of Amici States’ argument focuses on the fact that federal law does not directly prohibit sports wagering when it takes place in a State in which such wagering is legal. Rather, the Act makes it unlawful for a State, other than those that were grandfathered in at the time the Act was enacted, to license or authorize sports wagering. As a result, the Amici States argue that the federal regulatory approach that currently exists amounts to unconstitutional commandeering instead of lawful preemption under the Supremacy Clause. However, the Amici States explicitly assert that they take no position on the specific sport wagering laws at issue in this case. Instead, the Amici States are not concerned in this instance with what Congress regulates but rather the manner in which Congress regulates.

It will be interesting to follow this case through this process to see what, if anything, Congress and the Amici States will do if New Jersey prevails. Based on the Amici States arguments, Congress could still elect to directly regulate sports wagering, although it appears that the tide has turned and that such regulation would be disfavored by the majority of Americans. In Mississippi, Mississippi Code § 75-76-101, which requires that all gaming be entirely located and conducted on the licensed premises, would have to be addressed, at a minimum, to implement sports wagering. Similar laws would have to be addressed to permit sports wagering in Louisiana as well. In any event, although the arguments in this case are focused primarily on States’ rights in relation to the federal government, the outcome could have interesting consequences in gaming jurisdictions around the nation.

ARTICLE BY Blake M. Fulton of Jones Walker LLP

Jevic Holding Corp.: Is The Supreme Court Now Ready To Strike Down Structured Dismissals?

In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. On December 7th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

Under the Jevic structured dismissal, unsecured creditors received a distribution from a settlement reached between the official committee of unsecured creditors and secured lenders. Wage priority claimants received nothing from the settlement, notwithstanding their senior position under the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court approved the structured dismissal, and by extension the distribution provided for in the settlement, and the district court affirmed on appeal. The Third Circuit also upheld the structured dismissal, holding that the bankruptcy court has discretion to approve structured dismissals except if there is a showing “that the structured dismissal has been contrived to evade the procedural protections and safeguards of the plan confirmation or conversion process.”

Jevic put front and center two competing concerns in bankruptcy. On its face, the Jevic structured dismissal appears to conflict with the priority rules set forth in section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code, since junior creditors were paid while certain senior creditors were not. However, the structured dismissal approved in Jevic also arguably maximized creditor recoveries, albeit in a way that skipped over certain senior creditors. The estate was administratively insolvent and without the structured dismissal, the case would have been converted to Chapter 7 and distributions would have been significantly reduced.

The questions posed yesterday to counsel for Petitioners and counsel for Respondents, as well as to government counsel as amicus curiae, were wide-ranging and pointed. Justice Breyer questioned the statutory basis for the structured dismissal, noting that while no Code provision forbid it, no specific Code provision permitted it either. Justice Kennedy looked for guidance on the “for cause” standard under section 349(b), which permits bankruptcy courts to modify the effect of dismissal orders. Justice Sotomayor expressed concern that there was collusion in Jevic among senior and junior creditors to the detriment of other creditors. Several Justices expressed concern with Respondents’ position that section 363(b) afforded sufficient discretion to the bankruptcy court to approve a distribution that was at odds with the Code’s priority scheme. According to Respondents, Jevic presented the extraordinary circumstances required by section 363(b) to deviate from the absolute priority rule since no plan was possible and conversion to Chapter 7 would lead to little, if any, distribution. Justice Sotomayor questioned Respondents’ position that Jevic was a rare case, and Justice Kennedy took a similar position, noting that it is not rare for there to be no prospect of a confirmable plan, a fact cited by Respondents in support of the Jevic structured dismissal.

Predicting the outcome of cases simply from oral argument is imperfect and notoriously dangerous. Nonetheless, some commentators have opined that a sufficient number of Justices appear to be sufficiently concerned with the Jevic structured dismissal that the Third Circuit’s opinion is in peril. If the Court reverses the Third Circuit, the question becomes how sweeping the Court’s opinion will be.

A reversal may well imperil so-called “gift plans”, where a secured creditor makes a payment to junior creditor (the “gift”) in order to obtain support for plan confirmation. The gift allows the junior creditor to obtain a recovery at odds with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. If the Court holds that the priority scheme governs all estate distributions, depending upon the scope of the Supreme Court’s opinion, gift plans may not be permitted.

In addition, if the Court rules that the section 507 priority scheme applies to the entirety of a bankruptcy case, such a holding would conceivably threaten the viability of orders that even Petitioners concede are customary in commercial reorganizations, such as wage payment orders and critical vendor orders. Those represent instances where estate property is distributed in violation of the Code’s priority scheme, but in reliance on the so-called “Doctrine of Necessity,” where payments serve the overall goal of maximizing the debtor’s going concern value to create the possibility of greater distribution to creditors than does liquidation.

In fact, the Court seemed to struggle with how far its ruling should go, asking the parties what was the scope of the holding they wanted the Court to enter. Counsel for Petitioners was careful to limit the scope of the holding so as to carve out common Chapter 11 practices, such as wage payment and critical vendor orders. This was in contrast to counsel for the government who said that it was the government’s view that pre-plan distributions in Chapter 11 that violate the priority scheme “are not permissible under any circumstances unless there is consent of the impaired priority claimholder.” Depending upon the scope of the Court’s opinion, regular and customary Chapter 11 practices, such as critical vendor motions and pre-petition wage motions, may no longer be permitted.

ARTICLE BY Mark A. Salzberg of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

The National Law Forum

Limited Relief for Small Employers from ACA Restrictions in 21st Century Cures Act

Like this:

How Does the 21st Century Cures Act Affect Employee Benefits?

Like this:

FLSA Overtime Rules Enjoined, NY Overtime Laws, National Origin Discrimination: Employment Law This Week [VIDEO]

Like this: