Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Deprecated: Function WP_Dependencies->add_data() was called with an argument that is deprecated since version 6.9.0! IE conditional comments are ignored by all supported browsers. in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131
The National Law Forum - Page 465 of 753 - Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News.

Part Three: Tips and Considerations (#11 – 15) before Opening a Fitness Studio or Gym

This article is the third in a three part series on tips and considerations before opening a fitness studio or gym.  For the first article (Tips 1-5), please click here.  For the second article (Tips 6-10), please click here.   Here are tips 11 -15:

open sign, fitness studio, gym

11.  Promote Your Studio Cost-effectively.  Bad news: building a membership following always takes more time and effort than fitness owners would like.  Good news: social media platforms have made marketing for fitness facility easier than it has ever been.  One common theme I see among successful fitness brands and ventures that have started within the past 5-10 years is their fierce devotion to maintaining their online brand via Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, Yelp and other relevant social media sources.  Social media is a proven winner on announcing sales, discounts and other relevant deals for getting potential clients in the door.  Ideally, you should start creating your social media presence about 3 months prior to your grand opening.  One word of caution: be careful not to start your online presence too early – I have had friends follow brands/new gyms online for months waiting for the studio or gym to open, only to be constantly let down at the continued delays. This leads to bad feelings from prospective clients and should be avoided where possible.  

12. Carefully Weigh Your Financing Options (Debt vs. Equity).  Most owners need outside financial support when opening a gym or club facility.  This money can come in the form of equity (people who give you money in exchange for an ownership interest in your company) or debt (bank or other third party that gives you money that must be repaid with interest).  Many people opt to take debt, as they do not want to give up any ownership or control in the company.  However, in many cases, banks and other third party lenders will not lend to an entity with no historical financials.  In the near future, the Health and Fitness Blog will have a separate blog entry devoted specifically to this topic (debt vs. equity).  Another option to finance your business is to (carefully) explore equipment financing, which is discussed in Tip 14 below.  

13. Personal Guaranties (On Third Party Debt).  Many third party lenders (banks) will also require a personal guaranty.  A personal guaranty, if drafted correctly, will make the guarantor (person or people executing the document) personally liable for the company’s debts.  When possible, an owner of the company with significant personal assets should always resist signing the personal guaranty, or at the very minimum attempt to limit the total amount of the personal guaranty.  There are a variety of techniques and methods for negotiating down the scope of the guaranty depending on the lender’s appetite for risk.  

14. The “Easiest” Financing May Be the Most Costly.  Many new business owners get frustrated with the convoluted process and length of time it takes to obtain traditional bank financing, in addition to having to sign a personal guaranty (discussed in Tip 13 above).  An alternative source of financing sometimes comes from the equipment companies, which often have affiliated financing entities that lease or sell equipment to club fitness facilities.  Be aware that while it is generally easier to obtain financing from an equipment company affiliate, the penalties for non-payment may be swift and severe.  In most cases, if you miss a payment on purchased or leased equipment, the financing source will likely have the right to charge you a default interest rate of 15-20%, and after a certain period of time, the equipment will be seized from your location (without any refund for fees paid to date in the case of purchased equipment).  Be sure to read the financing agreement closely and find out the default interest rate and equipment seizure remedies, and consult with someone well-versed in finance if you are in over your head.

15. Start Small and Work Your Way Up.  Many entrepreneurs are resistant to opening their doors until everything is just right.  These owners want all the bells and whistles in their studio or club before they start getting traffic through the door.  My advice is to avoid following the mantra “go big or go home” when deciding how much equipment to initially purchase or lease, and what wish-list items you actually install in your studio or club facility before you open your doors.  From financial perspective, open machines = negative cash flows.  In the end, it is better to start small and, as your membership grows, add treadmills, ellipticals and other equipment assuming there is additional unused space.  Also, by starting small and seeing what works and what doesn’t work, you avoid giant expenditures that are big unused eyesores in your facility (double whammy).

© Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Part Two: Tips and Considerations (#6 – 10) before Opening a Fitness Studio or Gym

This article is the second in a three part series on tips and considerations before opening a fitness studio or gym.  For the first article Tips 1-5, please click here.  Without further ado, here are tips 6 – 10:

6. Location, location, location.  In my experience, poor location choice is the #1 mistake that people make when opening a fitness studio.  “Right” location consists of not only a great geographic location (i.e. high foot traffic, lots of public transportation and/or parking, ancillary businesses like Lululemon, but also the right cost per square foot.  The perfect geographic location is no longer perfect if the price per square foot is too high – especially in the first few months of operations.  Conversely, going a bit off the beaten path to secure a much cheaper cost per square foot is also crippling to a business.  You may have lower rent, but you will also have lower membership.  Working with a broker that is knowledgeable about fitness studios in the targeted area is highly recommended.  Remember, the broker is paid by the landlord, so this is virtually a free service for a prospective studio or gym owner.

7. Negotiate (do not just sign) your lease.  You have found the perfect location at a rent that works for your business model – GREAT.  The next step is the landlord (or their attorney) sending you its form Lease Agreement.  I have personally come across Lease Agreements for studios and gyms ranging from 6 pages all the way to 60 pages.  In sum, the form that is presented to you is going to be extremely one-sided in favor of the landlord and will likely need to be negotiated in a few key areas.  Some (but not all) of these key areas:

1.            Term: What is the initial term of the lease?
2.            Renewal: What are your renewal options?
3.            Rent Increases: Will the renewal terms be subject to rent increases?
4.            Condition of Space: What condition will the space be delivered in?
5.            Repairs: Who is responsible for repairs?
6.            Pass Through Expenses/Taxes: Who is responsible for these additional costs?
7.            Breach/Cure: If you breach the lease, do you get notice and time to fix?
8.            Use Provisions: Can you legally operate a gym in the space?
9.            Noise: How are noise issues and remediation options addressed in the lease?
10.          Personal Guaranty: Will the landlord require a personal guaranty?

Be sure to work with a competent attorney well-versed in leasing when reviewing and negotiating your lease.

8. Price your membership options in a way that sets your studio apart.  Get away from the mindset that you should be priced similarly with other studios in the area.  If you price like your geographic competitors (i.e. other studios charge $40-60/monthly and you price at $50/month), you are bound to get lost in the shuffle. Consumers, especially millennials, crave deals and new (disruptive) gym/studio membership pricing.  A great example of the changing dynamic of studio pricing can be seen through the business model of ClassPass, which has an easy to use app for your smartphone (more on ClassPass in Tip #10 below).  Millennials love variety and ClassPass caters to the segment of the population.  Another example is My Time Fitness in Chicago, which charges members a very low monthly fee and additional charges per daily use.  Be sure to brainstorm membership models that reward fitness and encourage members to participate in the studio or fitness community at your location.

9. Get the right kind of insurance.  Some types of insurance will be required to operate your business, while others are of the optional variety.   The hard part is determining what kinds and how much insurance to carry.  Some general categories of insurance to consider are the following:

1.            Property Insurance
2.            General Liability Insurance
3.            Crime Coverage
4.            Hired & Non-Owned Automobile
5.            Umbrella Liability Insurance
6.            Directors & Officers Liability
7.            Accident & Health Insurance
8.            Employment-related/Workers Compensation

Be sure to work with an insurance agent that is knowledgeable about the proper insurance required for the type of studio or facility you are operating.  Ask a potential insurance agent for a list of previous gym or studio clients that they have worked with, and be sure to call 1 or 2 of these clients to confirm they actually know the insurance agent and like working with him or her.

10. Run your business….like a business.  When starting a studio or a gym, it is completely natural to worry about whether or not people will actually show up and pay for a membership.  These feelings of worry often lead owners (especially first time gym and studio owners) to second guess the cost/value analysis of their membership pricing.  Owners tend to be scared of an empty gym and the message it sends to the paying members and general public, and consequently owners give away free 2 week or 1 month memberships to get people in the door.  While this is somewhat acceptable in the first month or two of operations as part of your opening marketing strategy, continuing to give away free memberships is not a sustainable business model.  Once people get something for free for an extended period of time, they often cannot bring themselves to pay for it when the free period ends.  Further, paying members will eventually leave the gym because non-paying members are taking up all of the spots in a group fitness class or on the treadmills.  Fitness Formula Clubs (FFC) in Chicago charges $20 for a daily pass; other gyms charge as much as $40/day.  People often balk at the cost to use the gym for just one day, since the monthly membership fee is generally $60-90/month.  However, when you are confident in your brand and pricing, there is no need to give things away.  To become confident in your pricing, be sure to conduct market research (i.e. talk to potential members about pricing and options).

An alternative and relatively new option for gym owners to consider is joining the ClassPass network (previously mentioned in Tip #8 above), which will increase your daily visit numbers while still being compensated for those visits.  For $79 – $99 a month (paid to ClassPass), ClassPass members get unlimited classes to dozens of studios in the ClassPass network. While ClassPass members can take as many classes per month as they would like, they can only visit the same studio up to 3 times per month. This allows potential new members to explore your gym or studio (while paying ClassPass), and if they like what they see, they may ultimately end their ClassPass membership and join your studio or gym directly.  If they do not end up joining your gym or studio, you will still receive a portion of the monthly membership proceeds from ClassPass.

© Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Tips and Considerations (#1 – 5) Before Opening a Fitness Studio or Facility

I have worked with a number of clients over the past few years in opening up their own fitness studio (franchisee or otherwise) or CrossFit affiliated gym.  This article is the first in a three part series (15 tips and considerations total) aimed at helping people that are considering taking their passion for fitness from a hobby and turning it into a career.  The items discussed below are some of the best practices that I have observed in clients that were successful in their first fitness venture.

1. Write a serious business plan.  Creating a thorough business plan is one of the best ways to really force yourself to look at the financial prospects of owning a business, and is a great way to identify weaknesses prior to committing endless time, energy and money into a venture that may not be as viable as it seemed when discussing with your friends or significant other.  In my experience, my most successful clients from day 1 of opening are those that had the most well thought out business plan because they have better identified weakness prior to opening and made the proper adjustments accordingly.  As part of any business plan, you should include a line by line budget for Years 1 through 5 of the business, including granular detail on expenses associated with operating the business.

2. Understand that everything costs more than you think.  The business plan will help you understand the initial costs (equipment, build out, etc.) and ongoing costs (payroll, rent, software, etc.) of opening and running a fitness facility.  It will also force you to think about insurance, legal, employment taxes and other costs that tend to get overlooked by business owners just starting out.  My rule of thumb is to come up with a conservative budget for Years 1 and 2 of the business, and then add 20% to the final expenses line item.  The expenses, at first, will always be higher than you expect.

3. Identify and retain your “go-to” employees/managers.  Hillary Clinton once said, “it takes a village. . . ” – surely she was not referring to owning and operating a gym, but she might as well have been.  If you are the only person that everyone looks to when things go wrong, you will quickly burn out and the studio will likely fail.  The employees need an inspirational leader, and you will most definitely lose much of your inspiration after working 70+ hour weeks for what may amount to minimum wage (at best) over the first several months of operations.  It is important that you retain at least 1 or 2 key employees that you can count on to be there from the beginning.  You must take initiative to train these key employees in every facet of the business.  While generally I do not recommend just handing out equity in the business to key employees from day 1, you may consider a Phantom Equity or Bonus Plan to incentivize your key employees to work to make the business profitable.  Many of the successful gym clients I work with have Bonus Plans in place for their key executives based on the overall profitability of the gym.

4. Find the right partners, and document your business deal.  Let me first say, if you can afford to go it alone and not have business partners, I encourage you to do so.  In my experience, gym partnerships end badly 75%+ of the time.  Inevitably, one partner thinks they are doing more than the other, and they start unilaterally taking actions that damage the relationship.  Often times, friendships spanning many years are destroyed.  Before going into business with someone, spend time discussing much more than the money each person brings to the table; spend time discussing the vision of the business, decision making, how profits will be distributed, who makes hiring decisions, who makes equipment purchasing decisions, can an owner sell his ownership in the business to another person, etc.  I find the most successful business partnership are those between owners that have complementary skill and talents, and understand where each of the partners adds the most value to the business.  There is a laundry list of issues that should be discussed and agreed up before partners go into business together.

5. Find the right lawyer – someone who is familiar with issues faced by studio and gym owners.  This tip is even more important if you have partners.  Once you decide on the business deal with your partners, each of you will need independent, legal representation to properly document your business agreement in an Operating Agreement (for LLCs) or a Shareholder Agreement (for corporations).  One of the attorneys will also need to form the LLC or the corporation which will actually operate the business.  The attorney for the business will also need to review and negotiate your lease (be careful about sound/noise provisions!), possibly review your financing arrangement, and review and negotiate your Franchise Agreement (if you are going to be a fitness franchise owner).  Ask the attorney what other studios and club facilities he or she has worked with, and consider asking for a few references before commencing work with that attorney.

© Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 2015. All Rights Reserved.

The Equality Act: Legislation Introduced in Congress to Prohibit LGBT Discrimination

On July 23, 2015, Democratic Representatives David Cicilline (Rhode Island) and Jeff Merkley (Oregon) introduced in Congress legislation that would create the “Equality Act” (the Act). The Act represents an attempt to create a uniform federal standard that protects all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans from discrimination in seven areas of civil rights law: employment, credit; education; federal funding; housing; jury service; and public accommodations.

LGBT, civil liberties, equality act, protection against discrimination, lesbian gay bisexual transgender

In the employment context, the Act would add sexual orientation and gender identification as protected characteristics under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which currently only protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The introduction of the Act comes on the heels of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published guidance stating that Title VII protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. Importantly, the Act would leave existing religious exemptions intact.

Given the current political makeup of Congress, it is unlikely that the Act will become law. In any event, stay tuned for additional developments regarding the Equality Act.

Copyright © 2015 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

OSHA Enforcement Directive on HazCom Compliance a Mixed Blessing

A new directive from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on enforcing the agency’s Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard describes requirements that appear to impose new, unforeseen paperwork and compliance burdens on employers even while providing useful clarifications on some issues for employers and enforcement personnel. The “Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012)” was released July 20, 2015, and explains how the standard is to be enforced during the current transition period and after the standard is fully implemented. OSHA’s HazCom rule was amended in 2012 to align U.S. HazCom mandates with a globally harmonized system of classifying and labeling hazardous chemicals.osha-logo

Observers identified at least three areas of concern about the new policy. They involve requirements for documentation of good-faith compliance efforts, written HazCom program instructions, and procedures for classifying chemicals. Critics believe they could lead to added costs, including from citations.

According to the directive, inspectors are to determine if all applicable provisions of paragraphs (e) through (h) of the standard have been covered in the written program and implemented in the workplace. These provisions include the chemical inventory, which must show a product identifier for each chemical known to be present that aligns with the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) and label. The inventory is to include chemicals present in storage or otherwise not in use.

In addition, the written program must designate the person(s) responsible for obtaining or maintaining SDSs, how the data sheets are to be maintained, procedures on how to retrieve SDSs electronically, including backup systems to be used in the event of failure of the electronic equipment, and how employees obtain access to SDSs. Also required are procedures addressing what to do if an SDS is not received at the time of the first shipment, if there is reason to believe the SDS is not appropriate (e.g., missing hazards), to determine if the SDS is current, and, for chemical manufacturers or importers, for updating the SDS when new and significant health information is found. In addition to the written program, there are detailed requirements for labeling, training, evaluating chemicals, and much more.

OSHA appears to be using the policy to push enforcement priorities at the agency. It is a means of requiring staffing firms that provide temporary employees to train those employees to protect themselves from hazardous chemicals they may encounter at the host employer’s worksite. Inspectors also are given detailed guidance on how to evaluate an SDS for a general duty clause violation in cases where there is potential exposure to a chemical with no permissible exposure limit (“PEL”). Frustrated with its inability to update outdated PELs, OSHA has long-hinted it would use the general duty clause in this way.

“They are clearly encompassing their enforcement initiatives into this directive,” said Jackson Lewis attorney Tressi Cordaro. “The approach not only lacks any legal basis in the standard or in OSHA’s governing statute, but also circumvents the regulatory process. That is rulemaking without notice and comment,” she contended.

Cordaro noted that the directive provides useful clarification on some issues, such as employer reliance on Department of Transportation (DOT) labeling for shipping of hazardous chemicals. “There’s some value in this directive. OSHA gave some clarification to DOT labeling,” she said. “That’s guidance that was needed in the industry.”

Enforcement of the standard is in transition. Employers were required to train workers on the new label elements and safety data sheets by December 1, 2013. Chemical manufacturers, importers and distributors had to comply with revised SDS requirements by June 1, 2015. Manufacturers and importers had to comply with new labeling provisions by June 1, 2015. Distributors have until December 1, 2015, to comply with labeling provisions as long as they are not relabeling materials or creating SDSs, in which case they must comply with the June 1 deadline. Full implementation begins on June 1, 2016.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Courts Must Restore Minimal Diversity to Restore Balance of Justice

Should federal court jurisdiction be expanded, and what effect would an expansion have on the judiciary? Alongside three legal experts, I discussed this question at a panel event hosted by the Federalist Society earlier in June. The discussion kicked off the National Association of Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action’s Restore Our Courts initiative and centered around the primary criticism of expanding diversity jurisdiction – the impact on federal court caseload.

In my latest study, “Estimating the Impact of a Minimal Diversity Standard on Federal Court Caseloads,” I found that these concerns are largely unfounded. Empirical analysis of almost 3,600 complaints filed in state court shows that replacing complete diversity with a minimal diversity standard would increase existing federal district court caseloads by an estimated 7.7 percent. This translates to an additional 43 cases per year for each judgeship – an inconsequential amount, with great potential to restore the balance in the United States judicial system.

As the Founding Fathers intended, diversity jurisdiction protects out-of-state residents from potentially biased state courts. It is meant to ensure that commercial cases would be heard in an impartial forum to protect foreign litigants from local bias. The traditional diversity statute has been interpreted by the courts to require “complete diversity,” where there cannot exist a common state citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant. But Article III of the U.S Constitution only requires a “minimal diversity” standard for federal diversity jurisdiction, where at least one plaintiff and one defendant must be diverse in state citizenship.

State courts operating under a complete diversity standard open the door to harmful bias and costly lawsuits. Empirical evidence indicates that, compared to federal judges, many state judges tend to favor in-state plaintiffs over out-of-state defendants. This could be due to the intensifying politicization of state courts and state judicial elections where state court judges rely on voters for reelection and thus conform to the preferences of in-state litigants who are also voters.

Countless examples exist of overt bias in state courts, with state judges favoring local litigants and plaintiffs’ attorneys over out-of-state corporate defendants. State courts in Madison County, Illinois have been accused of favoring plaintiffs’ lawyers over out-of-state corporations in asbestos litigation. In fact, approximately one-third of all asbestos injury suits in the United States are brought in this single rural county.

It is clear that biases against out-of-state and corporate litigants continue to thrive today. Returning to the minimal diversity standard required by the Constitution would extend protection against these biases, enhancing fairness in our civil court justice system and discouraging speculative litigation. Most importantly, to the critics of this effort who cite an increased burden on federal court caseload, I say – an additional 43 cases per year is a small price to pay for equal justice.

Copyright © Emory University School of Law 2015 – All Rights Reserved

BIS Removes Cuba as State Sponsor of Terrorism in Regulations

On July 22, 2015, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), an agency of U.S. Department of Commerce, amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to reflect Cuba’s removal from designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The Secretary of State rescinded Cuba’s designation on May 29, 2015.

cuba_800_11429

As part of Cuba’s removal from designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, BIS amended the EAR to remove references in the text associating Cuba with terrorism. It also removes anti-terrorism (AT) license requirements from Cuba. Finally, BIS amended the EAR to remove Cuba from Country Group E:1, although Cuba remains on the Country Group E:2 list.

These amendments to the EAR affect certain license requirements and exceptions that apply to exports to Cuba. Specifically, the EAR apply to items that contain more than a de minimis amount of U.S.-origin content. For exports to most countries, that de minimis amount is 25 percent, but for exports to countries on the Country Group E:1 list, that de minimis amount is 10 percent. Exports of most items to Cuba are now also subject to the 25 percent de minimis rule. Yet, foreign-made items destined for Cuba that incorporate certain U.S.-origin 600 series content continue to be subject to the EAR regardless of level of U.S.-origin content.

Additionally, Cuba’s removal from the Country Group E:1 list makes exports to the country eligible for four new license exceptions including:

  • License Exception Servicing and Replacement of Parts and Equipment (RPL);
  • License Exception Governments, International Organizations, International Inspections Under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Space Station (GOV);
  • License Exception Baggage (BAG); and
  • License Exception Aircraft, Vessels and Spacecraft (AVS).

Despite these changes, it is important to remember that Cuba is still subject to a comprehensive embargo. Licenses are still required to export or reexport to Cuba any item subject to the EAR unless authorized by a license exception. Those who would like to export items authorized by license exceptions may only use license exceptions listed in 15 CFR 746.2(a).

©2015 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

FIVE MINUTES ON… Anti-Bribery and Corruption Laws in Europe

Anti-bribery and corruption has been a hot topic in the US for almost 40 years. The topic has historically however received much less attention within Europe. That is now changing as Europe is beginning to catch up and many European countries have already implemented anti-bribery laws much stricter than those in the US. Recent events have put the topic back on the agenda and we can expect further debate on the effectiveness and efficacy of enforcement in Europe.

The levels of perceived corruption within Europe are generally quite good. Transparency International publish an annual Corruptions Perceptions Index which shows the perceived levels of corruption in 175 countries globally. In its 2014 report, the average score across the EU and Western Europe was 66 (with 0 being highly corrupt and 100 being very clean), much better than the global average of 43. Even those countries with the lowest scores in the EU and Western Europe, being Greece, Romania and Italy, had a score of 43, consistent with the global average. Seven of the top 10 least corrupt countries are actually in Europe (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and Luxembourg).

Over the last five or so years, countries within Europe have been overhauling their existing, in many cases insufficient, anti-bribery regimes and some countries have implemented anti-bribery laws for the first time. We consider some of the specific regimes below along with their differences and similarities. The majority, if not all, are actually stricter than the laws in the US. The differences of the laws in Europe to the laws in the US have been somewhat of a surprise to many organisations who currently comply with the laws in the US and who don’t necessarily realise that they now need to enhance their practices to comply with more stringent regimes.

What’s Been Happening Across the Pond?

In the US, the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) came into force on 19 December 1977. The FCPA criminalises the paying or offering of a bribe to a foreign official, although the public official themselves do not commit an offence by receiving the bribe. The FCPA requires organisations to have accounting and other controls in place to prevent and detect bribery, but does not specifically require broader anti-bribery programmes. As well as US organisations, the FCPA has extraterritorial reach and catches any other organisation that uses any means of US commerce, including mails, emails, faxes, bank transactions, and similar acts.

Top of the Class: the Uk

Much of the change in approach within Europe and indeed further afield has arguably been led by the introduction in the UK of the Bribery Act 2010 (Bribery Act), which came into force on 1 July 2011, and which is thought to be the strictest anti-bribery legislation in the world.

Similarities between the FCPA and the Bribery Act Differences between the FCPA and the Bribery Act

Territorial Reach

The Bribery Act has a wide territorial reach. It extends not only to offences committed in the UK but also to offences committed outside the UK where the person committing them has a close connection with the UK by virtue of them being a British national or ordinarily resident in the UK, a body incorporated in the UK or a Scottish partnership. For corporations, the corporate offence in the Bribery Act extends to UK as well as non-UK organisations that carry on business or part of a business in the UK. So, for example, a Spanish company that exports to the UK can be in breach of the corporate offence for bribery occurring in Spain, even though that bribery does not involve any UK connected person.

Penalties

The penalties available for breaches of the Bribery Act are severe. They include an unlimited fine, up to 10 years in prison, and orders for directors to be disqualified. Companies can also be prohibited from public procurement and the proceeds from the bribe, for example the monies gained from a contract obtained through corruption, can be confiscated. Penalties under FCPA are slightly less severe with fines being capped to US$2 million (for corporations) and imprisonment for individuals being limited to a maximum of five years.

All Bribes Are Caught, Even Business-to-Business!

Arguably the single most important difference between the Bribery Act and the FCPA is that the Bribery Act prohibits the offering or receiving of a bribe and the bribery of Foreign Public Officials. Unlike the FCPA, the Bribery Act therefore captures private (business to business) bribery and also makes it an offence to receive a bribe as well as pay/offer to pay one. Directors and senior managers can also be found guilty of an offence if their organisation commits one of these offences with their consent or connivance.

Facilitation Payments

Facilitation Payments are payments made to expedite or secure the performance of a “routine government action”. The FCPA expressly authorises such payments. In the UK, such payments are prohibited under the Bribery Act.

The Corporate Defence

The Bribery Act also introduces a corporate offence of failing to prevent a bribe being paid, for which it will be a defence for an organisation to show that it has “adequate procedures” in place to prevent such bribery. Guidance produced by the UK Ministry of Justice explains that these “adequate procedures” need to be guided by six principles: Top-level commitment; Risk assessment; Proportionate procedures; Due diligence; Communication (including training) and Monitoring and review. As stated above, FCPA only requires accounting and other controls to prevent and detect bribery, nothing broader.

Other EU Member States

Most EU Member States have enacted anti-bribery laws with heavy fines. When compared to the Bribery Act, however, such laws are generally more limited in scope and tend to focus on bribery of public officials. Most are however at least consistent with FCPA.

In France, most of the French anti-corruption provisions relevant to businesses are laid down in the French Criminal Code and relate to both the public and private sector and both the offeror and the recipient. Like the UK, the law in France also has an extraterritorial reach and will interestingly apply amongst other situations, where the victim of the bribe is a French national. Penalties for breach of French laws include imprisonment for, in some cases, up to 15 years and financial penalties including, for companies, fines of, in some cases, up to €5 million or twice the amount of the proceeds stemming from the offence. Unlike the UK, there are in France, however, no legal requirements for implementing preventive procedures.

Germany’s anti-bribery laws are contained in the Criminal Code, which prohibits offering, paying or accepting a bribe in domestic or foreign transactions. Separately, civil liability can, if certain criteria are met, attach to companies for offences committed on their behalf due to the Administrative Offences Act. Owners/managers can also be found liable in certain situations. Penalties include five years’ imprisonment (10 years’ imprisonment in severe cases involving a member/official of a public body), a criminal fine and confiscation of monies obtained from the bribe. The Criminal Code also applies to offences committed abroad. One of the key cases to be enforced in Germany was that against Siemens AG, who paid German authorities almost €600 million in fines after they were investigated for paying bribes to secure public-works contracts in a number of countries. This was in addition to fines paid in the US for breaching FCPA.

In the Netherlands, anti-corruption and bribery laws are predominantly aimed at attempts to bribe public officials. Unlike the UK, Dutch law has relatively limited jurisdictional reach. For example, a foreign non-Dutch company that has committed acts of bribery of a non-Dutch foreign official outside the Netherlands is not subject to the criminal laws of the Netherlands. The maximum penalty under Dutch law is a fine of €740,000 for each case of bribery and for individuals, imprisonment for four years (one year for private commercial bribery) and a fine of up to €74,000.

Outlook

While most Member States have clearly improved their anti-bribery regimes in recent years, what seems to be the biggest hurdle is insufficient enforcement and the considerable differences in the enforcement levels across Europe, in particular when it comes to bribery abroad. Relying on the UK (or the US) will soon stretch the already limited resources that individual countries can bring to bear. It seems that the European Union itself will take action in the foreseeable future. Certainly there would be jurisdictional concerns as regards the criminal aspects for individuals, but the Commission’s war on cartels has shown that it is well-suited to enforcing policy. Currently, however, the Commission contends itself with issues in a biannual report on corruption in each Member State.

Given the extra-territorial reach discussed above, European businesses need to make sure that they are compliant with all the different antibribery laws that could affect their business. This is not only the laws in their own countries, but also the laws abroad. Many organisations acting internationally and globally are seeking compliance with the Bribery Act as compliance with the Bribery Act should be sufficient to also achieve compliance with any other anti-bribery legislation.

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Puerto Rico Supreme Court: Former Exec Cannot Sue Individual Board Members for Breach of Employment Contract

A former employee cannot sue individual members of a corporation’s board of directors for breach of an employment contract and negligence in execution of fiduciary duties, where: 1) the individual board members are not parties to the employment contract; and 2) the employee and his relatives are not shareholders with standing to sue board members for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has held. Randolfo Rivera San Feliz et al v. Junta de Directores de Firstbank Corporate et al., 2015 TSPR 61, 196 DPR ___ (2015).

Plaintiff Randolfo Rivera was a former executive of a banking entity in Puerto Rico. The terms of his employment were established in a contract with the bank. The contract provided that any decision regarding the contract, including termination of employment, had to be approved by at least two-thirds of all the members of the bank’s board of directors. The contract also contained a clause requiring arbitration of any controversy regarding the interpretation of the employment contract.

The bank terminated Rivera’s contract in June of 2010. He filed a lawsuit against the bank in Puerto Rico Superior Court, alleging unjust dismissal and breach of contract under the law of Puerto Rico. While this litigation was pending, Rivera filed a separate lawsuit against each member of the board of directors, requesting damages for breach of contract and alleged negligence in the execution of their fiduciary duties. He asserted the board members wrongfully allowed his termination in violation of his employment contract. Rivera’s partner, children, and siblings were included as co-plaintiffs in the second lawsuit, each alleging emotional and economic damages arising out of the employment termination.

The initial lawsuit between Rivera and the bank was dismissed by the court for lack of jurisdiction in light of the employment contract’s arbitration provision.

The second lawsuit, against the board of directors, also was dismissed at the pleadings stage. The court held Rivera and his family may not sue individual members of the board of directors for violation of their fiduciary duty, because such a claim was available only to shareholders of a corporation through a derivative action and neither Rivera nor his relatives were shareholders. Rivera and his relatives appealed the dismissal of this lawsuit and the case eventually came before the Puerto Rico Supreme Court.

Puerto Rico’s highest court upheld dismissal of the action because a non-shareholder does not have standing to sue individual directors of a corporation for an alleged violation of their fiduciary duty. The Supreme Court reiterated that a breach of fiduciary duty claim requires an existing relationship between plaintiffs and defendants, such as the one that exists between shareholders and a corporation’s board of directors. The Court also held that the board of directors could not be liable for breach of contract because it was the corporation, and not the individual members of the board, that was a party to the contract.

Associate Justice Annabelle Rodriguez-Rodriguez dissented. She noted that the employment contract at issue had a clause that was undisputed which provided for arbitration of all controversies related to interpretation of the contract. Since the second lawsuit was based on alleged breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the termination of the contract, she would have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in light of the arbitration clause and abstained from analyzing the nature of the claims for purposes of a standing issue.

In light of Puerto Rico law governing employee terminations, employers should tread carefully when drafting employment contracts that contain specific reasons for termination, as well as notification requirements.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

“3-Year” Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals EADs Must Be Returned: Immigration

USCIS announced that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients of employment authorizations documents (EAD) after February 16, 2015, with validity longer than two years, were “likely mistakenly issued and must be returned.” According to a USCIS Factsheet:

“Individuals who are required to return three-year EADs and have not done so will be contacted by USCIS by phone or in-person. For the purpose of retrieving these three-year EADs, USCIS may visit the homes of those individuals who have not yet returned their invalid 3-year EAD or responded to USCIS. When contacting individuals in person, the USCIS employees will show the individuals their credentials. USCIS will make every attempt to call the individual in advance of the visit…

The reason for this action is that, after a court order in Texas v. United States, No. B-14-254 (S.D. Tex.) was issued, USCIS could approve DACA deferred action requests and related employment authorization applications only for two-year periods.”

EADs mailed before February 16, 2015 are not subject to this requirement as they were issued before the court injunction.

Further information and contact details can be found on the USCIS factsheet.