The National Law Forum

Supreme Court Upholds Corporate Whistleblower Protections in Landmark Ruling

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling holding that whistleblowers do not need to prove that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The decision in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, has immense implications for a number of whistleblower protection laws.

“This is a major win for whistleblowers and thus a huge win for corporate accountability,” said leading whistleblower attorney David Colapinto, a founding partner of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto.

“A ruling in favor of UBS would have overturned more than 20 years of precedent in SOX whistleblower cases and made it exceedingly more difficult for whistleblowers who claim retaliation under many similarly worded federal whistleblower statutes,” Colapinto continued.

“Thankfully, the Court was not swayed by UBS’ attempt to ignore the plain meaning of the statute and instead upheld the burden of proof that Congress enacted to protect whistleblowers who face retaliation,” added Colapinto.

In an amicus curiae brief filed in the case on behalf of the National Whistleblower Center, the founding partners of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto outlined the Congressional intent behind the burden of proof standard in SOX.

“In crafting the unique ‘contributing factor’ test for whistleblowers, Congress left an incredibly straight-forward legislative history documenting the value of whistleblowers’ contributions, the risks and retaliation whistleblowers faced, the barriers the previous burden of proof presented for whistleblowers, and Congress’ explicit intention to lower that burden of proof for whistleblowers,” the brief states.

In the Court’s opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor likewise pointed to the Congressional intent of SOX’s contributing-factor burden of proof standard:

“To be sure, the contributing-factor framework that Congress chose here is not as protective of employers as a motivating-factor framework. That is by design. Congress has employed the contributing-factor framework in contexts where the health, safety, or well-being of the public may well depend on whistleblowers feeling empowered to come forward. This Court cannot override that policy choice by giving employers more protection than the statute itself provides.”

This article was authored by Geoff Schweller.

House Passes $78 Billion Tax Bill that Includes Affordable Housing Help

How long is something called a “crisis” before it just becomes the “new normal?” It is apparent there has been an affordable housing crisis in the United States for decades. One way that the federal government has addressed this is by motivating developers with the 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (the “9% LIHTC”) and the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (the “4% LIHTC”) that a developer can receive for building a “qualified low-income building” described under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

These LIHTCs are awarded by a state government (or political subdivision thereof) to eligible participants to offset a portion of their federal tax liability in exchange for the production or preservation of affordable housing. On average, 50% of the total financing for 9% LIHTC projects comes from equity derived from the credit. Many states have used the 9% LIHTC as their primary tool to facilitate the production and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. However, the 9% LIHTC is incredibly competitive. Each year the federal government allocates 9% LIHTC to each state on the basis of population.

The 4% LIHTC is another viable (and slightly less competitive) option. Currently, the 4% LIHTC is available for acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings and for new construction where 50% of the aggregate basis of the land and the building is financed with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued pursuant to Section 142(d) of the Code (“Affordable Housing PABs”). Unlike the 9% LIHTC, the amount of 4% LIHTC available is ostensibly unlimited; however, Affordable Housing PABs come with some strings attached, one of which is a Code Section 146 requirement to obtain an allocation of volume cap equal to the higher of the issue price or the par amount of the Affordable Housing PABs issued.

The federal government places a cap on the volume of certain types of tax-exempt private activity bonds, such as Affordable Housing PABs, that each state can issue. This limit is based on the population of the state. Each state has its own procedure for the allocation of and certification as to volume cap. Bonds that are subject to a volume cap limit are generally subject to an overall issuance limit each calendar year within each state. Each year, the IRS publishes a revenue procedure promulgating the volume cap applicable to each state. States then further apportion their allocable volume cap among various issuers and types of tax-exempt bonds that require volume cap within the state. As of March 2, 2023, the volume cap in 18 states and Washington, D.C. was oversubscribed for 2023.[1] Oversubscribed volume cap leads to competition for Affordable Housing PABs, which must be issued to receive the 4% LIHTCs to fund development for affordable housing.

After that primer, these authors can finally cut to the chase![2] On Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act.

What Would This Legislation Do?

In addition to expanding the child tax credit and loosening restrictions on research and development tax deductions, this new legislation would (1) raise the 9% LIHTC through calendar year 2025 and (2) reduce the amount of Affordable Housing PABs needed for the 4% LIHTC from 50% of a project’s aggregate basis to 30% for a period of time.

For those keeping score at home, that is a 40% reduction in the amount of Affordable Housing PABs needed for the 4% LIHTC! If passed by the Senate, this package would be great news because it would free up bond capacity for more Affordable Housing PABs and for other tax-exempt bonds that require volume cap.[3]

But before you get too excited, note we said for a period of time and the Senate has yet to pass this legislation. How long a period? As drafted, the new legislation provides that the reduction of the Affordable Housing PABs requirement to 30% is applicable to projects, which are financed in part (at least 5% of the aggregate basis of the building and land)[4] by Affordable Housing PABs which have an issue date is in 2024 or 2025. So, the 40% reduction would be much like those endless infomercials we endured during COVID (available for a limited time only!). The reduction would be available from the date that the legislation takes effect for Affordable Housing PABs issued through December 31, 2025 (or for about a year to a year and a half). So, while this is a step in the right direction, this is not a permanent reduction in the amount of Affordable Housing PABs required to obtain the 4% LIHTC.

Recall that Congress has extended programs like this before. For example, the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program was established by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 in order to promote private-sector investment in primary and secondary public education in areas with scarce public resources. Initially authorized only for 1998 and 1999, the program ended up being extended every two years right up through 2017. These types of extensions would make it a lot harder to plan yearly volume cap requests, but the new legislation is still a positive development.

The public policy and municipal bond sectors think this legislation does have a chance in the Senate, but it will likely take a while. Not surprisingly, Congress has other crises to address beyond affordable housing, including the laddered continuing resolutions funding the government that will expire on March 1and March 8. As Brian Egan, the director of government affairs for the National Association of Bond Lawyers said, this “overwhelming House vote demonstrates a momentum that the deal’s advocates will not want to squander. It also proves that members on both sides of the aisle want to get something done on tax before the end of the 118^th Congress.”

Stay tuned for more on this and our expanding coverage of affordable and workforce housing in the coming weeks!

[1] https://www.novoco.com/notes-from-novogradac/population-figures-increase-multiplier-mean-record-pab-cap-2023-small-state-recipients-largely.

[2] You probably would never want to listen to the authors of this blog post tell any sort of suspenseful story. You would be here for days!

[3] Like the 25% volume cap requirement for qualified carbon dioxide capture facilities. We are all still waiting for that guidance on how to implement those provisions of the Code; we are looking at you Internal Revenue Service.

[4] Note that the new legislation also attempts to provide a transition rule for projects that already have some Affordable Housing PABs issued (but not the full 50% required prior to the enactment of this legislation) by permitting the reduced 30% requirement to be applied if at least 5 percent or more of the aggregate basis of the building and land is financed by Affordable Housing PABs with an issue date in 2024 or 2025. See the H. Rept. 118-353 – TAX RELIEF FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND WORKERS ACT OF 2024.

Three Individuals Sentenced for $3.5 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme

Headlines that Matter for Companies and Executives in Regulated Industries

Three Individuals Sentenced for $3.5 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme

On February 6, three individuals were sentenced for fraudulently obtaining and misusing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans that the US Small Business Administration (SBA) guaranteed under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, in 2020 and 2021, defendants Khadijah X. Chapman, Daniel C. Labrum, and Eric J.O’Neil submitted falsified documents to financial institutions for fictitious businesses to fraudulently obtain $3.5 million in PPP loans intended for small businesses struggling with the economic impact of COVID-19. Chapman was convicted in November 2023 of bank fraud. Labrum and O’Neil pleaded guilty in 2023 to bank fraud. Following their convictions, Chapman was sentenced to three years and 10 months in prison, Labrum was sentenced to two years in prison, and O’Neil was sentenced to two years and three months in prison.

Read the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) press release here.

False Claims Act Complaint Filed Against Former President and Co-Owner of Mobile Cardiac PET Scan Provider

The DOJ filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Rick Nassenstein, former president, chief financial officer, and co-owner of Illinois-based Cardiac Imaging Inc. (CII), which provides mobile cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) scans.

The complaint alleges that Nassenstein caused CII to pay excessive, above-market fees to doctors who referred patients to CII for cardiac PET scans. The government alleges that the compensation arrangements violated the Stark Law, which prohibits health care providers from billing Medicare for services referred by a physician with whom the provider has a compensation arrangement unless the arrangement meets certain statutory and regulatory requirements. Claims knowingly submitted to Medicare in violation of the Stark Law also violate the federal FCA.

The complaint alleges that CII provided cardiac PET scans on a mobile basis and paid the referring physicians, usually cardiologists, to provide physician supervision as required by Medicare rules. From at least 2017 through June 2023, Nassenstein allegedly caused CII to enter into compensation arrangements with referring cardiologists that provided for payment to the cardiologists as if they were fully occupied supervising CII’s scans, even though they were actually providing care to other patients in their offices or patients who were not even on site. CII’s fees also allegedly compensated the cardiologists for additional services the physicians did not actually provide. The complaint alleges that CII paid over $40 million in unlawful fees to physicians and submitted over 75,000 false claims to Medicare for services provided pursuant to referrals that violated the Stark Law.

The lawsuit was originally a qui tam complaint filed by a former billing manager at CII, and the United States, through the DOJ, filed a complaint in partial intervention to participate in the lawsuit.

The case, captioned US ex rel. Pinto v. Nassenstein, No. 18-cv-2674 (S.D. Tex.), follows an $85.5 million settlement in October 2023 by CII and its current owner, Sam Kancherlapalli, for claims arising from this conduct.

Read the DOJ’s press release here.

San Diego Restaurant Owner Charged with Tax and COVID-19 Relief Fraud Schemes

On February 2, a federal grand jury in San Diego returned a superseding indictment charging a California restaurant owner with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, tax evasion, filing false tax returns, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and failing to file tax returns.

According to the indictment, Leronce Suel, the majority owner of Rockstar Dough LLC and Chicken Feed LLC, conspired with a business partner to underreport over $1.7 million in gross receipts on Rockstar Dough LLC’s 2020 federal corporate tax return. From March 2020 to June 2022, Suel and the business partner then allegedly used this fraudulent return to qualify for COVID-19-related loans pursuant to the PPP and Restaurant Revitalization Funding program. In connection with those loans, Suel also allegedly certified falsely that he used the loan money for payroll purposes only. The indictment alleges that Suel and his business partner laundered the fraudulently obtained funds through cash withdrawals from their business bank accounts and stashed more than $2.4 million in cash in their home.

The indictment further charges that Suel failed to report millions of dollars received in cash and personal expenses paid for by his businesses as income, in addition to reporting false depreciable assets and business losses.

If convicted, Suel faces prison sentences up to 30 years for each count of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 10 years for each count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, five years for tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States, three years for each count of filing false tax returns, and one year for each count of failing to file tax returns.

Read the DOJ’s press release here.

WHO Publishes Guidance for Ethics and Governance of AI for Healthcare Sector

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published “Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence for Health: Guidance on large multi-modal models” (LMMs), which is designed to provide “guidance to assist Member States in mapping the benefits and challenges associated with the use of for health and in developing policies and practices for appropriate development, provision and use. The guidance includes recommendations for governance within companies, by governments, and through international collaboration, aligned with the guiding principles. The principles and recommendations, which account for the unique ways in which humans can use generative AI for health, are the basis of this guidance.”

The guidance focused on one type of generative AI, large multi-modal models (LMMs), “which can accept one or more type of data input and generate diverse outputs that are not limited to the type of data fed into the algorithm.” According to the report, LMMs have “been adopted faster than any consumer application in history.” The report outlines the benefits and risks of LLMs, particularly the risk of using LLMs in the healthcare sector.

The report proposes solutions to address the risks of using LMMs in health care during development, provision, and deployment of LMMs and ethics and governance of LLMs, “what can be done, and by who.”

In the ever-changing world of AI, this is one report that is timely and provides steps and solutions to follow to tackle the risk of using LMMs.

Client Alert: New Reporting Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act

On January 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) took effect. This new federal anti-money laundering law obligates many corporations, limited liability companies and other business entities to report to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), certain information about the entity, the entity’s beneficial owners and the individuals who created or registered the entity to do business. This client alert summarizes the CTA’s key requirements and deadlines. For more detailed information, please review the official “Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting FAQs” and the “Small Entity Compliance Guide” published by FinCEN.

Frequently Asked Questions

WHO MUST REPORT INFORMATION UNDER THE CTA?

The following “reporting companies” are subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements: (a) any U.S. corporation, limited liability company or other entity created by the filing of a document with a state or territorial government office; and (b) any non-U.S. entity that is registered to do business in any U.S. jurisdiction.

The CTA provides for 23 types of entities that are exempt from its reporting requirements, including companies that currently report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, insurance companies and tax-exempt entities, among others. Most notably, a company does not need to comply with the CTA if it has more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts for the previous year (as reflected in filed federal tax returns), at least one physical office in the U.S. and at least 20 employees in the U.S. For a full list of exemptions, including helpful checklists, please see Chapter 1.2, “Is my company exempt from the reporting requirements?”, of the Small Entity Compliance Guide.

A subsidiary of an exempt entity also will enjoy exempt status.

WHAT INFORMATION MUST BE REPORTED?

A reporting company is required to report the following information to FinCEN, and to keep the information current with FinCEN on an ongoing basis:

The reporting company’s full legal name;
Any trade name or “doing business as” (DBA) name of the reporting company;
The reporting company’s principal place of business;
The reporting company’s jurisdiction of formation (and, for non-U.S. reporting companies, the jurisdiction where the company first registered to do business in the U.S.); and
The reporting company’s Employer Identification Number (EIN).

A reporting company also is required to identify its “beneficial owners” and “company applicant.” A beneficial owner is an individual who either: (a) exercises “substantial control” over the reporting company; or (b) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of the reporting company. A company applicant is an individual who directly files or is primarily responsible for filing the document that creates or registers the reporting company.

A reporting company must report and keep current the following information for each beneficial owner and company applicant:

Full legal name;
Date of birth;
Complete current address;
Unique identifying number and issuing jurisdiction from, and image of, one of the following non-expired documents:
a. U.S. passport;
b. State driver’s license; or
c. Identification document issued by a state, local government or tribe.

WHEN ARE REPORTS DUE?

A reporting company that was first formed or registered to do business in the United States before January 1, 2024 will need to file its initial report with FinCEN no later than January 1, 2025.

A reporting company that is first formed or registered to do business in the United States between January 1, 2024 and January 1, 2025 will need to file its initial report with FinCEN within 90 calendar days after the effective date of its formation or registration to do business.

A reporting company that is first formed or registered to do business in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 will need to file its initial report with FinCEN within 30 calendar days after the effective date of its formation or registration to do business.

HOW DOES MY COMPANY FILE REPORTS WITH FINCEN?

Reports must be filed electronically through the BOI E-Filing System. For additional instructions and other technical guidance, please see the Help & Resources page.

WHAT HAPPENS IF MY COMPANY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CTA?

At the time the filing is made, a reporting company is required to certify that its report or application is true, correct, and complete. Therefore, it is the reporting company’s responsibility to identify its beneficial owners and verify the accuracy of all reported information.

A person or reporting company who willfully violates the CTA’s reporting requirements may be subject to civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues, plus criminal penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.

In the case of an accidental violation – for instance, if an initial report inadvertently contained a typo or outdated information – the CTA provides a safe harbor for reporting companies to correct the original report within 90 days after the deadline for the original report. If this safe harbor deadline is missed, the reporting company and individuals providing inaccurate information may be subject to the CTA’s civil and criminal penalties.

OTHER THAN FILING ACCURATE REPORTS, HOW CAN MY COMPANY STAY COMPLIANT?

A reporting company should consider taking the following actions to facilitate compliance with the CTA’s reporting requirements:

Amending existing governing documents, such as LLC or stockholder agreements, to require beneficial owners to promptly provide required information and otherwise cooperate in the company’s compliance with the CTA;
Designating an officer to oversee the company’s initial and ongoing CTA reporting;
Maintaining, reviewing and updating records on a regular cadence to reflect equity transfers, option grants and other transactions that affect ownership interest calculations; and
Developing a secure process for collecting and storing a beneficial owner’s photo identification and other sensitive information for CTA reporting purposes.

Employment Tip of the Month – February 2024

Q: Can my company treat employees adversely because of their personal political beliefs? If they wear a shirt of their favorite candidate? Or proselytize about their candidate?

A: The short answer: There exists no “First Amendment Right to freedom of expression” in a private workplace, and that extends to political expression. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921 (2019) (Only “State actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”)

So, yes, legally a private employer can refuse to hire Democrats or Republicans, and can fire an employee for wearing a shirt of their candidate or vocalizing a particular political position.

On the other hand, other laws can apply, such as the right to “concerted action” under the National Labor Relations Act. Overt adverse action also could be ripe for allegations of selective enforcement, such as “you only selectively enforce this rule against me because I am ___________”, where Title VII covers race, sex, religion, color and national origin; ADA covers disability; ADEA age, etc. Some political positions could easily bleed over into religious beliefs.

Even if legally permissible for a private employer to discriminate against holders of one particular political belief, from a practical management perspective, it cannot be recommended, and would be loaded with risk. Also, it could simply make for bad optics and make it harder to attract and retain the best talent.

Finally, this answer changes entirely for public employers and government employers, where employees do possess First Amendment rights, so long as, in general, they are speaking (1) as a private citizen, (2) about a matter of public concern, and (3) their speech does not interfere with the job. There are exceptions for high-ranking individuals, political appointees or someone trying to release classified information, though in many instances they would still be protected from retaliation.

Top Risks for Businesses in 2024

Just weeks into 2024, it is already clear that uncertainty will be the watchword. Will the economic soft landing of 2023 persist into 2024? Will labor unrest, strong in 2023, settle down as inflation cools? Will inflation remain tamed? Will the U.S. elections bring continuity or a new administration with very different views on the role of the U.S. in the world and in regulating business?

Uncertainty is also fueling a complex risk environment that will require monitoring global developments more so than in the past. As outlined below, geopolitical risks are present, multiple, interconnected and high impact. International relations have traditionally fallen outside the mandate of most C-Suites, but how the U.S. government responds to geopolitical challenges will impact business operations. Beyond additional disruptions to global trade, businesses in 2024 will face risks associated with expanding protectionist economic policies, climate change impacts, and AI-driven disruptors.

Geopolitical Tensions Disrupting Global Trade

The guardrails are coming off the international system that enshrines the ideals of preserving peace and security through diplomatic engagement, respecting international borders (not changing them through military might) and ensuring the free flow of global trade. In 2022, the world was shocked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it has taken time for the full impact to reverberate through the international system. While political analysts write on a “spillover of conflict,” the more insidious impact is that more leaders of countries and non-state groups are acting outside the guardrails because they are no longer deterred from using military force to achieve political goals, making 2024 ripe for new military conflicts disrupting global trade beyond the ongoing war in Europe.

In October 2023, Hamas launched a war from Gaza against Israel. Thus far, fighting has spread to the West Bank, between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah in the north, and to the Red Sea, with Iranian-backed Houthis attacking shipping through the strategic Bab al Mandab strait. Container ships and oil tankers, to avoid the risks, are re-routing to the Cape of Good Hope, adding two weeks of extra sailing time, with the associated costs. Insurance premiums for cargo ships sailing in the eastern Mediterranean have skyrocketed, with some no longer servicing Israeli ports. Companies and retailers with tight delivery schedules are switching to airfreight, which is expected to drive up airfreight rates.

Iran, emboldened by its blossoming relationship with Russia as one of Moscow’s new arms suppliers, is activating its proxy armies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to attack Western targets. In a two-day period in January 2024, the Iran Revolutionary Guards directly launched strikes in Syria, Iraq and Pakistan. Nuclear-armed Pakistan retaliated with a cross border strike in Iran. While there are many nuances to these incidents, it is evident that deterrence against cross-border military conflict is eroding in a region with deep, festering grievances among neighbors. Iran is in an escalatory mode and could resume harassing shipping in the Persian Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz, where about a fifth of the volume of the world’s total oil consumption passes through on a daily basis.

In East Asia, North Korea is also emboldened by the changing geopolitical environment. Pyongyang, too, has become a major supplier of weaponry to Moscow for use in Ukraine. While Russia (and China) in the past have constructively contained North Korean predilection for aggression against its neighbors, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un may believe the time is ripe to change the status quo. Ominously, in a Jan. 15 speech before the Supreme People’s Assembly (North Korea’s parliament), Kim rejected the policy of reunification with South Korea and proposed incorporating the country into North Korea “in the event of war.” While North Korean leaders frequently revert to brinksmanship and aggressive language, Kim’s speech reflects confidence of a nuclear power, aligned with Russia against a shared adversary – South Korea, which is firmly aligned with the G7 consensus on Russia. A war in the Korean peninsula would be felt around the world because East Asia is central to global shipping and manufacturing, disrupting supply chains, as well as the regional economy.

China is also waiting for the right moment to “unite” Taiwan with the mainland. Beijing has seen the impact of Western sanctions on Russia over Ukraine and has been deterred from aiding the Russian war effort. In many ways, China has benefited from these sanctions and the reorientation of global trade. Also, Russia, with its far weaker economy, has proven surprisingly resilient to sanctions, another lesson for China. Meanwhile, the Taiwanese people voted in January and returned for a third time the ruling party that strongly rejects Chinese territorial claims. Tensions are high, with the Chinese military once again harassing Taiwanese defenses. For Beijing, the “right moment” could fall this year should conflict break out on the Korean peninsula, which would tie the U.S. down because of the Mutual Defense Treaty.

The uncertainty here is not that there are global tensions, but how the U.S. will respond as they develop and how U.S. businesses can navigate external shocks. Will the U.S. be drawn into a new war in the Middle East? Can the U.S. manage multiple conflicts, already deeply involved in supporting Ukraine? Is the U.S. economy resilient enough to withstand trade disruptions? How can businesses strengthen their own resiliency?

Economic Protectionism Increasing Costs and Risks

Geopolitical tensions, the global pandemic and the unequal benefits of globalization are impacting economic policies of the U.S. and the political discourse around the merits of unrestrained free trade. Protectionist economic policies are creeping in, under the nomenclature of “secure supply chains,” “friend-shoring” and “home-shoring.” The U.S. has imposed tariffs on countries (even allies) accused of unfair trade practices and has foreclosed access to certain technologies by unfriendly countries, namely China.

While the response to some of these trade restrictions are new trade agreements with “friends” to regulate access under preferred terms, in essence creating multiple “friends” trade blocs for specific sectors, other responses are retaliatory, including counter tariffs and export restrictions or outright bans. In 2024, the U.S. economy will see the impact of these trade fragmentation policies in acute ways, with upside risks of new business opportunities and downside risks of supply chain disruptions, critical resource competition, increased input costs, compliance risks and increased reputational risks.

Trade with China, which remains significant and important to the stability of the U.S. economy, will pose new risks in 2024. While Washington and Beijing have agreed to some political and security guardrails to manage the relationship, economic competition is unrestrained and stability in the bilateral relations is not guaranteed. The December 2023 bipartisan report by the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, with its 150 recommendations on fundamentally resetting economic and technological competition with China, if even partially adopted, risks reigniting the trade war.

2024 is a presidential election year for the U.S. A change of control of the executive branch could result in many economic and regulatory policy reversals. The definition of “friend” could shift or narrow. Restrictions on trade with China could accelerate.

Impacts of Climate Change and Sustainability Policies

2023 was the hottest year on record, and El Niño conditions are expected to further boost the warming trend. Many regions experienced record-breaking wildfire activity in 2023, including Canada where 18 million hectares of land burned. Extreme storms caused life-threatening flooding in Europe, Asia and the Americas. 2024 is expected to bring even more climate hazards. The impacts will be physical and financial, including growing insurance losses and adverse impacts on operations and value chain. Analysts expect that in 2024, the economic and financial costs of adverse health impacts from climate change will increase, with risks related to the spread of infectious disease, insufficient access to clean water, and physical harm to the elderly and vulnerable. The direct economic effect will be on health systems, but also loss of productivity due to extreme weather incidents and effects of epidemics.

Energy transition to low-carbon emissions is underway in the U.S., but it is uneven and still uncertain. The financial market is investing in an impressive number of startups and large-scale projects revolving around cleantech. Still, there is hesitancy on the opportunity and risks of sustainability. Thus far, progress towards sustainability goals has been private sector-led and government-enabled. There is a risk that government incentive programs encouraging the transition to low-carbon energy could be reversed or curtailed under a new administration.

In 2024, some companies will face more climate disclosure compliance requirements. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to release its final rule on climate change disclosures. The final action has been delayed several times because of pushback by public companies on some of the requirements, including Scope 3 greenhouse gas emission disclosures (those linked to supply chains and end users). California has not waited for the SEC’s final rule: In October 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law legislation that will require large companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions. The California climate laws go into effect in 2026, but companies will need to start much earlier to build the capabilities to plan, track and report their carbon footprint. For U.S. companies doing business in the European Union, they will need to comply with the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, with the rules coming into force mid-2024.

Disruptive Technology

In 2023, generative AI was the talk of the town; in 2024, it will be the walk. Companies are popping up with new tools for every imaginable sector, to increase efficiency, task automation, customization, personalization and cost reduction. Business leaders are scrambling to integrate AI to gain a competitive edge, while navigating the everyday risks related to privacy, liability and security. While there are concerns that AI will displace humans, there is a growing consensus that while some jobs will disappear, people will focus on higher value work. That said, new rounds of labor disruptions linked to workforce transition are likely in 2024.

2024 will also bring AI-generated misinformation and disinformation. Bad actors will spread “synthetic” content, such as sophisticated voice cloning, doctored images and counterfeit websites, seeking to manipulate people, damage companies and economies, and foment dissent.

In 2024, around 2 billion people in more than 50 countries will vote in elections at risk of manipulation by misinformation and disinformation, which could destabilize the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence, terrorism and erosion of democratic processes. Large democracies will hold elections in 2024, including the U.S., the EU, Mexico, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Indonesia and South Africa. Synthetic content can be very difficult to detect, while easy to produce with AI tools.

This is not a theoretical threat; synthetic content is already being disseminated in the U.S., targeting New Hampshire voters with robocalls that share fake recorded messages from President Biden encouraging people not to vote in the primary election. The U.S. is already polarized with citizens distrustful of the government and media, a ready vulnerability. Businesses are not immune. Notably, CEOs have stood apart, with higher ratings for trustworthiness and risk being called upon to vouch for “truth” (and becoming collateral damage in the fray).

AI-powered malware will make 2023 cyber risks look like child’s play. Attackers can use AI algorithms to find and exploit software vulnerabilities, making attacks precise and effective. AI can help hackers quickly identify security measures and evade them. AI-created phishing attacks will be more sophisticated and difficult to detect because the algorithms can assess larger amounts of piecemeal information and craft messages that mimic communication styles.

The role of states backing cyber armies to spread disinformation or steal information is growing and is part and parcel of the erosion of the existing international order. States face little deterrence from digital cross-border attacks because there are yet to be established mechanisms to impose real costs.

Cannabis Rescheduling: HHS Findings and Legal Implications

On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a groundbreaking recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – that cannabis should be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This recommendation was made pursuant to President Biden’s request that the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General initiate a process to review how cannabis is scheduled under federal law. In recent days, the unredacted 252-page analysis supporting the August recommendation was released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. While the DEA is presently reviewing HHS’s recommendation and has final authority to schedule a drug under the CSA, it is ultimately bound by HHS’s recommendations on scientific and medical matters.

Why does this matter? Cannabis1 has been a Schedule I substance since the CSA was enacted in 1971. Substances are controlled under the CSA by placement on one of five lists, Schedules I through V. Schedule I controlled substances are subject to the most stringent controls and have no current accepted medical use. As a result, it is illegal under federal law to produce, dispense, or possess cannabis except in the context of federally approved scientific studies. Violations may result in large fines and imprisonment, including mandatory minimum sentences. Comparatively, Schedule III substances are considered to have less abuse potential than Schedule I and II substances, and have a currently accepted medical use in the United States.

In recent years, nearly all the states within the U.S. have revised their laws to permit medical cannabis use. And 24 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have eliminated certain criminal penalties for recreational cannabis use by adults. However, under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. Thus, states cannot actually legalize cannabis use without congressional or executive action, and all unauthorized activities under Schedule I involving cannabis are federal crimes anywhere in the United States.2

Notable Findings in HHS’s Recommendation

For HHS to recommend that the DEA change cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, HHS had to make three specific findings: 1) cannabis has a lower potential for abuse than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II; 2) cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.; and 3) abuse of cannabis may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. HHS considered eight factors to make those findings, some of which include: cannabis’s actual or relative potential for abuse; the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to public health. The unredacted analysis provides further insight into HHS’s determination to make the forementioned findings.

CANNABIS HAS A POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE LESS THAN THE DRUGS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULES I AND II.

To evaluate cannabis’s potential for abuse,3 HHS compared the harms associated with cannabis abuse to the harms associated with other substances, such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), and alcohol.4 HHS reported that evidence shows some individuals take cannabis in amounts sufficient to create a health hazard to themselves and the safety of other individuals and the community. However, HHS also reported evidence showing the vast majority of cannabis users are using cannabis in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes for themselves or others. From 2015 to 2021, the utilization-adjusted rate of adverse outcomes involving cannabis was consistently lower than the respective utilization-adjusted rates of adverse outcomes involving heroin, cocaine, and other comparators. Further, cannabis was the lowest-ranking group for serious medical outcomes, including death. Overall, the data indicated that cannabis produced fewer negative outcomes than Schedule I, Schedule II drugs, and, in some cases, alcohol.

CANNABIS HAS A CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE IN TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

To determine whether cannabis has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU) in the U.S., HHS evaluated a two-part standard: 1) whether “[t]here exists widespread, current experience with medical use of the substance by [healthcare providers] operating in accordance with implemented jurisdiction-authorized programs, where medical use is recognized by entities that regulate the practice of medicine”; and 2) whether “[t]here exists some credible scientific support for at least one of the medical uses for which Part 1 is met.”

Under Part 1, HHS confirmed that more than 30,000 healthcare providers across 43 U.S. jurisdictions are authorized to recommend the medical use of cannabis for more than six million registered patients for at least 15 medical conditions. The Part 1 findings, therefore, supported an assessment under Part 2. Under Part 2, HHS reported that, based on the totality of the available data, there exists some credible scientific support for the medical use of cannabis. Specifically, credible scientific support described at least some therapeutic cannabis uses for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting (e.g., chemotherapy-induced), and pain.

Overall, while HHS reported that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) underscored that such a finding does not mean that the FDA has approved cannabis as safe and effective for marketing as a drug in interstate commerce under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

ABUSE OF CANNABIS MAY LEAD TO MODERATE OR LOW PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE OR HIGH PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCE.

Lastly, HHS concluded that research indicated that chronic, but not acute, use of cannabis can produce both psychic and physical dependence in humans. However, while cannabis “can produce psychic dependence in some individuals,” HHS emphasized that “the likelihood of serious outcomes is low, suggesting that high psychological dependence does not occur in most individuals who use marijuana.”

Legal Ramifications of New Scheduling

Changing cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III may potentially allow cannabis to be lawfully dispensed by prescription5 and states’ medical cannabis programs may now be able to comply with the CSA. However, it would not make state laws legalizing recreational cannabis use in compliance with federal law without other legal changes by Congress or the executive branch. Under the change, medical cannabis users may be eligible for public housing, immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and the purchase and possession of firearms. They may also face fewer barriers to federal employment and eligibility to serve in the military. Researchers would face less regulatory controls, and the DEA would no longer set production quota limitations for cannabis. Because the prohibition on business deductions in Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code only applies to Schedule I and II substances of the CSA, changing cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would allow cannabis businesses to deduct business expenses on federal tax filing.

Importantly, some criminal penalties for CSA violations depend on the schedule of the substance. Thus, if cannabis were to be reclassified as a Schedule III substance, some criminal penalties for CSA violations would no longer apply or be significantly reduced. However, CSA penalties that specifically apply to cannabis, such as quantity-based mandatory minimum sentences, would not change under a new rescheduling.

Many advocates consider HHS’s findings a step in the right direction. Specifically, supporters consider the findings further evidence that cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether and regulated akin to tobacco and alcohol (referred to as descheduling). Given the momentum of cannabis legalization across U.S. states and breakthroughs in the medical and scientific advantages of cannabis, Congressional or Executive legalization, or – at very least – descheduling of cannabis may be on the horizon.

1 The CSA classifies the cannabis plant and its derivatives as “marijuana.” The CSA definition of marijuana excludes (1) products that meet the legal definition of hemp and (2) the mature stalks of the cannabis plant; the sterilized seeds of the plant; and fibers, oils, and other products made from the stalks and seeds.

2 Congress has granted the states some leeway in the distribution and use of medical marijuana by passing an appropriations rider preventing the Department of Justice from using taxpayer funds to prevent states from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” Courts have interpreted this as a prohibition on federal prosecution of state-legal activities involving medical cannabis.

3 In its report, HHS defined “abuse” to mean the “intentional, non-therapeutic use of a drug to obtain a desired psychological or physiological effect.”

4 Alcohol is not a scheduled controlled substance, but was used as a comparison because of its extensive availability and use in the U.S., which is also observed for the nonmedical use of cannabis.

5 Although the FDA has approved some drugs derived from cannabis, cannabis is not presently an FDA-approved drug.

FTC Announces 2024 Increase in HSR Notification Thresholds and Filing Fees

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the annual revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) thresholds and HSR filing fees, which will become effective on March 6, 2024. The revised thresholds will apply to any merger or acquisition closing on or after the effective date.

The FTC is required to adjust the HSR thresholds annually based upon the change in gross national product. This year, the change in the “size of transaction” threshold has increased from $111.4 million to $119.5 million.

Under the HSR Act, when a deal satisfies the “size of person” and “size of transaction” thresholds, and no exemption from reporting is available, the deal must be reported to the FTC and the US Department of Justice, and the parties must wait for a designated period of time before closing the transaction.

Size of Person. The revised size of person thresholds will generally be met if one party involved in the deal has assets or annual sales totaling $239 million or more and one other party involved in the deal has assets or annual sales of at least $23.9 million. Satisfaction of the size of person thresholds is not required, however, if the transaction is valued at more than $478 million.

Size of Transaction. The revised size of transaction threshold will be met if the buyer will hold an aggregate amount of stock, non-corporate interests and/or assets of the seller valued at more than $119.5 million as a result of the deal.

The notification thresholds applicable to purchases of voting securities will increase as follows:

February 1, 2001 Thresholds (Original)	Current Thresholds as of February 27, 2023	New Thresholds Effective March 6, 2024
$50 million	$111.4 million	$119.5 million
$100 million	$222.7 million	$239 million
$500 million	$1.1137 billion	$1.195 billion
25% if worth more than $1 billion	25% if worth more than $2.2274 billion	25% if worth more than $2.39 billion
50% if worth more than $50 million	50% if worth more than $111.4 million	50% if worth more than $119.5 million

The thresholds applicable to many exemptions, including those governing foreign acquisitions, also will increase. However, the $500 million threshold applicable to acquisitions of producing oil and gas reserves and associated assets will not change.

The civil penalty for failing to comply with the notification and waiting period requirements of the HSR Act has also increased to up to $51,744 per day for each day a party is in violation.

HSR Filing Fees. Additionally, the HSR filing fee thresholds and filing fee amounts have increased as follows:

Original Filing Fee	Original Applicable Size of Transaction	2024 Adjusted Filing Fee	2024 Adjusted Applicable Size of Transaction
$30,000	Less than $161.5 million	$30,000	Less than $173.3 million
$100,000	Not less than $161.5 million but less than $500 million	$105,000	Not less than $173.3 million but less than $536.5 million
$250,000	Not less than $500 million but less than $1 billion	$260,000	Not less than $536.5 million but less than $1.073 billion
$400,000	Not less than $1 billion but less than $2 billion	$415,000	Not less than $1.073 billion but less than $2.146 billion
$800,000	Not less than $2 billion but less than $5 billion	$830,000	Not less than $2.146 billion but less than $5.365 billion
$2,250,000	$5 billion or more	$2,335,000	$5.365 billion or more

The new fees also will become effective on March 6, 2024.

U.S. Immigration Strategies to Attract, Retain, and Develop Talent

Amid the evolving global economy throughout the past year, employers may be reassessing their approach to talent acquisition and retention. Companies are navigating uncertainty by recalibrating mobility programs, aiming to not only attract but also retain talent to fulfill a skills gap in the U.S. workforce. Central to leveraging foreign talent is the power of immigration branding and messaging. A strategic emphasis on employee longevity proactively curtails workforce attrition and preempts potential labor shortages in the future.

Attracting talent

Understanding and leveraging avenues offered by U.S. immigration laws can be pivotal in securing the right skills and meeting business demands to drive success. Employers commonly leverage F-1 student OPT/STEM OPT training and the H-1B and L-1 work visa programs to source foreign workers in the talent ecosystem.

Foreign students with work authorization pursuant to OPT/STEM OPT are prime candidates for expanding a company’s talent pool with long-term development potential. Employers may attract foreign students through internships while the student completes their academic program, post-graduation employment pursuant to OPT/STEM OPT, and subsequent work visa and green card sponsorship. For most foreign students, switching from a student visa to a work permit is often challenging due to the restrictions and limited availability of H-1B visas. However, companies with an overseas presence may be able to set up strategically located hubs abroad to recruit and employ foreign nationals who were not able to obtain an H-1B visa, and then transfer them back to the United States with L-1 intracompany transfer visas following their employment abroad over at least one year. A company’s corporate immigration policy outlining support of various immigration pathways, and benchmarked against the policy of industry peers, is a competitive tool to meet foreign workers’ needs and attract high-potential talent.

Retaining talent

In response to the need for talent retention, employers are strategically tapping into their existing talent pool to bolster operational efficiency. With post-COVID-19 employees seeking greater fulfillment, employers may want to consider proactively refining their retention efforts to include top-tier foreign talent.

Companies are increasingly turning to their internal talent reservoirs to bridge skill gaps and curtail additional hiring costs. Retaining current talent is becoming pivotal for success, mobility, and business continuity. To address the evolving landscape of talent retention and the demand from foreign talent for immigration support, employers may consider several key strategies.

Various immigration pathways offer avenues for continued employment, providing stability to existing talent. For example, some companies leverage sponsorship for work visa programs and employment-based green cards to retain skilled foreign workers. Payment of legal fees and the provision of immigration counsel are initial steps in this effort, and other offerings including immigration seminars for employees and family members, an internal immigration portal with FAQs and self-service features that provide status reports, and access to documents and opportunities for interaction with the immigration team are also important. Employers leverage streamlined extension processes for work authorization to ensure continuity for employees and the business without disruptions. Embracing technological advancements in immigration processes may streamline procedures, reduce processing times, and minimize errors. Further, a robust green card sponsorship program signals a long-term commitment to retain valuable talent and grants employees a sense of security and stability in their professional journey within the company. Clearly defined benchmarks when the company initiates green card sponsorship are not only a recruitment and retention tool but also ensure that foreign workers do not lose immigration status or work authorization.

Adaptability and foresight also benefit companies navigating corporate immigration policy frameworks. Companies can implement consistent yet flexible approaches to immigration sponsorship that cater to both business needs and the foreign worker’s circumstances. For example, timing adjustments in initiating green card sponsorship may prevent work authorization gaps. Evaluating risks versus benefits might lead to early green card sponsorship for students to safeguard their status and work authorization if they are not selected in the H-1B lottery. Exploring alternative sponsorship options, such as supporting family-based or self-sponsored petitions, could be viable alternatives for a company to retain critical talent and may streamline the process and save time. Finally, recognizing and addressing the needs of dependents, such as spouses and children, within the immigration sponsorship process may be determinative to retain valuable talent.

Developing talent

Companies recognize the importance of not just attracting and retaining foreign talent but also developing their skills and potential. With strategic planning, immigration strategies can help advance the capabilities of international talent within a corporate setting.

Demand for H-1B visas has increased while the number of available visas has remained static. In response, employers are assisting international talent to develop their credentials to become eligible for an O-1 visa as an alternative. The O-1 visa for individuals with extraordinary abilities allows companies to support foreign workers in advancing their careers by recognizing their exceptional talent and contributions. Although the standard to qualify is high, for many foreign workers there are specific steps they can take to proactively bolster their resume toward becoming “O-1 visa ready.”

Sponsorship of certain visa categories, such as EB-1A for individuals with extraordinary ability or a National Interest Waiver to bypass the requirement to test the labor market, may encourage innovation and leadership among an employer’s foreign workers. Elevating a green card process to a higher preference category generally accelerates the process and the prospect of a higher preference category may lead foreign nationals to excel in their fields, drive innovation, and propel critical progress for the company.

Multinational employers are increasingly implementing international rotational programs and cross-border exchanges to foster skill development and broaden experiences. This approach not only addresses internal labor shortages but also mitigates the need for expensive talent searches and replacements. These programs offer benefits akin to longer-term assignments, facilitating knowledge transfer and nurturing company culture at a reduced cost. Such exposure can empower foreign workers with diverse market insights, enriching their skill sets and fostering a global perspective. Moreover, it allows businesses to harness internal expertise to bolster critical initiatives. However, the rise in popularity of these short-term rotation and remote work programs may invite heightened compliance measures, including increased audits and inspections. Hence, employers should anticipate a trend towards more rigorous immigration requirements aligning with labor, tax, and social security laws.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Three Individuals Sentenced for $3.5 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme

False Claims Act Complaint Filed Against Former President and Co-Owner of Mobile Cardiac PET Scan Provider

San Diego Restaurant Owner Charged with Tax and COVID-19 Relief Fraud Schemes

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Frequently Asked Questions

WHO MUST REPORT INFORMATION UNDER THE CTA?

WHAT INFORMATION MUST BE REPORTED?

WHEN ARE REPORTS DUE?

HOW DOES MY COMPANY FILE REPORTS WITH FINCEN?

WHAT HAPPENS IF MY COMPANY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CTA?

OTHER THAN FILING ACCURATE REPORTS, HOW CAN MY COMPANY STAY COMPLIANT?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Geopolitical Tensions Disrupting Global Trade

Economic Protectionism Increasing Costs and Risks

Impacts of Climate Change and Sustainability Policies

Disruptive Technology

Share this:

Like this:

Notable Findings in HHS’s Recommendation

CANNABIS HAS A POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE LESS THAN THE DRUGS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULES I AND II.

CANNABIS HAS A CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE IN TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

ABUSE OF CANNABIS MAY LEAD TO MODERATE OR LOW PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE OR HIGH PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCE.

Legal Ramifications of New Scheduling

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Attracting talent

Retaining talent

Developing talent

Share this:

Like this: