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 541 of 753 - Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News.

California District Court Won’t Reconsider Prior Ruling in NCAA Class Action – National Collegiate Athletic Association

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

On May 12, 2014, the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) lost its motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of a prior ruling, which barred the NCAA from arguing at trial that not paying student-athletes for their likenesses increased competition by raising financial support for women’s and less prominent men’s athletics.  A former NCAA basketball player originally filed a class action suit against the NCAA in 2009 in the Northern District of California, alleging that the NCAA profited from student-athlete likenesses on television and in video games while prohibiting the athletes from receiving payment.

In re Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, case number 4:90-cv-01967.  In April 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ opposing motions for summary judgment, District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment as to the NCAA’s fourth justification for the challenged restraint – greater support for women’s and less prominent men’s sports – because this argument was not legitimately pro-competitive.  Judge Wilken first determined that the NCAA could not restrain competition in the relevant market, football and men’s basketball, to allegedly promote competition in the markets for women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports.  Second, the NCAA could financially support women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports through less restrictive means by forcing member conferences to redistribute a greater portion of profits made from football and men’s basketball to these other sports.  In moving for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the NCAA submitted a declaration and report from an economic expert, who argued that the relevant market should be broadened to include athletes who play sports other than football and men’s basketball.  In response to the NCAA’s arguments, Wilken concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations challenged conduct with respect to football and men’s basketball, and the possibility that the challenged behavior affected student-athletes in other sports did not redefine the relevant market.  Judge Wilken thus denied the motion, reiterating that the purported pro-competitive justification did not address competition in the relevant market of football and men’s basketball.  Trial is set to begin on June 9, 2014.

Article By:

Megan Morley
Of:
McDermott Will & Emery

Economic Impact of Homebuilding and Remodeling

Bilzin_logo300 dpi

Blocked streets, noisy construction and unwelcome trash can be just a few of the inconveniences that come along with a neighbor’s new home construction or home remodeling. However, a report released in early May by the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) confirms that for the overall good of the nation’s economy, some of these inconveniences may be worth the hassle.

Residential home building is back, and it’s helping the economy in a big way

The NAHB’s report calculated the approximate number of jobs that are created and how much tax revenue is generated relative to the different types of residential construction projects. It found that the construction of an average single-family home creates approximately 2.97 jobs and generates approximately $111,000 in taxes per home. Not having quite as significant of an impact, but still highly beneficial to the economy, are rental apartment construction projects, which create roughly 1.13 jobs per unit and generate approximately $42,000 in taxes per unit. In generating these statistics, the NAHB defined a “job” as work that can keep one worker employed for an entire year based on an average number of hours worked per week in the homebuilding industry.

homesA robust homebuilding market has wide-reaching benefits. In addition to the workers in a variety of construction and remodeling industries, including lumber, concrete and HVAC, other beneficiaries include workers that transport homebuilding materials and products, as well as those in the service sectors, such as architects, engineers, real estate agents, lawyers and accountants.

This latest report is the first update to the NAHB’s National Impact of Home Building estimates since 2008. Interestingly, the statistics related to tax revenue and jobs-per-housing-unit are roughly equal to what they were in the 2008 report, but the NAHB article indicates that that is likely due to inflation, changes in housing preferences and the use of somewhat revised metrics in determining these estimates.

Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Upholds $6.1 Million Fraud Judgment Against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Varnum LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed a $6.1 million fraud judgment against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The Appeals Court agreed that “BCBSM committed fraud by knowingly misrepresenting and omitting information about the Disputed Fees in contract documents.”  Its misleading information “helped sustain the illusion that BCBSM was more cost-competitive” than its competitors.

The ruling confirms last year’s judgment by a federal court in Detroit, which found that BCBSM collected millions of dollars in hidden fees over a 20-year period from Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. and Hi-Lex America, Inc., along with their self-insured employee health plan. Varnum attorneys representing Hi-Lex showed that BCBSM marked up employee hospital claims by as much as 22 percent and kept the markup. Reports provided to Hi-Lex did not disclose the hidden fees. Internal company e-mails showed that BCBSM’s managers knew customers were unaware of the markups, and that employees were trained to “downplay” the hidden fees if any customers discovered them.

“We are very happy that the judgment was affirmed,” said Varnum attorney Perrin Rynders, whose team has battled the issue for more than three years. “It’s been a long time coming, but we never doubted that this would be the ultimate outcome. We applaud our client who had the courage to stand up for what’s right and persevere through this lengthy legal process. Litigation was not our client’s preferred approach, but BCBSM refused at every turn to accept responsibility for its actions.”

The Hi-Lex matter was the first to reach judgment out of more than 35 similar ERISA cases that Varnum has filed against BCBSM on behalf of companies and their self-insured health plans.

Rynders noted that the ultimate result is a win for more than just those clients who have filed suit. BCBSM apparently discontinued its practice of rolling fees and surcharges into “hospital claims” for its self-insured clients in 2012, shortly after Varnum filed its first group of lawsuits.

“Employers work hard to manage their health care costs. It is upsetting that an organization trusted to help keep costs in line would violate that trust and take advantage of its customers,” Rynders said.  “The cases we are handling are good for companies and workers all across Michigan, because more money will be available for vital health care.”

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on May 14, 2014.

The original judgment was issued in May 2013 by U.S. District Court Judge Victoria A. Roberts. It concluded that BCBSM violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) through its practice of collecting additional compensation without customers’ knowledge. The Court held that BCBSM engaged in illegal self-dealing and breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

Judge Roberts entered judgment in favor of Hi-Lex for $6.1 million, including a return of all hidden fees taken from Hi-Lex since 1994 plus interest.

Article By:

Stephen F. MacGuidwin
Perrin Rynders
Aaron M. Phelps
Of:
Varnum LLP

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? U.S. Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

Barnes Burgandy Logo

On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision upholding EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (also known as the Transport Rule). The Transport Rule restricts air emissions from upwind states that in EPA’s judgment contribute significantly to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) in downwind states. According to EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, the Rule is expected to have significant cost implications for electric generating utilities, and much of the costs could occur in Midwestern and Southern states that were identified in the Transport Rule as contributing to nonattainment of the NAAQS for states along the East Coast.

The Transport Rule was promulgated pursuant to what is often called the “Good Neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act. In the Rule, EPA established a two-step approach for restricting emissions in upwind states. First, EPA used air modeling to determine which upwind states contributed more than one percent to the NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 in downwind states. Second, EPA determined the level of emission reductions that could be achieved in downwind states based on cost estimates for reducing emissions. For example, EPA concluded that significant emission reductions could be obtained for a cost of $500 per ton of NOx reduced, but that at greater than $500 per ton the emission reductions were minimal. The Agency then translated those cost estimates into the amount of emissions that upwind states would be required to eliminate. Lastly, EPA developed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) detailing how states were to comply with the emission budgets assigned under the Transport Rule.

As we previously reported in August 2012, the Transport Rule had been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Aug. 21, 2012. The Court of Appeals struck down the rule primarily for two reasons. First, the court found the cost estimates that EPA used as a basis to justify emission reductions would in some cases result in requirements for upwind states to reduce their emissions more than necessary to eliminate “significant” contributions to nonattainment in downwind states. The court held that EPA could only require reductions proportionate to a specific upwind state’s contribution to a downwind state’s nonattainment status. Second, the court held that states should have been given an opportunity to develop their own implementation plans before EPA required states to follow the FIP in the Transport Rule.

In reversing the Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Clean Air Act does not require EPA to mandate only proportionate reductions in emissions from upwind states. The court argued that the “proportionality approach could scarcely be satisfied in practice” because there are multiple upwind states that each affect multiple downwind states. The Court concluded that the proportionality approach would mean that “each upwind State will be required to reduce emissions by the amount necessary to eliminate that State’s largest downwind contribution,” but that would result in cumulative emission reductions and “costly overregulation.” The court also concluded that it was appropriate for EPA to use cost as a means of allocating emissions, instead of the proportionality approach favored by the D.C. Circuit.

Regarding the FIP approach, the court held that after EPA issues a NAAQS, each state is required to propose a State Implementation Plan (SIP), including requirements to satisfy the Good Neighbor provision of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Court held it was appropriate for EPA to establish a FIP because the statutory deadline to propose SIPs that complied with the Good Neighbor provision had passed. The court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s conclusion that it was premature to establish a FIP before EPA had made a determination regarding each upwind state’s contribution to downwind states’ nonattainment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, authored a dissent in the case agreeing with the D.C. Circuit that costs are not contemplated as a basis for reducing emissions under the Good Neighbor provision. Further, the dissent addressed the majority opinion’s assertion that the proportionality approach would result in “costly overregulation.” The dissent stated, “over-control is no more likely to occur when the required reductions are apportioned among upwind States on the basis of amounts of pollutants contributed than when they are apportioned on the basis of cost.” The dissent went on to note, “the solution to over-control under a proportional-reduction system is not difficult to discern. In calculating good-neighbor responsibilities, EPA . . . would set upwind States’ obligations at levels that, after taking into account those reductions, suffice to produce attainment in all downwind States. Doubtless, there are multiple ways for the Agency to accomplish that task in accordance with the statute’s amounts-based, proportional focus.”

At this juncture, it is unclear whether EPA will need to promulgate additional rules to implement the Transport Rule as many of the Transport Rules’ deadlines have already expired. Additionally, it is unclear whether other legal challenges to the Transport Rule, including challenges to whether the Rule satisfies regional haze emission requirements, will delay final implementation of the Rule. Those challenges have been stayed since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the rule in 2012 but appear to be able to proceed now that the vacatur has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are also questions as to whether the Transport Rule, which was designed to help meet the 1997 ozone NAAQs of 80 ppb, will need to be reworked by EPA to meet the stricter 2008 ozone NAAQs of 75 ppb. It is also possible that estimates of emission cuts expected from the original the Transport Rule will change given the move by several power plants to convert from coal to natural gas in recent years.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

Article By:

Michael H. Elam
Hae Park-Suk
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Can the Town Make Me Change My Sign?

Giordano Logo

A business’ signage can be one of the most distinctive characteristics of its brand and one of its most important assets.  This is especially true when the sign display’s the business’ federally registered trademark and color is a feature of the mark.  But what happens when that brand runs afoul of state and local laws?

It is common place for commercial real estate development plans to impose requirements on the characteristics of the signs that tenants may display in the development.  Sometimes, those requirements impose restrictions on the colors that such signs may display.  For owners of federally registered trademarks where color is claimed as a feature of the mark, the last thing they want is to have to change the color of their sign.

For example, imagine telling McDonalds that its famous golden and red sign must be displayed in other colors, say, like this:

McDonalds Logo w Inverted Colors

For most consumers, I suspect this sounds ridiculous.  But that is exactly the obstacle that federal brand owners must overcome when faced with local zoning restrictions on color.

Fortunately, the federal trademark law provides some relief.  Or does it?   The Lanham Act expressly provides that federal law preempts state law by providing (in part):

No State or other jurisdiction of the United States or any political subdivision or any agency thereof may require alteration of a registered mark …. (15 USCA §1121(B))

While this may seem pretty clear on its face, courts are split as to whether towns can lawfully impose color restrictions on signs displaying a federally registered trademark.

Two courts in the 9th Circuit (including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) have shot down Tempe, Arizona’s attempts to impose such color restrictions under this section of the Lanham Act.  Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 141 F.3d 1295 (1998); Desert Subway, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 322 F. Supp.2d 1036 (2003).  Conversely, two courts in the 2d Circuit (including  the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals) have upheld town zoning boards’ imposition of signage color restrictions as superior to the rights of federally registered trademark holders.  Payless Shoesource, Inc. v. Town of Penfield, NY, 934 F. Supp. 540 (1996); Lisa’s Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 185 F.3d 12 (1999).

According to the 9th Circuit courts, from looking at the legislative history, it is clear that while local governments can prohibit the display of outdoor signs altogether, there is nothing to suggest that local zoning ordinances may require alteration of trademarks.  Looking at the identical legislative history and, in some cases, quoting from the same testimony, the 2d Circuit courts agreed that the law would allow local zoning ordinances to prohibit outdoor signs altogether or even materially restrict their size.  However, the 2d Circuit found that the statute was intended to prohibit state-mandated changes in the trademark  itself since the brand owner would be free to use the unaltered mark in every other aspect of its business.

So who is right?

Like any other situation where courts are split geographically, they both are.  Until the Supreme Court takes up the issue, local ordinances in the 2d Circuit are free to place restrictions on colors used in trademarks displayed on signs, whereas in the 9th Circuit (especially, Tempe, Arizona), local ordinances may not.  For those of us in other circuits, the moral of the story for brand owners is to be mindful of local zoning restrictions before committing to a store location.  Real estate developers should also be mindful of signage restrictions included in their plans when seeking local approvals.

Article By:

Kurt E. Anderson
Of: 
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Takes First Step Toward Possible Federal Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

On May 9th the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) initiated a process that may result in federal regulation of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing(fracking).  In the past 10 years, United States production of oil and gas has skyrocketed, due in part to the increased use of fracking technologies that use high‐pressure injection of fluids, sand, and chemicals to stimulate the release of oil and gas from geological formations which were difficult to access with other techniques.  While fracking technologies have been in use for some time, environmentalists have argued that the public lacked adequate information to assess whether chemicals used in fracking posed represented threats to human health or the environment.

Last Friday, the USEPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) soliciting comment on whether companies must publicly disclose the chemicals used in the fracking process.  The notice starts the public participation process and seeks comment on

  • The types of chemical information that could be reported under TSCA;
  • The regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to obtain information on chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities;
  • Whether fracking-related chemicals should be regulated through a voluntary mechanism under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

According to the USEPA, this process will help inform its efforts to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing and will not duplicate existing reporting requirements.  James Jones, the USEPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said that the “EPA looks forward to hearing from the public and stakeholders about public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing, and we will continue working with our federal, state, local, and tribal partners to ensure that we complement but not duplicate existing reporting requirements.”

The notice includes a list of questions to be considered by stakeholders and the public in formulating their comments.  The USEPA anticipates that the notice will publish in the Federal Register by the week of May 19, 2014.  The comment period closes 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.  When published, comments may be submitted through regulations.gov with reference to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019.

The Prepublication Copy Notice can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/prepub_hf_anpr_14t-0069_2014-05-09.pdf and more information from the USEPA on hydraulic fracturing can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

Article By:

Edward Casmere
J. Michael Showalter
Of: 
Schiff Hardin LLP

May 28, 2014 – Pipeline to Equity Partnership – National Association of Women Lawyers

NAWL_logo-logotype_CMYK

On May 28th, 2014 the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) andChicago’s Coalition of Women’s Initiatives in Law are joining forces to help usher the next generation of women law firm leaders into place with a program entitled Pipeline to Equity Partnership (P2P).  The program will be held at Loyola University Law School from 11:30 AM to 5:00 PM, followed by a networking reception.   P2P is aimed at women on the brink of equity partnership, in either a one-tier or two-tier law firm system.  This is the third presentation of NAWL’s P2P program nationwide, and its first time in Chicago.

NAWL has conducted an annual survey of Am Law 200 law firms since 2005 in an effort to measure the progress in the percentage of women equity partners in law firms.  NAWL’S annual Report on the Retention and Promotion of Women in Law Firms has established the fact that those numbers have stagnated for years between 15% and 17% despite women graduating from law school at equal rates for decades.  The P2P program is an attempt to move the dial on the numbers of women in law firm leadership by offering a forum to identify and discuss challenges women face as they reach for the top.

The P2P program will begin with a luncheon presentation from Andrea (“Andie”) Kramer, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery.  Andie Kramer is well known as a longtime motivating force in the effort to both advance more women to leadership roles and equity partnership in law firms and to ensure that women are fairly compensated along the way.  She is a founding member of McDermott’s Diversity Committee, and chair of the Gender Diversity Sub-committee.   Andie previously served on both the Firm’s Management and Compensation Committees.

The P2P program will continue with facilitated roundtable group discussion of multiple issue-based scenarios that women face in their journey towards equity partnership.  Discussion will focus on real world experiences such as the departure of a young partner’s sponsor, the loss of previous opportunities for business pitches, handling ethical issues that used to be handled by superiors, the reluctance of a new partner’s colleague to address a client conflict, flexibility and perception of work ethic, or perhaps the overloading of a new partner with uncredited firm administration.

The scenarios will be familiar to attendees and presenters, and will offer an opportunity for both a unique, peer-to-peer discussion and the counsel and perspective of a resource panel of distinguished women law firm leaders, who will offer their counsel and advice.  The panel consisting of law firm leaders, managing partners, and general counsel includes Susie L. Lees, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of Allstate Insurance Company, Jennifer A. Kennedy, Managing Partner of Chicago office, Locke Lord LLP, Amy B. Manning, Managing Partner of Chicago office, McGuireWoods LLP, and Angelea Ulum, Co-Chair, Partnership Promotion Committee, Mayer Brown LLP.  The panel will be moderated by Margo O’Donnell, President of the Coalition of Women’s Initiatives in Law and Shareholder at Vedder Price, and Maureen M. Reid, President of Maureen M. Reid, LLC and a co-founder of the P2P program.The resource panel will offer advice for handling the scenarios discussed in the roundtables and will answer attendees’ questions about navigating the way to equity partnership.

Program participants will leave the program with a much better sense of what roadblocks may exist on the path to equity partnership and how to overcome them.  Those interested in registering for the P2P Program can get all of the information and register athttp://www.nawl.org/p/cm/ld/&fid=168.

June 2014 Visa Bulletin Released, Shows Significant Retrogression for EB-3 Worldwide, China and Mexico

GT Law

Below is a summary of the U.S. State Department June 2014 Visa Bulletin:

  • EB-1 remains current across all filing categories;
  • EB-2 for Worldwide, Mexico and Philippines all remain current. The EB-2 India cut-off remains at November 15, 2004 (this has remained stagnant since the December 2013 Visa Bulletin). EB-2 China moves forward to May 22, 2009; and
  • EB-3 Worldwide, China and Mexico retrogress significantly (see below). EB-3 Worldwide and EB-3 Mexico move back to April 1, 2011 and EB-3 China moves back by 6 years to October 1, 2006. EB-3 Philippines moves forward by 2 months to January 1, 2008, while EB-3 India moves forward by only 2 weeks to October 15, 2003.

Dramatic Retrogression for EB-3 China

The Department of State stated in the Visa Bulletin that the “unexpected and dramatic increase in demand being received from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Offices during the past several months has resulted in number use approaching the annual limit for this category. As a result, it has been necessary to retrogress the Worldwide, China and Mexico cut-off dates for the month of June.”

Beginning with the June 2013 Visa Bulletin, the third preference employment-based immigrant visa category (EB-3) for individuals born in the People’s Republic of China (China) had a more recent cut-off date than the second preference employment-based category (EB-2). Accordingly, many foreign nationals chose to “downgrade” their case from EB-2 to EB-3 to shorten their wait time. However, this has had a negative impact on the EB-3 category and has resulted in the severe retrogression (six years) as reported above. Applicants who are still preparing their I-485 Adjustment Applications for this filing category should file before the end of the month, before the retrogression occurs on June 1, 2014.

Employment-Based Projections

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) reported that on Monday April 21, 2014, Mr. Charlie Oppenheim of the Department of State’s Visa Office (VO) spoke to AILA regarding what his office is currently seeing with regard to visa demand and what might be expected in terms of Visa Bulletin movement at this time. While these “projections” can (and often do) change based on usage and/or new developments, below is a summary of the outlook based on AILA’s conversation with Mr. Oppenheim (note: Mr. Oppenheimer discussed both Family-Based and Employment-Based projections; however, we only report the employment-based projections here):

Employment Based 5th Preference China (EB-5)

  • China EB-5 could retrogress later this year, possibly August or September.
  • Retrogression for China EB-5 in the 2015 fiscal year seems almost inevitable, as there are more than 7,000 I-526 applications pending and 80% are from China.

Employment Based 1st Preference (EB-1)

  • It is still a little early in the fiscal year to know how many unused cases will drop down into EB-2. EB-1 usage is heavier this year than last year.

Employment Based 2nd Preference India (EB-2)

  • It is possible in August, but more likely in September, that India EB-2 will open at 1/1/2008 or perhaps later in 2008, in order to utilize the rest of the EB-2 visa numbers that were unused by the Worldwide categories.
  • How many numbers will be utilized depends on EB-1 and EB-2 usage in the Worldwide categories for the rest of the fiscal year (it could be 5,000 or more). This would be less than what was available in fiscal year 2013.
  • No expected changes for Worldwide EB-2.

Employment Based 3rd Preference Worldwide (EB-3)

  • The VO has limited knowledge as to the number of eligible applicants, and USCIS has encouraged DOS to “move the category forward” over the last five months. Demand appears to be increasing, thus, it is unlikely in the short run that the category will move forward. In fact, if current demand continues, something may have to be done as early as May 2014 to slow the demand in this category.
  • The last quarter of the fiscal year for 2014 does not look good, and no movement, or retrogression, is possible.

Employment Based 3rd Preference China (EB-3)

  • Many Chinese nationals who were waiting in the EB-2 category have been filing to “downgrade” from EB-2 to EB-3, and the result of these requests will be reflected in the coming months.
  • High demand is expected to continue in this category and a correction may be reflected as early as the May or June Visa Bulletin, depending on demand.

Why Are Priority Dates Important Anyway?

The issue of a visa number’s “availability” is tied to the U.S. preference system for permanent residence. The U.S. maintains limits on those who can apply to enter as permanent residents; these limits apply by type of immigrant visa sought for permanent resident as well as country of origin. From time to time, backlogs occur in certain categories of employment-based visas, for all persons or for persons from certain countries (backlogs are almost always present for family-based visas) as there are more people applying in those categories from those countries than there are visa numbers available. The setting of the preference is based upon the position’s minimum requirements, not the qualifications of the employee. The net result is that persons who have applications from those countries in the third preference are not able to move on to the final step of the permanent residence process until their “priority date” (or “place in line”) moves to the front of the line for immigrant visas. The line is set by the Department of State and is reviewed monthly. In many cases, this step can take eight years or more depending on the filing category.

The VO’s projections can give hope to some applicants, who in the coming months, may be eligible to move to the final step of the permanent residence process, after waiting for years on hold. But for others, the outlook is not very promising. While the future movement of the immigrant visa availability remains hazy, one thing is clear. Immigration Reform is needed to help eradicate these extreme and unnecessary delays for individuals who continue to contribute to the U.S. economy; and for employers, who are forced to continue filing multiple temporary work extensions in order to retain valuable employees. We will continue to watch the movement in the Visa Bulletin and provide updates.

Article By:

Patricia A. Elmas
Of: 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Office of Foreign Assets Control Publishes New Syria and Ukraine Sanctions Regulations; Designates Russian Bank For its Involvement in Syrian Unrest

COV_cmyk_C

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) recently published a final rule amending and reissuing in their entirety the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (“SSR”), 31 C.F.R. Part 542. The reissued SSR contain six new general licenses, including one that authorizes the provision by a U.S. person or from the United States of services ordinarily incident to the supply to Syria of non-U.S. food, medicine, and medical devices that are non-sensitive in nature.

In addition, OFAC last week issued new Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations to implement executive orders that the Administration issued in March 2014, and designated a Russian bank (Tempbank) and the Chairman of its Management Committee (Mikhail Georgievich Gagloev) for providing material support and services to the Government of Syria.

Background on Syrian Regulations

Syria has been the target of U.S. economic sanctions since it was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979. The SSR, which first went into effect in April 2005, constitute one of the primary regulatory regimes that implements these sanctions. (The Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) also broadly prohibit, absent licensing, exports and reexports to Syria of most items, other than food and non-sensitive medicines, that are of U.S.-origin or that incorporate more than de minimis U.S.-origin content.) Since the original issuance of the SSR in 2005, the Bush and Obama Administrations have issued executive orders broadening the U.S. sanctions against Syria by imposing new blocking measures and other trade restrictions. OFAC also has issued a number of general licenses authorizing certain otherwise prohibited transactions. These developments had created a complex patchwork of authorities imposing sanctions on Syria. OFAC’s overhaul of the SSR combines many of these authorities into a single, unified, and up-to-date set of regulations.

Incorporated Executive Orders

The reissued SSR, which went into effect on May 2, 2014, incorporate asset-blocking measures and other trade restrictions imposed under six executive orders issued between 2006 and 2012. As a result, Section 542.201 of the SSR now requires the blocking of all property and interests in property of the Government of Syria (including its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities) that are or hereafter come into the United States or the possession or control of a U.S. person, as well as such assets of Specially Designated Nationals (“SDNs”) sanctioned because they were determined to have undertaken activities specified in the executive orders. U.S. persons may not transfer, pay, export, withdraw, or otherwise deal in such blocked property. Consistent with OFAC guidance with respect to numerous sanctions programs, SSR § 542.411 clarifies that if a person whose assets are blocked under Section 542.201 owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest in an entity, that entity’s assets are also blocked even if that entity is not added to the SDN List.

The SSR also now contain certain other trade restrictions originally imposed by

Executive Order 13582 (effective August 18, 2011), which we discussed in our e-alert of August 19, 2011. These restrictions prohibit:

  • U.S. persons, wherever located, from making new investments in Syria (§ 542.206) ;
  • The export, reexport, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, by a U.S. person or from the United States of any services to Syria (§ 542.207);
  • The importation into the United States of Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products (§ 542.208);
  • U.S. persons from engaging in any transaction or dealing related to Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products (§ 542.209); and
  •  U.S. persons from approving, financing, facilitating, or guaranteeing a transaction by a foreign person that would be prohibited if performed by a U.S. person or within the United States (§ 542.210).

General LIcenses and Statements of Licensing Policy

In addition to incorporating prior executive orders, the reissued SSR incorporate (at Sections 542.509 through 542.520 and 542.523) a number of general licenses that were previously posted on OFAC’s website, and add six new general licenses and three new statements of licensing policy. The new general licenses authorize the following transactions:

  • With certain limitations, the receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of authorized legal services to or on behalf of the Government of Syria and other blocked parties (§ 542.508);
  • All transactions in the United States between U.S. persons and persons who have been granted certain categories of U.S. visas; services in connection with the filing of applications for such visas; and services provided by accredited U.S. graduate and undergraduate degree-granting institutions for the filing and processing of applications to enroll in the institutions, and the acceptance of payments for submitted applications to enroll and tuition from persons ordinarily resident in Syria (§ 542.521);
  • Otherwise prohibited transactions between blocked SDNs and employees, grantees, or contractors of the U.S. federal government that are for official government business (§ 542.522);
  • The following services provided in the United States to non-Syrian carriers transporting passengers or goods to or from Syria (but not the Government of Syria or blocked parties): bunkers and bunkering services, services supplied or performed in the course of emergency repairs, and services supplied or performed under circumstances which could not be anticipated prior to the carrier’s departure for the United States (§ 542.524);
  • The provision by a U.S. person or from the United States of services ordinarily incident to the supply to Syria of non-U.S.-origin food, medicine, and medical devices that would be classified EAR99 if subject to the EAR (§ 542.525); and
  • Certain services related to conferences, performances, exhibitions, or similar events in the United States or a third country attended by persons who are ordinarily resident in Syria, other than the Government of Syria or blocked parties (§ 542.526).

The new general license found at Section 542.525 is a particularly noteworthy development, as it eliminates an anomaly in the prior sanctions regime’s licensing requirements. Under the general license now found at Section 542.510, U.S. persons are authorized to be involved in and facilitate the supply to Syria of food, medicines and medical devices authorized for supply to Syria by the U.S. Commerce Department. However, because the Commerce Department regulations do not apply to exports to Syria of most non-U.S.-origin items that contain 10 percent or less U.S. content by value, U.S. persons were not permitted by the OFAC general license to facilitate the supply of such non-U.S.-origin items to Syria; rather, a specific OFAC license was required. The new general license authorizes the provision of services by a U.S. person or from the United States related to the export and reexport to Syria of non-U.S.-origin food, medicines, and medical devices that would be classified EAR99 if subject to the EAR.

In addition, three new statements of licensing policy contained in the SSR clarify that specific licenses may be issued by OFAC on a case-by-case basis authorizing: (1) certain transactions involving Syria’s telecommunications sector that are otherwise prohibited by the SSR, in order to enable private persons in Syria to better and more securely access the Internet (§ 542.527); (2) certain transactions involving Syria’s agricultural sector that are otherwise prohibited by the SSR, in order to strengthen that sector in light of Syria’s food “insecur[ity]” (§ 542.528); and (3) certain transactions that are otherwise prohibited by Sections 542.206 through 542.210 of the SSR, including new investment related to Syrian petroleum and petroleum products for the benefit of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (§ 542.529).

New Syria Related Designations

In addition to reissuing the SSR, on May 8, 2014, OFAC announced 10 new Syria-related designations. These designations included six Syrian government officials and two Syrian refineries. OFAC also designated a Russian Bank (Tempbank) and the Chairman of its Management Committee (Mikhail Georgievich Gagloev) pursuant to Executive Order 13582 for providing material support and services to the Government of Syria, including the Central Bank of Syria and SYTROL, Syria’s state oil marketing firm. The Treasury Department statement announcing the designations noted that Tempbank has provided millions of dollars and facilitated the provision of financial services to the Syrian regime, and that Mr. Gagloev personally travelled to Damascus to make deals with the Syrian regime on behalf of Tempbank.

As a result of these designations, U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any transactions or dealings with these parties, and the property and property interests of these parties that are or come into the United States or the possession or control of a U.S. person are blocked. Further, the sanctions apply to any entity in which any designated person owns a 50 percent or greater interest (regardless of whether such entity is itself designated).

Publication of Ukraine Related Sanction-Regulations

Also on May 8, OFAC issued new Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 589 to implement executive orders issued in March 2014 (EOs 13660, 13661, and 13662, which were the subject of our prior e-alerts on March 6, 2014, March 18, 2014, and March 21, 2014).

The newly issued regulations, which were effective immediately, do not substantively change the scope of the Ukraine-related sanctions program, but do provide directions for management of blocked funds and property, definitions, interpretations, and limited general licenses. The general licenses authorize transactions such as certain transfers of property between blocked accounts in a U.S. financial institution, debits from blocked accounts by a U.S. financial institution for normal service charges, the provision of certain legal services, the receipt of certain payments for the provision of authorized legal services, and the provision of emergency medical services in the United States.

OFAC stated that these regulations were being published in abbreviated form, and that it intends to supplement them with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional definitions, interpretive guidance, general licenses, and statements of licensing policy.

Article by:

Peter Flanagan
Corrine Goldstein
Peter Lichtenbaum
Kimberly Strosnider
David Addis
Sarah Liebschutz
Of:
Covington & Burling LLP

 

Accepting on-site registration for 14th Annual SuperConference from InsideCounsel

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 14th Annual Super Conference hosted by Inside Counsel. You can still register on-site!

Now offering an exclusive National Law Review discount until May 12. Register HERE.
IC Superconference 2014

When

Monday, May 12 – Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Where

Chicago, IL

The annual InsideCounsel SuperConference, for the past 13 years, has offered the highest value for educational investment within a constructive learning and networking environment. Legal professionals will gain the opportunity to elevate the quality of their performance and learn ways to become a strategic partner within his/her organization. In two-and-half days attendees earn CLE credits, network with hundreds of peers and legal service providers and hear strategies to tackle corporate legal issues that are top of mind throughout this comprehensive program. SuperConference is presented by InsideCounsel magazine, published by Summit Professional Networks.

Now celebrating its 14th year, InsideCounsel’s SuperConference is an exclusive corporate legal conference attracting more than 500 senior level in-house counsels from Fortune-1000 and multi-national companies. The three-day event offers opportunities to showcase your firm’s industry knowledge and thought leadership while interacting with GC’s and other senior corporate counsel during exclusive networking and educational opportunities. The conference agenda offers the perfect blend of experts and national figure heads from some of the nation’s largest corporations, top law firms, government and regulatory leaders, and industry trailblazers. The conference agenda and educational program receives consistent high marks.