A Tech Industry-Friendly Stance On Cloud Computing Tax

GT Law

In a pleasant surprise, the New Jersey Division of Taxation recently issued guidance announcing that sales tax is not due on most cloud computing services. New Jersey’s position is contrary to a growing national trend in which many states have taken the position that cloud computing is subject to sales tax as the sale of software.

New Jersey demonstrates a pro-information technology industry position. It also comes at the same time that Massachusetts, traditionally an extremely technology-friendly state, appears to have changed its policy direction on taxation of information technology services.

New Jersey Technical Bulletin 72 addresses three types of cloud computing services:

software as a service (SaaS), which offers the use of software on a per transaction basis, through a service contract or by a subscription;

platform as a service (PaaS), which provides access to computing platforms; and

infrastructure as a service (IaaS), which provides hardware, software and other equipment and services necessary to support and manage the content and dataflow of its customers.

The technical bulletin says that software as a service is not subject to New Jersey sales tax as the sale of software because it is not delivered in tangible form, it is not downloaded onto the customer’s computer and title to the software is not transferred to the customer.

However, the bulletin does say that certain types of SaaS may be subject to sales tax as a taxable information service. A taxable information service is defined as:

The furnishing of information of any kind, which has been collected, compiled or analyzed by the seller and provided through any means or method, other than personal or individual information which is not incorporated into reports furnished to other people.

The bulletin then cites examples of taxable information services such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, Commerce Clearing House (CCH) and Rich Internet Application (RIA). But it would appear that most other classes of

SaaS that do not involve compiling or analyzing information should not fall into the taxable information service category. This is a fact-based determination, which would require analysis on a case-by-case basis.

The bulletin states that platform as a service and infrastructure as a service would not be subject to sales tax because they do not represent the sale of tangible personal property, but merely access to the software. The bulletin states that IaaS arrangements that show billing for the rental of hardware (e.g., servers) are not taxable because the customer does not have title or possession of the equipment.

Finally, the bulletin says that web hosting and data hosting services are not subject to New Jersey sales tax.

The position taken by the New Jersey Division of Taxation is quite favorable to providers and customers of cloud computing services, as other states have been taking the opposite approach, saying that many of these services are taxable, including states such as New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont.

Companies that provide cloud-based computing services should determine the states in which they might have a sales tax collection obligation, and whether the services they provide are subject to that state’s sales tax.

To see the full text of this new technical bulletin, please follow this link and click on TB-72.

This pro-IT industry move is in contrast to a new Massachusetts law that went into effect on July 31, just a few weeks after the bill being passed by its Legislature. This new Massachusetts law signals a sea change in the Bay State’s pro-technology industry policy.

Massachusetts now imposes sales tax on most software and hardware design, installation and integration services, including the modification, integration, enhancement, installation and configuration of prewritten software.

So, this new tax will include amounts paid in order to customize any prewritten software for the needs of the customer, including macros and plug-ins that operate in conjunction with the software (although there are exemptions for modifications to free open source software, and software that operates industrial machinery).

This expansion of the Massachusetts sales tax will cast a wide net that will tax hardware and software consulting services that have not been taxable in the past, from the biggest, most sophisticated software consulting firms that manage the integration of software for large corporations, down to the high school student who helps non-tech savvy baby boomers set up their home computer for $20 an hour.

This apparent new direction taken by Massachusetts is a huge contrast to the position staked out by the state’s then-Gov. Paul Cellucci in the early years of the Internet boom, when the debate on the taxation of e-commerce sales was just beginning.

A bill had been introduced in Congress to exempt all e-commerce sales from state taxation. Cellucci was quoted in the Feb. 4, 2000, edition of State Tax Notes as being in favor of the measure because it would be bad tax policy to tax the emerging Internet industry:

Arguing that ‘the rapid growth of high-tech in the past five years’ has created 450,000 new jobs in his state, Cellucci said the taxation of remote and electronic commerce is ‘not just a real threat to the economy of Massachusetts, but for the nation as a whole. Unlike traditional brick-and-mortar businesses, e-commerce ventures are extremely portable, and could easily move their headquarters to an offshore island where they would be immune from any sales tax from this country. (Tax Analysts Document Number: Doc 2000-3441.)

The new Massachusetts law indicates a reversal of the state’s earlier pro-industry policy, while New Jersey, which in prior years has taken an aggressive tax approach to IT taxation, has apparently also reversed course, but in the opposite positive direction.

It is possible that Massachusetts has grown complacent, assuming that its enormous stockpile of human innovation capital will stay put, while New Jersey appears to be recognizing the value of cultivating the IT industry in the Garden State. Time will tell if these shifts in policy toward the IT industry will result in any measurable migration.

This article was previously published by Law360.

Article By:

 of

Former Head of Investor Relations Penalized by SEC for Selectively Disclosing Material Nonpublic Information, While Self-Disclosing Company Escapes Charges

Katten Muchin

The selective and early disclosure of material non-public information resulted in a Securities and Exchange Commission cease and desist order and civil penalties against the former head of investor relations at First Solar, Inc. (First Solar or the Company), an Arizona-based solar energy company. The SEC determined that Lawrence D. Polizzotto violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation FD by informing certain analysts and investors ahead of the market that First Solar would likely not receive an important and much anticipated loan guarantee commitment of nearly $2 billion from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The day after those disclosures, the Company publicly disclosed this information in a press release, causing its stock price to dip six percent.

On September 13, 2011, First Solar’s then-CEO publicly expressed confidence at an investor conference that the Company would receive three loan guarantees of close to $4.5 billion, which the DOE previously committed to granting upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Polizzotto and several other First Solar executives learned a couple of days later that the Company would not receive the largest of the three guarantees. An in-house lawyer expressly advised a group of First Solar employees, including Polizzotto, that they could not answer questions from analysts and investors until the Company both received official notice from the DOE and issued a press release or posted an update on the guarantee to its website. According to the SEC, notwithstanding this instruction, Polizzotto and a subordinate, acting at Polizzotto’s direction, had one-on-one phone conversations with approximately 30 sell-side analysts and institutional investors prior to First Solar’s public disclosure. In the conversations, they conveyed the low probability that First Solar would receive one of the three guarantees. In some instances, Polizzotto went further and said that a conservative investor should assume that the guarantee would not be granted.

Polizzotto agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the charges without admitting or denying any of the SEC’s findings. He, however, was not subject to even a temporary industry bar. The SEC did not bring an enforcement action against First Solar due to the Company’s cooperation with the investigation, as well as its self-disclosure to the SEC promptly after discovering Polizzotto’s selective disclosure. In addition, the SEC emphasized the strong “environment of compliance” at the Company, including the “use of a disclosure committee that focused on compliance with Regulation FD” and the fact that the Company took remedial measures to address improper conduct, including conducting additional compliance training.

In the Matter of Lawrence D. Polizzotto, File No. 3-15458 (Sept. 6, 2013).

Women, Influence and Power in Law Conference – October 2-4, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference:

WIPL2013_250x250

When:

Where:

The Only National Forum Facilitating Women-to-Women Exchange on Current Legal Issues

Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference is presented by Summit Business Media’s Legal Suite – InsideCounsel magazine, InsideCounsel.com (website), producers of the 13th annual IC SuperConference, the prestigious Transformative Leadership Awards, and creators of Project 5/165.

Presented by InsideCounsel Magazine, the pioneering monthly magazine exclusively serving general counsel and other top in-house legal professionals, the first annual Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference offers an opportunity for unprecedented exchange with women outside counsel. This unique event was created with the assistance of an unheralded advisory board comprised of highly placed women attorneys who are all direct reports to the general counsel and were drawn from across the country. These attorneys have the highest levels of expertise and experience in key practice areas.

The Women, Influence & Power in Law Conference is not a forum for lawyers to discuss so-called “women’s issues.” It is a conference for women in-house and outside counsel to discuss current legal topics, bringing their individual experience and perspectives on issues of:

  • Governance & Compliance
  • Litigation & Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • Government Relations & Public Policy
  • Global Litigation & Transactions
  • Labor & Employment
  • Executive Leadership Skills Development

The Facts on FATCA – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On August 19, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service introduced its new registration portal to assist Foreign Financial Institutions (“FFI”) as they make efforts to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA“). Financial firms (banks, investment funds, and insurance companies) around the world must comply with the law, aimed at keeping US persons from hiding income and assets overseas, or risk serious consequences that could shut them out of financial markets. In recent years, the U.S. government has suspected that U.S. persons are underreporting massive sums of money hidden in offshore accounts.

FATCA was enacted as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (“HIRE”). Under FATCA, FFIs are required to collect, verify, and provide information about their U.S. clients to the IRS. If they fail to do so, they are subject to a 30% withholding tax on U.S. source payments. To assist foreign countries with the Act’s reporting requirements, the U.S. Treasury Department developed model Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGAs”). FATCA implementation has been tumultuous, largely because there are foreign governments which have not entered into these IGAs with the U.S. government. To date, the Treasury has signed ten IGAs, and is engaged in ongoing conversations with more than 80 other countries. The Act was scheduled to take effect in January 2014, but the enforcement date has been postponed to July 2014. As of now, the IRS will start collecting firms’ customer account information in 2015.

FATCA implementation is set to occur in three phases. The first is implementation of the Act itself, with the collection of information regarding U.S. accountholders in FFIs. Second, FATCA partner countries will enter into bilateral agreements for the purpose of exchanging this information. Last, this information will be transferred to a centralized FATCA database that acts as the central repository for offshore account information for all countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (“OECD”). A list of these countries can be found here.

There has been significant resistance from FFIs, who are opposed to the IRS snooping into their financial affairs and frustrated with FATCA’s reporting and compliance requirements. Many FFIs believe that the law turns them into tax collectors and burdens them with a job that the IRS should be handling itself. Some FFIs, faced with the complicated burdens and tax exposure risks, have simply chosen to drop their U.S. clients. Major banks like HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Commerzbank are among those that have done so. This, of course, presents a major problem to Americans who conduct business or invest internationally; it is harder to obtain bank accounts, find insurance coverage, and qualify for loans. Expatriates are especially hard hit by institutions that are dropping American clients. Businesses are not exempt, either. Pursuant to FATCA, FFIs are required to report any private foreign corporation, business, or partnership in which a U.S. citizen is a ten percent or greater shareholder. A foreseeable consequence of the law is that foreigners become hesitant to do business with U.S. citizens because FATCA could expose sensitive account information and compel tax investigations.

Curbing tax evasion is a worthy goal, but FATCA comes at an expense to the law-abiding Americans citizens, expatriates, and businesses that engage in financial transactions overseas. Whether it will be a successful endeavor remains to be seen, but you can be sure that the side effects of it are already being felt by many.

Yelp Wanted: For Law Firm Reviews

Correct Consults Logo

If you are like most businesses, you consider word of mouth your most valuable marketing channel. Increasingly, online reviews are a critical component of Web word of mouth.

Frequently used lawyer review sites include Google+, Citysearch and Yelp. The rise of review sites, and Yelp in particular, has been of significant importance to business owners across the world. For example, Apple iPhone’s Siri application primarily uses Yelp for its reviews. This article will walk you through the basics of leveraging Yelp to improve your word-of-mouth marketing and grow your business.

Getting Started on Yelp

yelp law firm website internet marketingThe first step every law firm should take with Yelp is to activate its business page. The public can see and review your business profile whether or not you activate the page, so proactively filling out your business profile sends a clear message to previous and prospective clients that you care about your online and offline image. Be sure to complete all of the fields, including photos, descriptions, phone numbers and office hours, to create a solid profile. Including photos of co-workers and other employees will communicate a safe and inviting environment.

Many people are intimidated by law firms and research them online before calling or emailing a firm. Meeting those visitors on Yelp with appropriate photos and information will give them a positive impression that your firm is approachable.

Once your firm’s Yelp account is active, the real benefits can begin and you can start leveraging your online reviews.

Respond to Your Law Firm Reviews

At some point, if you haven’t already, you will start to receive reviews. Some will be glowing testimonials of your professionalism and competence. Others may ask questions or express concern. It is vital that you respond to your reviewers. If someone had a less-than-ideal experience, follow up with that individual and ensure that his or her concerns are addressed. In many cases, your follow-up will prompt your client to edit or add a new review, which may help your online image. Learn more about responding to existing online reviews here.

Leverage Yelp Offline

Post a sign or sticker in your office letting clients know they can find and review you on Yelp. Most law firms send out some sort of direct mail or newsletter. Add the Yelp logo to these mailings to encourage recipients to leave a review. You can also notify Yelp next time you host a community event or fundraiser. Posting these events online will spread your offline positive influence even further via the Web.

Display Your Positive Yelp Reviews

Framing awards, articles from local newspapers and other publicity items has long been a standard practice in law firm lobbies. Doing the same for recent positive online reviews is no different. Viewing positive reviews of your law firm will likely cause your clients to think of your firm in a warm light and will encourage them to also leave a glowing review online.

Refer Your Referrers

No advertising operates in a vacuum. Encourage clients to visit you on Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, YouTube, and other Social Media networks. Likewise, make sure those connected to your Social Media profiles know you are on Yelp. A simple “Check us out on Yelp” can encourage many clients to leave a review.

Live Up to Their Positive Reviews

Finally, and most importantly, you must continue providing excellent service. It is impossible to get away with sub-par service in today’s world. As you know, competition grows stronger every day. If you are not good at serving clients, the word will get out—through Yelp or other types of word-of-mouth. Positive reviews will follow naturally when you provide outstanding service.

Keep Your Review Practices Ethical

Never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstances, purchase positive reviews. Yelp is very strict with its review policies, and suspicious reviews are flagged and dealt with regularly. Just as spamming Google and other search engines can lead to major penalties or even blacklisting, paying for or offering bribes for reviews on Yelp can be detrimental to your business. As with all your marketing efforts, check with your state Bar Association to be sure you are operating within its guidelines when it comes to your online review strategy.

Why Tweeting Doesn't Make You A Twit

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)recently presented at the American Bar Association annual conference in San Francisco on “Why Tweeting Doesn’t Make You a Twit!”
 I was shocked and amazed at the number of attorneys I spoke to who still don’t believe that using social media is an effective way to acquire more clients, establish credibility and get a steady stream of referrals.

More often than not I heard comments such as:

“Social media is for younger generations;”

“People don’t use the Internet to look for attorneys;”

“I know firms that spent money on social media and never saw a return;” or

“The type of people who I want to do business with aren’t on social media”

twitter social media

These statements are categorically not true. In fact, believing these statements can be detrimental to the success of your law firm. Actively and appropriately engaging in social media is no longer a “nice to have” it is a “must have” if you truly want to build a successful firm.

Think about your own experience. If you are considering buying a new product or service, and you go onto the Internet and can’t find information on a website, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon or any other number of social media platforms, your enthusiasm and interest in that particular company or product begins to diminish.

You may even find you trust the company less, are more skeptical of the product or service and begin to seek out competitors who offer the same product or service.

When people search for legal help the process is no different. It’s human nature to want to avoid making bad decisions that cause us financial or emotional harm.

Our fears are calmed and our skepticism is lessened when we can read and learn about the product or service we are about to invest in. When we read or watch third-party reviews we feel safer. When we see that a company is actively offering valuable and powerful information to those who may need the product or service, we believe we are mitigating the risk of a bad decision.

You must always remember that people buy emotionally and justify logically.

That’s why Twitter is one of the fastest growing online social media platforms. When used correctly and ethically it is a powerful part of a firm’s overall online marketing strategy.

Some basic and impressive statistics about Twitter easily demonstrate why this platform must be utilized.

  • There are 200 million active users;
  • 20 percent of individuals who “follow” a company on Twitter do so to give feedback and share ideas;
  • 71 percent of individuals who positively review a company on Twitter (with a Tweet, Re-Tweet) go on to suggest the company to his/her peers;
  • 56 percent of consumers would be more likely to encourage friends and family to try new products from a social brand than in person or over the phone;
  • 63 percent of consumers agree that social experiences make them more interested in a brand’s product;
  • 64 percent of consumers have made a purchase decision based on social content;
  • 67 percent of 18-34 year old consumers prefer to do business with social companies;
  • 91 percent of 18-34 year olds using social media are talking about brands.

If the above reasons don’t compel you to jump on Twitter and actively use it to grow your firm, here are three additional reasons to use Twitter.

With Twitter, you can build a massive platform:

A platform helps you effectively grow the number of people who know who you are, know what type of people/companies you are qualified to assist and know how you are different than every other law firm out there.

Twitter helps you establish credibility:

People do business with people they know, like and trust.

Being active on Twitter helps you establish yourself as a thought leader.

You can effectively position yourself as the “go-to” attorney for your practice area and geographical region.

You offer followers powerful, relevant and helpful information that begins to build a relationship and positions you and or the firm as a valuable and credible source of information.

Drive traffic to your website:

You can engage people on Twitter with powerful information and then direct them to your website. It is your website’s job to educate, engage and compel the viewer to take action and call or email the firm and/or set up an appointment with an attorney.

On your website you can showcase who you are and how you are different from other firms. If you do not actively display how you are unique and different from all your competitors out there, people will begin to make decisions based on price. This is the single worst position you can find yourself if. You never want to get business because you are the “cheapest attorney out there.”

There you can also give viewers the opportunity to: Learn about you and the firm, hear about others’ interactions with you through testimonials (when permitted by state) and case studies (demonstrate expertise), and discover how you can help them navigate their pressing legal issue.

Twitter of course, must be used effectively and ethically. Marketing is not a sprint, it’s a marathon. You must invest either the time or money into these strategies consistently so your efforts can gain traction and eventually give you a return on your investment.

This article originally ran in The Record Reporter, an Arizona newspaper and website that covers legal business news:

Article By:

 of

Internet Peeping Toms and The Internet of Things Face New Hurdles: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Settles with TRENDnet, Inc.

MintzLogo2010_Black

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently entered into a settlement agreement with TRENDnet, Inc., a company that sells Internet Protocol (“IP”) cameras that allow customers to monitor their homes remotely over the Internet.  Notably, this is the FTC’s first action against a seller of everyday products that connect to the Internet and other mobile devices, commonly referred to as the “Internet of Things.”

The Complaint

In its complaint, the FTC alleged that, despite representing to its customers that TRENDnet’s IP cameras are “secure,” TRENDnet failed to reasonably secure its IP cameras against unauthorized access by third parties.  According to the FTC, TRENDnet transmitted user login credentials in clear, readable text over the Internet and stored user credentials on a user’s mobile device in clear, readable text, despite the availability of free software to secure the transmissions and the stored credentials.  The FTC Further alleged that TRENDnet failed to employ reasonable and appropriate security in the design and testing of the software that it provided consumers for its IP cameras.

Due to TRENDnet’s inadequate security measures, in January 2012, a hacker exploited the vulnerabilities of the TRENDnet system and posted live feeds for nearly 700 of TRENDnet’s IP cameras, including customers that had not made their video feeds public.  These video feeds displayed people in their homes, including sleeping babies and young children playing.  Once TRENDnet learned of this flaw, it uploaded a software patch and attempted to alert its customers of the need to update their IP cameras through TRENDnet’s website.

The Settlement

Last week, TRENDnet entered into a settlement agreement with the FTC to resolve the FTC’s claims.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, TRENDnet has agreed that it will not misrepresent:

  • the extent to which its products or services maintain and protect the security of its IP cameras;
  • the security, privacy, confidentiality or integrity of the information that its IP cameras or other devices transmit; or
  • the extent to which a consumer can control the security of the information transmitted by the IP cameras.

What’s more, TRENDnet is required to establish, implement and maintain a comprehensive security program that is reasonably designed to address security risks that could result in unauthorized access to the IP cameras or other devices, and to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of the information that its IP cameras or other devices transmit.  TRENDnet is further required to conduct initial and biennial assessment and reports of such security program by an independent third-party professional every two years for the next twenty years.   Again, some real bottom line costs as a result of these settlements.

Finally, in addition to the measures that TRENDnet must take to protect its customers in the future, TRENDnet must also notify all of its current customers about the flaw in the IP cameras that allowed third parties to access the live feed of TRENDnet customers, and TRENDnet must provide these customers with instructions on how to remove this flaw.

The TRENDnet settlement is the FTC’s first step at regulating data security in the land of the Internet of Things.  Keep a look out to see whether this becomes the FTC’s next hot topic.

Article By:

 of

 

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Arrives in New York City

VedderPriceLogo

On Thursday, June 27, members of the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of the City’s Earned Sick Time Act (the Act). New York City thus became the latest (and the most populous) of a growing number of localities – including San Francisco; Washington, DC; Seattle; Portland, ME; and the State of Connecticut – to impose mandatory sick leave obligations on employers.

The NYC Earned Sick Time Act: An Overview

Virtually all private sector employers within the geographic boundaries of New York City are covered by the Act’s provisions. Notable exceptions include a limited number of manufacturing entities, as well as employers whose workers are governed by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly waives the Act’s provisions while at the same time providing those workers with a comparable benefit.

The Act will eventually cover more than one million employees, providing each of them with up to five days of paid leave each year. In its first phase of implementation, currently scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2014, the Act will apply only to those employers that employ 20 or more workers in New York City. The second phase of implementation will begin 18 months later (currently, October 15, 2015), at which time the Act will expand to those employers with at least 15 City-based employees. The Act will require employers with fewer than 15 City-based employees to provide their employees with unpaid, rather than paid, sick time.

New York City-based employees (regardless of whether they are employed on a full- or part-time, temporary or seasonal basis) who work more than 80 hours during a calendar year will accrue paid sick time at a minimum rate of one hour for each 30 hours worked. The Act caps mandatory accrual of paid sick time at 40 hours per calendar year (the equivalent of one five-day workweek). Although the Act provides only for a statutory minimum, employers are free to provide their employees with additional paid time if they so desire. Accrual of paid leave time begins on the first day of employment, but employers may require employees to first work as many as 120 days before permitting them to make use of the time they have accrued.

The Act specifies that employees will be able to use their accrued time for absences from work that occur because of: (1) the employee’s own mental or physical illness, injury or health condition, or the need for the employee to seek preventive medical care; (2) care of a family member in need of such diagnosis, care, treatment or preventive medical care; or (3) closure of the place of business because of a public health emergency, as declared by a public health official, or the employee’s need to care for a child whose school or childcare provider has been closed because of such a declared emergency.

Although the Act allows employees to carry over accrued but unused leave time from year to year, it does not require employers to permit the use of more than 40 hours of paid leave each year. Likewise, it does not require employers to pay out accrued, but unused, sick leave upon an employee’s separation from employment.

Employers that have already implemented paid leave policies – such as policies that provide for paid time off (PTO), personal days and/or vacation – that provide employees with an amount of paid leave time sufficient to meet the Act’s accrual requirements may not be required to provide their employees with anything more once the Act takes effect. As long as an employer’s current policy or policies allow the paid leave in question to be used “for the same purposes and under the same conditions as paid sick leave,” nothing more is necessary.

The Act Requires Proper Notice to Both Employees and Employers

Once the Act is implemented, employers will be required to inform new employees of their rights when they are hired, and will have to post additional notices in the workplace (suitable notices will be made available for download on the Department of Consumer Affairs website). In addition to providing information about the Act’s substantive provisions, employees must also be informed of the Act’s provision against retaliation and how they may lodge a complaint.

Likewise, an employer may require reasonable notice from employees who plan to make use of their accrued time. The Act defines such notice as seven days in the case of a foreseeable situation, and as soon as is practicable when the need for leave could not have been foreseen.

Penalties and Enforcement

The Act will be enforced by the City’s Department of Consumer Affairs. Because the Act contains no private right of action, an employee’s only avenue for redress will be through the Consumer Affairs complaint process. Employees alleging such a violation have 270 days within which to file a complaint. Penalties for its violation are potentially steep; they include: (1) the greater of $250 or three times the wages that should have been paid for each instance of sick time taken; (2) $500 for each instance of paid sick time unlawfully denied to an employee, or for which an employee is unlawfully required to work additional hours without mutual consent; (3) full compensation, including lost wages and benefits, for each instance of unlawful retaliation other than discharge from employment, along with $500 and equitable relief; and (4) $2,500 for each instance of unlawful termination of employment, along with equitable relief (including potential reinstatement).

Employers found to have violated the Act may also face fines from the City of up to $500 for the first violation, $750 for a second violation within two years of the first, and $1,000 for any subsequent violation within two years of the one before. Additionally, employers that willfully fail to provide the required notice of the Act’s substantive provisions will be fined $50 for each employee who did not receive such notice.

The Act, meanwhile, does not prohibit employers from requiring that such an employee provide documentation from a licensed health care professional to demonstrate the necessity for the amount of sick leave taken. Employers are free under the Act to discipline employees, up to and including termination, who take sick leave for an improper purpose. They are prohibited, however, from inquiring as to the nature of an employee’s injury, illness or condition.

A Federal District Court in Florida Finds Hospital System Properly Terminated a Professional Services Contract for a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Breach

Dickinson Wright Logo

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida found on June 20, 2013 that defendant Community Health Systems, Inc., and its affiliated hospital, Salem Hospital (collectively, “CHS”) properly terminated a Professional Services Agreement it had with Managed Care Solutions, Inc. (“MCS”) for breach of contract after determining that Nichole Scott, one of MCS’s employees, misappropriated Protected Health Information (“PHI”) from the hospital. Ms. Scott misappropriated PHI from the hospital’s patients including patients’ checks, credit card numbers and social security numbers.

The Business Associate Agreement (“BAA”) between CHS and MCS provided, among other things, that in the event MCS breached its obligations under the BAA, CHS could terminate both the BAA and the Professional Services Agreement. After CHS terminated the Professional Services Agreement with MCS as a result of Ms. Scott’s misappropriation of its patients’ PHI, MCS sued CHS for breach of contract. The Florida District Court granted CHS’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.

The lesson from this case is that healthcare entities should have clear cross-default provisions in their Professional Services Agreements with their business associates and in their Business Associate Agreements that allow them to terminate the Professional Services Agreement or take other appropriate remedial action in the event of a breach by the business associate of its obligations under the Professional Services Agreement and/or under the Business Associate Agreement.

Article By:

 of

What Works for Business to Business (B2B) Content Marketing

The Rainmaker Institute mini logo (1)he B2B Technology Marketing Community on LinkedIn has more than 50,000 members, making it one of the largest groups on the popular business social network. Recently, 815 members of the group responded to a survey about content marketing about what works and what doesn’t for B2B content marketing.

According to the survey results, content marketing is used primarily for lead generation; here are the tactics being employed and their effectiveness rankings:

social media, linkedin, business, marketing

Not surprisingly, LinkedIn tops the list for the most effective social media platforms for content marketing, followed closely by YouTube. Video is becoming increasingly more popular since it is an easily digestible format:

 

social media, linkedin, business, marketing

In addition, the survey uncovered the following trends:

More than 82 percent of B2B marketers are increasing their content production over the next 12 months.

YouTube is gaining popularity as a social media platform to reach and engage B2B audiences – Facebook is losing ground.

Marketing automation is on the rise. 61 percent of marketers use marketing automation platforms, up from 43 percent last year.

You can click on the following link to see a slideshow of the entire survey results: B2B Content Marketing Report 2013.

Article By:

 of