Privacy of Mobile Applications

The National Law Review recently featured an article, Privacy of Mobile Applications, written by Cynthia J. Larose with Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.:

MintzLogo2010_Black

 

As we continue our “new year, new look” series into important privacy issues for 2013, we boldly predict:

Regulatory Scrutiny of Data Collection and Use Practices of Mobile Apps Will Increase in 2013

Mobile apps are becoming a ubiquitous part of the everyday technology experience.  But, consumer apprehension over data collection and their personal privacy with respect to mobile applications has been growing.   And as consumer apprehension grows, so does regulatory scrutiny.  In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) offered guidance to mobile app developers to “get privacy right from the start.”    At the end of 2012, the California Attorney General’s office brought its first privacy complaint against Delta Airlines, Inc., alleging that Delta’s mobile app “Fly Delta” failed to have a conspicuously posted privacy policy in violation of California’s Online Privacy Protection Act.  And also in December, SpongeBob Square Pants found himself in the middle of a complaint filed at the FTC by a privacy advocacy group alleging that the mobile game SpongeBob Diner Dash collected personal information about children without obtaining parental consent.

In 2013, we expect to see new regulatory investigations into privacy practices of mobile applications.   Delta was just one of 100 recipients of notices of non-compliance from the California AG’s office and the first to be the subject of a complaint.  Expect to see more of these filed early in this year as the AG’s office plows through responses from the lucky notice recipients.   Also, we can expect to hear more from the FTC on mobile app disclosure of data collection and use practices and perhaps some enforcement actions against the most blatant offenders.

Recommendation for action in 2013:  Take a good look at your mobile app and its privacy policy.   If you have simply ported your website privacy policy over to your mobile app – take another look.  How is the policy displayed to the end user?  How does the user “accept” its terms?  Is this consistent with existing law, such as California, and does it follow the FTC guidelines?  

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Operational and Technical Changes for FACTA Compliance – January 30 – February 1, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Global Financial Markets – Operational and Technical Changes for FACTA Compliance:

key topics

  • Assess the full implications of the finalized FATCA regulation
  • Coordinate an optimal approach to operational, infrastructural and technical changes under FATCA
  • Identify strategies to effectively manage client accounts
  • Integrate existing internal procedures with FATCA compliance
  • Understand what is expected by the IRS

key features

  • Pre-Conference Workshop on January 30, 2013 for an Additional Cost:
  • Pre-Conference Workshop: The Intergovernmental Agreements: Changing the Face of International Tax lead by JP&MF Consulting and Mopsick Tax Law LLP

event focus

FATCA is amongst the biggest topics of debate in financial institutions across the globe. The effect that it will have on these institutions cannot be underestimated and its operational impact on the existing systems is set to be both time consuming and costly. The ability to successfully align all key stakeholders, including operations, technology, risk, legal and tax, will determine the ultimate cost of FATCA compliance. Moving on from mere interpretive matters, this GFMI conference will not only address key FATCA requirements but also discuss the practical impacts of IGAs and strategies for achieving operational and infrastructural efficiency.

The Operational and Technical Changes for FATCA Compliance Conference will be a two and half day, industry focused event, specific to Senior Executives working in Banks, Insurance and Asset Management Companies. Attendees will address key FATCA requirements, while discussing the practical implications of IGAs and strategies for achieving operational and infrastructural efficiency.

Key Themes of the Operational and Technical Changes for FATCA Compliance Conference Include:

1. Challenges of FATCA regulations and prospects for the final regulation

2. Achieving operational and infrastructural efficiency

3. Coordinating existing AML/KYC procedures with FATCA compliance

4. FATCA from the FFI’s perspective 5. Beyond banking: the challenges of FATCA implementation

6. Coping with the withholding obligation under FATCA

This is not a trade show; our conference series is targeted at a focused group of senior level executives to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.

The Rush to File H-1B Visa Petitions for the Next Fiscal Year Quota Starts April 1, 2013

The Immigration Practice of  Barnes & Thornburg LLP recently had an article featured in The National Law Review regarding H1B Visa Petitions:

Barnes & Thornburg

 

In less than three months, the fiscal year 2014 H-1B quota filing starts on April 1, 2013. This applies primarily to first time H-1B applicants but also to those who already have H-1B status and wish to change jobs from a quota-exempt employer to a quota -subject employer. The actual employment start date in H-1B status cannot be prior to Oct. 1, 2013, the date when the FY 2014 H-1B quota goes into effect.

Please note that with an improving economy the rush to file on April 1 in an attempt to secure a visa before the quota is depleted is expected to be even greater than last year. The H-1B quota for fiscal year 2014 will be limited to 65,000 visas with an additional 20,000 visas for graduates of U.S. institutions of higher education with a master’s degree or higher. The quota has been met quickly in years past and it is possible that this year it will be met in a matter of weeks, if not days. Now is the time to review your visa-dependent staff, including students on OPT who will need an H-1B visa in order to continue employment after their OPT expires. A prudent approach would be to contact immigration counsel no later than the end of January to allow for all the documents and steps in the process to be completed in preparation of an April 1, 2013 filing date.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

ABA Gaming Law Minefield Conference – February 14-15, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Gaming Law Minefield Conference:

ABA Gaming Law Feb 14-15, 2013

When

February 14 – 15, 2013

Where

  • Green Valley Ranch Resort & Spa
  • 2300 Paseo Verde Pkwy
  • Las Vegas, NV 89101
  • United States of America
 
The program will discuss revolutionary legal, regulator, and ethical issues confronting both commercial and Native American gaming.  Attendees will learn about global anti-corruption initiatives, Internet gaming, and the challenges faced by commercial and Native American gaming.

A Brief Explanation of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The National Law Review recently published an article by Joseph W. Zitzka Jr. and Amanda Wilson of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. regarding The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012:

Lowndes_logo

In the past few weeks, attention has focused on Washington and how the politicians would deal with the tax component of the so-called fiscal cliff (the tax increases that would automatically go into effect on January 1).  On January 1, 2013 Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “Act”), and President Obama signed the Act into law on January 2.  Politicians have stated that the Act was designed to keep America from going over the fiscal cliff.  But what does that mean?  As explained below, the Act did reduce the number of tax increases that would go into effect, but unfortunately, many other tax increases still went into effect.

What Did the Act Address?

The main component of the looming tax increases was the expiration of the tax cuts introduced under President Bush.  The rates for all federal ordinary income tax brackets were set to return to 2003 rates, which would increase the tax rates across all brackets (generally, by 3 to 5%).  The Act changed this result, keeping the Bush era tax rates in place for all taxpayers except for those over a certain high-income threshold.  This threshold (the “Act Threshold”) is $450,000 for joint filers, $400,000 for single filers, and $225,000 for married taxpayers filing separately.  Taxpayers with income over the Act Threshold will be subject to tax at a maximum rate of 39.6%.

Additionally, the Bush tax cuts generally lowered the tax rate on capital gains to 15% and provided that qualified dividends would be taxed at a preferential 15% rate (instead of at ordinary income rates).  On January 1, capital gains rates were set to increase to 20% and dividends were set to be taxed at ordinary income rates.  The Act stopped these increases for taxpayers below the Act Threshold.  For taxpayers with income over the Act Threshold, capital gains and dividends will generally be taxed at an increased rate of 20% (which, for dividends, is better than the anticipated increase to ordinary income rates).

The Act has also increased tax liability for higher income taxpayers by reimplementing exemption and deduction phaseouts.  The threshold amount for these phaseouts (“Phaseout Threshold”) is $300,000 for joint filers, $250,000 for single filers, and $150,000 for married taxpayers filing separately.  Taxpayers with adjusted gross income above the Phaseout Threshold will be limited in the personal exemptions that they can claim, as their personal exemption amount will be reduced by 2% for each $2,500 by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income exceeds the applicable Phaseout Threshold.  In addition, these same taxpayers will be limited in the amount of itemized deductions that they can claim.  The amount of itemized deductions that can be deducted will be reduced by 3% of the amount by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income exceeds the Phaseout Threshold (subject to a limitation that the reduction shall not exceed 80% of the allowable itemized deductions).

The Act also addressed the looming threat that the alternative minimum tax (AMT) will impact more taxpayers.  The Act retroactively increased AMT exemption amounts to reduce the number of taxpayers that will be subject to AMT.

The Act extended the availability of 50% first-year bonus depreciation, and increased the expensing limitation for depreciable property for 2012 and 2013.  In 2012, the expensing limitation was $139,000 (with a phaseout threshold of $560,000), and this amount was set to be reduced dramatically in 2013.  The Act increased the expensing amount for 2012 (retroactively) and 2013 to $500,000 (with a phaseout threshold of $2 million).

Finally, the Act addressed the impending tax increase in the estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer area.  Absent legislation, the maximum tax rate was set to increase from 35% to 55%, with the exemption amount decreasing from $5 million (actually, $5.12 million as the exemption is adjusted for inflation) to $1 million.  The Act makes the $5 million exemption (adjusted for inflation) permanent and provides for a maximum tax rate of 40%.

What Did the Act Not Address?

Several upcoming tax increases were not addressed by the Act.  The expiring tax holiday for payroll taxes was not address, meaning that the reduced 4.2% tax rate for the employees’ portion of the Social Security payroll tax has expired and the rate has returned to 6.2%. This will be a 2% tax rate increase that employees will immediately see on their paychecks.

In addition, the new 3.8% tax (referred to as the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution) on investment income will apply to most joint filers with adjusted gross income above $250,000 and single filers with adjusted gross income above $200,000.  The tax is essentially a flat tax at a 3.8% rate on investment income above the $250,000/$200,000 threshold.  The tax applies to the following:  dividends; rents; royalties; interest, except municipal-bond interest; short and long-term capital gains; the taxable portion of annuity payments; income from the sale of a principal home above the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion; a net gain from the sale of a second home; and passive income from real estate and investments in which a taxpayer does not materially participate.  Although the tax applies only to investment income above the threshold, other income (including wages or Social Security) can increase a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income above the threshold, exposing the taxpayer to this tax.

Finally, the Medicare tax rate will increase by .9 percent (from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent) on wages for certain employees (i.e., those with wages over $200,000 for single filers, wages over $250,000 for joint filers, and wages over $125,000 for persons who are married but filing separately).

In short, the Act did prevent many tax increases from going into effect, but it was only a partial fix.  Many other provisions were allowed to go into effect, with the result that many taxpayers will face greater tax liability.


“Notice Under U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230:  To the extent that this e-mail communication and the attachment(s) hereto, if any, may contain written advice concerning or relating to a Federal (U.S.) tax issue, United States Treasury Department Regulations (Circular 230) require that we (and we do hereby) advise and disclose to you that, unless we expressly state otherwise in writing, such tax advice is not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used by you (the addressee), or other person(s), for purposes of (1) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to any other person(s) the (or any of the) transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed, discussed or referenced herein.  Each taxpayer should seek advice from an independent tax advisor with respect to any Federal tax issue(s), transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed, discussed or referenced herein based upon his, her or its particular circumstances.”

© Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, PA

POSTPONED – Copyright and Trademark Protection in The Digital Age Conference – February 6-7, 2013

THIS CONFERENCE HAS BEEN POSTPONED BY THE ORGANIZER

 

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming marcus evans Copyright and Trademark Protection in The Digital Age Conference:

Copyright and Trademark Feb 6-7 2013

The marcus evans Copyright and Trademark Protection in The Digital Age Conference will provide strategies for organizations who are dealing with digital copyright and trademark issues, address the management of digital content, digital license agreements, and overall evolution of copyright and trademark to ensure they are protecting their brand.

The Debate Rages On Regarding Whether Default Fiduciary Duties Apply to LLC Managers Under Delaware Law

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

Earlier this year, we reported on the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties, LLC, wherein Chancellor Strine held that traditional fiduciary principles apply to LLC managers or members by default. See Delaware Chancery Court Clarifies that Default Fiduciary Duties Apply to LLC Managers, March 15, 2012 available here (discussing Auriga Capital Corp. v. Gatz Properties, LLC, No. C.A. 4390-CS, 2012 WL 361677 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012)). We emphasized that “until the Delaware Supreme Court or General Assembly state otherwise, Chancellor Strine has definitively established that LLC managers are governed by the same well-established fiduciary duties applicable to corporate fiduciaries, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the LLC Agreement.”

On November 7, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision on appeal. In an en banc opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery decision, but declined to reach the issue whether default fiduciary duties exist for LLC managers. See Gatz Properties, LLC v. Auriga Capital Corp., No. 148, 2012 (Nov. 7, 2012). The Supreme Court instead affirmed on the ground that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising from an express contractual provision in the operating agreement of the LLC. The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on Section 15 of the LLC Agreement. Section 15 provided, in pertinent part, that no member or manager was permitted to cause the company to “enter into any additional agreements with affiliates on terms and conditions which [were] less favorable to the Company than the terms and conditions of similar agreements which could then be entered into with arms-length third parties . . . .”  Emphasizing that “there is no requirement in Delaware that an LLC agreement use magic words, such as ‘entire fairness’ or ‘fiduciary duties[,]'” the Supreme Court construed Section 15 as an explicit contractual assumption by the contracting parties of a fiduciary duty to obtain a fair price for the LLC in transactions between the LLC and affiliated persons. Viewing Section 15 functionally, the Supreme Court treated it as the contractual equivalent of the entire fairness standard of conduct and judicial review.  Thus, because there was no approving vote by the majority of the Company’s minority members, the Supreme Court held that the defendant – the LLC’s manager – had the burden of establishing the entire fairness of the transaction. Referencing the defendant’s trial testimony and the evidentiary record, the Supreme Court held that he failed to meet this burden, and thus affirmed the Court of Chancery’s holding that he had breached his contractually adopted fiduciary duties.1

While the Supreme Court’s contractual analysis is instructive, the decision has garnered far more attention based on the Supreme Court’s analysis of Chancellor Strine’s holding that default fiduciary duties apply to LLC managers, which it characterized as “dictum without any precedential value.” The Supreme Court reasoned that “[w]here, as here, the dispute over whether fiduciary standards apply could be decided solely by reference to the LLC Agreement, it was improvident and unnecessary for the trial court to reach out and decide, sua sponte, the default fiduciary duty issue as a matter of statutory construction.” The Supreme Court thus intentionally left unresolved the question whether default fiduciary duties apply to managers of an LLC.

However, the debate regarding default fiduciary duties did not end there. Just a few weeks later, Vice Chancellor Laster revisited the issue in Feeley v. NJAOCG, C.A. No. 7304-VCL (Del. Ch. Nov. 28, 2012), a case that, unlike Auriga, put the question of default fiduciary duties squarely before the court. Though he acknowledged that the Auriga decision could not be relied upon as precedent, Vice Chancellor Laster nonetheless adopted Chancellor Strine’s analysis, “afford[ing] his views the same weight as a law review article, a form of authority the Delaware Supreme Court often cites.” Based on Chancellor Strine’s reasoning and “the long line of Chancery precedents holding that default fiduciary duties apply to the managers of an LLC[,]” the Court held that default fiduciary duties apply to LLC managers. Vice Chancellor Laster recognized, however, that “[t]he Delaware Supreme Court is of course the final arbiter on matters of Delaware law.”

Thus, in many ways these two decisions bring things full circle. Until the Delaware Supreme Court or General Assembly address the question whether default fiduciary duties exist for managers of Delaware LLCs, Delaware Chancery precedent provides that they do.  However, while this may suggest extra caution be used when drafting an LLC agreement, the Supreme Court’s contractual analysis in the Auriga decision suggests that the question of default fiduciary duties may often be beside the point. Even in the absence of magic language regarding “fiduciary duties” or “entire fairness,” imprecise language in an LLC agreement may be construed as a contractual assumption by the LLC manager to abide by traditional fiduciary duties. Thus, while we do not expect that Chancellor Strine’s Feeley decision represents the last word in the default fiduciary duty debate, the lesson is the same: LLC agreements should be drafted to expressly address the nature and scope of the LLC managers’ fiduciary duties, or to specifically eliminate fiduciary duties altogether.


1 The Supreme Court also affirmed the Court of Chancery’s determination that the LLC Agreement did not exculpate or indemnify the LLC’s manager due to his bad faith and willful misrepresentations, as well as its awards of damages and attorneys’ fees.

© 2013 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

The 2013 E-Discovery and Information Governance National Institute January 23 – 25, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 2013 E-Discovery and Information Governance National Institute:

E-Discovery And Information Governance Jan 23-25 2013

January 23 – 25, 2013

Where

  • Stetson University
  • College of Law/Tampa Law Center
  • 1700 N Tampa St
  • Tampa, FL 33602-2653
  • United States of America

The ABA Section of Science and Technology Law is pleased to invite you to the E-Discovery and Information Governance National Institute at Stetson’s Tampa Law Center in Tampa, Florida January 23–25, 2013. This National Institute will provide attendees a rare opportunity to sharpen their skills in electronic discovery and digital evidence (EDDE). The curriculum will consist of case studies, a mock 26(f) meet-and-confer, a mock spoliation hearing, and panel discussions with luminaries in the field.

The faculty, consisting of judges, legal practitioners, technologists, and forensics experts will:

  • Present information on the current thought on the handling of electronically stored information (ESI), including descriptions and interpretations of judicial decisions
  • Analyze recent judicial decisions on the production of ESI and the key rules from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that impact e-discovery
  • Provide invaluable insights on how best to prepare their technical staff and information systems to respond to requests for ESI
  • Cover ESI issues for a variety of business sectors including the HIPAA HITECH requirements that mandate an enhanced standard of care for the parties producing and receiving electronic health records (EHR)
  • Describe how new search technologies will lead to cost efficient, yet defensible, automated production of relevant ESI
  • Examine the e-discovery implications of the increasing use of encryption, social media, and data stored in the cloud Attendees will walk away with an understanding of how the handling of ESI has evolved and will present a hopeful prognosis that expected improvements will provide cost efficient, but defensible, management of ESI.

Attendees will walk away with an understanding of how the handling of ESI has evolved and will present a hopeful prognosis that expected improvements will provide cost efficient, but defensible, management of ESI.

This unique blend of faculty, case studies, analysis of judicial decisions, clear explanation of where technology is and where it is going, and informative yet entertaining mock hearings presented in a two-day package offer an experience matched by no other conference. This is a one-of-a-kind program you will not want to miss.

Top Ten Employment Law Issues for 2013

The National Law Review recently featured an article, Top Ten Employment Law Issues for 2013, written by the Employment & Labor Practice of Armstrong Teasdale:

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

 

With calendar year 2012 as a guide, 2013 is already on its way to being another year of employee friendly mandates, legislation, and court decisions. By keeping this Top 10 list of employment issues in mind, you can minimize legal risks and maximize chances of successfully dealing with employment law challenges in this New Year:

  1. Review your employee handbooks including the “at-will” language. Small changes may go a long way in warding off the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) recent aggressive challenges to long-standing at-will language in employee handbooks and personnel policies.
  2. Don’t assume your social media policy is compliant unless it has been updated in the last six months. 2012 was the year of active gutting of even the most sensible of social media policies by the NLRB.
  3. Review and update your criminal background check procedure. The EEOC is aggressively pursuing compliance with its 2012 guidance on when a conviction can disqualify an applicant from employment and when you can consider arrest records.
  4. Keep in mind that you are only as effective as your supervisors. Continue to train your employees on recognizing and avoiding sexual and other harassment and discriminatory behavior. Ensure your supervisors are responding appropriately to observed harassment and complaints of discrimination. Don’t forget that retaliation charges are now the most common claims filed with the EEOC.
  5. Review and update your non-compete, non-solicit and confidentiality agreements. Recent court decisions reconfirm that the enforceability of non-compete agreements against departing employees depends upon the facts and circumstances of each situation and the specific terms of your agreements.
  6. Review your exit interview procedures. There is no better time to learn information that may help you minimize future claims. This is also the best time to remind employees of their confidentiality, non-solicit and non-compete obligations in order to protect your organization before any damage is done. Call or e-mail us for a copy of our handy exit interview checklist.
  7. Conduct an audit of your organization’s compliance with wage and hour laws. Off-the-clock wage and hour lawsuits alleging employees are being misclassified as exempt or as independent contractors are still on top of the administration’s and plaintiff class action lawyers’ agendas.
  8. If you are a potential target for unionization, review your company policies and practices to ensure that you are well-prepared before NLRB’s speedy election and other pro-union rules make it too late.
  9. Review your attendance and leave (including FMLA leave) policies and procedures. The EEOC, DOL and plaintiffs’ lawyers are vigorously pursuing ADA and FMLA failure to accommodate and failure to grant leave lawsuits.
  10. If your organization is a government contractor, get ready for big changes. OFCCP continues its focus on enforcement including trying to find unlawful compensation disparities and is even considering setting quotas for hiring disabled workers.

© Copyright 2013 Armstrong Teasdale LLP

White Collar Crime Institute – March 6-8, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming White Collar Crime Institute:

White Collar Crime March 6-8 2013

The program will provide an in-depth analysis of three recent high visibility trials by the lawyers involved in the cases.  The many topics covered will include: ethical pitfalls and blunders in white collar practice, conducting global investigations (including issues of competing laws), data privacy and blocking statutes, trial tactics in white collar cases, Brady obligations, international issues in white collar practice (including obtaining evidence abroad), handling of, and dealing with, issues related to electronically stored materials, sentencing guidelines and arguing for a departure, updates and trends in securities and FCPA enforcement, and more!