The National Law Forum

Why Social Media Matters to Lawyers – Reason #1: Personal-Effort Efficiency

The National Law Review recently published an article, Why Social Media Matters to Lawyers – Reason #1: Personal-Effort Efficiency, written by Steven Bell of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC:

After all these years, I have concluded (as some, such as Mark Maraia have done long before me) thatrelationships are the foundation of client development at law firms.

Research by Hellerman Baretz Communications and BTI Consulting shows that, by far, personal referrals are the top driver for outside law firm engagements. Relationships with lawyers, existing clients, referral sources and other contacts are the lifeblood of any attorney’s practice, and I have been told that 70% of law firms’ new business derives from these relationships.

The same research shows that approximately 10 to 20 percent of a law firm’s business comes via online search engines such as such as Yahoo! and Google.

I know of only one activity that directly addresses both the initiation, advancement and monetization of relationships AND the enhancement of the digital footprint: social media. That alone is reason enough for attorneys to post, Tweet and comment. But there are other benefits for attorneys who engage in social media, including personal effort efficiency.

One of the real advantages of social media as a marketing exercise is that busy attorneys can fit it into their hectic schedules. Anyone with a little bit of technology education and a will to succeed in the information age can dash off a Tweet or a LinkedIn post, use it to initiate and/or advance a relationship, and create a ripple in the digital pond. Thanks to mobile devices, one can even handle your social media activities while waiting for a meeting or sitting at the airport terminal.

Social media was tailor-made for the hectic, on-the-go lifestyle that most attorneys (and the professionals who support them) lead.

Next, Reason #2 – Out-of-Pocket-Spending Efficiency

Note: This post is the second blog entry based on a Nov. 17th presentation I made at the 2012 Lex MundiLatin America/Caribbean Regional Conference in Santiago, Chile.

FATCA Compliance Conference – December 4-5, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming FATCA Compliance Conference December 4-5, 2012 in New York City:

Implementing FATCA compliance standards will come with challenges for financial institutions across the globe. It is imperative that organizations and individuals, who oversee FATCA compliance regulations adequately prepare, understand and comply with the standards of the new regulations. The marcus evans FATCA Compliance Conference, December 4-5, 2012 in New York, NY will focus on the main concerns and issues with the upcoming compliance expectations under FATCA and analyze the existing requirements and how financial organizations can adequately comply.

Join industry leading experts, including key speakers:

Kathleen G. Dugan, Senior Vice President, Corporate and Institutional Services at Northern Trust
Jason Vasquez, Senior VP, BSA/AML Officer at Provident Bank
Kevin V. Sullivan, Head, North American Tax Operations Vice President at BNP Paribas Corporate & Investment Banking
Bill Holmes, Director, International Data Management at US Internal Revenue Services
Michael N. Obolensky, Senior Regulatory Counsel at Lloyds Bank

Attending this premiere marcus evans conference will enable you to:

Discuss the fundamental challenges with FATCA compliance as it relates to clarification of terms and definitions
Review the advantages of leveraging current Anti-Money Laundering (AML) programs in order to implement FATCA compliance
Discuss FATCA’s impact on insurance companies application and implementation process
Evaluate the growing concern of violating privacy rules as it relates to disclosure of client information

Attendees will benefit from a dynamic peer-to-peer presentation format consisting of workshops, interactive panel discussions and case studies. Each network and interactive session will be followed by 10-15 minutes of Q&A affording all in attendance an opportunity to get the answers to questions affecting their business. Moreover, 4+ hours of networking opportunities will supply attendees with benchmarking and best practices.

For more information, please contact Michele Westergaard at 312-540-3000 ext. 6625 or Michelew@marcusevansch.com.

For a full list speakers and topics, visit http://www.marcusevans-conferences-Northamerican.com/FATCA_NLRB

Industry Groups File Suit to Block Conflict Minerals Rules and Resource Extraction Rules

The National Law Review recently featured an article by the Public Companies Group of Schiff Hardin LLP titled, Industry Groups File Suit to Block Conflict Minerals Rules and Resource Extraction Rules:

Late last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed suit in federal court requesting that the court either modify or set aside the SEC rules governing so-called conflict minerals. The petition, filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, does not state a specific basis for the legal challenge, but in a joint statement, the groups stated that though well-intentioned, the rules are “not an effective approach to this complex issue” and characterized the rule as imposing “an unworkable, overly broad and burdensome system that will undermine jobs and growth and may not achieve Congress’s overall objectives.” This petition comes on the heels of the suit filed against the SEC early last month by a collection of industry groups asking a federal district court to block implementation of the resource extraction disclosure rules promulgated in late August. The plaintiff trade groups raised a number of claims, including a faulty cost-benefit analysis and deficiencies under the Administrative Procedures Act and Exchange Act. It is not clear at this time if the SEC will stay either of the controversial rules on a voluntary basis after negotiation with plaintiffs’ counsel. Should the SEC refuse to do so, the plaintiffs could petition the court for injunctive relief.

Criminal Tax Fraud and Tax Controversy 2012 – December 6-7, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Criminal Tax Fraud Conference:

When

December 06 – 07, 2012

Where

Wynn Las Vegas
3131 Las Vegas Blvd S
Las Vegas, NV, 89109-1967
United States of America

As in past years, these institutes will offer the most knowledgeable panelists from the government, the judiciary and the private bar. Attendees will include attorneys and accountants who are just beginning to practice in tax controversy and tax fraud defense, as well as those who are highly experienced practitioners. The break-out sessions will encourage an open discussion of hot topics. The program will provides valuable updates on new developments and strategies, along with the opportunity to meet colleagues, renew acquaintances and exchange ideas.

Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Coca-Cola in Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement Claim by United Steel Workers

The National Law Review recently published an article by Bryan R. Walters of Varnum LLP regarding Coca-Cola’s Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement:

In Local Union 2-2000 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Service Workers International Union v. Coca-Cola Refreshments U.S.A. Inc. (W.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2012), the Honorable Janet T. Neff granted summary judgment in favor of the United Steel Workers against Coca-Cola on a breach of contract claim concerning wage increases under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The opinion addressed two interesting legal issues.

First, the court rejected Coca-Cola’s statute of limitations argument under 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), which provides that “no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon a person against whom such charge is made.” Coca-Cola argued that, because the United Steel Workers had filed an unfair labor practice charge concerning their unpaid wages claim approximately nine months after becoming aware of the issue, Section 160(b) barred the union’s claim. The court rejected this argument, concluding that it would be “inappropriate” to apply the six-month limitations period to what was a pure breach of contract claim. Instead, the court held that the applicable statute of limitations was the six-year statute of limitations under Michigan law for breach of contract actions. Op. at 13–15.

The second significant issue related to interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement included schedules for wage increases in “Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3” without further defining those terms within the primary contract document. The court held that this contract language was ambiguous, requiring introduction of parol evidence of the parties’ negotiation history. The court found clear and convincing evidence in the negotiating history that the union’s interpretation of the “Years” was correct, in that “Year 1” referred to the first 365 days after the effective date of the contract, etc. Id. at 19.

The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of a mutual mistake in the drafting of the final collective bargaining agreement. Coca-Cola listed specific dates for the wage adjustments in an appendix to the collective bargaining agreement. The court found that the dates listed in the appendix were not bargained for and never agreed to by the parties, rejecting as self-serving subsequent statements from Coca-Cola’s negotiators that Coca-Cola did not consider the dates unilaterally added to the appendix by Coca-Cola a “mistake.” Id. at 20–21.

NLR 2011 Law Student Writing Competition

The National Law Review would like to remind you of the Winter Law Student Writing Contest deadline is November 21st!

The National Law Review (NLR) consolidates practice-oriented legal analysis from a variety of sources for easy access by lawyers, paralegals, law students, business executives, insurance professionals, accountants, compliance officers, human resource managers, and other professionals who wish to better understand specific legal issues relevant to their work.

The NLR Law Student Writing Competition offers law students the opportunity to submit articles for publication consideration on the NLR Web site. No entry fee is required. Applicants can submit an unlimited number of entries each month.

Winning submissions will initially be published online in November and December 2011.
In each of these months, entries will be judged and the top two to four articles chosen will be featured on the NLR homepage for a month. Up to 5 runner-up entries will also be posted in the NLR searchable database each month.
Each winning article will be displayed accompanied by the student’s photo, biography, contact information, law school logo, and any copyright disclosure.
All winning articles will remain in the NLR database for two years (subject to earlier removal upon request of the law school).

In addition, the NLR sends links to targeted articles to specific professional groups via e-mail. The NLR also posts links to selected articles on the “Legal Issues” or “Research” sections of various professional organizations’ Web sites. (NLR, at its sole discretion, maydistribute any winning entry in such a manner, but does not make any such guarantees nor does NLR represent that this is part of the prize package.)

Why Students Should Submit Articles:

Students have the opportunity to publicly display their legal knowledge and skills.
The student’s photo, biography, and contact information will be posted with each article, allowing for professional recognition and exposure.
Winning articles are published alongside those written by respected attorneys from Am Law 200 and other prominent firms as well as from other respected professional associations.
Now more than ever, business development skills are expected from law firm associates earlier in their careers. NLR wants to give law students valuable experience generating consumer-friendly legal content of the sort which is included for publication in law firm client newsletters, law firm blogs, bar association journals and trade association publications.
Student postings will remain in the NLR online database for up to two years, easily accessed by potential employers.
For an example of a contest winning student written article from Northwestern University, please click here or please review the winning submissions from Spring 2011.

Content Guidelines and Deadlines

Content Guidelines must be followed by all entrants to qualify. It is recommended that articles address the following monthly topic areas:

November 2011 Feature: Intellectual Property law, Tax law and Labor & Employment law. (Submission deadline: Monday October 17th , 2011)
December 2011 Feature: Healthcare law, Financial Institution law and Bankruptcy and Restructuring law. (Submissions deadline: Monday November 21st, 2011)

Articles covering current issues related to other areas of the law may also be submitted. Entries must be submitted via email to lawschools@natlawreview.com by 5:00 pm Central Standard Time on the dates indicated above.

Articles will be judged by NLR staff members on the basis of readability, clarity, organization, and timeliness. Tone should be authoritative, but not overly formal. Ideally, articles should be straightforward and practical, containing useful information of interest to legal and business professionals. Judges reserve the right not to award any prizes if it is determined that no entries merit selection for publication by NLR. All judges’ decisions are final. All submissions are subject to the NLR’s Terms of Use.

Students are not required to transfer copyright ownership of their winning articles to the NLR. However, all articles submitted must be clearly identified with any applicable copyright or other proprietary notices. The NLR will accept articles previously published by another publication, provided the author has the authority to grant the right to publish it on the NLR site. Do not submit any material that infringes upon the intellectual property or privacy rights of any third party, including a third party’s unlicensed copyrighted work.

Manuscript Requirements

Format – HTML (preferred) or Microsoft^® Word
Length – Articles should be no more than 5,500 words, including endnotes.
Endnotes and citations – Any citations should be in endnote form and listed at the end of the article. Unreported cases should include docket number and court. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and proper format of related cites. In general, follow the Bluebook. Limit the number of endnotes to only those most essential. Authors are responsible for accuracy of all quoted material.
Author Biography/Law School Information –Please submit the following:
1. Full name of author (First Middle Last)
2. Contact information for author, including e-mail address and phone number
3. Author photo (recommended but optional) in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 150 x 200 pixels.
4. A brief professional biography of the author, running approximately 100 words or 1,200 characters including spaces.
5. The law school’s logo in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 300 pixels high or 300 pixels wide.
6. The law school mailing address, main phone number, contact e-mail address, school Web site address, and a brief description of the law school, running no more than 125 words or 2,100 characters including spaces.

To enter, an applicant and any co-authors must be enrolled in an accredited law school within the fifty United States. Employees of The National Law Review are not eligible. Entries must include ALL information listed above to be considered and must be submitted to the National Law Review at lawschools@natlawreview.com.

Any entry which does not meet the requirements and deadlines outlined herein will be disqualified from the competition. Winners will be notified via e-mail and/or telephone call at least one day prior to publication. Winners will be publicly announced on the NLR home page and via other media. All prizes are contingent on recipient signing an Affidavit of Eligibility, Publicity Release and Liability Waiver. The National Law Review 2011 Law Student Writing Competition is sponsored by The National Law Forum, LLC, d/b/a The National Law Review, 4700 Gilbert, Suite 47 (#230), Western Springs, IL 60558, 708-357-3317. This contest is void where prohibited by law. All entries must be submitted in accordance with The National Law Review Contributor Guidelines per the terms of the contest rules. A list of winners may be obtained by writing to the address listed above. There is no fee to enter this contest.

Congratulations to our Spring 2011 Law Student Writing Contest Winners!

Spring 2011:

After Nearly 25 Years, New Jersey Appellate Court Provides ‘Sobering’ Guidance to Employers Respecting Workplace Alcoholism

Robert H. Bernstein and Michael J. Slocum of Greenberg Traurig, LLP recently had an article, After Nearly 25 Years, New Jersey Appellate Court Provides ‘Sobering’ Guidance to Employers Respecting Workplace Alcoholism, published in The National Law Review:

It has been almost 25 years since a New Jersey appellate court published a decision providing any meaningful analysis of the treatment of alcoholism in the workplace under the State’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), the last time being the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Clowes v. Terminix International, Inc.

That has now changed.

On October 26, 2012, the Appellate Division held in A.D.P. v. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co. that a private-sector, non-union employer’s blanket policy requiring any employee returning from an alcohol rehabilitation program to submit to random alcohol testing, applicable only to those identified as being “alcoholic” and divorced from any individualized assessment of the employee’s performance, was facially discriminatory under the LAD — a conclusion that would likely be the same under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well. Although the Court reversed summary judgment initially entered in favor of the employer, A.D.P. provides valuable guidance to employers as they develop their policies concerning how best to deal with alcohol (and substance) abuse in the workplace. Equally important, A.D.P. illustrates the utility of so-called “last chance agreements” to address these issues when they arise.

Plaintiff in A.D.P. had been employed as a research technician, and later Senior Research Associate, for approximately 30 years. Unlike the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Hennessey v. Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co., hers was not a “safety-sensitive” position. In 2007, plaintiff voluntarily disclosed to her employer that she suffered from alcoholism, and entered a rehabilitation program. At the time, she was not subject to any pending or threatened disciplinary action, and she had built a good performance record over the years. The company’s policy nonetheless required that, upon her return from rehabilitation, plaintiff sign a contract agreeing to participate in a company-approved “aftercare program” obligating her to “maintain total abstinence from alcohol” and submit to “clinical substance testing for a minimum of two (2) years.” A positive test result or refusal to submit to a test would be deemed grounds for discipline, “which is most likely to be termination of employment.” Although plaintiff passed nine breathalyzer tests over a period of just 10 months, she subsequently failed a pair of tests on August 22, 2008, and accordingly was terminated under the company’s policy.

Reversing summary judgment, the Appellate Division held that the employer’s blanket policy was facially discriminatory because it was unrelated to any performance concerns and was based solely on the fact that an employee was identified (in plaintiff’s case, self-identified) as an alcoholic (i.e., the employer, according to the court, exhibited “hostility toward members of the employee’s class”). Unlike the Supreme Court in Hennessey, which considered whether an employer’s termination of an employee who failed a mandatory random drug test violated a clear mandate of “public policy” thereby creating a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge, the A.D.P. Court grounded its analysis of the defendant’s alcohol policy on LAD.

Notably, the A.D.P. Court looked to the EEOC’s 2000 policy guidance under the ADA, even though the EEOC had not yet considered the potential impact of the 2008 ADA Amendments Act upon that guidance. The EEOC explains that, absent a “last chance” agreement, an employer can subject employees returning from alcohol rehabilitation to random alcohol testing, a breathalyzer for example, only if the employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the employee will pose a “direct threat” (for example, to safety or job performance) absent such testing. Any such “reasonable belief” must be based on an individualized assessment of the employee and his/her position, including “safety risks associated with the position,” and not on generalized assumptions. The A.D.P. Court looked to this guidance statement for “assistance in interpreting the LAD” because the ADA’s prohibition against disability discrimination is “similar” to its LAD counterpart, and alcoholism may qualify as a disability under either statute.

In A.D.P., plaintiff did not have a last chance agreement, a fact the court “emphasize[d]” at the outset. The court also stressed that the employer had made no individualized assessment, but rather “defend[ed] its actions as requirements it uniformly imposed as a matter of policy upon any identified alcoholic.” Interestingly, the A.D.P. Court did not mention the Third Circuit’s unpublished 2009 decision inByrd v. Federal Express Corp. Byrd upheld an employer’s termination of a self-reported alcoholic employee for failing a random alcohol test mandated under a “Statement of Understanding” (SOU) — a contract the Third Circuit described as “in effect, a ‘last chance’ agreement” — that the employer required all employees identified as alcoholics to sign. Byrd did not, however, consider plaintiff’s claim that requiring the SOU was itself a violation of LAD “because it treats employees with alcohol or substance abuse problems differently,” as plaintiff had failed to challenge the SOU within LAD’s statutory limitations period.

Although A.D.P. invalidated the particular policy before it, in its opinion, the Court nonetheless provides employers with valuable guidance in developing their own policies concerning alcohol and substance abuse in the workplace. It seems clear under A.D.P. that private, non-union employers can require employees returning from rehabilitation programs for alcoholism to submit to random alcohol or drug testing (subject to the limits imposed by the Supreme Court in Hennessey) provided that either (i) they articulate a reasonable belief, based on careful assessment of objective evidence concerning both the employee and the position, that the employee will pose a direct threat absent such testing, or (ii) the employee has entered into a last chance agreement providing for random testing.

Key Takeaways

Employers should strongly consider entering into last chance agreements with any employee who points to alcohol or substance dependency as a cause for workplace problems (for example, poor performance or persistent tardiness), and include in the agreement requirements that, as a condition of continued employment, the employee will enter a rehabilitation program and submit to periodic testing.
Absent a last chance agreement, employers should not compel an employee to submit to periodic alcohol testing unless the employer can articulate a reasonable belief, based on a careful assessment of objective evidence concerning both the employee and the nature of his/her position, that the subject employee will pose a direct threat without testing.
Employers are cautioned against instituting blanket workplace alcohol (or substance) policies that specifically target employees returning from rehabilitation without regard to safety or performance issues.

ABA Winter Institutes – January 23-25 and February 14-15, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA Winter CLE Institutes:

ABA National Institutes

Learn and network at these live in-person seminars that draw lawyers from across the nation. January National Institutes include the 2013 E-Discovery and Information Governance, January 23-25 in Tampa, FL. February National Institutes include the 2013 Gaming Law Minefield, February 14-15 in Las Vegas, NV.

2013 Expiring and Changing Employee Tax Provisions

The National Law Review recently published an article by Jacob Mattinson, Diane M. Morgenthaler, and Ruth Wimer, Esq., CPA of McDermott Will & Emery titled, 2013 Expiring and Changing Employee Tax Provisions:

With the fiscal cliff approaching in 2013, several favorable tax provisions affecting individuals and businesses are set to expire. These changes include an expiration of the lower federal income tax rates implemented under President Bush, a return of the “marriage penalty” and an expiration of an extensive list of previously extended temporary tax provisions. Given this tax uncertainty, employers must prepare for possible changes to payroll taxes, flexible spending account contribution limits, adoption assistance benefits and educational assistance benefits.

Payroll Taxes

The 2 percent payroll tax cut enjoyed in 2011 and 2012, which reduced the employee’s share of Social Security payroll taxes, will expire as of January 1, 2013. Specifically, this tax cut reduced the employee’s share of Social Security taxes from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent on the first $110,100 of wages in 2012. A similar reduction from 12.4 percent to 10.4 percent applied to the income of self-employed individuals. Although the increase is on employee contributions, the increase also affects an employer’s withholding obligations. Furthermore, if an employer provides a gross-up of any type to an employee, such gross-up will be commensurately more expensive beginning in 2013.

At the same time that the temporary 2 percent decrease in employee payroll taxes expires, a new 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax increase applies (from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acton wages over $250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and $200,000 for single taxpayers. Self-employed individuals will have a similar increase in self-employment tax liability. Although this increased rate of tax is not an employer liability, employers must be prepared to withhold the additional 0.9 percent from wages for any employee with wages over $200,000. Because this withholding is required on an employee’s wages over $200,000, which does not particularly correlate with an employee’s ultimate tax liability, many employees, particularly those who are married, may find that they are over- or under-withheld, depending upon the earnings of their spouse. For example, if a husband and wife each earn $200,000, with joint wages totaling $400,000, this couple will be under-withheld because their respective employers will withhold nothing. However, the additional 0.9 percent tax for them is owed on combined wages over $250,000, resulting in an under-withholding of $1,350 ($150,000 times 0.9 percent).

Qualified Adoption Assistance

The income tax exclusion for amounts paid by an employer under a qualified adoption assistance program is also set to expire on December 31, 2012. A qualified adoption assistance program allows an employer to reimburse an employee on a tax-free basis for as much as $12,650 in 2012 for expenses related to the adoption or attempted adoption of a child. Qualified adoption expenses include reasonable and necessary adoption fees, including court costs, attorney fees, traveling expenses (including amounts spent for meals and lodging while away from home) and other expenses directly related to the legal adoption of an eligible child.

Flexible Spending Account Contributions

Employee contributions to health care flexible spending accounts will be reduced to $2,500 per year for plan years beginning in 2013. Prior to 2013, the tax code did not limit health care flexible spending account contributions. This new limit must be documented in a flexible benefits plan by December 31, 2014, regardless of the fiscal year of the flexible benefits plan, and this change must be retroactive to the beginning of the 2013 plan year.

Educational Assistance

Certain reimbursements for employer-provided educational assistance will expire at the end of 2012. Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code allows an employer to reimburse an employee on a tax-free basis up to $5,250 for certain educational expenses provided through a non-discriminatory educational assistance program, including reimbursements for graduate school and programs that allow the employee to qualify for a new position. Even if employer-provided educational assistance programs no longer have tax subsidies in 2013, employers can still provide some type of educational reimbursements in a more limited manner if the educational reimbursements qualify as a business expense and meet certain requirements, such as enhancing the employee’s performance but not qualifying the employee for a new position or career.

Next Steps

With the uncertainty of the approaching fiscal cliff, employers should consider advising employees of the ambiguity surrounding educational assistance and adoption assistance benefits for 2013 and the possibility of a 2 percent payroll tax increase. However, even if tax extensions for education assistance, adoption assistance and the 2 percent payroll tax increase are adopted in a new tax bill, employers should note that it is highly unlikely that either the new limits on health care flexible spending accounts or the new 0.9 percent payroll tax increase for high-income employees will be altered or eliminated.

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 National Law Forum

FATCA Compliance Conference – December 4-5, 2012

Like this:

Industry Groups File Suit to Block Conflict Minerals Rules and Resource Extraction Rules

Like this:

Criminal Tax Fraud and Tax Controversy 2012 – December 6-7, 2012

Like this:

Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Coca-Cola in Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement Claim by United Steel Workers

Like this: