Section 409A Transition Relief Deadline Quickly Approaching

The National Law Review recently published an article by Daniel B. Lange and Christopher K. Buch of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP regarding Section 409A Transistion Relief Deadlines:

As the end of the year approaches, important transition relief from penalties and excise taxes imposed by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) is about to expire. If an employer has an employment agreement or other nonqualified deferred compensation plan that provides for severance payments to an employee only if such employee executes a release, there may be a technical violation of Code Section 409A. The Internal Revenue Service allows for correction of such technical violations without penalty, but the correction must occur before December 31, 2012.

In 2010, the IRS issued two notices (IRS Notice 2010-6 and 2010-80) addressing how to fix an employment agreement that was not in compliance with Code Section 409A. In these notices, the IRS stated that by allowing an employee to receive his or her severance payment following the execution of a release, the employee would be able to control the year of such payment by timing when he or she delivered such release to his or her employer. The IRS stated that, to the extent the severance payment is subject to Code Section 409A, the ability to control payment timing is a violation regardless of whether the execution and delivery of the release actually crosses two taxable years.

The IRS provided transitional relief from this technical violation by allowing employers to amend any noncompliant employment agreement or other nonqualified deferred compensation plan in effect as of December 31, 2010. Under the transitional relief, such agreement or plan must comply with the Code Section 409A release requirements by December 31, 2012.

In order to take advantage of the transitional relief, an employer must correct the noncompliant agreement or plan in one of two approved manners and include the names of the employees affected and the correction method used by the employer.

Briefly, if the agreement or plan provides for a defined payment period, the correction must be made to provide for either: (a) payment only on the last day of such defined period or (b) if the defined payment period begins in one taxable year and ends in another taxable year, payment must be made in the later taxable year. If the agreement or plan does not provide for a defined payment period, the correction must be made to provide for either: (x) payment only on a specified date either 60 or 90 days following the employee’s separation from service, or (y) payment during a defined period not longer than 90 days following the employee’s separation from service, except that the payment must be made in the later taxable year if that period could span two taxable years.

If the agreement or plan is not corrected by the December 31, 2012 deadline, payments made pursuant to such agreement or plan may be immediately included in an affected employee’s income, a 20 percent penalty tax will be imposed, and additional interest taxes may apply. Please note that in the case of a bilateral agreement or plan, the affected employee’s consent is required to make any change, so employers should allow plenty of time to make these corrections.

A copy of IRS Notice 2010-6 can be found here and a copy of IRS Notice 2010-80 can be found here.

©2012 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

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.

Superstorm Sandy and the Remediation of Water Damage, Mold Growth and Bacterial Threats

GT Law

As business slowly returns to normal in areas of the East Coast impacted by Superstorm Sandy, property owners are confronting questions about how best to address water damage, prevent or remediate mold and microbial growth, and address bacterial threats from potentially contaminated flood waters.  When water damage, flooding, or moisture intrusion events occur, there are a number of important considerations to take into account to address potential or actual mold, microbial, and bacterial threats:

1. Prompt Action is Essential

  • Quick action is the key to preventing water damage from becoming a significant mold, microbial or bacterial problem.
  • Act quickly to stop any ongoing source of water intrusion, evaluate the source and extent of water damage, mold-impacted building materials, and bacterial threats, and prepare an appropriate plan of action.
  • Analyze insurance policies early in the process and put carriers on notice of any water damage, mold growth, and bacterial threats promptly.  Many insurance policies require prior approval of selected consultants and contractors, as well as remedial scopes of work developed for the impacted property.
  • Determine whether there are notice obligations under existing loan agreements, management, partnership, joint-venture agreements, and leases with tenants.

2. Retain Qualified Professionals

  • Consider retaining a qualified environmental consultant with a licensed Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) on staff. Often, a CIH can best determine the source and extent of water damage and the appropriate scope of work to prevent or remediate mold and bacterial growth.
  • Avoid the mistake of hiring only a remediation contractor. A more prudent approach is to engage a third-party consultant or CIH to conduct an assessment of water/moisture and mold/bacteria-impacted building materials, develop the appropriate scope of work for remediation, and monitor the performance of such work by a carefully selected remediation contractor.
  • The third-party consultant/CIH should confirm that all water damage and related mold and bacterial growth have been appropriately remediated in accordance with the developed scope of work and prevailing industry standards. This provides an important double-check on the quality of the remediation.

3. Consider Carefully Whether Indoor Air Sampling is Necessary or Appropriate

  • A thorough visual assessment with moisture metering conducted by a qualified CIH is the most effective way to confirm whether mold and/or conditions conducive to mold are present, and ultimately whether mold has been remediated successfully.
  • Sampling methods for mold are not standardized and often yield highly variable results. Indoor air sampling often leads to results that are difficult to interpret, or that indicate a problem when there is none. The quantity of mold spores in air can vary greatly depending upon the season, the weather conditions, and the time of day, regardless of whether indoor mold growth actually is present.
  • There are no regulatory standards against which to compare air sampling results for health or environmental assessments. In many cases, the objective should be to demonstrate that there is a lower concentration of mold spores in indoor air than in outdoor air.
  • Before any post-mold remediation indoor air confirmation sampling is conducted, the third-party consultant/CIH should confirm via a thorough visual assessment and moisture metering that all water damaged and/or mold-impacted building materials have been remediated in accordance with the site-specific scope of work and prevailing industry standards, and that no excessive moisture or visible mold growth remains.

4. Document Assessment Findings, Remediation, and Results of Confirmation Sampling

  • It is essential to document that the assessment and remediation work conducted was thorough, and that all impacts resulting from the water intrusion event have been successfully remediated. Maintaining such documentation will help avoid future obstacles in financing, leasing and sale transactions.
  • The third-party consultant/CIH should prepare an assessment report that documents the initial assessment findings and recommendations for remediation.  Once the remediation has been completed by a qualified contractor, the consultant/CIH should prepare a second, final report documenting that the conditions identified in its assessment report were remediated in accordance with its recommendations, that no mold or bacterial growth, or conditions conducive to mold or bacterial growth, remain, and that no further investigation or remediation is necessary.

5. Communicate with Building Occupants

  • It is important to maintain open lines of communication with building occupants, and to provide information regarding the remedial measures being taken and the timetable for completion.
  • Avoid the temptation to hide the problem from building occupants, and the reluctance to provide bad news.  Sharing information with building occupants in most cases actually reduces the potential for and significance of third-party claims. It would be prudent to discuss this process with legal counsel.
  • Document any complaints received from building occupants and users, and all actions taken in response thereto, and establish a protocol for responding to information requests and complaints. If such  a  protocol is established, stick to it.

6. Don’t Cut Corners

  • Avoid the temptation and resist any contractor recommendations to simply clean porous building materials such as drywall, insulation and carpeting. The wiser approach is to remove and replace porous materials, and limit cleaning to non-porous materials. While this approach can increase demolition and replacement costs, it more effectively reduces the risk of future mold and bacterial growth and related remediation costs and thirdparty claims.
  • Evaluate incidental regulatory requirements, such as whether proper abatement of asbestos containing materials or lead paint is required in connection with the remediation project, and have any such work conducted by qualified professionals.
  • Clean and maintain HVAC systems, replace air filters, drip pans, etc., during remediation. Following these general guidelines can greatly reduce the risk that water damage becomes a significant loss or source of liability. Additional information helpful in responding to water damage, mold and bacterial growth is available from the New York City Department of Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency via the links below:

©2012 Greenberg Traurig, LLP

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:

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:

CFTC Issues Interpretive Letter Regarding Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral

The National Law Review recently published an article by Kevin M. Foley and James M. Brady of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLPCFTC Issues Interpretive Letter Regarding Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral:

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

The Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an interpretive letter regarding cleared swaps customer collateral requirements under Part 22 of the CFTC’s rules. The DCR interpretation addresses a number of issues with respect to which derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) and clearing member futures commission merchants (FCMs) requested clarification, including: (1) limitations on the use of cleared swaps customer collateral; (2) the use of variation margin, in particular if a DCO elects to net variation margin across an FCM’s cleared swaps customers; (3) comingling of cleared swaps customer collateral; (4) the processes by which an FCM may report to a DCO its customers’ portfolio of rights and obligations; (5) the circumstances in which a DCO may accept cleared swaps customer collateral in excess of the DCO’s initial margin requirements; and (vi) the determination of the value of cleared swaps customer collateral in the event of an FCM default.

The DCR interpretive letter is available here.

©2012 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

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.

Posting By Employer Regarding Pending Legal Action Can Violate CEPA

The National Law Review recently published an article by Ari G. Burd of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.Posting By Employer Regarding Pending Legal Action Can Violate CEPA:

 

In Flecker v Statue Cruises, LLC, the plaintiff filed an action against his employer alleging violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.  In response, the employer posted a memorandum directed to all employees informing them of the suit.  The memo specifically identified plaintiff as the party responsible for filing the suit and advised employees that as a result, no employees would be scheduled for overtime.  Immediately thereafter, plaintiff was confronted, threatened and harassed by coworkers.  Eventually the harassment became so great that plaintiff resigned.  Plaintiff then filed a claim of retaliation under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), New Jersey’s whistle-blower statute.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer and the case was dismissed.  However, on November 14, 2012, the Appellate Division reversed this ruling and reinstated the case, noting there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the employer knew or should have known its memorandum would incite the plaintiff’s co-workers and that such action could ultimately force the plaintiff to resign.  This is yet another example to show that CEPA is far-reaching, and protects workers from a wide assortment of retaliatory conduct far greater than mere discharge, suspension or demotion.

© 2012 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 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.

Congress Continues to Examine Data Brokers’ Practices

The National Law Review recently published an article, Congress Continues to Examine Data Brokers’ Practices, written by Michelle Cohen of Ifrah Law:

 

The chairmen of the Congressional Bipartisan Privacy Caucus just released the responses they received from nine major data brokers whom they queried in July about how each broker collects, assembles and sells consumer information to third parties. In their responses, the nine companies — Acxiom, Epsilon, Equifax, Experian, Harte-Hanks, Intelius, Fair Isaac, Merkle and Meredith Corp. – generally asserted that they were not data brokers. Some companies claimed they analyze data rather than broker it. Copies of the brokers’ responses and the original letters can be found here.

Interestingly, several of the brokers acknowledged obtaining their data from social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook, in addition to telephone directories, government agencies, and financial institutions.

The legislators issued a joint statement in which they noted shortcomings in the brokers’ answers, stating that “many questions about how these data brokers operate have been left unanswered, particularly how they analyze personal information to categorize and rate consumers.”

Members of Congress have indicated that they will continue to scrutinize the data brokerage industry. Issues of particular concern for the legislators include: the sale of personal information to third parties for targeted advertising, the gathering and selling of information relating to children and teenagers, and the lack of transparency in data brokers’ practices and available information. The Privacy Caucus has expressed concern that many Americans do not know how the industry operates and that controls may be lacking for individuals over their own information.

The FTC has already called on Congress to address data brokers’ practices through legislation. In March, the FTC advocated for legislation to “address the invisibility of, and consumers’ lack of control over, data brokers’ collection and use of consumer information.” We anticipate continued review of data brokers by Congress and federal agencies including the FTC. Companies in the data compilation business should continue to monitor ongoing proceedings.

It should be noted, however, that not all companies that gather personal information actually “broker” it in a manner that raises concern. Some companies compile information and remove identifying data before providing it to third parties; other companies gather information under contract for a business with whom a consumer has an existing business relationship – as a means to promote better customer service by tailoring offerings that will be of interest to consumers generally or to a particular consumer. Many consumers have indicated a willingness to receive these types of tailored offerings.

© 2012 Ifrah PLLC

Rainmaker Retreat: Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Law Firm Marketing Boot Camp:

WHY SHOULD YOU ATTEND?

Have you ever gone to a seminar that left you feeling motivated, but you walked out with little more than a good feeling? Or taken a workshop that was great on style, but short on substance?

Ever been to an event that was nothing more than a “pitch fest” that left a bad taste in your mouth? We know exactly how you feel. We have all been to those kinds of events and we hate all those things too. Let me tell you right up front this is not a “pitch fest” where speaker after speaker gets up only trying to sell you something.

We have designed this 2 day intensive workshop to be content rich, loaded with practical content.

We are so confident you will love the Rainmaker Retreat that we offer a 100% unconditional money-back guarantee! At the end of the first day of the Rainmaker Retreat if you don’t believe you have already received your money’s worth, simply tell one of the staff, return your 70-page workbook and the CD set you received and we will issue you a 100% refund.

We understand making the decision to attend an intensive 2-day workshop is a tough decision. Not only do you have to take a day off work (all Rainmaker Retreats are offered only on a Friday-Saturday), but in many cases you have to travel to the event. As a business owner you want to be sure this is a worthwhile investment of your time and money.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

Partners at Small Law Firms (less than 25 attorneys) Solo Practitioners and Of Counsel attorneys who are committed to growing their firm. Benefits you will receive:

Solo practitioners who need to find more clients fast on a shoe-string budget. In addition to all the above benefits, solo attorneys will receive these massive benefits:

Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff who are either responsible for marketing the law firm or manage the team who handles the law firm’s marketing. In addition to all the above benefits, Law Firm Business Managers and Internal Legal Marketing Staff will also receive these benefits:

Of Counsel Attorneys who are paid on an “eat what you kill” basis. In addition to all the above benefits, Of Counsel attorneys will also receive these benefits:

Associates who are either looking to grow their book of new clients in the next 6-12 months or want to launch their own private practice. In addition to all the above benefits, Associates will also receive these benefits: