Canadian International Trade Compliance Conference – September 12-14, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Canadian International Trade Compliance Conference:

Addressing the Global Trade Compliance Concerns Involving Export Controls, Custom Compliance and Cross Border Trade in CanadaEvent Date: September 12-14, 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Key conference topics
  • Assess the latest export permit requirements in Canada with Pratt and Whitney Canada
  • Address re-exports of U.S. origin goods from Canada to comply with both Canadian and U.S. export controls with Future Electronics
  • Integrate an effective anti-corruption compliance program as part of a global trade compliance program with Methanex Corporation
  • Analyze supply chain security concerns when dealing with cross border trade with Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
  • Uncover the updates to the Export Controls List and their impact upon Canadian companies with Research in Motion Limited

Currently, international trade compliance professionals need to stay up to date on the changing regulations within Canada and also abroad. With the changes to the Export Controls List and the ever-complex nature of Canadian-U.S. cross border trade, companies need to be aware of how these changes affect their international trade compliance programs.

Canada’s relationship with the U.S. makes it imperative that the International Trade Compliance community is informed on the impact that U.S. rules and regulations can have on Canadian companies.

Building upon the success of the 2nd Annual International Trade Compliance Conference, the marcusevans Canadian International Trade Compliance conference addresses the Global Trade Compliance Concerns involving export controls, customs compliance and cross border trade in Canada.

By attending this event, industry leaders will be able to overcome any potential challenges in crafting and sustaining a comprehensive trade compliance program.

Attending This Conference Will Enable You To:

1. Dissect the latest updates from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with Research in Motion Limited
2. Comprehend the U.S. Export Reform Initiative and the impact upon Canadian companies with Public Works and Government Services Canada
3. Develop and understanding of import value and transfer pricing with Ericsson Canada Inc.
4. Focus on NAFTA and other Free Trade Agreements with Plains Midstream Canada

Industry leaders attending this event will benefit from a dynamic presentation format consisting of workshops, panel discussions and case studies. Attendees will experience highly interactive conference sessions, 10-15 minutes of Q&A time after each presentation, 4+ hours of networking and exclusive online access to materials post-event.

Audience:

SVPs, VPs, Directors, Superintendents, Supervisors, Engineers, Specialists, Leaders and Managers from the Chemical, Petrochemical, and Refining Industries with responsibilities in:

  • EHS Environmental Health and Safety
  • Safety/Process Safety Management
  • Plant Management/Operations
  • Inspection/Reliability
  • Mechanical/Asset Integrity
  • Manufacturing/Technology
  • Training & Development

Four Practical Tips for Protecting the Attorney-Client Privilege

The critical protection offered by the attorney-client privilege—maintenance of the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and client—is increasingly under attack from both government regulators and private litigants. Moreover, there are some situations in which it is not at all obvious that the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege are put at risk. For example, in stark contrast to US attorney-client privilege protections, the privilege is not even recognized in some situations outside the US, such as conversations between business people and in-house counsel. Here are some practical tips for ensuring that your communications with counsel are protected by the attorney-client privilege and not subject to disclosure.

1. CLEARLY IDENTIFY PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

Communications that are clearly attorney-client privileged, i.e., they are made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice, should be identified as such. Use of phrases within the body of privileged communications, such as “I am seeking legal advice related to…” or “In response to your request for legal counsel regarding…” further confirm that the communication is privileged. Use of the “privilege” label does not create a privilege that might not otherwise exist. Therefore, do not overuse the “privilege” label; doing so may make it more difficult to establish the protection of the privilege for communications that were truly made to obtain or provide legal advice.

2. PRIVILEGE RULES OUTSIDE THE US ARE DIFFERENT

Although most countries recognize some form of attorney-client privilege, the scope and application of the privilege may vary significantly by country. For example, while communications between in-house counsel in the US and their internal business clients in the US are protected by the same privileges that apply to outside US counsel, there is no in-house counsel privilege in the majority of countries in the European Union (EU). Those countries reason that inside counsel are not independent of their employers and therefore are not entitled to the same privilege protections afforded communications with outside counsel who are deemed to be independent. EU law is also unlikely to recognize as privileged a communication between in-house counsel based in the US and a business client based in the EU. Indeed, in one case, the EU seized legal memoranda from inside counsel and relied on them to determine that a company knowingly violated the law. Case law further suggests that the EU may not even recognize as privileged a communication between outside US counsel and a business client located in the EU. The implications of the starkly different treatment of the attorney-client privilege as between the US and the EU can be serious. For example, parties to litigation in the US may attempt to seek discovery of sensitive communications between in-house counsel in the EU and internal business clients based in the EU. To maintain the protection of the attorney-client privilege outside the US to the greatest extent possible, the following steps should be taken:

  1. analyze the attorney-client privilege rules in each jurisdiction in which your company has operations,
  2. based on that analysis, determine whether it is necessary to engage local outside counsel to maximize the protection of the attorney-client privilege,
  3. limit the privileged information sent by US inside counsel to European offices, and
  4. limit access to US legal department files and servers by non-US offices.

3. USE CAUTION WHEN COMMUNICATING WITH OUTSIDE DIRECTORS

Most outside directors have other business interests, and many are employed by other companies. If these outside directors use email addresses provided by their employer or other business interests, they may subject emails relating to the company on whose board they serve, including attorney-client communications, to discovery because they have a very limited, if any, expectation of privacy related to an email address that is controlled by their employer or unrelated business interest. To protect email communications with outside directors to the greatest extent possible, the outside directors should use either an email address provided by the company on whose board they serve or a personal email address. If that is not possible, any board-related emails going to or from another company’s email address should be clearly identified in the subject line as board-related business and, if to or from an attorney, that the communication is privileged, and the outside director should segregate those emails in a separate folder.

4. IN-HOUSE COUNSEL SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE RISKS OF SIGNING AFFIDAVITS OR SWORN STATEMENTS

Signing affidavits or other sworn statements on behalf of the company, such as verifications of discovery responses in litigation, may subject the signer to a deposition or other discovery of the factual basis on which the statement or affidavit was made. If the affidavit or sworn statement is signed by in-house counsel, protecting information obtained by in-house counsel in the course of investigating the matter that led to the affidavit or statement becomes very difficult because the act of signing may be viewed as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, to the extent possible, use non-attorney business people to sign affidavits or other sworn statements on behalf of the company.

In sum, recognition of those situations in which the protection of the attorney-client privilege may be at risk and adherence to best practices are necessary to continue maintaining the confidentiality of attorney-client communications.

© 2012 Andrews Kurth LLP

ABA Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Awards Luncheon – August 5, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ABA event:

The Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, established by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession in 1991, recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of women lawyers who have excelled in their field and have paved the way to success for other women lawyers.

2012 Luncheon

Sunday, August 5th – Noon – 2:00 p.m.

Hyatt Regency Chicago in Chicago, Illinois
(ABA Annual Meeting)


Honorees

  • The Honorable Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice of California, Supreme Court of California, San Francisco, CA
  • Marcia Devins Greenberger, Co-President, National Women’s Law Center, Washington, DC
  • Joan M. Hall, Retired Partner, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Arlinda Locklear, Attorney, Arlinda Locklear Law Office, Washington, DC
  • Amy W. Schulman, Executive Vice President & General Counsel of Pfizer, President of Pfizer Nutrition, New York, NY

DOL Publishes New Employees’ Guide to the FMLA

The National Law Review recently published an article by Joel M. Nolan of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., regarding FMLA:

Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor released a user-friendly Employees’ Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act.  The guide is targeted at employees, but may also serve as a helpful tool for employers looking for an efficient summary of the law.

The guide does not provide new information or legal interpretations of the law; rather, it provides a plain-language overview of the FMLA’s major provisions and contours, such as FMLA eligibility, FMLA rights and protections, the process for requesting leave (and associated notice provisions), FMLA certifications, and job reinstatement.  In addition, the guide highlights certain unique circumstances and incorporates some of the DOL’s  interpretive guidance on particular issues.  For example, the guide discusses eligibility guidelines for airline flight attendants and flight crew employees, describes when employees may be eligible to take FMLA leave to care for certain children with whom the employee has no legal relationship (or to care for another as such a child), and emphasizes the importance of employer FMLA policies.  Further, the guide provides clear flowcharts regarding FMLA eligibility and certification and the process for taking FMLA leave, as well as information for employees on filing an FMLA complaint with the DOL’s wage-and-hour division.

The DOL has also archived a webinar about the guide, which is available here:  http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/employeeguide-webinar.htm

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

ICC Rules of Arbitration – October 8-9, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ICC Training:

  • Location: ICC Headquarters, Paris
  • Date: 08/10/2012 – 09/10/2012
  • Event Type: Training
  • Language: French, English

After the success of the first round of trainings, ICC will be hosting another 2-day session on the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration in Paris in October.

Learning outcomes

  • Acquire theoretical and practical knowledge of the main changes in the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration on important topics such as Emergency Arbitrator; Case Management and Joinder, Multi-party/Multi-contract Arbitration and Consolidation
  • Study the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration in small working groups of about 10 participants applying various provisions to mock cases
  • Gaining valuable insights from some of the world’s leading experts in arbitration including persons involved in the drafting of the New ICC Rules of Arbitration

Who should attend?
Arbitrators, legal practitioners and in-house counsel who already have knowledge in arbitration and wish to know more about the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration.

What Does One Need to ‘Know’ to Commit a Federal Crime?

The National Law Review recently featured an article by Sarah Coffey of Ifrah Law regarding Federal Crimes:

On July 2, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit tackled an interesting question of statutory interpretation that centered on the precise usage by Congress of the word “knowingly” in a federal criminal law that prohibits luring people under 18 years old into prostitution.

In United States v. Daniels, the appeals court was reviewing the conviction of Robert Daniels, a pimp who had induced a 14-year-old girl to become a prostitute. One of Daniels’ arguments was that he didn’t know the girl was under 18 and thus could not be convicted under the wording of the statute.

The statute provides that anyone who “knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense” can be convicted of a federal crime. The question before the court was whether the adverb “knowingly” applies to the age of the person lured into prostitution, or only to the persuading, inducing, enticing or coercing. In other words, in order for someone to be guilty of the crime, does he have to know that the prostitute was under age?

The court ruled that in order to sustain a conviction, the prosecution does not have to prove that the perpetrator knew the prostitute was under 18.

The court reasoned that although in general, criminal law applies a presumption that a knowledge requirement “applies to every element in a statute,” it is also the case that laws “concerned with the protection of minors are within a special context, where that presumption is rebutted.” The goal, the court wrote, is to honor “the congressional goal of protecting minors victimized by sexual crimes.”

Delicate issues relating to the meaning of a statute are not limited to questions relating to prostitutes and pimps, of course. In statutes defining white-collar crimes such as fraud or illegal gaming, or setting forth the punishments for such crimes, there are often ambiguous terms or complicated sentence structures.

One thing that we can learn from the Daniels opinion in the 11th Circuit is that appeals courts don’t always follow strict rules of interpretation based on the placement of an adverb or of a comma. They often look at the broad purpose of the statute and the goals that Congress sought to achieve in passing it and creating the crime. It will be interesting to see how the Daniels opinion and similar cases will be applied in the white-collar context.

© 2012 Ifrah PLLC

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference – October 18-19, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information regarding the upcoming ABA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Conference:

When

October 18 – 19, 2012

Where

  • The Westin Grand Hotel
  • 2350 M St NW
  • Washington, DC, 20037-1417
  • United States of America

  • Program Description

As enforcement of anti-corruption laws in the United States and abroad continues to be a top priority for law enforcement, the Institute will provide a timely and substantive briefing on developments to companies, their officers, and employees. This year’s program will continue to examine trends stemming from recent proceedings brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as address recent challenges to the FCPA both in Congress and the courts.

The Institute will also provide a more in-depth focus on certain recurring issues faced by practitioners and companies alike. Whether examining liability presented by other federal and non-U.S. laws in the event of a potential FCPA violation or minimizing liability in connection with complex international business transactions, the program will provide practical tips from experienced government, corporate, and private practitioners. In addition, the Institute will feature both an in-house perspectives panel and, for the first time, a panel dedicated to SEC enforcement and how it has evolved since the SEC’s establishment of its FCPA unit.

Federal Authorities Obtain First-Ever Criminal Conviction Regarding Fraudulent Generation of Renewable Fuel Credits

An article by Susan M. Cooke and Bethany K. Hatef of McDermott Will & Emery regarding Renewal Fuel Credits appeared in The National Law Review:

 

 

On June 25, 2012, a federal jury in Maryland found the owner of a fraudulent clean energy production company guilty of wire fraud, money laundering and violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Rodney Hailey, the owner of Clean Green Fuels, LLC, was convicted of eight counts of wire fraud, 32 counts of money laundering and two counts of CAA violations in connection with his sale of fraudulent biodiesel renewable fuel credits. Mr. Hailey’s sentencing is scheduled for October 11, 2012. He faces imprisonment of up to 20 years for each wire fraud conviction; up to 10 years for each money laundering conviction; and up to two years for each CAA violation. While Mr. Hailey’s case marks the first criminal prosecution concerning the fraudulent generation of such renewable fuel credits, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently investigating other cases where similar enforcement action may be taken.

As required by the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, EPA each year establishes the minimum volume of renewable fuel (Renewable Volume Obligation) to be produced or imported by refiners, importers, and most blenders of nonrenewable transportation fuel (obligated parties). Under EPA’s regulations which are set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 80, Subparts K and M, a Renewable Identification Number (RIN) is assigned to each volume of renewable fuel that is produced, and the RIN is registered with EPA. After the associated fuel is obtained by an obligated party or blended into motor vehicle fuel, the RIN can be traded as a renewable fuel credit, either bilaterally or in private organized markets, and all transfers must be tracked on a system established by EPA and used to meet an obligated party’s Renewable Volume Obligation.

From March 2009 to December 2010, Clean Green Fuels, sold more than 32 million fraudulent RINs representing over 23 million gallons of renewable biodiesel fuel. In 2010, EPA received a complaint that Mr. Hailey’s company was selling fraudulent RINs. This sparked an investigation by EPA’s Air Enforcement Division in July 2010, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland filed charges against Mr. Hailey in October 2011 with respect to his fraudulent sale of RINs and his registration of Clean Green Fuels with EPA as a biodiesel producer when that company never produced any fuel.

In addition to its criminal prosecution of Mr. Hailey, EPA issued Notices of Violation to gasoline and diesel refiners, blenders, and importers that utilized Clean Green Fuels RINs to demonstrate compliance with their Renewable Fuel Obligations. EPA maintains that entities submitting false RINs for compliance purposes are subject to enforcement, regardless of whether they knew or had reason to know that the RINs were invalid. During April 2012, EPA settled with 28 of those parties, requiring them to replace the fraudulent RINs with valid RINs and to pay civil penalties.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

Patents for Financial Services Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Patents for Financial Services Summit:

The protection of patents and IP is critical to the financial services industry due to the increasingly competitive marketplace and the growth of patent trolls. You must ensure protection of your own innovation to remain competitive and take great care to avoid infringing on the patents of others. World Research Group’s 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit, which is being held on July 25-26, 2012 in NYC is intended for in-house legal executives to engage in networking opportunities, shared best practices, hear cutting-edge case studies, and discuss new rules and regulations impacting financial services patent policies. This two-day Summit will consist of informative educational sessions and interactive panel discussions led by senior-level patent counsels and experts on patent trends and strategies.

Join our Patents for the Financial Services Summit and benefit from in-depth discussions on ways to grow patent strategies, practical case-studies and interactive panel discussions, featuring experienced and highly knowledgeable IP counsels, regulators, law firms and technology experts.

The 9th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit addresses key issues and uncovers the latest developments including, but not limited to the following topics:

  • The America Invents Act and its impact on patent procedures and litigation
  • Implementing a successful monetization program to determine the most valuable and effective use of IP
  • Learning the newest updates from recent Supreme Court cases
  • Legal update on the US Patent Office Examination of financial services inventions post-Bilski
  • Aligning your IP department and outside counsel with corporate business objectives to impact the bottom line
  • Effectively managing your legal department activities and budget
  • Ensuring you consistently allocate resources to the right risks or opportunities, including identifying the cases to try and the cases to settle
  • Communicating with outside counsel to ensure an updated knowledge of the ever-changing legal landscape
  • Altering patent protection strategies to account for recent court decisions
  • Social media update on managing control over protected IP
  • Avoiding and managing patent litigation
  • Defending against patent trolls
  • Incentivizing employees and finding new ways to encourage creativity

DC Appeals Court Upholds EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules

Timothy J. Lundgren of Varnum LLP recently had an article regarding EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules, published in The National Law Review:
Varnum LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upheld the EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations against a challenge brought by business interests and the attorney generals of a number of states seeking relief from EPA’s new GHG regulations. As a result, EPA’s GHG regulations remain effective, and PSD and Title V permits must continue to include BACT limits on GHG emissions. Barring a reversal by the Supreme Court (which seems unlikely at this point) or action by Congress, the inexorable processes of the CAA will likely lead to further and more restrictive regulation of GHGs by EPA going forward.

The regulations grow out of an earlier case decided at the Supreme Court, in 2007,Massachusetts v. EPA, which determined that GHGs are an “air pollutant” for purposes of the Clean Air Act, and so are subject to regulation. Since that 2007 decision, the EPA has taken a number of steps related to GHG regulation, including issuing an Endangerment Finding (that GHGs may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”), setting emission standards for cars and light trucks (the “Tailpipe Rule”), and establishing construction and operating permits for major stationary sources of GHGs. These permits would require implementation of the best available control technology (“BACT”) to limit GHG emissions.

The various Petitioners raised numerous substantive and procedural challenges to EPA’s findings, including claims that the bases for EPA’s Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule were improper, that the scientific record was inadequate or improperly addressed, and that the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) had not been met during the development of these regulations, among other claims. The court upheld EPA’s review of and reliance on the scientific record it had compiled, as well as its compliance with the APA. The court also rejected challenges to major source permitting requirements, largely based on the statutory language of the Clean Air Act. Given the court’s heavy reliance on the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, a reversal seems unlikely without some change in direction by the high court.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Powered by