The National Law Forum

The Growing Corporate Threat of Taxpayer Identity Theft Fraud

The National Law Review recently published an article by Latour “LT” Laffferty of Fowler White Boggs P.A. regarding Identity Theft:

Identity theft continues to be a growing problem nationwide, but particularly in Florida which continues to lead the nation per capita in reported incidents of identity theft according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a national clearinghouse for consumer fraud complaints. Taxpayer identity theft fraud, a subset of identity theft in general, is the most prevalent form of identity theft according to the FTC which reported that tax-related identity theft incidents increased from 51,702 in 2008 to 248,357 in 2010. This is a dramatic increase from the 35,000 instances of employment-related identity theft cases reported in 2007.

Taxpayer identity theft fraud involves not only the theft of someone’s identity but also the filing of a fraudulent tax return using the victim’s social security number to receive a tax refund often totaling more than $9,000.00. The IRS identified and prevented the issuance of more than $14 billion in fraudulent refunds in 2011. A 2008 report issued by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), an IRS watchdog, stated that the prevention of taxpayer identity theft fraud is an employer’s issue involving the security of their systems and data. According to TIGTA, 938,664 of the 2.1 million fraudulent tax returns filed in 2011 involved identity theft and totaled $6.5 billion. The stolen information includes the person’s name, date of birth and social security number or Medicare beneficiary number.

The latest twist, however, is that your own employees are in on the crime as law enforcement agencies are reporting that employees at many businesses that compile personal information are misappropriating and selling the information to thieves who are filing fraudulent tax returns. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Fraud Alert in February 2012 warning healthcare providers that perpetrators are misappropriating the identities of Medicare beneficiaries from “employers, schools, hospitals, and prisons” but any businesses that store personal information are at risk from current or prospective employees. Recent law enforcement arrests report finding suspects with massive quantities of tax refunds and lists of prospective employers to apply for jobs with the specific intent to steal taxpayer identities from their databases.

The reality of this emerging threat is that perpetrators are actually targeting organizations for employment so that they can specifically breach their data security and commit identity theft and aid those committing tax refund fraud. These organizations have both a fiduciary and legal duty to safeguard that personal information, but also a legal duty to notify those consumers who they can reasonably identify that their personal information has been stolen.

ICC Institute Masterclass for Arbitrators

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ICC Conference Masterclass Arbitrators:

Join us for an intensive 2 1/2 day training for professionals interested in working as international arbitrators!

June 4-6, 2012 at ICC Headquarters in Paris.

More Wisconsin DNR Permit Streamlining: Piers, General Navigable Waterway Permits, and Environmental Permit Notice Procedures — Governor Walker Signs 2011 Wisconsin Act 167

Linda H. Bochert of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP recently published an article regarding New Wisconsin DNR Permit Rules in The National Law Review:

On April 2, 2012, Governor Walker signed into law 2011 Wisconsin Act 167 (the Act), the latest legislative effort to streamline the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permitting process. The Act’s primary focus is on the substance and procedures of navigable waterway permitting under Wis. Stat. ch. 30, especially piers, with additional revisions to the public notice procedures of the air, wastewater, solid and hazardous waste, and remedial action statutes.

The revisions made by the Act take effect on August 1, 2012 for all but a few of the pier provisions which are effective immediately upon publication (noted below).[1]

A. Chapter 30 Navigable Waterway Permitting

These amendments fall into four broad categories: piers, grading permit exemptions, general permits and individual permits.

1. Piers

The DNR’s regulation of piers on navigable waterways has been a matter of controversy and legislative attention for many years. Act 167 is the latest installment.

In 2004, Wisconsin enacted a major legislative reform package called the “Jobs Creation Act”, making significant revisions to the sections of Wis. Stat. ch. 30 that govern permits for activities affecting navigable waterways. The Jobs Creation Act formalized three permit categories: exemptions, general permits, and individual permits; and established related time frames, hearing and appeal procedures. To implement these legislative directives, the DNR embarked on a major rulemaking effort to adopt general permits and establish the criteria and procedures for issuance of individual permits. Significant revisions to the rule addressing piers, NR 326, were proposed but not enacted with the remainder of the rules due to public controversy over the proposed revisions. See our Client Alert on the Jobs Creation Act.

The DNR continued its efforts to revise and update NR 326 with respect to piers and pier standards, but to no avail. Ultimately, the Legislature stepped in and enacted 2007 Wisconsin Act 204, resolving the debate by exempting smaller piers from the need to obtain a permit and creating a cut-off date and pier registration process for larger piers. These larger piers could also be exempt from the permit requirement if they were placed before February 6, 2004 (i.e., they were “grandfathered”) and registered with the DNR by April 1, 2011. 2011 Wisconsin Act 25 subsequently extended the registration date to April 1, 2012.

Effective immediately,[2] Act 167 has eliminated the February 6, 2004 “grandfathering” date and the entire pier registration process for the larger piers.[3]The existing exemption for smaller piers is maintained with minor clarifying revisions to the language.

As a result of Act 167, the following piers are exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit:

The pier meets the following criteria:

a. No more than 6’ wide and extends no further than to a point where the water is 3’ deep or deep enough to moor a boat;

b. No more than two boat slips for the first 50’ of riparian owner’s shoreline footage and no more than one boat slip for each additional 50’ of footage; and

c. A loading platform may be more than 6’ wide if the surface area of the platform is no more than 200 sq. ft.[4]

The pier does not meet the criteria listed under sub. 1, but is an existing pier (i.e., was placed on the bed of the waterway before April 17, 2012[5]) regardless of whether or not it has been registered, UNLESS:

a. The DNR notified the riparian owner before April 17, 2012[6] that the pier is “detrimental to the public interest”; or

b. The pier “interferes with the riparian rights of other riparian owners.”[7]

Further, the DNR is prohibited from taking enforcement action against the riparian owner of any pier if the DNR issued either a permit or a written authorization for the pier and the pier is in compliance with that permit or authorization,[8] and a pier owner may relocate or reconfigure the pier so long as the pier is not enlarged.[9]

2. Grading permit exemption

Act 167 has also eliminated the need to obtain duplicative state permits to move dirt on the bank of a navigable waterway. Wis. Stat. s. 30.19 regulates grading activities on the waterway bank. Wis. Stat. ch. 283 regulates the management of stormwater from land disturbing activities (e.g., construction). Both of these provisions are directed at protecting water quality from dirt that is disturbed and can run off as a result of site work.

Effective August 1, 2012, land grading activity on the bank of a navigable waterway is exempt from the requirement to obtain a s. 30.19 permit if it is authorized by a stormwater discharge permit issued under s. 283.33. If the land grading is authorized by a county permit issued under its shoreland zoning ordinance, it is similarly exempt from the requirement to obtain an s. 30.19 grading permit from the DNR.[10]

3. General permits

If a regulated project or activity is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit, it must be authorized by either a general permit or an individual permit. General permits are written to cover any number of projects or activities that can meet a standardized set of criteria, whereas an individual permit is written specifically for that project. As a result, general permits are ultimately time savers. Changes made in Act 167 maximize the DNR’s authority to issue general permits under ch. 30 and streamline the process for doing so.

The Act maximizes the DNR’s authority to issue general permits by expanding the universe of activities for which the DNR can issue general permits to include any activity regulated under ch. 30.[11] The Act streamlines the process for doing so by exempting general permits from the definition of “rule”,[12] eliminating the lengthy and cumbersome procedure for adopting rules, and replacing that procedure with a public comment period and a newly-created legislative committee review process.[13]

Any general permit must contain requirements and conditions that assure the activity being authorized “will cause only minimal adverse environmental impacts, will not materially interfere with navigation, and will not have an adverse impact on the riparian property rights of adjacent riparian owners.”[14]

Once a general permit is issued, the process works like this: If you believe your activity meets the eligibility criteria you apply to the DNR for “coverage” under the general permit no less than 30 days before beginning the activity. If the DNR does not request more information or otherwise inform you that your activity does not qualify for the general permit within that 30-day period, the activity is considered authorized and you are legally free to proceed. The DNR may make one request for additional information during that 30-day time period; if the DNR does so, the time it takes you to provide that information is added to the 30 days the DNR has to respond to your application.[15]

Once issued, a general permit is valid for five years. Regardless of the expiration date of a general permit, an activity authorized under a general permit remains authorized for five years from the date of coverage or until it is complete, whichever occurs first. The DNR is authorized to renew, modify and revoke general permits following the same procedures used to issue the general permit initially.[16]

The net effect of these revisions is to invest the time initially in developing and issuing the general permits so that as many activities as possible can be authorized using these streamlined procedures. For activities that don’t meet the general permit criteria, an individual permit option remains available.

4. Individual permits

Act 167 makes a few revisions to the procedures for issuance of individual permits, also designed to tighten up the timelines. The primary revisions conform these procedures to the procedures included in the recently-enacted Wetlands Reform Bill (2011 Wisconsin Act 118) so that the procedures for navigable waterway permits issued under ch. 30 and for wetland water quality permits issued under ch. 281 are the same.

Here is how it all works:[17]

a. Within 30 days of receipt of the individual permit application, the DNR determines if the application is complete/incomplete:

If complete, THE DNR notifies the applicant and the date of that notification becomes the “date of closure”; the date of closure drives subsequent deadlines as described below.
If incomplete, the DNR notifies the applicant of the deficiency/ies within the same 30-day time period; the DNR is limited to one request for additional information within the same 30-day time period; within 10 days of receipt of the requested information, the DNR notifies the applicant if the application is complete/incomplete (if still incomplete, the DNR and applicant can agree to additional information the applicant will provide); the date of this second notification becomes the date of closure.
If the DNR fails to meet this 30-day or 10-day time period, the date of closure becomes the last day of either the 30-day or 10-day time period.

b. Within 15 days of the date of closure, the DNR issues the public notice of pending application.

The notice may include notice of a public hearing if the applicant requests it.
If not, any member of the public may request a public hearing within 20 days of issuance of the public notice; or with or without a request, the DNR may decide to hold a public hearing if it determines “there is significant public interest” to do so.
The DNR must issue a public notice of the hearing within 15 days of receipt of a hearing request or its own decision to hold a hearing; the public comment period closes 10 days after the hearing is held.

c. Within 20 days after the public comment period has ended if a hearing is held, or within 30 days after the public comment period has ended if no hearing is held, the DNR issues its decision to either issue or deny the permit.

d. If the DNR fails to comply with these time periods, the permit is considered to be issued and the activity may proceed, although the DNR may impose terms and conditions on the permit “that are consistent with the applicant’s basic proposal.”[18]

The DNR’s decision to issue or deny the permit is subject to challenge in either or both an administrative contested case hearing under ch. 30 and judicial review under ch. 227. The ch. 30 contested case procedures were significantly revamped in the Jobs Creation Act (2003 Wisconsin Act 118). Those procedures remain intact under Act 167[19] and are summarized in our Client Alert on the Jobs Creation Act.

B. Public Notice Procedures for Ch. 30 and Other Environmental Statutes

Act 167 also brings the DNR’s public notice procedures into the digital age by requiring the DNR to:

Create an electronic notification system to provide public notice;[20]
Post public notices on the DNR website;[21]
Post on the DNR website any navigability determinations DNR makes – which may be relied upon;[22]
Post (to the greatest extent possible) the current status of any application for a permit under chs. 30, 281 to 285, or 289 to 299, and any hearings scheduled on the application.[23]

Importantly, the Act also specifies that the date on which the DNR first posts the public notice on its website is the date the notice is considered to be issued, for purposes of permits to be issued under ch. 30,[24] Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systerm permits to be issued under ch. 283,[25] air construction and operation permits to be issued under ch. 285,[26] solid and hazardous waste facility approvals to be issued under chs. 289 and 291,[27] and remedial actions to be authorized under ch. 292.[28]

C. Other revisions

Act 167 makes other revisions which address:
Repair of boathouses[29]
Expedited procedures for approval of low hazard dams[30]
Bridge standards[31]
Use of air dispersion modeling for minor source determination[32]

The DNR staff will use the time between now and August 1 to create application forms, internal procedures and guidance, and otherwise prepare to implement these statutory directives. For more information, please contact the author of this client alert.

[1] Section 131 of the Act provides that the Act is effective on the first day of the forth month after publication, with the exception of certain provisions involving piers which become effective the day after publication. Publication is expected to be April 16, 2012. Thus the majority of the Act will be effective August 1; those limited pier provisions are expected to be effective on April 17, 2012.

[2] See Endnote 1

[3] s. 30.12(1k)(b) as amended

[4] s. 30.12(1g)(f)

[5] See Endnote 1

[6] See Endnote 1

[7] s. 30.12(1k)(b)1m. and 2.

[8] s. 30.12(1k)(cm)

[9] s. 30.12(1k)(e)2.

[10] s. 30.19(1m)(f) and (g)

[11] s. 30.206(1)(am)

[12] s. 227.01(13)(rt)

[13] s. 30.206(5m)

[14] s. 30.206(1)(am)

[15] s. 30.206(3)(a)

[16] s. 30.206(1)(b)

[17] s. 30.208(2)-(4)

[18] s. 30.208(2)(d)

[19] s. 30.209

[20] s. 30.206(2b)(a)

[21] s. 30.206(2b)(a)

[22] s. 30.102(1)

[23] s. 30.102(2), 299.l7

[24] s. 30.206(2b), 30.208(5)(bm)

[25] s. 283.39(lm), 283.63(1)(a)

[26] s. 285.61(5)(c), 285.62(3)(c)

[27] s. 289.25(3), 289.41(1m)(g)1., 291.87(3)

[28] s. 292.31(3)(f)

[29] s. 30.121

[30] s. 31.12(5)

[31] s. 84.01(23)

[32] s. 285.63(11)

Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the ABA’s Upcoming Spring 2012 CLE National Institutes:

Learn and network at these in-person,full-day or multi-day seminars held live in various locations across the country that draw lawyers from across the nation.

FTC Obtains Injunction, Asset Freeze on Alleged Mortgage Scam

The National Law Review recently published an article by Steven Eichorn of Ifrah Law regarding a Recent FTC Injunction:

The Federal Trade Commission has obtained an order from the federal court for the Central District of California for a preliminary injunction and asset freeze against all the defendants in an alleged mortgage modification scam.

The complaint was filed against California-based Sameer Lakhany and a number of related corporate entities for violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, now known as Regulation O.This was the first FTC complaint against a mortgage relief scheme that falsely promised to get help for homeowners who joined with other homeowners to file so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits against their lenders.

The complaint listed two separate alleged schemes that collected over $1 million in fees and used images of President Obama to urge consumers to call for modifications under the “Obama Loan Modification Programs.”

The first scheme was a loan modification plan under which the defendants allegedly promised substantial relief to unwary homeowners from unaffordable mortgages and foreclosures. Their website featured a seal indicating that it was an “NHLA accredited mortgage advocate” and that NHLA is “a regulatory body in the loan modification industry to insure only the highest standards and practices are being performed. They have an A rating with the BBB.” Unfortunately, the NHLA is not a “regulatory body” and it actually has an “F” rating with the BBB.

The defendants reinforced their sales pitch by portraying themselves as nonprofit housing counselors that received outside funding for all their operating costs, except for a “forensic loan audit” fee. According to the FTC, the defendants told consumers that these audits would uncover lender violations 90 percent of the time or more and that the violations would provide leverage over their lenders and force the lenders to grant a loan modification. The defendants typically charged consumers between $795 and $1595 for this “audit.” Also, if the “audit” did not turn up any violations, the consumers could get a 70 percent refund. Unfortunately, there were often no violations found, any “violations” did not materially change the lender’s position, and it was nearly impossible to actually get a refund for this fee.

The second alleged scheme was that the defendants created a law firm, Precision Law Center, and attempted to sell consumers legal services. Precision Law Center was supposed to be a “full service law firm”, with a wide variety of practice areas. It even claimed to “have assembled an aggressive and talented team of litigators to address the lenders in a Court of Law.” However, the FTC charged that the firm never did anything besides for filing a few complaints, which were mostly dismissed.

To assist Precision Law Center in getting new clients, the defendants sent out direct mail from their law firm that resembled a class action settlement notice. The notice “promised” consumers that if they sued their lenders along with other homeowners in a “mass joinder” lawsuit, they could obtain favorable mortgage concessions from their lenders or stop the foreclosure process. The fee to participate in this lawsuit was usually between $6,000 to $10,000. The material also allegedly claimed that 80 to 85 percent of these suits are successful and that consumers might also receive their homes free and clear and be refunded all other charges.

The defendants’ direct mail solicitation also contained an official-looking form designed to mimic a federal tax form or class action settlement notice. It had prominent markings urging the time sensitivity of the materials and it requested an immediate response.

Obviously, these defendants employed many egregious marketing techniques that crossed the FTC’s line of permissibility. However, in light of the FTC’s renewed focus on Internet marketing, even a traditional marketing campaign should be carefully crafted with legal ramifications in mind.

As a final note, it is always smart not to antagonize the FTC by proclaiming (like the defendants here did) that they are “Allowed to Accept Retainer Fees” because it was “Not covered by FTC.” We couldn’t think of a better way to get onto the FTC’s radar screen!

Inside Counsel presents the 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago sponsored by Inside Counsel.

Reasons why you should Attend This Year’s Event:

Who Should Attend – General Counsel and Other Senior Legal Executives from Top Companies Attend SuperConference:Meet with Decision Makers: You’ll meet face-to-face with senior-level in-house counsel
Networking Opportunities: SuperConference offers several networking opportunities, including a cocktail reception, refreshment breaks, and a networking lunch.
Gain Industry Knowledge: You will hear the latest issues facing the industry today with your complimentary full-conference passes.

Chief Legal Officers
General Counsel
Corporate Counsel
Associate General Counsel
CEOs
Senior Counsel
Corporate Compliance Officers

The 12th Annual IC SuperConference will be held at the NEW Radisson Blu Chicago.
Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel

221 N. Columbus Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Don’t forget – The early discount deadline using the NLR discount code is February 24th!

Employer Social Media Policies: Another One Bites the Dust

An article by Gerald F. Lutkus of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding Employer Social Media Policies was recently published in The National Law Review:

The NLRB has continued its assault on employer social media policies and a recent Administrative Law Judge ruling from the Board further complicates the issue. The Acting General Counsel, in his various reports on the Board’s social media cases, has made it clear that employers need to include disclaimers in their policies that nothing in the policy is meant to interfere with employee Section 7 rights. However, a San Francisco-based ALJ, in a lengthy opinion dealing with the social media policy of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., struck down that company’s social media policy even though it included such a disclaimer.

Specifically, the ALJ found that G4S’s policy was overbroad and would chill the exercise of Section 7 rights by employees of the company. G4S’s policy stated, “This policy will not be construed or applied in a way that interferes with employees’ rights under federal law.” The ALJ expressly determined that “it cannot be assumed that lay employees have the knowledge to discern what is federal law, and thus permitted under the disclaimer, as opposed to what is prohibited ‘legal matter’.” Though the ALJ did not go beyond that, the clear suggestion from the opinion is that a disclaimer of noninterference with Section 7 rights must be far more particular in explaining what types of rights are, in fact, protected under Section 7 and, thus, not prohibited under an employer’s social media policy. Of course, most employers are reluctant to spell out in detail in their own policy manuals exactly what types of activity employees may engage in as protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA.

The judge’s ruling also struck down that portion of the company’s policy forbidding employees from commenting on work-related legal matters, but allowed a provision that prohibited the posting on social media sites of pictures of employees in their security uniforms.

A full text of the ALJ’s ruling in G4S Secure Solutions can be reviewed here.

ICC Conference Cross-Border Sales – April 19, 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming ICC Conference Cross-Border Sales in London April 19, 2012:

What is the Best Legal Framework for Business-to-Business Contracts?

Thursday, 19 April 2012
London, United Kingdom

Objective

The contract of sale is certainly the most commonly used agreement in international commerce. When drafting a sales contract or general conditions of sale (or purchase) to be used in cross border trade, it is essential to choose the legal framework (applicable law) within which the agreement is to be placed.

Choosing one solution instead of another may have very important effects on the rights and obligations of the parties. Parties therefore need to have the information which is necessary in order to make the best possible choice between the various alternatives.

The speakers will examine and discuss on one side the project of a Common European Sales Law, which has been recently proposed by the European Commission, and on the other side the CISG (Vienna Sales Convention), which is the law applicable to cross-border sales in most countries of the world.

Members of the ICC task force that has been revising the ICC Model International Sales Contract will also take the opportunityto discuss their approach and present issues that have been the subject of relevant discussion.

Who should attend?

Legal directors and corporate counsel from companies involved in international trade, practising lawyers, legal practitioners advising international trading companies, business people involved in international trade and dispute resolution

U.S. Announces Innovative Clean Air Agreement For Industrial Flares With Marathon Petroleum Company

Recently The National Law Review published an article by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding a New Clean Air Agreement:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice today announced an innovative environmental agreement with Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum Company that already has significantly reduced air pollution from all six of the company’s petroleum refineries. In a first for the refining industry, Marathon has agreed to state-of-the-art controls on combustion devices known as flares and to a cap on the volume of waste gas it will send to its flares. When fully implemented, the agreement is expected to reduce harmful air pollution by approximately 5,400 tons per year and result in future cost savings for the company.

“Today’s agreement will result in cleaner air for communities across the South and Midwest,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “By working with EPA, Marathon helped advance new approaches that reduce air pollution and improve efficiency at its refineries and provide the U.S. with new knowledge to bring similar improvements in air quality to other communities across the nation.”

“This agreement is a great victory for the environment and will result in cleaner and healthier air for the benefit of communities across the country in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio and Texas,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. “By spurring corporate ingenuity, this settlement will dramatically reduce emissions from all 22 flares at Marathon’s six refineries.”

The settlement is part of EPA’s national effort to reduce air pollution from refinery, petrochemical and chemical flares. A flare is a mechanical device, ordinarily elevated high off the ground, used to combust waste gases. The more waste gas a company sends to a flare, the more pollution occurs. The less efficient a flare is in burning waste gas, the more pollution occurs. EPA wants companies to flare less, and when they do flare, to fully combust the harmful chemicals found in the waste gas.

A consent decree filed today in the U.S. District Court in Detroit resolves Marathon’s alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. As part of the effort to reach this agreement, Marathon, under the direction and oversight of EPA, spent more than $2.4 million to develop and conduct pioneering combustion efficiency testing of flares and to advance the understanding of the relationship between flare operating parameters and flare combustion efficiency.

In addition, beginning in 2009, Marathon installed equipment, such as flow monitors and gas chromatographs, to improve the combustion efficiency of its flares. To date, Marathon has spent approximately $45 million on this equipment and projects, and plans to spend an additional $6.5 million. Marathon also will spend an as yet undetermined sum to comply with the flaring caps required in the consent decree.

At the same time, Marathon indicates that the equipment it already has installed is saving it approximately $5 million per year through reduced steam usage and product recovery. Marathon also projects additional savings through the operation of the equipment to be installed in the future.

From 2008 to the end of 2011, the controls Marathon installed eliminated approximately 4720 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 110 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the air. An additional 530 tons per year of VOCs and 30 tons per year of HAPs are projected to be eliminated in the future.

Under the agreement, Marathon will also implement a project at its Detroit refinery to remove another 15 tons per year of VOCs and another one ton per year of benzene from the air. At an estimated cost of $2.2 million, Marathon will install controls on numerous sludge handling tanks and equipment.

Marathon’s six refineries are located in: Robinson, Ill.; Catlettsburg, Ky.; Garyville, La.; Detroit; Canton, Ohio; and Texas City, Texas. Together, the refineries have a capacity of more than 1.15 million barrels per day.

Marathon, headquartered in Findlay, Ohio, will pay a civil penalty of $460,000 to the United States.

The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and final court approval.

More about the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/marathonrefining.html

More about EPA’s civil enforcement of the Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html

More about EPA’s refinery initiative: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/oil/

2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the 2012 Young Professionals in Energy International Summit:

2012 YOUNG PROFESSIONALS IN ENERGY INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT

April 23-25, 2012

Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino

Las Vegas, Nevada

About the YPE:

Young Professionals in Energy (“YPE”) is the first and only interdisciplinary networking and volunteer organization for people in the global energy industry – a place where bankers can connect with engineers, accountants with geologists and so on. Our mission is to provide a forum for knowledge sharing and camaraderie among future leaders of the energy industry.

The event will feature panel discussions and presentations by YPE members from around the world on such vital energy issues as the world oil supply, shale, renewable energy, career issues and funding new energy projects.

Confirmed speakers include YPE members from the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. the India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization, Pemex, the University of Southern California and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Highlighting the three-day conference is a keynote speech by Daniel Yergin, author of the best-selling “The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World (www.danielyergin.com).

The National Law Forum

The Growing Corporate Threat of Taxpayer Identity Theft Fraud

Like this:

ICC Institute Masterclass for Arbitrators

Like this:

More Wisconsin DNR Permit Streamlining: Piers, General Navigable Waterway Permits, and Environmental Permit Notice Procedures — Governor Walker Signs 2011 Wisconsin Act 167