The National Law Forum

European Commission Considers Taking Over Cartel Investigations to Prevent Exploitation of German Law Loophole

Recently The National Law Review published an article by Martina Maier and Philipp Werner of McDermott Will & Emery regarding the European Commissions Investigation of a German Law Loophole:

Under German law, companies may escape cartel fines by undertaking an internal restructuring. The German competition authority has indicated a willingness to reallocate such cases to the European Commission, which can impose a fine on the corporate group regardless of any internal restructuring. Commission officials speaking at a conference have suggested recently that the Commission would be willing to take over cartel cases from EU Member States, even at a late stage in the proceedings, in order to fine undertakings for their anti-competitive behaviour.

Background

The German competition authority can impose fines on undertakings that have violated European competition law by forming a cartel. Under German law, if the undertaking ceases to exist, for example by merging with another undertaking, only in exceptional circumstances can the legal successors be held liable for the violation of Article 101 TFEU. For the legal successor to bear any liability for the anti-trust infringement, the restructured company must be identical, or nearly identical, to the company that committed the infringement, such as in the case of a mere change of the company’s name or its legal structure.

This has created a loophole that can be exploited by internally restructuring the legal entity that has committed the infringement so it ceases to exist and no other legal entity within the group is (nearly) identical. Companies may thus escape cartel fines by, for example, redistributing their assets to affiliated companies within the corporate group, or by merging with a sister company, even if the original company’s assets remain within the same group and under the control of the same ultimate parent company. This loophole has been confirmed explicitly by the German Supreme Court. Although Germany is currently amending its competition legislation, it is not yet clear whether the proposed changes will be sufficient to solve the problem.

In the European Union, due to the broad interpretation of the concept of an “undertaking”, as well as the possibility of holding parent companies jointly and severally liable, the European Commission has broad discretion when it comes to imposing fines on parent companies, so an internal restructuring does not present a solution for infringing companies.

Reallocation of Cases

According to the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities, reallocation of cases should normally take place within a period of two months, starting from the date of the first information sent by the relevant national competition authority to the European Competition Network. In general, the competition authority that is dealing with a case at the end of the two month period should continue to handle the case until completion of the proceedings. Reallocation of a case after the two month period should only occur where the facts known about the case change materially during the course of the proceedings. After the two month period, the Commission should in principle initiate proceedings only in exceptional cases.

If the Commission initiates proceedings, the relevant authorities of the Member States are relived from their competence to apply Article 101 TFEU and Article 102 TFEU. This means, once the Commission has opened proceedings, national competition authorities cannot act under the same legal basis against the same agreement or practices by the same undertaking on the same relevant geographic and product market.

Despite these procedural concerns, the Commission seems to be willing to accept a late reallocation of cases in cooperation with the German competition authority. It is not clear how this principle could or will be extended to other Member States and whether it could be applied under different circumstances where a Member State is prevented from fining a cartelist due to the application of a national law.

California Women Lawyers 2012 Annual Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming California Women Lawyers 2012 Annual Conference:

CWL’s 2012 Annual Conference

“Practicing Law in the 21st Century: Women Lawyers in Power Positions”,

featuring

Morning Speaker Patricia K. Gillette, Esq., Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and

Keynote Luncheon Speaker Catherine Lacavera, Director of Litigation, Google, Inc.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Crowne Plaza Cabana Hotel

Palo Alto, California

Custom Software and Technology Development. Do You Actually Own the Deliverable(s)?

The National Law Review recently published an article by Ivan T. Kirchev and Derek C. Stettner of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP regarding Custom Software Ownership:

I. Introduction

When a business “hires” a vendor and pays for the development of custom code or another deliverable, a common belief is that the business or customer “owns” the deliverable provided by the vendor. After all, if a business pays for office equipment, furniture, an automobile and a myriad of other items, a transfer of ownership is part of the transaction. However, every-day experience is not an appropriate guide when dealing with intangible property. This article provides an overview of the ownership rights of customers that purchase information technology development services.

II. Default Ownership Rules

Intangible property (such as patents or copyrights) is not transferred merely because possession of an item changes hands. Software and other deliverables are protectable under intellectual property laws and these laws govern the ownership and right to use such items. While other laws can be important, copyright law is the focus of this discussion.

As a general rule, ownership of a copyright initially vests in the “author” of a work. Copyrightable works include works of art, novels, screen plays, music, marketing materials, technical drawings, specifications and software code. Copyright exists as soon as an author reduces the work to a tangible form (such as creating a file with source code). In other words, when a work is written down or otherwise set in tangible form, the copyright immediately becomes the property of the author of the work. Only the author or those deriving rights from the author can rightfully claim copyright. To transfer ownership, the author must sign a written agreement that expressly transfers or assigns his or her rights to another person or entity.

III. Works Made For Hire

There is an important exception to the general ownership principles discussed above. Certain works are classified as works “made for hire.” Works made for hire are defined by federal law in the Copyright Act. If a work is properly classified as a work made for hire, then ownership does NOT vest with the author. Depending on the circumstances, the author’s employer or the entity that has contracted with the author, owns the copyright in the work. The statutory definition of the term “work for hire” does not cover “hand shake” or other informal transactions where a vendor is paid money to create a work.

The statutory definition of a “work for hire” is as follows:

a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
a work specially ordered or commissioned that falls into one of nine classes: (1) a contribution to a collective work, (2) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (3) a translation, (4) a supplementary work, (5) a compilation, (6) an instructional text, (7) a test, (8) answer material for a test, or (9) an atlas, provided the parties expressly agree in a written agreement that the work will be considered a work made for hire.

In cases where a business hires a vendor to create a deliverable, the vendor is an independent contractor and not an employee. As a consequence, the deliverables of the vendor will not qualify as a work prepared by an employee. In such circumstances, statutory work for hire rule applies only if the work falls into one of the nine classes and the parties enter into a written contract. While “software” is not explicitly listed in the statute, certain software might be classified as audiovisual works. However, other software may not qualify for any of the statutory classes. So, reliance on the work for hire exception is unwise.

IV. Suggestions

Because default ownership rules favor authors (not buyers) and work for hire exceptions to ownership may not apply when purchasing technology services, it is critical that buyers enter into a written contract with their vendors. The contract must include a specific provision that addresses ownership of any deliverables that the buyer expects to own. The contract should also include license provisions that specify the rights of the buyer to use any deliverables that are provided by the vendor. In the absence of such an agreement, the buyer will most likely end up with no ownership rights and only an implied license of uncertain scope to use the deliverables. Since the ownership and license provisions can be complex, consulting an experienced lawyer can help ensure that a buyer receives appropriate rights in exchange for the remuneration paid to the vendor.

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!

Don’t be Late, for That Very Important [Bar] Date!

The National Law Review recently published an article by Renée M. Dailey and Chrystal J. Szeto of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP regarding Bar Dates:

On March 13, 2012 the Queen of Hearts in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals showed no sympathy for the White Rabbit’s plight and denied a creditor’s appeal of an order disallowing its late filed proof of claim in the DHL Master Land Holding LLC bankruptcy case.¹

The bank-creditor (the “Bank”) received its invitation to DHL’s chapter 11 proceeding in February of 2010, but did not notify its counsel of the matter until “late May, early June” and directed them to focus on DHL’s non-debtor affiliates as co-debtors on obligations owed to the Bank.

The White Rabbit finally arrived to see the Queen a full 42 days after the June 2, 2010 Bar Date. Realizing its tardiness, the Bank filed a motion to permit the late filing, claiming its counsel was responsible and that it should not be beheaded for counsel’s mistake. The Bank also claimed that its lateness would not prejudice the debtor since it had been aware of the Bank’s claim since the start of the bankruptcy proceeding. The creditors’ committee objected to the Bank’s motion on the grounds that the Bank failed to show excusable neglect, and, after considering the evidence, the bankruptcy court denied the Bank leave to file a late claim. The bankruptcy court pointed to the fact that the Bank had notice of the proof of claim bar date well in advance of the deadline and had failed to inform its counsel when it hired them just days before the date in question. On appeal, the district court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s decision.

The Bank further appealed to the circuit court, claiming that the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding that inadvertence did not constitute “excusable neglect.” The Fifth Circuit disagreed. After considering all of the relevant factors, including the danger of prejudice to the debtor, length of the delay and potential impact to the proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith, the Fifth Circuit confirmed the “off with their heads!” approach of the lower courts and denied the Bank’s appeal.

As with all entertaining stories, there is a valuable underlying lesson. Here the looking glass is clear: the bankruptcy court is no Mad Hatter’s eternal tea party, and time does not stand still when filing proofs of claim.

________________________

_{1 In re DLH Master Land Holding, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2012).}

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

From the Office of Special Counsel: Anatomy of an OSC Investigation

An article regarding The Anatomy of an OSC Investigation written by Dawn M. Lurie of Greenberg Traurig, LLP recently appeared in The National Law Review:

The phone rings.

“Hello, this is Attorney Smith with the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, may I speak to the Human Resource manager in charge of your Form I-9 process?”

You say to yourself, “This is not good. I have no idea what this government agency is — Office of the Special Counsel for…what?” Your gut confirms: this does not sound good at all.

“This is she. I’m sorry, you are with whom?”

“The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices…the OSC. I’m calling about a complaint our office received regarding your company re-verifying Permanent Residents, requiring applicants to complete Forms I-9 before you offer them employment and, last but not least, asking certain employees to bring in Social Security cards.”

You ask yourself, “Is this as serious as it sounds? What do I do now?”

What is the The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC for short)?

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which protects work-authorized individuals from discrimination during the process of hiring, firing, employment eligibility verification, and recruitment or referral for a fee on the basis of citizenship status and national origin. The statute also protects all work-authorized individuals from retaliation in connection with exposing such practices or asserting their rights under the law’s anti-discrimination provision.What is the The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC for short)?

OSC provides a hot-line where employees can report concerns and discuss complaints that they often will make queries to ascertain. As a result of receiving a call, OSC attorneys will review the facts and determine if a basis exists for moving
forward. Often times there are miscommunications that can be cleared up at the initial stage. This can be done through educating the employer and/or clarifying the situation with the employee.

What happens when an actual charge is received?

OSC investigates every complete charge received, although many charges are dismissed as incomplete for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim that indicates a violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions. OSC also conducts self-initiated or independent investigations when it discovers information that suggests a possible violation of the INA’s anti-discrimination statute by an employer. This information is often the result of an unrelated investigation.

Timeline

Within 10 days of receiving a complete charge, the Equal Opportunity Specialist (EOS) or attorney assigned to a case sends letters to the person or group bringing the charge, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), and the entity allegedly violating the INA anti-discrimination provision.The letter explains the filing of a complete charge and the time frame of an initial investigation (120 days). Respondents are directed to submit additional information and documents relevant to the investigation. If your company receives a letter from OSC, it should be taken very seriously and the response should be reviewed by counsel.

By the 120th day, OSC determines whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the INA’s antidiscrimination statute has occurred, whether to continue investigating the charge for an additional 90 days, or whether to dismiss the charge. Irrespective of OSC’s decision, the person or group bringing the claim receives a letter stating that he or she has 90 days from the date of receiving OSC’s 120-day letter to submit a complaint with OCAHO even if OSC ultimately declines to pursue its own complaint. At this point, the OSC also notifies the respondent of the status of its investigation.

At this point, we often recommend a review of companies’ policies as they relate to immigration compliance, including the hiring process, E-Verify procedures, and Form I-9 completion, even if these policies are outside the scope of the specific information being investigated by OSC. OSC attorneys are bright, resourceful, and relentless when necessary, and we have found them to be knowledgeable adversaries. Fortunately, we have been able to work with OSC at the initial investigation stage in a number of matters, including instituting compliance safeguards and closing out investigations with settlement agreements when appropriate. When an investigation continues past the initial 120-day period, OSC must decide by the 210th day whether to dismiss the case, begin settlement negotiations, or file a lawsuit. In cases where the OSC attorney is unable to render a decision within 210 days, both parties generally agree to additional time.

What does this mean to my company?

Investigations by the OSC should be taken very seriously and internal reviews of employment verification practices must be central to companies’ overall compliance strategies. Companies must ensure that they abide by the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions and treat all employees consistently by not arbitrarily requiring employees to provide new or updated Form I-9 information or document copies. It is important to note, however, that companies do not need to run very far afoul of the law to trigger the OSC’s attention. Indeed, the Obama administration has resurrected the use of civil fines for Form I-9 violations and intensified the government’s enforcement efforts to actively pursue employers who engage in discriminatory hiring practices. Companies contacted by the OSC should immediately retain experienced immigration counsel and assess potential liability at additional locations, if applicable.

Examples of recent investigations by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

On January 4, 2012, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the University of California San Diego Medical Center over allegations that it subjected newly hired non-U.S. citizens to excessive demands for documents verifying their employment eligibility but did not impose the same requirement on newly hired U.S. citizens. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of citizenship status or national origin by imposing disproportionate documentary burdens during the hiring and employment eligibility verification processes. Under the terms of the agreement, the Medical Center will implement new employment eligibility verification policies to ensure equal treatment of all employees, pay a $115,000 civil penalty, conduct supplemental training of its human resources personnel, and coordinate with the Department of Justice to maintain compliance with proper employment eligibility verification processes across all University of California campuses, medical centers and facilities. To date, the Medical Center has taken appropriate measures to comply with the INA’s anti-discrimination provision and has received a Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) training on how to properly use work authorization documents.

On December 30, 2011, the Justice Department announced a settlement with Garland Sales, Inc. of Georgia over allegations that the rug manufacturer engaged in discrimination by subjecting employees of Hispanic descent to unnecessary documentary requirements when establishing their eligibility to work in the United States and retaliating against a worker who protested. According to the terms of the settlement, Garland will pay $10,000 in back pay and civil penalties and will undergo training on proper employment eligibility verification practices. The Department’s complaint alleges that Garland required newly hired non-U.S. citizens and foreign-born U.S. citizens to present work authorization documents beyond those required by federal law, including a “green card” in addition to an unexpired driver’s license and an unrestricted Social Security card. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) mandates equal treatment of authorized workers during the hiring process, regardless of their national origin or citizenship status.

On December 13, 2011, the Justice Department announced a settlement with S.W.J.J. Inc., or Sernak Farms, of Weatherly, Pennsylvania over allegations that Sernak engaged in discrimination on the basis of citizenship status by preferring to hire temporary visa holders over U.S. citizen applicants and adversely treating its U.S. citizen employees. The Department of Justice investigation revealed that Sernak hired three foreign national workers under the H-2A visa program but did not consider hiring three of the eight U.S. citizens who brought the underlying charge on the belief that H-2A visa holders are more diligent than U.S. workers. Of the five U.S. citizens who were hired, the government’s investigation suggested that Sernak treated them differently than its foreign national employees in the terms and conditions of their employment and then dismissed them because of their citizenship status, a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Under the terms of the settlement, Sernak agreed to pay $30,000 in back pay to the eight injured parties, who are U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico. The company has also agreed to provide its employees with training on the anti-discrimination requirements of the INA, adopt nondiscrimination policies with respect to recruitment and hiring, and maintain and submit records to the Department of Justice for the three-year term of the agreement.

On September 21, 2011, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) issued a letter of resolution to Glenn Walters Nursery of Cornelius, Oregon, in response to a charge of document abuse and citizenship status discrimination brought by a Legal Permanent Resident. The employee who brought suit alleged that he was fired when he could not comply with an improper request to present a new permanent resident card and thereby demonstrate employment eligibility. The letter of resolution provides that Glenn Walters Nursery will train its human resources staff on the Form I-9 process and the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, implement corrective measures to correct the computer software error that caused the improper document request, refrain from reverifying the employment eligibility of permanent residents whose Permanent Resident Cards expire, and reinstate the employee with seniority, benefits and $12,000 in back pay.

On August 31, 2011, OSC issued a letter of resolution to Dollar Bank of Cleveland, Ohio in response to allegations that the Bank engaged in discriminatory hiring practices based on citizenship status. The employee who brought an action against Dollar Bank alleged that the company declined to hire her because she was a Legal Permanent Resident and not a U.S. citizen at the time of her application. The letter of resolution awards the employee $6,500 in back pay and requires Dollar Bank to consult with OSC about creating a comprehensive training program for its human resources personnel.

On August 30, 2011, OSC issued a letter of resolution to Texas Women’s University (TWU) of Denton, Texas to resolve allegations that the university engaged in citizenship discrimination by denying an internship to the aggrieved employee because he is a Legal Permanent Resident and is not required to register for the Selective Service due to age. In response to his claim that the university preferred to hire U.S. citizens who registered for the Selective Service, the letter of resolution awards the employee $1,023.47 in back pay and requires TWU to consult with OSC to create a comprehensive training program for its human resources personnel.

Crossing the citizenship discrimination spectrum, OSC issued a letter of resolution to Best Packing Services, Inc. of Philadelphia, PA to resolve allegations of discriminatory hiring practices against a U.S. citizen. The letter, issued on August 22, 2011, resolves an employee’s claim that Best Packing Services preferred to hire non-U.S. citizens and denied him employment because he is a U.S. citizen. The letter of resolution provides that the employee receive $1,500 in back pay and requires Best Packing Services to work with OSC to create a comprehensive training program for its human resources personnel.

Resources from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that created OSC mandates a rigorous outreach effort to educate employers and workers about their rights and obligations under the INA’s anti-discrimination and employer sanctions provisions. To this end, OSC’s outreach materials target employers and workers alike. Resources intended for employer audiences include written materials on avoiding discrimination, navigating the E-Verify process, and posting employment opportunities online, as well as Social Security no-match guidance and information about the Form I-9 documents that refugees, asylees, and individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) may present. In addition to printed materials, OSC also offers a variety of multimedia resources including videos and PowerPoint presentations.

To access these materials, please visithttp://www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc/htm/employer.php. We urge employers to access these resources as part of a robust compliance strategy which includes developing or improving existing compliance plans and providing regular and ongoing training, including anti-discrimination and fraud document seminars, to human resources staff responsible for Form I-9 completion. For up-to-the-minute immigration compliance news, please visit http://immigration.gtlaw.com.

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).

U.S. Department of Justice Postpones ADA Requirements for Swimming Pools and Spas

Recently The National Law Review published a paper by the Labor and Employment Law Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding the ADA Requirements for Pools and Spas:

On March 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) announced an immediate 60-day postponement of the effective date for the accessibility requirements for pools and spas subject to either Title II (state and local government programs) or Title III (places of public accommodation). These requirements will now take effect on May 21, 2012.

The Department also is contemplating further extending the effective date, and simultaneously issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting public comment as to whether the effective date of the pool and spa requirements should be postponed until Sept. 17, 2012, 180 days from the original effective date. The Department indicated that it was taking this action in order to allow pool owners and operators additional time to address certain misunderstandings regarding these requirements and their application to existing pools and spas.

On Sept. 15, 2010, the Department adopted the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards), which took effect on March 15, 2012. The 2010 Standards contain requirements for accessible means of entry into and exit from swimming pools and spas as follows:

Swimming pools with at least 300 linear feet of pool wall must provide two accessible means of entry and exit from the pool. At least one means of entry and exit must be either a sloped entry (i.e., ramp) or pool lift that complies with the requirements set forth in Section 1009 of the 2010 Standards. The second means of entry and exit can be either a transfer wall, transfer system or pool stairs. (Wave action pools, leisure rivers, sand bottom pools and other pools with only one area for entry are required to provide only one accessible means of entry and exit.)
Swimming pools with less than 300 linear feet of pool wall are required to provide only one accessible means of entry and exit, provide that means is either a sloped entry or pool lift.
Only one accessible means of entry and exit is required into spas. This means of entry and exit must be either a pool lift, transfer wall or transfer system. Furthermore, where more than one spa is provided in a cluster, only five percent (5%) of the spas are required to have an accessible means of entry and exit.

On Jan. 31, 2012, the Department issued technical guidance with respect to these requirements, in particular the manner in which they pertain to existing pools and spas. See “ADA 2010 Revised Requirements: Accessible Pools – Means of Entry and Exit,” available athttp://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm ). Use of pool lifts generally is the most convenient method for providing access to existing pools and spas. In its technical guidance and in subsequent correspondence further explaining the pool requirements, the Department indicated that under Title II (state and local government programs), access could be provided through the use of portable pool lifts. Under Title III, however, the Department indicated the pool lift must be fixed, or at least capable of being affixed to the pool deck or apron when in use; use of portable lifts is permitted only if provision of a fixed lift is not readily achievable. This difference stems from the fact that unlike Title III, which requires the removal of physical barriers to access where readily achievable, Title II permits state and local programs to provide access to existing facilities via alternative methods, including the purchase of equipment, in lieu of making structural modifications. Whether covered under Title II or Title III, however, newly constructed pools must comply with the 2010 Standards, and altered pools must comply to the maximum extent feasible.

In its technical guidance, the Department also indicated that pool lifts must be in place during the hours the pool or spa is open. Where a facility has multiple pools or spas that are required to be accessible, a pool lift cannot be shared among the pools and spas, unless providing multiple lifts creates an undue burden.

Following issuance of the technical guidance, certain pool owners and operators expressed concern over its substance and urged the Department to permit the use of portable lifts under Title III and to permit pool lifts to be shared among pools. They also raised safety concerns regarding the Department’s position that pool lifts must be in place during the hours the pool or spa is open.

In issuing its NPRM to further extend the effective date of the pool and spa requirements, the Department emphasized that it will not revisit the merits of the accessibility requirements for pools and spas. Public comments on the issue of whether the effective date of these requirements should be further extended to Sept. 17, 2012 must be submitted no later than April 4, 2012.

Retail Law Conference 2012

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Retail Law Conference:

at the Westin Galleria in Dallas, Texas

November 7-9, 2012

This event is the perfect opportunity to discuss the latest issues affecting the retail industry while obtaining important continuing legal education (CLE) credits.

Open to retail and consumer product general counsel, senior legal executives and in-house attorneys and their teams, the exceptional dialogue presented at this conference will help your organization navigate the current legal landscape of the industry.