The National Law Forum

ABA Conference: Criminal Tax Fraud and Tax Controversy

The National Law Review wanted to bring your attention to the upcoming 28th Annual National Institute on Criminal Tax Fraude and the Fisrt National Institute on Tax Controversy on December 1-2, 2011 in Las Vegas:

Program Description

The National Institute on Criminal Tax Fraud is the annual gathering of the criminal tax defense bar. This year, it will be combined with the National Institute on Tax Controversy, bringing together high-level Government representatives, judges, corporate counsel, and private practitioners engaged in all aspects of tax controversy, tax litigation, and criminal tax defense.

The two Institutes will meet each morning of the conference in joint plenary sessions, addressing issues concerning international tax enforcement and ethics. Participants will then chose break- out sessions that will focus on current civil tax controversy or criminal tax defense topics.

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

The IRS has focused on international enforcement, from its reorganization of its Large Business and International Division to its focus on global high wealth taxpayers and offshore activities, and both Institutes will focus on these issues, in a combined plenary session and in break-out sessions. The break-out sessions will also include roundtable discussions with senior representatives from the IRS, and the Treasury and Justice Departments, and panels will focus on topics ranging from the nuts-and-bolts of representing clients in examination, at Appeals, at trial and in criminal investigations, to the hottest areas of civil and criminal enforcement. It promises to be a program that no tax litigator should miss.

CLE Information

ABA programs ordinarily receive Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit in AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MN, MS, MO, MT, NH, NM, NV, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, VI, WA, WI, WV, and WY. These states sometimes do not approve a program for credit before the program occurs. This course is expected to qualify for TBD CLE credit hours (including TBD ethics hours) in 60-minute-hour states, and TBD credit hours (including TBD ethics hours) in 50-minute-hour states. This transitional program is approved for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys in NY. Click here for more details on CLE credit for this program.

How Lessors and Lenders Can Audit the Eurocontrol Accounts of Lessees

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney John I. Karesh of Vedder Price P.C. regarding lessors will no longer receive an aircraft operator’s statement of account from Eurocontrol via e-mail.

Eurocontrol has implemented a change to the way lessors, lenders and security trustees can audit the Eurocontrol accounts of lessees. Effective September 1, 2011, lessors will no longer receive an aircraft operator’s statement of account from Eurocontrol via e-mail. In an attempt to provide better security, Eurocontrol will now provide such statements only upon the lessor’s request via a secured extranet system called CEFA (Central Route Charges Office Extranet for Airspace Users). We have been advised by Eurocontrol that lenders and security trustees also will be granted access to CEFA under the same protocol. In order to gain access, the requesting party needs to complete an Agreement (available on Eurocontrol’s website). Once the Agreement is completed and received by Eurocontrol, the requesting party can view an operator’s statement of account online 24/7. Access is free. However, requesting parties must obtain approval from each operator whose statement of account they wish to view by having the operator sign an Authorization Letter in the prescribed form.

Because lenders and lessors must execute the Agreement, they should take note that the Agreement contains various noteworthy provisions including the following: Article 4 provides that to the extent permitted by national law, in the event of a dispute, Eurocontrol’s data, including metadata, shall be admissible in court and shall constitute evidence of the facts contained therein unless contrary evidence is adduced. Section 9.2 provides that once a statement of account becomes available on CEFA, it shall be deemed received by the “Leasing Company,” which agrees to proactively and regularly check the CEFA site. Article 13 contains various provisions concerning confidentiality and protection of data. Section 14.2 requires the Leasing Company to indemnify Eurocontrol against any claims for damages made by third parties where the claims or damages are due to a fault of the Leasing Company. Article 15 provides that without prejudice to any mandatory national law, the transmission of electronic data under the Agreement shall be governed by Belgian law. Article 16 provides that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the Agreement shall be referred to the Brussels Court of First Instance (Belgium), which shall have sole jurisdiction.

Also, Section 17.3 provides that the Agreement is for an indefinite period, but either party may terminate it on not less than three months’ written notice, and that Eurocontrol is entitled to terminate or suspend the Agreement in a case foreseen under the confidentiality and protection of data provisions (Section 13.1) or if all authorizations to release Statements of Account to the lessor have been withdrawn. Section 17.4 provides that access to the Statements of Account of an Aircraft Operator will be terminated without notice in case of the withdrawal of the authorization to release such Statements of Account. However, the prescribed form of Authorization Letter provides that it may only be revoked or amended by written instructions from the operator and lessor.

The foregoing is merely a summary of a few of the provisions of the Agreement. All provisions should carefully be reviewed before signing. However, it appears the only way lessors, lenders and security trustees can obtain the statement of an operator’s account is by means of the Authorization Letter and signed Agreement.

Under The Radar–The Supreme Court, Commercial Speech and the First Amendment

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney Charles M. English of Ober | Kaler regarding U.S. Supreme Court’s view of the First Amendment as applied especially to political speech:

Over the past several years, a great deal has been written about the . In both the 2010 and 2011 terms the Court in dramatic and well-publicized cases struck down federal (Citizens United) and state (Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC) campaign finance restrictions as applied to corporate political donations and laws supporting public financing of candidates who forgo private donations. These are of course significant, far-reaching decisions with major impacts on political discourse in the United States. But even more may be going on in First Amendment jurisprudence when one looks beyond the headline-grabbing cases to less well publicized commercial speech cases.

More often than not the Court moves not dramatically, but in incremental steps as both the law and the Justices evolve and the Court personnel change. Such an incremental step appears to have been taken by the Court this year with respect to commercial speech regulation – speech intended not for political discourse, but by commercial entities seeking to buy, sell, advertise, market or provide information to each other and consumers.

On June 23, 2011, the Court, in a 6-3 majority, issued Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc.,No. 10-779, striking down on First Amendment grounds Vermont’s law that prohibited the sale and use of physician prescription data for commercial purposes especially by pharmaceutical companies wishing to use that data to advertise and otherwise reach out to physicians in order to market their drugs. Having monitored the case closely and attended the Court’s oral argument, I don’t think that the result itself was much of a surprise. The Court concluded that the regulated activity interfered with the exchange of ideas and was thus speech and then concluded that the protected speech could not be regulated by Vermont in the fashion proposed.

What to many observers was less predictable was the breadth of the decision and the language employed in the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined both by the four justices normally considered “conservative”, but also joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The majority appears to have applied a stricter standard to the “content and speaker-based” commercial speech restrictions than it has applied in the past. So the question arises: Is the Court moving, however incrementally, towards a change in how it treats commercial speech under the First Amendment – one that would increase the level of scrutiny applied to restraints on such speech?

While Sorrell received far less coverage than many of other cases decided by the Court in the 2011 Term, commercial speech proponents have been quick to embrace the decision and to assert broader commercial speech rights. After the Food and Drug Administration adopted new cigarette warning label requirements in the summer of 2011, R.J. Reynolds, together with other tobacco companies and supported by national advertising organizations, were quick to seek court intervention against the new warning label requirements. They relied in no small part on the expansive language found in Sorrell. That suit, filed in mid-August, is set for a decision on motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment after a hearing before Judge Richard Leon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 21, 2011.

To understand where the Court may be heading, it is important first to know where we have been. While the First Amendment, which is also applicable to the States, might appear to the casual reader to be absolute – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .”, it in fact has not been so regarded historically by the Court. In 1942, the Court declared that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment at all. The Court reversed course in 1976, declaring that some form of intermediate protection did exist for commercial speech, and established in 1980 a multi-part test (Central Hudson) for evaluating the constitutionality of commercial speech restrictions: In order to regulated non-misleading commercial speech regarding otherwise legal activity, the government must establish that there is a substantial state interest, that the regulation directly advances that state interest, and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to advance that substantial interest.

It doesn’t take a lawyer to conclude that this test is confusing, and not surprisingly, most observers from a wide array of the political spectrum have concluded that the results of the cases decided under Central Hudson are unpredictable and that the test is simply unworkable. Importantly, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly criticized the Court’s commercial speech jurisprudence directly, with some indirect support from others from the Court’s so-called conservative wing.

The majority in Sorrell certainly did not overrule (at least not expressly or entirely)Central Hudson. However, the majority opinion , however subtly, appears to provide a measurable shift in the First Amendment analysis by the Court by carving out in commercial speech cases types of restrictions to which the majority appears to provide some form of scrutiny greater than the protections found in theCentral Hudson test. Indeed and perhaps most tellingly the minority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer accuses the majority of having created a new test, stricter than Central Hudson, for content-based or speaker-based speech that undermines the differentiation of commercial speech from what is often called core First Amendment speech. If so, the court may have indirectly moved towards Justice Thomas’ assertion that commercial speech should not be treated differently from core speech.

In the short run, we should expect the decision in Sorrell to actually add to the confusion that surrounds Central Hudson. Will lower courts such as the one now presented with the cigarette warning dispute conclude that there is a new, higher standard? If so, in which cases will this new standard apply, and how will those cases be decided? This is not an academic or legalistic point. Both business and government thrive on certainty in results, and legal uncertainty is simply very expensive for everyone: When states lose these First Amendment cases, they normally must pay the attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party; meanwhile, businesses subject to regulation of uncertain legality incur costs in complying and challenging such regulation. Nobody benefits from this kind of uncertainty – well, except for the lawyers of course.

Of course, we may not have long to wait after all. The case of the FDA regulation of cigarette packaging, or possible other cases involving other governmental regulation of health-care claims or of health insurance, or new food safety regulation – any one of these could give rise to litigation that provides new guidance, clarity or even another incremental step. However, when one goes back to the text of the First Amendment and its absolute prohibition on abridging the freedom of speech, examines the Court’s recent dramatic political speech cases in the past two terms, considers the muscular conservative majority, and carefully reads between the lines of Sorrell (decided with six votes in the majority), one must conclude that we are in for interesting times, and that advocates of commercial speech restrictions, including anti-smoking advocates, may now face a greater uphill battle in defending and maintaining what have come to be accepted restrictions in marketing and advertising in the United States.

Second Circuit's Citigroup Decision Endorses Presumption of Prudence, Upholds Dismissal of Disclosure Claims

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding the decision that employer stock in a 401(k) plan is subject to a “presumption of prudence” that a plaintiff alleging fiduciary breach:

In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined five other circuits in ruling that employer stock in a 401(k) plan is subject to a “presumption of prudence” that a plaintiff alleging fiduciary breach can overcome only upon a showing that the employer was facing a “dire situation” that was objectively unforeseeable by the plan sponsor. In re Citigroup ERISA Litigation, No. 09-3804, 2011 WL 4950368 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2011). The appellate court found the plaintiffs had not rebutted the presumption of prudence and so upheld the dismissal of their “stock drop” claims.

BACKGROUND

The Citigroup plaintiffs were participants in two 401(k) plans that specifically required the offering of Citigroup stock as an investment option. The plaintiffs alleged that Citigroup’s large subprime mortgage exposure caused the share price of Citigroup stock to decline sharply between January 2007 and January 2008, and that plan fiduciaries breached their duties of prudence and loyalty by not divesting the plans of the stock in the face of the declines. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants breached their duty of disclosure by not providing complete and accurate information to plan participants regarding the risks associated with investing in Citigroup stock in light of the company’s exposure to the subprime market. On a motion to dismiss, the district court found no fiduciary breach because the defendants had “no discretion whatsoever” to eliminate Citigroup stock as an investment option (sometimes referred to as “hardwiring”). Alternatively, the lower court ruled that Citigroup stock was a presumptively prudent investment and the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to overcome the presumption.

SECOND CIRCUIT DECISION

Oral argument in the Citigroup case occurred nearly a year ago, and legal observers have been anxiously awaiting the court’s ruling. In a 2-1 decision, with Judge Chester J. Straub issuing a lengthy dissent, the Second Circuit rejected the “hardwiring” rationale but confirmed the application of the presumption of prudence, which was first articulated by the Third Circuit in Moench v. Robertson, 62 F.3d 553 (3d Cir. 1995). The court also rejected claims that the defendants violated ERISA’s disclosure obligations by failing to provide plan participants with information about the expected future performance of Citigroup stock.

Prudence

Joining the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits,[1] the court adopted the presumption of prudence as the “best accommodation between the competing ERISA values of protecting retirement assets and encouraging investment in employer stock.” Under the presumption of prudence, a fiduciary’s decision to continue to offer participants the opportunity to invest in employer stock is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of review, which provides that a fiduciary’s conduct will not be second-guessed so long as it is reasonable. The court also ruled that the presumption of prudence applies at the earliest stages of the litigation and is relevant to all defined contribution plans that offer employer stock (not just ESOPs, which are designed to invest primarily in employer securities).

Having announced the relevant legal standard, the court of appeals dispatched the plaintiffs’ prudence claim in relatively short order. The plaintiffs alleged that Citigroup made ill-advised investments in the subprime market and hid the extent of its exposure from plan participants and the public; consequently, Citigroup’s stock price was artificially inflated. These facts alone, the court held, were not enough to plead a breach of fiduciary duty: “[T]hat Citigroup made a bad business decision is insufficient to show that the company was in a ‘dire situation,’ much less that the Investment Committee or the Administrative Committee knew or should have known that the situation was dire.” Nor could the plaintiffs carry their burden by alleging in conclusory fashion that individual fiduciaries “knew or should have known” about Citigroup’s subprime exposure but failed to act. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the court of appeals held these bald assertions were insufficient at the pleadings stage to suggest knowledge of imprudence or to support the inference that the fiduciaries could have foreseen Citigroup’s subprime losses.

Disclosure

The court’s treatment of the disclosure claims was equally instructive. Plaintiffs’ allegations rested on two theories of liability under ERISA: (1) failing to provide complete and accurate information to participants (the “nondisclosure” theory), and (2) conveying materially inaccurate information about Citigroup stock to participants (the “misrepresentation” theory).

As to the nondisclosure theory, the court found that Citigroup adequately disclosed in plan documents made available to participants the risks of investing in Citigroup stock, including the undiversified nature of the investment, its volatility, and the importance of diversification. The court also emphasized that ERISA does not impose an obligation on employers to disclose nonpublic information to participants regarding a specific plan investment option.

Turning to the misrepresentation theory, the court found plaintiffs’ allegations that the fiduciaries “knew or should have known” about Citigroup’s subprime losses, or that they failed to investigate the prudence of the stock, were too threadbare to support a claim for relief. Though plaintiffs claimed that false statements in SEC filings were incorporated by reference into summary plan descriptions (SPDs), the court found no basis to infer that the individual defendants knew the statements were false. It also concluded there were no facts which, if proved, would show (without the benefit of hindsight) that an investigation of Citigroup’s financial condition would have revealed the stock was no longer a prudent investment.

IMPLICATIONS

Coming from the influential Second Circuit, the Citigroup decision represents something of a tipping point in stock-drop jurisprudence, especially with respect to the dozens of companies (including many financial services companies) that have been sued in stock-drop cases based on events surrounding the 2007-08 global financial crisis. The Second Circuit opinion gives the presumption of prudence critical mass among appellate courts and signals a potential shift in how stock-drop claims will be evaluated, including at the motion to dismiss stage.[2]

Under the Citigroup analysis, fiduciaries should not override the plan terms regarding employer stock unless maintaining the stock investment would frustrate the purpose of the plan, such as when the company is facing imminent collapse or some other “dire situation” that threatens its viability. Like other circuits that have adopted the prudence presumption, the Citigroup court emphasized the long-term nature of retirement investing and the need to refrain from acting in response to “mere stock fluctuations, even those that trend downhill significantly.” It also sided with other courts in holding that the presumption of prudence should be applied at the motion to dismiss stage (i.e., not allowing plaintiffs to gather evidence through discovery to show the imprudence of the stock). Taken together, these rulings may make it harder for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss, especially where their allegations of imprudence are based on relatively short-lived declines in stock price.

Some had predicted the Second Circuit would endorse the “hardwiring” argument and allow employers to remove fiduciary discretion by designating stock as a mandatory investment in the plan document. The Citigroup court was unwilling to go that far, but it did adopt a “sliding scale” under which judicial scrutiny will increase with the degree of discretion a plan gives its fiduciaries to offer company stock as an investment. This is similar to the approach taken by the Ninth Circuit inQuan and consistent with the heightened deference that courts generally give to fiduciaries when employer stock is hardwired into the plan. Thus, through careful plan drafting, employers should be able to secure the desired standard of review. Language in the plan document and trust agreement (as well as other documents) confirming that employer stock is a required investment option should result in the most deferential standard and provide fiduciaries the greatest protection.

Also noteworthy was the court’s treatment of the disclosure claims. Many stock-drop complaints piggyback on allegations of securities fraud, creating an inevitable tension between disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws and disclosure obligations under ERISA. The Second Circuit did not resolve this tension, but it construed ERISA fiduciary disclosure requirements narrowly and rejected the notion that fiduciaries have a general duty to tell participants about adverse corporate developments. The court made this ruling in the context of SPD disclosures under the 401(k) plan that identified specific risks of investing in Citigroup stock. Plan sponsors should review their SPDs and other participant communications to make sure company stock descriptions are sufficiently explicit about issues such as the volatility of a single-stock investment and the importance of diversification. These disclosures may go beyond what is already required under Department of Labor regulations.

[1]. See Howell v. Motorola, Inc., 633 F.3d 552, 568 (7th Cir.), cert.denied, 2011 WL 4530151 (2011); Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 881 (9th Cir. 2010); Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 526 F.3d 243, 254 (5th Cir. 2008); Kuper v. Iovenko, 66 F.3d 1447, 1459-60 (6th Cir. 1995).

[2]. That said, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should continue to monitor future developments in Citigroup in light of Judge Straub’s dissenting opinion and the likelihood of a petition for rehearing (or rehearing en banc), which the Citigroup plaintiffs have indicated they intend to seek. In his dissent, Judge Straub rejected the Moench presumption in favor of plenary review of fiduciary decisions regarding employer stock. He also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of ERISA disclosure duties.

Health Care Information Privacy and Security Forum

The National Law Review is pleased to inform you of American Conference Institute’s Health Care Information Privacy and Security Forum Conference on Monday, December 05 to Tuesday, December 06, 2011 at the Union League, Philadelphia, PA.

Our Nation is poised to harness the power of information technology to improve health care. Transforming our health care system into a 21st century model is a bold agenda… [I]t is more important than ever to ensure consumer trust in theprivacy and security of their health information and in the industry’s use of new technology.

Statement on Privacy and Security, Building Trust in
Health Information Exchange, July 8, 2010.

We Have Entered the Era of Health Information Technology and Face New and Daunting Challenges in Keeping Health Information Private and Secure. Assess Your Current HIPAA Compliance Program to Ensure Best HIT Practices as You Prepare for New Privacy and Security Responsibilities in the Age of HITECH.

Privacy and security of health care information are critical concerns for HIPAA covered entities and an ever expanding circle of business associates. Knowing the basics of the HIPAA are no longer enough in the age of HITECH when mandates giving rise to the predominance of EHRs and HIEs are taking center stage in the privacy and security challenges with which privacy, information, and security officers, and their counsel must contend every day. The modes and modalities for storing health care information are becoming more and more complex in the age of HIT — as are the safeguards for keeping this information from unauthorized disclosure.

Now is Not the Time for Regulatory Paralysis, but for Action.

Industry stakeholders are analyzing their obligations under the draft accounting and disclosure rule and awaiting the release of the final HIPAA privacy rule. However, they know that they cannot remain paralyzed with anticipation, but must act upon the information they have and that which they are already obligated to do. Now is the time to ensure that all systems are in compliance with existing law and regulation and flexible enough for reconciliation with new requirements.

Attend ACI’s Health Care Privacy and Security Forum and Get the Critical Information that You Need to Meet Your HIPAA
and HITECH Privacy and Security Challenges Head-On.

ACI’s Health Care Privacy and Security Forum has been designed to help you navigate the legal and business complexities associated with HIPAA, HITECH (as well as state privacy and security laws and regulations) and the ever evolving legal and regulatory privacy and security landscape. Our faculty of privacy and security experts will walk you through legal and business challenges associated with the anticipated regulations; HIT infrastructure and EHRs; HIEs; business associates; breach; encryption; and enforcement.

Benefit from Special Training and Strategy Sessions that Will Address the Essentials of HIPAA and HITECH and Critical Privacy and Security Compliance Audit Competencies.

To enhance and complete your conference experience, we are pleased to offer the following training and strategy sessions:

• HIPAA and HITECH Boot Camp: Intensive Training in Privacy and Security Essentials for Health Care Professionals which will provide you with the legal and regulatory backdrop for the more in-depth HIPAA and HITECH controversies discussed in the main conference. This is the perfect course for attendees who are new to health care privacy and security matters or for more experienced professionals who are in need of a refresher; and

• The Working Group on Auditing, Updating and Perfecting Your Existing HIPAA / HITECH Privacy and Security Compliance Program which will help you implement best practices to ensure that your current health care privacy and security program is in-check with current law and regulations and prepare you for HITECH-mandated HHS compliance audits applicable to both HIPAA covered-entities and business associates.

As an added bonus, your conference registration includes
your choice of one of these sessions.

Reserve Your Place Now at this Critical HIPAA and HITECH Event.
Clearly, this is the health care privacy and security conference that every legal or business advisor to a HIPAA covered entity or business associate cannot afford to miss. Register now by calling 1-888-224-2480, faxing your registration form to 1-877-927-1563 or logging on to www.AmericanConference.com/HIPAA-HITECH.

Medicare Part B premiums for 2012 lower than projected

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by U.S. Department of Human & Health Services regarding Medicare Part B premiums:

Affordable Care Act helps keep Medicare affordable

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that Medicare Part B premiums in 2012 will be lower than previously projected and the Part B deductible will decrease by $22. While the Medicare Trustees predicted monthly premiums would be $106.60, premiums will instead be $99.90. Earlier this year, HHS announced that average Medicare Advantage premiums would decrease by four percent and premiums paid for Medicare’s prescription drug plans would remain virtually unchanged.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, people with Medicare also receive free preventive services and a 50 percent discount on covered prescription drugs when they enter the prescription drug “donut hole.” This year, 1.8 million people with Medicare have received cheaper prescription drugs, while nearly 20.5 million Medicare beneficiaries have received a free Annual Wellness Visit or other free preventive services like cancer screenings.

“The Affordable Care Act is helping to keep Medicare strong and affordable,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “People with Medicare are seeing higher quality benefits, better health care choices, and lower costs. Health reform is also strengthening the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and cracking down on Medicare fraud.”

Medicare Part B covers physicians’ services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment, and other items. In 2012, the “standard” Medicare Part B premium will be $99.90. This is a $15.50 decrease over the standard 2011 premium of $115.40 paid by new enrollees and higher income Medicare beneficiaries and by Medicaid on behalf of low-income enrollees.

The majority of people with Medicare have paid $96.40 per month for Part B since 2008, due to a law that freezes Part B premiums in years where beneficiaries do not receive cost-of-living (COLA) increases in their Social Security checks. In 2012, these people with Medicare will pay the standard Part B premium of $99.90, amounting to a monthly change of $3.50 for most people with Medicare. This increase will be offset for almost all seniors and people with disabilities by the additional income they will receive thanks to the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). For example, the average COLA for retired workers will be about $43 a month, which is substantially greater than the $3.50 premium increase for affected beneficiaries. Additionally, the Medicare Part B deductible will be $140, a decrease of $22 from 2011.

“Thanks in part to the Affordable Care Act, people with Medicare are going to have more money in their pockets next year,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Donald Berwick, M.D. “With new tools provided by the Affordable Care Act, we are improving how we pay providers, helping patients get the care they need, and spending our health care dollars more wisely.”

Today, CMS also announced modest increases in Medicare Part A monthly premiums as well as the deductible under Part A. Monthly premiums for Medicare Part A, which pays for inpatient hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and some home health care, are paid by just the 1 percent of beneficiaries who do not otherwise qualify for Medicare. Medicare Part A monthly premiums will be $451 for 2012, an increase of $1 from 2011. The Part A deductible paid by beneficiaries when admitted as a hospital inpatient will be $1,156 in 2012, an increase of $24 from this year’s $1,132 deductible. These changes are well below increases in previous years and general inflation.

For more information on how seniors are getting more value out of Medicare, please visit:http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/10/medicare10272011a.html

For more information about the Medicare premiums and deductibles for 2012, please visit:https://www.cms.gov/apps/media/fact_sheets.asp

Protecting Your Brand in the New .XXX Top-Level Domain

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article written by atttorneys Lee J. Eulgen, Antony J. McShane and Katherine Dennis Nye of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP regarding ICANN’s established procedures for the use of .XXX as a new top-level domain :

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently established procedures for the use of .XXX as a new top-level domain (TLD) like .COM, .NET, and .ORG. However, unlike those other TLDs, .XXX has been designed to clearly signal adult content on the Internet. Given the connection between .XXX and adult content, many brand owners outside the adult industry have reasonable concerns about protecting their name and brand from use with the .XXX TLD.

In part to allay some of these fears, the company behind .XXX, ICM Registry, has created a sunrise period, which has just opened, to help protect brand owners from the use of their trademarks with the .XXX TLD. Between Sept. 7 and Oct. 28, 2011, trademark owners that are not in the adult industry can “reserve” their trademark for a one-time fee of approximately $250. For example, if the fictional ABC Company owns a U.S. federal trademark registration covering the mark ABC, it could reserve www.abc.xxx so that no one else can register or use that domain name for at least the next 10 years.

One important exception to the reservation process is that if two trademark owners both own the same mark, the one that wants to actually register and use the .XXX domain will prevail over the one that simply wants to reserve the same domain. For example, assume the fictional Acme Adult Magazine and Acme Family Restaurant both own U.S. federal trademark registrations for the mark ACME. If the restaurant applies to reserve www.acme.xxx and the magazine applies to register the same domain, ICM Registry will permit the magazine to register and use the domain, and the restaurant will lose its reservation fee.

Failure to reserve important trademarks during this sunrise period could have serious consequences. Most fundamentally, failure to reserve .XXX domain names corresponding to your trademarks could of course lead to undesirable usage of your marks in connection with domain names corresponding to adult web sites. Although brand owners may be able to recover .XXX domain names from others who register and use those domains in bad faith – just as brand owners can in domain name disputes over .COM or .ORG domains – the damage to a brand may be greater from misuse of a trademark in connection with the .XXX TLD by an adult content site than from misuse with another TLD. Furthermore, regardless of what TLD is at issue, the process of forcibly obtaining a domain name through legal means can be expensive. Thus, trademark owners should consider carefully whether reserving their marks during the .XXX sunrise period makes sense for their brands.

The U.S. Has a New Patent Law

Posted in the National Law Review on October 27, 2011 an article regarding the Patent Reform Act of 2011 by Taylor P. Evans of Andrews Kurth LLP:

President Obama signed the Patent Reform Act of 2011 into law on September 16, 2011. Below is a summary of selected provisions of the Act.

First to File

Effective March 2013, the U.S. patent system will change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. This means that if two people make the same invention and there has been no public disclosure of the invention, and both describe and claim that invention in separate patent applications, the inventor that filed his patent application first gets the patent. Thus, filing early will be more critical than ever before. Companies should consider filing a provisional application for an invention as early as possible, possibly followed by additional provisional applications as the technology of an invention develops, with a non-provisional application within a year of the first provisional application. The first-to-file provision will have no effect on existing patents or applications filed before March 2013.

Post-Grant Challenges

Effective September 2012, third parties will be able to challenge the validity of patents within nine months of issuance in the Patent Office in a Post-Grant Opposition Review proceeding. Any basis for a validity challenge will be entertained, including questions of novelty and obviousness, as well as challenges based on non-patentable subject matter or an improper written description or other formalities. After nine months, third parties may challenge patents through Inter Partes Review, which will replace existing Inter Partes Reexamination proceedings. In an Inter Partes Review, invalidity challenges must be based only on prior patents and printed publications.

In view of these changes, companies planning to initiate Inter Partes Reexamination proceedings should do so prior to September 2012. In addition, companies should arrange a monitoring program to identify patents that relate to the company’s product line for possible challenge in a Post-Grant Opposition Review proceeding upon issuance. Similarly, patentees should be aware that a significant challenge against their patents in the patent office may develop, and they should be prepared to defend against challenges from competitors when their own patents issue.

False Marking

The new Act severely limits false marking lawsuits. Only the federal government and direct competitors that have been damaged can sue for false marking. Furthermore, non-government litigants will no longer be able to collect five hundred dollars in damages per item. In addition, it is no longer actionable not to remove expired patent numbers from products. The new law also provides for “virtual marking,” by which a company marks its product with “Patent” or “Pat.,” followed by a web address. The corresponding website displays the patent marking information and must be available to the public at no charge. These changes apply retroactively to existing cases.

Disjoinder

The new law bars plaintiffs from suing multiple defendants in the same suit if the only thing that the defendants have in common is that they are alleged to infringe the same patent(s). Courts will also be barred from consolidating cases involving different defendants according to the same criteria, except that unrelated parties may still be joined for purposes of discovery. This provision applies to all suits filed on or after September 16, 2011.

Supplemental Examination

Supplemental examination is a new post-grant procedure that will allow a patentee to cure possible inequitable conduct by presenting previously withheld information to the Patent Office after issuance of a patent. After the previously withheld information is presented, and if the claims are allowed again, that information cannot be used in later court proceedings. Supplemental examination proceedings cannot be commenced or continue once an infringement action has been brought.

Assignee Filing

Under the new Act, a company can file a patent application on behalf of an inventor where the inventor is under obligation to assign its rights to the company and refuses to sign the oath or declaration. This provision will become effective in September 2012.

Fees

Effective September 26, 2011, all Patent Office fees will be subject to a 15% surcharge.

Other Changes

There are numerous other changes to the patent system under the Patent Reform Act of 2011, including, for example, elimination of the “best mode” requirement, and changes unique to specific types of inventions, such as business methods or computers. For additional information or to discuss all the new changes in more detail, please call us.

"The Sins of the Father": Third Party Retaliation Claims Allowed to Proceed

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article written by Ralph A. Morris of Schiff Hardin LLP about third-party retaliation claims :

A recent Texas federal court decision has further expanded the bases for Title VII retaliation claims against employers. In Zamora v. City of Houston, Christopher Zamora, a Houston police officer, alleged that the Houston Police Department demoted him in retaliation for the filing of a charge with the U.S. EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In this case, however, the charge was not filed by Christopher Zamora, but by his father, Manuel Zamora, alleging that he, Manuel Zamora, had been discriminated against by the Department.

Earlier this year, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the United States Supreme Court permitted an employee’s Title VII retaliation claim to proceed where the employee’s fiancee had earlier filed an EEOC charge. The Court held that a Title VII retaliation claim could stand where the employee is subject to an adverse employment action because a co-worker to whom the employee is “closely related” engaged in protected activity.

The Supreme Court decided Thompson while the Zamora case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. After the Thompson decision was issued, the Zamora court reversed its prior determination that dismissed Christopher Zamora’s claim. The court concluded that under Thompson, Mr. Zamora’s retaliation claim could proceed based on his father’s filing of an EEOC charge. Thus, under Zamora, in addition to a fiancee, a parent-child relationship satisfies the “closely related” test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Thompson.

Retaliation charges and lawsuits typically are more challenging to defend because the employee’s burden of proof is not as difficult to meet, as compared with a charge of discrimination. Thompson and Zamora now place an additional burden on employers by holding that employees themselves do not necessarily need to engage in the protected activity to have standing to sue for retaliation. These decisions may have a greater impact on employers that make it a practice to hire family members and friends of existing employees than on those with anti-nepotism policies.

The Supreme Court refrained from identifying a fixed class of relationships for which third-party retaliation claims are viable. Future cases will have to decide how far retaliation claims will be expanded: whether, for example, partners involved in a romantic relationship but who are not engaged, or familial relationships more distant than parent and child, are sufficiently close so as to fall within the zone of protection. Employers can help reduce the risk for these types of claims by reviewing their EEOC and anti-retaliation policies and ensuring that managers are trained and educated on compliance.

IRS Announces Retirement Plan Limitations for 2012 Tax Year – Most Limits Increased

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article written by Alyssa D. Dowse of von Briesen & Roper, S.C. regarding the cost of living adjustments for the 2012 tax year:

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has announced the cost of living adjustments for the 2012 tax year, which affect various dollar limitations for retirement plans. The IRS increased many of these limitations for the first time since 2009. Some limitations remain unchanged. The following chart highlights many of the noteworthy limitations for the 2012 tax year.

Plan Limit	2011	2012
Social Security Taxable Wage Base	$106,800	$110,100
Annual Compensation (Code Section 401(a)(17))	$245,000	$250,000
Elective Deferral (Contribution) Limit for Employees who Participate in 401(k), 403(b) and most 457(b) Plans (Code Sections 402(g), 457(e)(15))	$16,500	$17,000
Age 50 Catch-Up Contribution Limit (Code Section 414(v)(2)(B)(i))	$5,500	$5,500
Highly Compensated Employee Threshold (Code Section 414(q)(1)(B))	$110,000	$115,000
Defined Contribution Plan Limitation on Annual Additions (Code Section 415(c)(1)(A))	$49,000	$50,000
Defined Benefit Plan Limitation on Annual Benefit (Code Section 415(b)(1)(A))	$195,000	$200,000
ESOP Distribution Period Rules—Payouts in Excess of Five Years (Code Section 409(o)(1)(C))	$985,000 $195,000	$1,015,000 $200,000
Key Employee Compensation Threshold for Officers (Code Section (416(i)(1)(A)(i))	$160,000	$165,000

Plan sponsors should review employee communications and update such communications as appropriate based on the 2012 cost of living adjustments. Other cost of living adjustments can be found on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96461,00.html.

The National Law Forum

ABA Conference: Criminal Tax Fraud and Tax Controversy

Program Description

CLE Information

Like this:

How Lessors and Lenders Can Audit the Eurocontrol Accounts of Lessees

Like this:

Under The Radar–The Supreme Court, Commercial Speech and the First Amendment

Like this:

Second Circuit's Citigroup Decision Endorses Presumption of Prudence, Upholds Dismissal of Disclosure Claims

BACKGROUND

SECOND CIRCUIT DECISION

Prudence

Disclosure

IMPLICATIONS

Like this:

Health Care Information Privacy and Security Forum

Like this:

Medicare Part B premiums for 2012 lower than projected

Like this:

Protecting Your Brand in the New .XXX Top-Level Domain

Like this:

The U.S. Has a New Patent Law

Like this:

"The Sins of the Father": Third Party Retaliation Claims Allowed to Proceed

Like this:

IRS Announces Retirement Plan Limitations for 2012 Tax Year – Most Limits Increased

Like this:

Program Description

CLE Information

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

BACKGROUND

SECOND CIRCUIT DECISION

Prudence

Disclosure

IMPLICATIONS

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: