Tag: business

Ankura CTIX FLASH Update – December 13, 2022

Malware Activity

Uber Discloses New Data Breach Related to Third-Party Vendor

Uber has disclosed a new data breach that is related to the security breach of Teqtivity, a third-party vendor that Uber uses for asset management and tracking services. A threat actor named “UberLeaks” began leaking allegedly stolen data from Uber and Uber Eats on December 10, 2022, on a hacking forum. The exposed data includes Windows domain login names and email addresses, corporate reports, IT asset management information, data destruction reports, multiple archives of apparent source code associated with mobile device management (MDM) platforms, and more. One document in particular contained over 77,000 Uber employee email addresses and Windows Active Directory information. UberLeaks posted the alleged stolen information in four (4) separate postings regarding Uber MDM, Uber Eats MDM, Teqtivity MDM, and TripActions MDM platforms. The actor included one (1) member of the Lapsus$ threat group in each post, but Uber confirmed that Lapsus$ is not related to this December breach despite being previously linked to the company’s cyberattack in September 2022. Uber confirmed that this breach is not related to the security incident that took place in September and that the code identified is not owned by Uber. Teqtivity published a data breach notification on December 12, 2022, that stated the company is aware of “customer data that was compromised due to unauthorized access to our systems by a malicious third party” and that the third-party obtained access to its AWS backup server that housed company code and data files. Teqtivity also noted that its ongoing investigation identified the following exposed information: first name, last name, work email address, work location details, device serial number, device make, device model, and technical specs. The company confirmed that home address, banking information, and government identification numbers are not collected or retained. Uber and Teqtivity are both in the midst of ongoing investigations into this data breach. CTIX analysts will provide updates on the matter once available.

Threat Actor Activity

PLAY Ransomware Claims Responsibility for Antwerp Cyberattack

After last week’s ransomware attack on the city of Antwerp, a threat organization has claimed responsibility and has begun making demands. The threat group, tracked as PLAY ransomware, is an up-and-coming ransomware operation that has been posting leaked information since November 2022, according to an available posting on their leak site. Samples of the threat group’s ransomware variants have shown activity dating back to June 2022, which is around the time PLAY ransomware targeted the Argentina Court of Cordoba (August). While PLAY’s ransomware attack crippled several sectors of Antwerp, it appears to have had a significant impact on residential facilities throughout the city, as stated by officials. According to PLAY NEWS, PLAY’s ransomware leak site, the publication date for the exfiltrated data is Monday, December 19, 2022, if the undisclosed ransom is not paid. PLAY threat actors claim to have 557 gigabytes (GB) worth of Antwerp-related data including but not limited to personal identifiable information, passports, identification cards, and financial documents. CTIX continues to monitor the developing situation and will provide additional updates as more information is released.

Vulnerabilities

Fortinet Patches Critical RCE Vulnerability in FortiOS SSL-VPN Products

After observing active exploitation attempts in-the-wild, the network security solutions manufacturer Fortinet has patched a critical vulnerability affecting their FortiOS SSL-VPN products. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2022-42475, was given a CVSS score of 9.3/10 and is a heap-based buffer overflow, which could allow unauthenticated attackers to perform arbitrary remote code execution (RCE) if successfully exploited. Specifically, the vulnerability exists within the FortiOS sslvpnd product, which enables individual users to safely access an organization’s network, client-server applications, and internal network utilities and directories without the need for specialized software. The vulnerability was first discovered by researchers from the French cybersecurity firm Olympe Cyberdefense who warned users to monitor their logs for suspicious activity until a patch was released. Although very few technical details about the exploitation have been divulged, Fortinet did share lists of suspicious artifacts and IPs. Based on research by Ankura CTIX analysts, the IPs released by Fortinet are located around the globe and are not associated with known threat actors at this time. To prevent exploitation, all Fortinet administrators leveraging FortiOS sslvpnd should ensure that they download and install the latest patch. If organizations cannot immediately patch their systems due to the business interruption it would cause, Olympe Cyberdefense suggests “customers monitor logs, disable the VPN-SSL functionality, and create access rules to limit connections from specific IP addresses.” A list of the affected products and their solutions, as well as the indicators of compromise can be found in the Fortinet advisory linked below.

The semi-weekly Ankura Cyber Threat Investigations and Expert Services (CTIX) FLASH Update is designed to provide timely and relevant cyber intelligence pertaining to current or emerging cyber events. The preceding is a collection of cyber threat intelligence leads assembled over the past few days and typically includes high level intelligence pertaining to recent threat group/actor activity and newly identified vulnerabilities impacting a wide range of industries and victims. 

Article By Ankura Cyber Threat Investigations and Expert Services

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Ankura Consulting Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

More Places, Less Spaces: California is Driving Down Development Costs

In an effort to decrease the skyrocketing development costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097) aims to eliminate a key obstacle for new developments: parking. More specifically, starting on January 1, 2023, this law prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum automobile parking requirements for residential, commercial and other development projects if the project is located within a 1/2-mile of a “High-Quality Transit Corridor”[1] or a “Major Transit Stop.”[2]

Prior to the enactment of AB 2097, cities and counties retained the authority to impose a minimum number of parking spaces required for new developments. This condition is typically the result of a calculation found in the city or county’s zoning code, and is usually determined based on the use or type of project being developed, regardless of project specifics. Oftentimes, the use of a universal calculation results in excess parking. For example, a new restaurant may be required to provide 4 parking spaces for every 100 square feet of use even if the restaurant concept does not necessitate a large number of parking spaces or if the restaurant is in a pedestrian- or transit-friendly location. While California remains in the throes of a housing crisis, some areas within the state boast an oversupply of parking spaces. For example, Los Angeles County has 18.6 million parking spaces, which equates to almost 2 parking spaces for every 1 resident.[3] This statistic is similar in the Bay Area where there are 1.9 parking spaces for every 1 resident.[4]

Moreover, not only can a static calculation result in unnecessary parking (and blacktop), it can add untenable costs to new developments. For example, new residential developments are typically required to provide 1 to 2 parking spaces per unit. The requirement results in an additional cost of approximately $36,000 per unit.[5] As the cost to develop residential projects is at an all-time high,[6] builders are welcoming all efforts to reduce the cost and eliminate unnecessary development “standards.”

To avoid a complete free-for-all, under AB 2097, public agencies will still retain the ability to impose a minimum parking requirement, if, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, the public agency makes a written finding that not imposing a minimum automobile parking requirement would have a substantial negative impact. However, there are a number of exceptions to this caveat that wholly restrict public agencies from imposing a minimum parking condition. These exceptions include certain affordable housing projects or small residential housing projects.

For parking spaces that are voluntarily included in proposed project designs, public agencies may still require: (i) spaces for car share vehicles; (ii) parking spaces to be shared with the public; or (iii) for the project to charge for parking. Nothing in AB 2097 shall reduce or eliminate the requirement that new developments provide for the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (i.e., EV-charging stations) or to provide parking spaces accessible to persons with disabilities.

AB 2097 is intended to give developers more flexibility and lower the costs associated with development, which will – hopefully – result in an influx of housing and the redevelopment of vacant buildings where it may not have been previously feasible to provide parking in a quantity necessary to meet a jurisdiction’s minimum requirements. By reducing the oversupply of parking, there is the expectation that the use of mass transit will increase, thereby reducing traffic, greenhouse emissions and air pollution.

Critics of AB 2097 are concerned that the elimination of parking requirements could actually weaken local efforts to provide more affordable housing as many public agencies offer reductions in parking requirements to incentivize developers to add on-site affordable housing units to the project.[7] There is also concern that, despite the decrease in availability, many residents will continue to own vehicles, which – ironically – will lead to increase parking demand and congestion.

Although there is a lot of speculation of AB 2097, many are hopeful that it is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing California’s housing crisis. As Governor Gavin Newsom stated when he signed the bill: “Reducing housing costs for everyday Californians and eliminating emissions from cars: That’s what we call a win-win.”

FOOTNOTES

[1] “High-Quality Transit Corridor” means a corridor with a fixed-route bus service with service intervals no longer than fifteen minutes during peak commute hours.

[2] “Major Transit Stop” means a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by bus or rail, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of fifteen minutes or less during peak commute periods.

[3] Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia. Assembly Committee on Local Government – AB 2097 (Friedman) – As Introduced February 14, 2022. (April 20, 2022. )

[4] Inventorying San Francisco Bay Area Parking Spaces: Technical Report Describing Objectives, Methods, and Results. Mineta Transportation Institute – San Jose State University. (February 2022.)

[5] Some estimates place the aveage cost of one residential unit at $1,000,000 in development costs. (The Costs of Affordable Housing Production: Insights from California’s 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkley. A Terner Center Report [March 2020].)

[6] Dillon, Liam and Posten, Ben. Affordable Housing in California Now Routinely Tops $1 Million per Apartment to Build. Los Angeles Times. (June 2, 2022.)

[7] California Daily News.

Article By Amanda S. Lee of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more real estate legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Warning Sign? A New Round of FDA Warning Letters Over CBD Consumer Confusion May Signal a Shift in Government Enforcement

FDA warning letters are nothing new in the cannabis industry. In fact, we here at Budding Trends have covered this topic a number of times (here, here, and here). Not resigned to playing the hits, however, the FDA issued a new set of warning letters on November 21 that may signal a shift in enforcement posture away from solely targeting companies that market CBD as a potential medical treatment and towards including companies that market their products in ways that could cause consumer confusion. This is a “Warning Sign” that might cause the cannabis industry “A Rush of Blood to the Head,” much like Coldplay’s multi-platinum album that recently celebrated its 20-year anniversary. So, turn back the “Clocks,” book your flight to “Amsterdam,” and indulge us if you will — just not too much.

Congress legalized the production of hemp and hemp-derived products under the 2018 Farm Bill. But federal legalization did not exempt the hemp industry from federal regulation. Indeed, the FDA and FTC retain overlapping enforcement authority over CBD marketing, with the FDA having primary authority over labeling. Far more than “A Whisper,” the FDA and FTC have not been shy about issuing warning letters to hemp companies that fail to follow the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance.

Since its first set of warning letters to CBD companies in April 2019, the FDA has focused its enforcement activity on companies that market their CBD products as treatment and cures for a variety of diseases and illnesses. But the FDA’s most recent warning letters took a different tack, focusing on potential health risks from long-term CBD use, consumer confusion leading to unintentional or overconsumption of CBD, and CBD products that could be seen as marketed to children.

The basis of the FDA’s five new warning letters was that CBD is neither an authorized food additive nor generally recognized as safe. The FDA noted it had “not found adequate information showing how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm,” and claimed that “scientific studies show” potential harm to the “male reproductive system” and “liver” from long-term CBD use. In the FDA’s words, “[p]eople should be aware of the potential risks associated with the use of CBD products.”

The products highlighted in the warning letters included gummies, fruit snacks, lollipops, cookies, teas, and other beverages. The FDA said these products were targeted because consumers may confuse them for traditional foods or beverages, “which may result in unintentional consumption of overconsumption of CBD.” Further, the FDA noted that gummies, candies, and cookies are especially concerning because they may appeal to children. Likewise, the FDA cited tea, coffee, sparkling water, beverage “shots,” and honey as products similar to traditional food that may confuse consumers into over-consuming CBD.

Keeping its focus on unintended consumption or unintended overconsumption, the FDA also chastised one company for failing to specifically list CBD as an ingredient on the label of its hemp-infused tea. This is particularly important to note for hemp companies, many of which have sought to avoid listing “CBD” on the product labels for full spectrum hemp extracts in an effort to avoid the FDA and FTC’s seemingly CBD-focused enforcement actions.

Given this new enforcement posture, CBD companies may consider avoiding marketing attempts that seek to link CBD products too closely with traditional foods and beverages. This may include limiting references to the similarity of CBD products to traditional ones. And CBD companies should continue to avoid product labels and marketing campaigns that would be enticing to children, especially for CBD products that are in a form children might be likely to consume (such as gummies and candies).

It remains to be seen where the FDA will draw the line between appropriate marketing and marketing that goes too far towards confusing consumers, but, aside from a falsetto Chris Martin, “nobody said it was easy.” Until then, watch this space and remember to follow the marketing dos and don’ts we provided in one of our previous blog posts.

Article By J. Hunter Robinson and Josh Kleppin of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Easy Ways to Build Your Professional Brand

Whether or not you realize it, you have a professional brand, and it’s up to you to maximize and leverage it.

Every day, people are searching for you online. They may go to your web bio, but more than likely, they’re probably going to LinkedIn as well to check you out.

LinkedIn paints a much more robust picture of you and your professional background than your web site bio because it enables you to showcase your entire professional history and body of work.

Think of LinkedIn as your own mini website and blog.

So LinkedIn is a huge part of managing your brand. It would be very wise to focus on building your presence on LinkedIn, and it is free.

Also, Googling yourself regularly and setting up Google alerts to make sure that you’re aware of what’s being said about you, and manage your online reputation.

Speaking engagements can be incredibly powerful to underscore your subject matter expertise and stay top of mind with those who need someone like you. If you feel uncomfortable doing them live, do webinars.

There is a ripple effect with speaking engagements, which is that you likely will get asked to do another speaking engagement when people see that you are on the speaking circuit and that you are good at it.

Not everyone is comfortable being on video like I am, but that’s also an option. A podcast is another great way to build your brand, make strong relationships and you don’t have to be on camera.

There’s a lot of other things you can do, such as writing articles, blog posts, client alerts, email blasts and email newsletters – these are all great ways to showcase your thought leadership expertise and stay top of mind with your clients, prospects and referral sources.

There’s also trade association memberships and committee involvement – they are an effective way to get to know people in your industry, as long as you’re going to commit to them, because the worst thing you can do is to not do a good job on these committees.

You don’t have to do all of these things, or several of them at once, and you should only do the ones that you like to do because you will be more successful at them.

A Word About Self Confidence

Don’t let anyone else dim your light, most of all you.

It’s time to build your confidence about posting on LinkedIn and showing up in other kinds of marketing. We each have value to provide to others and we need to believe that.

Every time I post I get nervous about how it will be received, especially posting videos.

But we all over estimate the extent to which others are thinking about us because guess what? They’re thinking about themselves way more. So stop worrying about what everyone else thinks!

You won’t be everyone’s cup of tea and that’s okay.

The right people will gravitate toward you and appreciate your posts even if they don’t tell you or actually post a like on your content.

I keep posting because I believe in my posts and I’m coming from a place of genuineness. Trying to help people is enough for me to keep showing up and posting.

So believe in yourself and silence the naysayers and that negative voice that you have about yourself. Each of us has an inner critic and if we’re not careful, we can start to believe what it has to say. Your success on LinkedIn and elsewhere depends on your ability to silence your inner critic.

Don’t let other people (or yourself) dim your light and be YOU. That’s your superpower.

How do you find the confidence to show up on LinkedIn and in other places?

Article By Stefanie M. Marrone of Stefanie Marrone Consulting

For more legal marketing news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Stefanie M. Marrone. All Rights Reserved.

Are Loans Securities?

We have been following a case that has been winding its way through New York federal courts for some time that players in the syndicated loan market have described as everything from “a potential game changer” to an “existential threat” to the syndicated loan market.

The case in question is Kirschner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In this case, the Court will consider an appeal of a 2020 decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which held that the syndicated term loan in question was not a security. Significantly, this ruling indicated that because syndicated term loans are not securities, they are therefore not subject to securities laws and regulations.

The consequence of a determination that syndicated loans are securities would be significant. It would mean, among other things, that the syndicated loan market would have to comply with various state and federal securities laws. This would significantly change the cost of these transactions as well as the means by which syndication and loan trading take place. The Loan Syndications and Trading Association (LSTA) filed an amicus brief in this case in May of this year, which we covered here. The LSTA argued in its brief, among other things, that beyond the increased cost, regulating syndicated loans as securities would fundamentally change other aspects of the syndicated loan market. Specifically, the LSTA pointed to the importance of a borrower’s ability to have veto rights and other control in determining which entities will hold its debt. The LSTA also noted the importance of quick access to funding on flexible terms specific to the borrower in question – something we know is at the heart of so many fund finance transactions – which would be greatly compromised within a securities regulatory regime. The LSTA brief also discusses potential negative impacts on the CLO market.

Those in favor of a change in regulation point to features such as nonbank lender participation in the market, the fact that the test to determine whether a loan is a security may be outdated, and the overall size of the syndicated loan market – at $1.4 trillion – which could be a risk to the larger global financial system potentially warranting more stringent regulation.

Most experts believe that the Second Circuit will not overturn the decision issued in the lower court, but the issue in question is significant enough that market players should keep an eye on this one. Oral arguments will take place early next year. We will continue to watch as this case develops and update you here.

Article By Leah Edelboim of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Newly Enacted Federal “Speak Out Act” Limits Use of Some Sexual Harassment NDAs

President Biden has signed into law the federal “Speak Out Act” limiting the enforceability of pre–dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses covering sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes.  The Act takes effect immediately.

The Act places restrictions on the enforceability of pre-dispute:

  • “non-disclosure clauses,” meaning “a provision in a contract or agreement that requires the parties to the contract or agreement not to disclose or discuss conduct, the existence of a settlement involving conduct, or information covered by the terms and conditions of the contract or agreement.”
  •  “non-disparagement clauses,” defined as “a provision in a contract or agreement that requires 1 or more parties to the contract or agreement not to make a negative statement about another party that relates to the contract, agreement, claim, or case.”

Such clauses entered into before a sexual assault or sexual harassment dispute arises are rendered unenforceable.  The Act defines covered “sexual assault disputes” as disputes “involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code, or similar applicable Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.” Covered “sexual harassment disputes” are defined as disputes “relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.”

A few notes about the Act’s scope and implications:

  • Critically, the Act may have limited implications for many employers for one key reason – the Act only applies to non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses in pre-dispute agreements, meaning that any non-disclosure/non-disparagement clauses in agreements entered into by employers/employees concerning sexual assault or sexual harassment issues after a dispute has arisen are not impacted by the Act.  Because of this, the Act’s protections would not apply to non-disclosure/non-disparagement clauses in separation or settlement agreements executed after sexual harassment or sexual assault allegations are made, but may be subject, of course, to any applicable state or local laws.
  • The Act explicitly excludes from coverage any efforts by employers to protect trade secrets and proprietary information via non-disclosure or non-disparagement provisions.
  • While the Act does apply to non-disclosure/non-disparagement clauses in agreements entered into before December 7, 2022 (the Effective Date), it would not impact clauses entered into before a dispute arose, but where that dispute was active before the Act’s December 7th effective date.
  • Given the above, employers utilizing non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreements at the outset of employment or during the employment lifecycle should consider creating proper carve-outs for sexual assault and sexual harassment issues given the new Act.

Employers should also be aware of other recent developments in this area.  The Speak Out Act also follows the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which took effect earlier this year (our post on the law can be found here).  That federal law prohibits employers from compelling arbitration of sexual harassment or sexual assault claims and provides employees the option to pursue those claims in other forums.  Employers should also remain aware that, despite the seemingly narrow implications of this new federal law, several states – including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York – have enacted laws in recent years that grant employees broader protections when it comes to certain sexual harassment and discrimination claims, enhancing employees’ abilities to speak out about alleged misconduct.

Article By Corbin Carter and Michael S. Arnold of Mintz

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Beware Before You Flare: EPA Revamps Rulemaking to Pave the Way for Methane Emission Reductions

On November 15, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued the pre-publication version of supplemental proposed rulemaking for reduction of methane emissions in the oil and natural gas sector. The original proposed rule, published on November 15, 2021, sought to strengthen methane standards for new sources (New Source Performance Standards or NSPS), establish nationwide emission guidelines (EG) for regulation of existing sources, and develop new standards for unregulated sources. US EPA ultimately received more than 470,000 public comments. The rules, once finalized, will be included in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOb (NSPS) and Subpart OOOOc (EG).

The agency anticipated a need for additional review in the original proposed rule, in which US EPA stated it would issue supplemental proposed rulemaking under its authority in the Clean Air Act sections 111(b) and (d). While the original rule already had an ambitious target of reducing methane by 74%, the supplemental proposal would reduce methane from covered sources by 87% below 2005 levels. The rule generally governs production and processing (i.e., well sites, compressor stations, and natural gas processing plants) as well as natural gas transmission and storage.

Key changes in the supplemental proposed rule include the following:

  • Super-emitter Response Program: Establishment of a super-emitter response program intended to reduce the risk of such events. Owners or operators that receive certified notifications of emissions greater than 100 kg/hr of methane would be required to take action.
  • Well Closure Plans: EPA will now require owners of well sites to submit a well closure plan that includes steps to plug wells, requires financial assurance, and includes a schedule to complete the closure and perform a final survey.
  • Advanced Methane Detection: In response to comments supporting advanced methane detection technologies, EPA has proposed a matrix where owners and operators have the flexibility to use approved alternative screening approaches with development of a plan and notification to the agency. The agency will further update the proposed protocol for optical gas imaging (OGI) in Appendix K.
  • Leak Inspection: EPA will now require identification and correction of leaks, a source of fugitive emissions, at all well sites, including new and existing. While EPA removed exemptions, the type of leak monitoring will vary depending on site characteristics and equipment in four primary categories: (1) single wellhead-only and small well sites; (2) wellhead-only sites with two or more wellheads; (3) sites with major production and processing equipment; and (4) well sites on the Alaska North Slope.
  • Flares: EPA will require flare flames to be lit at all times. Additionally, in order to flare, owners of oil wells with associated gas will be required to either implement alternatives permitted by the rule (such as routing to a sales line) or certify that alternatives are not safe or technically feasible.
  • Additional Regulated Sources: EPA has added strengthened standards for pneumatic pumps (zero-emission standard), updated standards for wet seal centrifugal compressors, and developed new standards for dry seal centrifugal pumps (currently unregulated).

Given the agency’s significant focus on environmental justice and community outreach, US EPA also seeks to provide more opportunities for vulnerable communities and Tribal communities to participate in the development of state plans. In fact, the agency held a webinar specific to Tribal communities and environmental justice communities on November 17, 2022. During the webinar, US EPA explained how the revised rule requires states to conduct meaningful engagement with vulnerable communities through early outreach and request for input. States developing plans for EG will be required to participate in “timely engagement with pertinent stakeholder representation . . . [i]t must include the development of public participation strategies to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to participation to assure pertinent stakeholder representation.”

The agency is also seeking additional insight from the regulated industry on advanced technologies that can be utilized to reduce methane and utilize associated gas. The original proposed rule requested public comment on a potential standard for oil wells with associated gas that would require owners or operators to route associated gas to a sales line or, alternatively, use it for another beneficial use. During this round of comments, US EPA now seeks to understand emerging technologies “that provide uses for the associated gas in a beneficial manner other than routing to a sales line, using as a fuel, or reinjecting the gas.”

The agency extended the timeline for a final rulemaking to 2023 and has issued new opportunities for public comment and training. Written comments are due to the agency by February 13, 2023 and can be submitted to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317. There will also be a series of public hearings on January 10-11, 2023 that require advance registration. To assist in preparation, US EPA published a document highlighting areas where the agency continues to seek public input. We are prepared to assist clients in engaging with the agency by providing comment and preparing for the final rule to be implemented next year.

Article By Jennifer Tharp of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Washington State’s Pay Transparency Law Takes Effect January 1, 2023

Effective January 1, 2023, Washington employers must comply with SB 5761, commonly known as Washington’s Pay Transparency Law, signed by Governor Jay Inslee on March 30, 2022. SB 5761 amends Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act (RCW 49.58) to require employers with 15 or more employees to include in each job posting the wage scale or salary range of the job and a general description of all of the benefits offered and to identify other compensation offered. The law also requires employers to provide existing employees who are promoted or offered a new position with the wage scale or salary range of the new position.

IN DEPTH

Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act currently only requires employers to provide applicants with the minimum wage or salary for the position they seek and only upon the applicant’s request after the employer makes the job offer.

WHAT IS THE PAY TRANSPARENCY LAW?

Effective January 1, 2023, employers must disclose in each posting for each job opening the wage scale or salary range and a general description of all benefits and other compensation to offered to the hired applicant.

Job postings mean “any solicitation included to recruit job applicants for a specific available position,” and electronic or hard-copy records that describe the desired qualifications, whether the employer solicits applicants directly or indirectly through a third party.

Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) has published a draft administrative policy that provides employers with guidance on compliance.

WHICH EMPLOYERS ARE COVERED?

The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees.

DLI’s guidance clarifies that the law applies to all employers with 15 or more employees, engaging in any business, industry, profession or activity in Washington. The 15-employee threshold for covered employers “includes employers that do not have a physical presence in Washington, if the employer has one or more Washington-based employees.” This law applies to employers even if they do not have a physical presence in Washington but engage in business in Washington or recruit for jobs that could be filled by a Washington-based employee.

WHAT MUST EMPLOYERS INCLUDE IN THE POSTING?

Employers must disclose in each posting for each job opening:

  • The opening wage scale or salary range
  • A general description of all benefits and other compensation offered.

Per the DLI’s guidance, employers must make these disclosures in postings for remote work that could be performed by a Washington-based employee. Employers cannot avoid these disclosure requirements by stating in the posting that it will not accept Washington applicants.

Wage Scale or Salary Range

The DLI’s guidance identifies examples of information that should be included in a posting.

A wage scale or salary range should provide the applicant with the employer’s most reasonable and genuinely expected range of compensation for the job, extending from the lowest to the highest pay established by the employer prior to publishing the job posting. If the employer does not have an existing wage scale or salary range for a position, the scale or range should be created prior to publishing the job posting. For example, the scale or range’s minimum and maximum should be clear without open-ended phrases such as “$60,000/per year and up” (with no top of the range), or “up to $29.00/hour” (with no bottom of the scale).

Employers should update the posting to reflect any changes to the wage scale or salary range. If the employer offers a different position than what the applicant applied for, the employer may offer the applicant the wage scale or salary range specific to the position offered, rather than the position in the posting.

If an employer intends to implement a “starting range” or “starting rate” for an initial timeframe of employment or probationary period, the starting range or rate may be listed on the posting, but the entire scale or range must also be listed on the posting.

If an employer publishes a job posting for a job opening that can be filled with varying job titles, depending on experience, the employer should specify all potential wage scales or salary ranges that apply. The job posting should clearly define the lowest to highest pay established for each potential job position, as indicated in the example below:

  • Accounting Analyst 1: $27.00 – $29.00 per hour
  • Accounting Analyst 2: $65,000 – $75,000 per year
  • Accounting Analyst 3: $80,000 – $95,000 per year.

If an employer posts a job that is compensated by commission rates, the employer should include the rate or rate range (percentage or otherwise) that it would offer to the hired applicant, as indicated in the example below:

  • Commission-based salesperson: 5–8% of net sale price per unit.

General Description of All Benefits 

A general description of all benefits includes, but is not limited to, healthcare benefits, retirement benefits, any benefits permitting paid days off (including more-generous paid sick leave accruals, parental leave, and paid time off or vacation benefits), and any other benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes, such as fringe benefits.

If the general description of all benefits changes after an employer has published a posting and the posting remains published, the employer should update the posting.

If insurance or retirement plans are included as part of the position’s benefits package, employers should list the types of insurance and retirement plans in the job posting, such as medical insurance, vision insurance, 401k and employer-funded retirement plan. Similarly, if an employer offers paid vacation, paid holidays or paid sick leave benefits, employers should list in detail the amount of days or hours offered for each benefit.

The DLI’s example of a general description of all benefits is as follows:

  • “Employees (and their families) are covered by medical, dental, vision, and basic life insurance. Employees are able to enroll in our company’s 401k plan, as well as a deferred compensation plan. Employees will also receive eight hours of vacation leave every month, as well as eight hours of Washington paid sick leave every month. Employees will also enjoy twelve paid holidays throughout the calendar year. Two weeks of paid parental leave will also be available for use after successful completion of one year of employment.”

General Description of Other Compensation 

Other compensation includes, but is not limited to, any discretionary bonuses, stock options or other forms of compensation that would be offered to the hired applicant in addition to their established salary range or wage scale. Some forms of other compensation can include, but are not limited to, commissions, bonuses, profit-sharing, merit pay, stock options, travel allowance, relocation assistance and housing allowance.

Employers need only describe the other compensation and need not include the total monetary value of the other compensation in a job posting. However, employers who choose to include the total monetary value of other compensation in a job posting must also include the required general description of benefits and other compensation in addition to the wage scale or salary range.

The DLI’s example of a general description of other compensation is as follows:

  • “Hired applicant will be able to purchase company stock, receive annual bonuses, and can participate in profit-sharing. Hired applicant will also receive an equity grant in the form of either a direct grant of stock that will be specified in the employment contract or an option to purchase stock in the future for a specified price.”

In electronic job postings, the posting must have the general description of the benefits and other compensation, but employers can use a link to provide a more detailed description of benefits and other compensation. However, “it is the employer’s responsibility to assure continuous compliance with functionality of links, up-to-date information, and information that applies to the specific job posting, regardless of any use of third-party administrators.”

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE?

Where an employer is out of compliance with this law, applicants and employees will be able to file a complaint with the DLI or file a civil lawsuit against the employer in court.

If applicants or employees file a complaint with the DLI, the DLI may issue a citation and/or notice of assessment and order the employer to pay to the complainant actual damages, double statutory damages (or $5,000, whichever is greater), interest of 1% per month on compensation owed, payment to the department for the costs of investigation and enforcement, and other appropriate relief. The DLI may also order an employer to pay civil penalties in response to complaints, ranging from $500 for a first violation to $1,000 or 10% of damages (whichever is greater) for a repeat violation.

If applicants or employees file a civil lawsuit, remedies may include actual damages, double statutory damages (or $5,000, whichever is greater), interest of 1% per month on compensation owed, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs. Recovery of wages and interest will be calculated back four years from the last violation.

Note: This alert was drafted based on Washington State’s Department of Labor & Industries’ Draft Administrative Policy, which may be superseded by a revised final version before January 1, 2023. 

Article By Yesenia M. Gallegos, Michelle S. Strowhiro, and Paulina Chau of McDermott Will & Emery

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 McDermott Will & Emery

Quantifying Cryptocurrency Claims in Bankruptcy: Does the Dollar Still Reign Supreme?

In the past six months, four major players in the crypto space have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection: Celsius Network, Voyager Digital, FTX, and BlockFi, and more may be forthcoming.  Together, the debtors in these four bankruptcy cases are beholden to hundreds of thousands of creditors.  The bulk of the claims in these cases are customer claims related to cryptocurrency held on the debtors’ respective platforms.  These customer claimants deposited or “stored” fiat currency and cryptocurrencies on the debtors’ platforms.  Some of these funds allegedly were commingled or rehypothecated, leaving customer accounts severely underfunded when liquidity crunches arose at the various entities.  The total amount of such claims is estimated to be in the billions — that is, if these claims ultimately are measured in United States Dollars (“USD”).

Crypto-watchers and bankruptcy lawyers alike have speculated how customer claims based on digital assets such as cryptocurrencies should be valued and measured under bankruptcy law.  Given the volatility of cryptocurrency prices, this determination may have a significant effect on recoveries, as well as the viability of the “payment-in-kind” distribution mechanics proposed in Voyager, Celsius, and BlockFi.  A number of creditors appearing pro se in these proceedings have expressed a desire to keep their mix of cryptocurrencies through these proposed “in-kind” distributions.

However, a crypto-centric approach to valuing claims and making distributions raises a number of issues for consideration.  For example, measuring customer claims in cryptocurrency and making “in-kind” distributions of these assets could lead to creditors within the same class receiving recoveries of disparate USD value as the result of the fluctuation in cryptocurrency prices. Moreover, as has been discussed in the Celsius proceedings, the administrative burden associated with maintaining, accounting for, and distributing a wide variety of cryptocurrencies as part of a recovery scheme would likely prove complex.  Equity holders also might challenge the confirmability of a plan where valuations and recoveries are based on cryptocurrency rather than USD, as a dramatic rise in cryptocurrency values could return some value to equity.

Like most issues at the intersection of insolvency and cryptocurrency, there is little precedent to guide creditors through the uncertainties, but a recent dispute in the Celsius bankruptcy proceedings as to whether a debtor is required to schedule claims in USD, or whether cryptocurrency claims can be scheduled “in-kind,” may serve as a preview of things to come.

I.          General Background

Celsius Network (“Celsius” and, together with its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession, the “Debtors”), self-described as one of the “largest and most sophisticated” cryptocurrency-based finance platforms and lenders that claimed over 1.7 million users worldwide,1 filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 13, 2022.2  On October 5, 2022, the Debtors filed their schedules of assets and liabilities (“Schedules”).  Each Debtor’s schedule of unsecured creditors’ claims (Schedule E/F) lists the claims of the Debtors’ customers by the number of various forms of cryptocurrency coins and account types, rather than in USD.3

On October 25, 2022, a group of beneficial holders, investment advisors, and managers of beneficial holders (collectively, the “Series B Preferred Holders”) of the Series B Preferred Shares issued by debtor Celsius Network Limited filed a motion seeking entry of an order directing the Debtors to amend their Schedules to reflect customer claims valued in USD, in addition to cryptocurrency coin counts.4

II.         Arguments

a.         Series B Preferred Holders

Broadly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a),5 the Series B Preferred Holders sought to have the Debtors amend their Schedule E/F to “dollarize” creditors’ claims, i.e., value customer claims in their dollar value as of the petition date.  As filed, the Series B Preferred Holders asserted that the Debtors’ schedules were “improper, misleading, and fail[ed] to comply” with the Bankruptcy Rules “because they schedule[d] customer claims in cryptocurrency coin counts, rather than in lawful currency of the United States as of the Petition Date.”6  The Series B Preferred Holders asserted that such amended schedules are essential to the Debtors’ ability to structure, solicit, and confirm a plan of reorganization under the requirements of Section 1129, including whether “(i) claims are impaired or unimpaired, (ii) holders of similarly situated claims are receiving the same treatment, and (iii) the plan meets the requirements of the ‘absolute priority rule.’”7  In support of their arguments that USD valuation of a customer’s claim should be required, the Series B Preferred Holders relied on provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules, Bankruptcy Code, and Official Forms.  The Series B Preferred Holders stressed that the motion “takes no position regarding the form of distribution customers” should receive under the Debtors’ plan, but rather that the Debtors must “add the [USD] amount of each customer claim in Schedules E/F to the cryptocurrency coin counts.”8

The Series B Preferred Holders also asserted that the requirement to denominate claims in USD is consistent with Section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that when a debtor or party-in-interest objects to a claim, the court determines the amount of the claim in USD as of the debtor’s petition date.

b.         Debtors’ Response

The Debtors had previously indicated that they were not seeking to dollarize its customers’ claims; rather, the Debtors represented that they intend to return cryptocurrency assets to its customers “in kind.”9  The Debtors stated that they interpreted Bankruptcy Rule 9009(a)(1)-(2) and General Order M-386, dated November 24, 2009 (the “General Order M-386”) to allow the Debtors to remove the dollar symbol when scheduling claims regarding cryptocurrency coin counts.10  This approach, the Debtors argue, lessens confusion for its customer case and decreases administrative expense for the estate.11

Further, the Debtors argued that the Series B Preferred Holders’ reliance on Section 502(b) was misplaced because the application of such section is inapplicable at this stage of the proceedings where no claims objection has taken place.12

The Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“UCC”) agreed with the Debtors’ approach, stating that it “makes sense” for account holders to validate their scheduled claims by cryptocurrency type and that it wished to be consulted on the petition date prices used by the Debtors if they filed an amendment to the schedules.13

III.        Analysis

a.         Bankruptcy Code & Rules & Forms

Bankruptcy Rule 1007(b)(1) requires that a debtor’s schedules of assets and liabilities must be “prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms.”14  The relevant official form that a debtor must use to prepare its schedule of assets and liabilities is Official Form 206, which contains a USD symbol to denote the amount of liabilities that a debtor must list.15  Specifically, Official Form 206 provides:

As seen above, Official Form 206 does “hardwire” a dollar sign (“$”) into the boxes provided for claim amounts.  Bankruptcy Rule 9009 states that the official forms are to “be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided in the rules, [or] in a particular Official Form.”16  Bankruptcy Rule 9009 permits “certain minor changes not affecting wording or the order of presenting information,” including “expand[ing] the prescribed areas for responses in order to permit complete responses” and “delet[ing] space not needed for responses.”17  Lastly, General Order M-386 permits “such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”18 The introduction to General Order M-386 states that standard forms were adopted to “expedite court review and entry of such orders” and that courts will expect use of the standard forms “with only such revisions as are necessary under the circumstances of the individual case or cases.”19

b.         Section 502(b)

Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b) provides that if there is an objection to a claim, the court “shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the [petition] date . . . .”20  This “prevents the value of a claim from fluctuating by setting the claim as of the petition date and converting it to the United States dollars.”21  Acknowledging the “novel phenomenon” of dollarizing claims in cryptocurrency, the Series B Preferred Holders analogize this to cases where courts have required claims asserted in or based on in foreign currency or amounts of gold should be valued in USD.  However, these cases were decided in the context of a claims objection. The Celsius Debtors argued that these cases have limited utility in the context of a motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a).22

IV.        The Court’s Order

Ahead of the hearing regarding the motion for an order directing the Debtors to amend their schedules, the Debtors and the Series B Preferred Holders were able to consensually resolve the motion and filed a revised proposed order prior to the hearing on the motions on November 15.23  The Debtors agreed to amend their schedules by filing a conversion table within three days of the entry of the order, in consultation with the UCC and Series B Preferred Holders, that reflects the Debtors’ view of the rate of conversion of all cryptocurrencies listed in the Debtors’ schedules to USD as of the petition date.  The idea is that the conversion table could be used by customers as a reference for calculating the USD value of their claim, to the extent needed for filing a proof of claim.  The conversion table is not binding – the order preserves the rights of all parties to contest the conversion rates and does not require a party-in-interest to file an objection that is not stated in USD “solely on the basis that such claims should be reflected in [USD].”24  The order also requires the Debtors to file updated schedules “dollarizing” its account holders’ cryptocurrency holdings to the extent required by any future court order or judicial determination.

On November 17, 2022, the court entered the revised proposed order.25

V.         Cash Is Still King?

Other bankruptcy courts have taken similar approaches as the Celsius court in this issue.  An earlier cryptocurrency case, In re Cred Inc., the debtors did not schedule cryptocurrency claims in USD, but included a conversion table in their filed schedules, which set forth a conversion rate to USD as of the petition date.26  Debtors in other cases, such as Voyager Digital, scheduled the amounts of their customer claims as “undetermined” and listed them in Schedule F in cryptocurrency.27  BlockFi, which filed for bankruptcy on November 28, 2022, already has filed a proposed plan that would distribute its cryptocurrencies to its customers in–kind in exchange for their claims against the BlockFi debtors.28  To date, neither BlockFi nor FTX have filed their schedules, and it remains to be seen whether they will follow the pattern established in Celsius and Voyager.

For creditors and equity holders, whether claims are measured in USD or the applicable cryptocurrency is only the beginning of what will likely be a long and contentious road to recovery.  It remains to be seen whether any of these debtors will be able to confirm a viable restructuring plan that relies on any sort of “in-kind” distribution of cryptocurrencies.  Further issues are likely to arise in the claims resolution process even further down the road as claimants and liquidation trustees (or plan administrators) wrestle with how to value claims based on such a volatile asset, subject to ever-increasing regulatory scrutiny.  However, for the time being, the bankruptcy process continues to run on USD.

FOOTNOTES

1 Declaration of Alex Mashinsky, CEO of the Debtors ¶¶ 1, 9, 20, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 23].

2 Id. at ¶ 131.

3 Debtors’ Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statements of Financial Affairs, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 974]; see also Schedule E/F, Case No. 22-10967 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10970 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10968 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22-10965 [Docket No. 6]; Case No. 22-10966 [Docket No. 7]; Case No. 22-10964 [Docket No. 974]; Case No. 22-10969 [Docket No. 5]; Case No. 22- 10971 [Docket No. 5].

4 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1183].

5 “On motion of a party in interest, after notice and a hearing, the court may order any . . . schedule . . . to be amended and the clerk shall give notice of the amendment to entities designated by the court.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009(a).

6 Series B Preferred Holders Motion to Direct Debtors to Amend Schedules ¶ 1.

7 Id. ¶ 3 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 1123(a)(2)-(4), 1129(a)(1), 1129(b)).

8 Series B Preferred Holders’ Reply ¶ 10, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1334].

9 See 8/16/22 Hr’g Tr. at 35:5-7 (“The company is not seeking to dollarize claims on the petition date and give people back a recovery in fiat.”); id. at 42:11-16 (“[The UCC is] pleased that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . an in-kind recovery is absolutely critical.”).

10 General Order M-386 is a resolution of the Board of Judges for the Southern District of New York, which provides for “a standard form for orders to establish deadlines for the filing of proofs of claim . . . in chapter 11 cases” to “thereby expedite court review and entry of such orders.”

11 Debtors’ Objection to Series B Preferred Holders’ Motion ¶ 9, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1304].

12 Id. ¶ 12 (citing In re Mohr, 425 B.R. 457, 464 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio)).

13 Id. at 42:12-16 (“We are pleased to hear that the company is not focused on dollarization of claims . . . receiving an in-kind recover is 16 absolutely critical.”); UCC Statement and Reservation of Rights ¶ 6, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1303].

14 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(b)(1).

15 See Official Form 206, Part 2, Line 4 (using the USD sign into Form 206 for scheduling the debtor’s liabilities).

16 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9009(a).

17 Id.

18 General Order M-386 ¶ 9.

19 General Order M-386 ¶ 2 (unnumbered, preliminary statement).

20 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).

21 In re Aaura, Inc., No. 06 B 01853, 2006 WL 2568048, at *4, n.5 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2006).

22 In re USGen New Eng., Inc., 429 B.R. 437, 492 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010) (using the exchange rate in effect on the petition date, in the context of a claims objection, to convert the claim to USD), aff’d sub nom. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. USGen New Eng., Inc., 458 B.R. 195 (D. Md. 2011); Aaura, 2006 WL 2568048, at *5 (“Section 502(b) converts Aaura’s obligation to repay the obligation in gold into a claim against the estate in dollars, but it makes this transformation only as of the petition date, not retroactive to the date on which Aaura first became liable.”); Matter of Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 88 B.R. 597, 608 n.19 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (noting Section 502(b) refers to the petition date as “the appropriate date for conversion of foreign currency claims”), aff’d sub nom. In re Axona Intern. Credit & Com. Ltd., 115 B.R. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); ABC Dev. Learning Ctrs. (USA), Inc. v. RCS Capital Dev., LLC (In re RCS Capital Dev., LLC), No. AZ-12-1381-JuTaAh, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 4666, at *38-39 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 16, 2013) (same).

23 Notice of Proposed Order, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1342].

24 Id. at ¶¶ 7, 8.

25 Order Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1099 Directing the Debtors to Amend Their Schedules in Certain Circumstances, In re Celsius Network LLC, Case No. 22-10964 (MG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022) [ECF No. 1387].

26 Schedules at 12, In re Cred Inc., Case No. 20-128336 (JTD) (Bankr. D. Del. 2021) [ECF No. 443].

27 Schedules, In re Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc., Case No. 22-10943 (MEW) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2022) [ECF No. 311].

28 Joint Plan of Reorganization § IV.B.1.a, In re BlockFi Inc., Case No. 19361 (MBK) (Bankr. D.N.J. 2022) [ECF No. 22].

Article By Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more financial legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Exporting U.S. Antitrust Law: Are We Really Ready for NOPEC?

The year is 1979. Inflation and lines at the gas pumps caused by a revolution in Iran have stunned Americans. Driven to action, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) files suit in the Central District of California against OPEC and its 14 member countries for participating in a cartel that controls the worldwide price of oil. None of the defendants made any kind of appearance before the court. Nonetheless, the union lost, and its case was dismissed.

Under the Constitution, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A district court has no power to decide a case over which it has no subject matter jurisdiction. The requirement cannot be waived or avoided; a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction has no legal authority to entertain the matter. A federal statute known as the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA) limits the court’s jurisdiction in cases involving foreign sovereigns and, subject to a few specific exceptions, grants foreign states immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The court in IAM v. OPEC raised the FSIA on its own (there being no defendants present) and, finding the OPEC states immune (OPEC itself could not be served), dismissed the case. Thusly did the IAM lose its antitrust case against defendants who never even showed up in court.

The judiciary has resisted the innumerable attempts since 1979 to hold the OPEC cartel accountable for violating U.S. antitrust laws, even though the court’s IAM decision has proven erroneous. Acts by a sovereign “based upon a commercial activity” in the U.S., or affecting U.S. commerce, do not enjoy immunity under FSIA. Although the district court in IAM didn’t think so, the Ninth Circuit on appeal made clear that pricing of oil on world markets is indeed commercial activity that affects the U.S. economy and, therefore, not entitled to sovereign immunity. But the Appeals Court nonetheless sidestepped the case, taking refuge in the judge-made Act-of-State doctrine. The doctrine is prudential, as opposed to jurisdictional, and amounts to a voluntary renunciation of jurisdiction by a court when its decision could interfere with the conduct of foreign policy by the executive branch. Indeed, it is easy to see how a suit against the members of OPEC for price fixing might intrude into a sensitive foreign policy area.

In the four decades since IAM, these considerations have obstructed U.S. courts from holding OPEC accountable for a cartel formed for the purpose of and with the effect of stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce, which is illegal per se. As recently as 2010, the Obama administration urged the Fifth Circuit to dismiss an antitrust suit brought by private plaintiffs on Act-of-State grounds, it being up to the executive branch and not the courts to conduct foreign policy and protect national security interests.

Since 2000, when the first No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act was introduced in the House, the same legislation has been introduced no less than four times. NOPEC came closest to passage in 2007, when different versions of the bill passed the House and the Senate but were not reconciled. The House and Senate judiciary committees have now both approved the bill, and the latest version is on the Senate’s legislative calendar. Congress could act quickly if there is bipartisan support, otherwise it will take several months and require reintroduction in 2023.

NOPEC consists of three operative parts.

  • First, it would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act by adding a new Section 7(a) that explicitly makes it illegal for any foreign state to act collectively with others to limit production, fix prices, or otherwise restrain trade with respect to oil, natural gas, or other petroleum products. Judicial enforcement and a remedy would be available only to the Department of Justice, so the bill does not create a private right of action.

  • Second, it would amend FSIA to explicitly grant jurisdiction to U.S. court against foreign sovereigns to the extent they are engaged in a violation of the new Section 7(a).

  • Third, the legislation clarifies that the Act-of-State doctrine does not prevent U.S. courts from deciding antitrust cases against sovereigns alleged to have violated the new Section 7(a).

Calls for taking a harder line against OPEC are growing stronger in light of recent actions taken by the cartel. In May, for example, Saudi Arabia and 10 other OPEC members voted to slash oil production – resulting in high gas prices – as the U.S. and other nations imposed embargoes on Russian oil. OPEC’s production cuts provided Russia with a substantial lifeline in its increasingly difficult, costly, and prolonged invasion of Ukraine.

The Senate bill is sponsored by ​​Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley and cosponsors Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Mike Lee (R-UT), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who argue that OPEC’s price-fixing goes directly against the idea of fair and open markets, with current laws leaving the U.S. government “powerless” over OPEC. But are we really ready for NOPEC?

The concern over interference with foreign policy is far from trivial.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently sent a letter to Congress opposing the NOPEC bill, stating it would harm U.S. military, diplomatic, and business relations. API President and CEO Mike Sommers warned that while NOPEC is a noble endeavor designed to protect consumers, it would open the U.S. up to reciprocal lawsuits by foreign entities, writing that this could devastate certain political relations and trigger retaliation from OPEC countries. Other NOPEC critics say OPEC countries may limit other business dealings with the U.S., including lucrative arms deals or by pulling in their investments, as Saudi Arabia threatened to do in 2007, when the Deputy Saudi Oil Minister said the country would pull out of a multi-billion Texas oil refinery project unless the DOJ filed a statement of interest urging dismissal of an antitrust case then pending in the U.S. courts. In 2019, Saudi Arabia and OPEC threatened to start selling their oil in currencies other than the dollar, which would weaken the dollar’s position as the global vehicle currency.

For these reasons, it’s not clear what the White House would do if NOPEC passes. The Biden administration’s view of the measure seems to have shifted a bit, but it hasn’t come out strongly one way or the other. This is hardly surprising given the delicate and complex nature of the issue, the ongoing impact of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and the great importance voters place on the price of gas. Then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on May 5, 2022, that the “potential implications and unintended consequences of this legislation require further study and deliberation.” More recently, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Brian Deese, President Biden’s Director of the National Economic Council, said that nothing is off of the table – that the administration is assessing the situation and inviting recommendations. On Oct. 5 the Department of Energy said it would release another 10 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In making that announcement, Sullivan and Deese said the administration will consult with Congress on “additional tools and authorities to reduce OPEC’s control over energy prices.” They also reiterated the importance of investing in clean American-made energy to reduce reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

OPEC has such tremendous sway over U.S. gas prices and national security it is no wonder Congress continues to try to do something to free U.S. from OPEC’s whims and hold it accountable for going against the ideals of free markets. But whether NOPEC is the right approach remains an open question.

The antitrust laws represent a national ideological perspective on the most beneficial way to organize an economy. Policy differences between nations are supposed to occur in the diplomatic arena, not in the courts of one country or another. And if OPEC or its members lose an antitrust case in a U.S. court, how will the court enforce its judgment?

Article By Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

For more antitrust and trade regulation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© MoginRubin LLP