Tag: business

California Law Prohibits Cooperation with Out-of-State Entities Regarding Lawful Abortion

In response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1242 into law, which “prohibits law enforcement and California corporations from cooperating with out-of-state entities regarding a lawful abortion in California.”

In particular, AB 1242 prohibits California companies that provide electronic communication services from complying with out-of-state requests from law enforcement regarding an investigation into, or enforcement of, laws restricting abortion.

Sponsored by California Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, AB 1242:

takes an innovative legal approach to protect user data. The bill prohibits California law enforcement agencies from assisting or cooperating with the investigation or enforcement of a violation related to abortion that is lawful in California. This law thereby blocks out-of-state law enforcement officers from executing search warrants on California corporations in furtherance of enforcing or investigating an anti-abortion crime. For example, if another state wants to track the movement of a woman traveling to California seeking reproductive health care, the state would be blocked from accessing cell phone site tower location data of the woman by serving a warrant to the tech company in California. In addition, if another state wants Google search history from a particular IP address, it could not serve an out-of-state search warrant at Google headquarters in CA without an attestation that the evidence is not related to investigation into abortion services. Although the first state to enact such a law, as California often is when it comes to privacy rights, we anticipate that other states will follow suit and that these laws will be hotly contested in litigation.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

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

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act Aim to Build a More Equitable EV Market

In February of this year, it was high time for me to buy a new car. I had driven the same car since 2008, and getting this-or-that replaced was costing more and more every year. As a first-time car buyer, I had two criteria: I wanted to go fast, and I wanted the car to plug in.

Like many prospective purchasers, I started my search online and by speaking with friends and who drove electric vehicles, or EVs for short. I settled on a plug-in hybrid sedan, reasoning that a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) was the best of both worlds: the 20-mile electric range was perfect for my short commute and getting around Houston’s inner loop, and the 10-gallon gas tank offered freedom to roam. In the eight months since I’ve had the car, I’ve bought less than ten tanks of gas. As the price of a gallon in Texas soared to $4.69 in June, the timing of my purchase seemed miraculous.

When it was time to transact, the dealer made vague mention of rebates and tax credits, but didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of the details. Enter Texas’s Light-Duty Motor Vehicle Purchase or Lease Incentive Program (LDPLIP). Administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the program grants rebates of up to $5,000 for consumers, businesses, and government entities who buy or lease new vehicles powered by compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane), and up to $2,500 for those who buy or lease new EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

Rebates are only available to purchasers who buy or lease from dealerships (so some of the most popular EVs in the U.S. don’t qualify). There is no vehicle price cap, nor is there an income limit for purchasers. In June of 2022, the average price for a new electric vehicle was over $66,000, according to Kelley Blue Book estimates. But the median Texan household income (in 2020 dollars) for 2016-2020 was $63,826.

According to the grant specialist to whom I initially sent my application, the TCEQ has received “a vigorous response” from applicants, however, the TCEQ is limited in the number of rebate grants that it can award: 2,000 grants for EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells, and 1,000 grants for vehicles powered by compressed natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (propane).

The grant period in Texas ends on January 7, 2023, but on July 5, 2022, the TCEQ suspended acceptance of applications for EVs or vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. As of the writing of this post, the total number of applications received and reservations pending on the program’s website is 2,480.

In comparison with Texas’s rebate program, the EV tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 demonstrate a commitment to building a more equitable EV market. While EVs may be cheaper to own than gas-powered vehicles—especially when gas prices are high—a lot of lower and middle-income families have historically been priced out of the EV market. The IRA takes several meaningful steps towards accessibility and sustainability for a more diverse swath of consumers:

  • Allows point-of-sale incentives starting in 2024. Purchasers will be able to apply the credit (up to $7,500) at the dealership, and because sticker price is such an important factor for so many purchasers, this incentive will make buying an EV more attractive up front.
  • Removes 200,000 vehicle-per-manufacturer cap. Some American manufacturers are already past the maximum. Eliminating the cap means bringing back the tax credit for many popular and affordable EVs, which should attract new buyers.
  • Creates income and purchase price limits. SUVs, vans, and pickup trucks under $80,000, and all other vehicles (e.g. sedans) under $55,000, will qualify for the EV tax credit. For new vehicles, purchaser income will be subject to an AGI cap: $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for a joint filers.
  • Extends the tax credit to pre-owned EVs. As long as the purchase price does not exceed $25,000, purchasers of pre-owned EVs (EVs whose model year is at least two years earlier than the calendar year in which the purchase occurs) will receive a tax credit for 30% of the sale price up to $4,000. The income cap for pre-owned EVs is $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for a joint filers.

A purchaser who qualifies under both programs can get both incentives. Comparing Texas’s state government-level incentives and those soon to be offered at the federal level reveals a few telling differences—new vs. used, income caps, purchase price caps, post-purchase rebates vs. up-front point-of-sale incentives—but the differences all fall under the same umbrella: equity. The IRA’s tax credits are designed, among other things, to make purchasing an EV more attractive to a wider audience.

Of course, the EV incentive landscape has greatly changed since the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 first granted tax credits for new, qualified EVs. The LDPLIP wasn’t approved by the TCEQ until late 2013, so the U.S. government has arguably had more time to get it right. Some might say that the fact that Texas’s program offers the purchaser of the $150,000+ PHEV the same opportunity to access grant funds as the purchaser of the $30,000 EV means that the LDPLIP is even more “equal.”

It is worth noting that the IRA also sets a handful of production and assembly requirements. For instance, to qualify for the credit, a vehicle’s final assembly must occur in North America. Further, at least 40% the value of the critical minerals contained in the vehicle’s battery must be “extracted or processed in any country with which the United States has a free trade agreement in effect” or be “recycled in North America”—and this percentage increases each year, topping out at 80% in 2027. There is also a rising requirement that 50% of the vehicle’s battery components be manufactured or assembled in North America, with the requirement set to hit 100% in 2029. It is unclear whether automotive manufacturers and the U.S. critical mineral supply chains will be able to meet these targets—and that uncertainty may cause a potential limiting effect on the options a purchaser would have for EVs that qualify for the tax credit.

Time will tell whether the intentions behind the EV tax credits in the IRA have the effect that this particular blogger and PHEV owner is hoping for. While we wait to see whether this bid at creating an equitable EV market bears fruit, we can at least admire this attempt at, as the saying goes, “giving everyone a pair of shoes that fits.”

Article By Dania Abbasi of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more energy and environment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

The “Iron Curtain” has Fallen: A Radical Shift in Lawyers Representing Whistleblowers

Whistleblower Network News (WNN) recently revealed, for the first time, that major corporate law firms specializing in representing defendants before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have, in some cases, switched sides and are now representing whistleblowers who are turning in corporate fraudsters.  All but one of the firms identified by the SEC did not call public attention to their new-found client base – most likely because they did not want to upset their bread-and-butter corporate clients.  It appears that major corporate law firms now understand that the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower reward provisions are incredibly effective in incentivizing corporate insiders to report fraud, even when those insiders are executives usually on the other side of a whistleblower issue.  Lawyers who traditionally represent whistleblowers understand that Dodd-Frank is well designed and is being professionally implemented by the SEC.  Corporate lawyers and their firms have apparently caught on to this new reality and are now representing whistleblowers.

That defense firms are now actively engaged in representing whistleblowers cannot be denied.  Lists of law firms that have prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases, disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed with the SEC, document that 9.3% of firms that have obtained rewards on behalf of whistleblowers were traditional defense firms.  These firms include some of the largest defense firms in the United States that represent numerous corporations subjected to SEC enforcement actions for violating securities laws as well as firms that have defended corporations against whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

If that statistic holds, it is clear hundreds of corporate defense firms or their attorneys are representing whistleblowers in confidential investigations.  Why are these cases still under review?  Dodd-Frank is still a young law, and the vast majority of cases have not yet resulted in formal reward determinations.  Cases often take five years or more to be finalized, and as of the end of Fiscal Year 2021 over 51,000 whistleblower cases had been filed with the SEC.  Furthermore, under the FOIA requests the SEC only released the names of law firms that prevailed in a whistleblower case.  The names of firms that did not prevail in a claim, or firms that represent whistleblowers in ongoing investigations, were not disclosed.

Time will tell whether defense firms’ representation of whistleblowers who accuse their employers (or other corporate wrongdoers) of fraud is a good or bad development.  But unique issues will arise whenever a firm that primarily generates its profits from representing corporations accused of wrongdoing switches sides and represents a whistleblower who has accused an executive of engaging in fraud.  Although such representations may be permitted under the attorney’s rules of ethics, this does not mean that such representations are always in the best interest of a lawyer’s clients.  There are inherent potential conflicts whenever a defense firm switches sides and decides to represent a whistleblower reporting major corporate crimes.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, one thing is clear: the ethical, policy and legal implications of defense firms representing whistleblowers is a dramatic shift in legal practice and must be carefully evaluated.  Defense firms must understand that whenever they represent a whistleblower, they must zealously advocate on their behalf, even when the precedents set by their cases may be used against their corporate clients.  Likewise, whistleblowers need to be aware of the implications of choosing a lawyer whose primary practice is representing corporate crooks.  Conflicts of interest may not initially be visible but can unfold as a case progresses.

The Revelation

In August of 2022, Bloomberg Law and a draft non-peer-reviewed article published by University of Kansas Professor Alexander Platt raised the issue of which law firms represent whistleblowers.  Bloomberg and Platt obtained lists of law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases.  They used the lists to identify a small number of firms, all of which could be classified as pro-whistleblower firms.  These firms’ practices are centered on fighting corporate fraud and speculated whether these firms were being given preferential treatment by the SEC. Neither publication offered proof of any wrongdoing.  But Platt and Bloomberg did not list all the law firms that prevailed in Dodd-Frank cases.  Significantly, neither even mentioned the fact that major defense law firms had already filed and won Dodd-Frank cases on behalf of whistleblowers.  Additionally, the two authors did not explore the special issues that could arise when firms dedicated to defending white-collar criminals quietly switch sides.

In response to Platt and Bloomberg, WNN filed its own Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain access to the documents relied upon in the two articles.  The SEC released over 1000 pages of documents to WNN, including all its correspondence with Platt and all the records provided to Platt (and Bloomberg) that identified law firms that successfully represented whistleblowers.

On September 27, 2022, WNN revealed, for the first time, that the SEC had identified 64 law firms that successfully obtained a reward on behalf of a whistleblower.  Among those firms were six that primarily represent corporations and individuals accused of corporate crimes.  These defense firms included industry giants such as Winston & Strawn and Akin Gump.  Together, the defense firms have already obtained over $56 million in rewards on behalf of whistleblowers.  In response to the Platt, Bloomberg, and WNN FOIA requests, the SEC only identified firms that had already prevailed and obtained a reward on behalf of their clients. Approximately 50,000 cases are pending within the SEC’s reward program, and there is a long delay in processing whistleblower cases.  Therefore, one can assume that numerous other pending cases where these or other defense firms are actively representing whistleblowers that were not disclosed by the SEC.

It is important to note that the Dodd-Frank provisions only apply to large fraud cases.  No reward is available unless the SEC issues sanctions against the entity being investigated in excess of $1 million.  Thus, the cases previously targeted by the defense firms and currently under investigation by the SEC would implicate major frauds.

The defense firms identified by WNN as being listed in the SEC-released materials were:

Winston & Strawn, LLP:  Winston advertises itself as defending “companies and individuals in SEC enforcement and regulatory matters related to allegations involving securities fraud.”  But not mentioned on its webpage is that it also represented a securities law whistleblower who obtained a $2.2 million reward.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP: Akin Gump also describes its practice as representing “companies and individuals” under investigation by various regulatory agencies, including the SEC.  Akin’s attorneys obtained a Dodd-Frank reward of $800,000 award.

Haynes and Boone, LLP: This 600-lawyer defense firm’s website explained that it has “represented employers” in “whistle blowing.”  However, the SEC documents revealed the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a “20%” award against a corporate fraudster.

Levine Lee LLP:  Although this firm markets itself as successfully representing clients accused of violating anti-fraud laws, like the other defense firms, it has apparently started a whistleblower practice and obtained a reward of $10 million on behalf of a whistleblower.

Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein LLP:  This defense firm prevailed in cases filed on behalf of two separate whistleblowers and had considerable success.  Their whistleblower clients obtained $15 million and $27 million in awards.

Sallah Astarita & Cox, LLC: Although this firm “regularly represents financial institutions” in “fraud” cases, the firm also represented a whistleblower who obtained a $1.8 million award.  Sallah Astarita was the only firm that listed its Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower case on its website as among the victories achieved by one of its partners.

The SEC’s Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

Professor Platt and Bloomberg Law criticized the SEC’s Dodd-Frank program as having a bias in favor of a small number of whistleblower-rights law firms that had employed former SEC lawyers.  However, the information revealed by WNN completely refuted this negative implication raised by Platt and Bloomberg.  Instead, the FOIA documents support a finding that the SEC program is a paradigm of fairness and openness.  The extensive correspondence between Platt and the SEC demonstrates that the Commission freely disclosed the names of the firms that had won cases while carefully balancing the confidentiality needs of the whistleblower clients.  These numbers illustrate a program open to law firms regardless of their reputation or whether they employ former government lawyers.  They also reveal a program open to working directly with whistleblowers and rewarding them even if they had no lawyer.  Not one document produced provided any evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, bias, or unprofessionalism.  The numbers speak for themselves:

  • Over 50 pro se whistleblowers won cases on their own behalf.  This high percentage of unrepresented applicants who successfully navigated the SEC’s program is remarkable.  In other legal programs, pro se whistleblowers (and other unrepresented persons) lose the vast majority of their cases.  Not so under Dodd-Frank. This demonstrates a high level of commitment by the SEC to helping individual whistleblowers who could not afford or obtain lawyers.
  • Of the 64 law firms that prevailed in a Dodd-Frank reward claim, only 12 had hired former SEC lawyers to assist in the cases.  Thus, the vast majority of successful law firms (52 of the 64) had no “insider” connection to the SEC.   This fact demonstrates the Commission’s staff’s willingness to work closely with attorneys who had no “friends” in the agency and whose information was solely merit-based. Moreover, a significant percentage of the firms that did employ former SEC or Justice Department lawyers were the very defense firms that Bloomberg Law and Platt did not discuss or analyze.
  • The Commission’s staff demonstrated no bias against firms based on their practice areas.  The Commission’s enforcement staff and Whistleblower Office worked with law firms that were defense-based (6) and law firms that traditionally represent whistleblowers or employees in lawsuits against companies (many of the remaining 58).

The FOIA documents support a finding that the Commission’s staff is open to whistleblowers, regardless of whether they represent themselves or whether or not the firms raising the concerns have any “insider” connections.   Organizations such as the National Whistleblower Center, which regularly works with whistleblowers, have widely praised the program, as have the last three Chairs of the SEC, appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden.  The Commission itself confirmed that as of September 2021, it returned over $1.3 billion to harmed investors based on whistleblower cases.

The Future Role of Defense Firms in Dodd-Frank Cases

The SEC cannot implement special rules that would be prejudicial to traditional defense firms that file whistleblower cases.   Likewise, whistleblowers have the right to hire counsel of their choice and, in most cases, can knowingly waive potential conflicts of interest.  But the mere fact that traditional defense firms can lawfully represent whistleblowers without violating any SEC or local Bar rules does not address the special problems that may exist when a defense firm represents a whistleblower.  For example, such representations can result in significant conflicts of interest that may not be apparent at the commencement of a case. This may result in the whistleblower’s attorneys not advocating for legal precedents that could harm their other corporate clients.

Traditional defense firms should implement internal procedures to guard against potential problems based on the obvious conflicts that can arise when they represent clients on both sides of whistleblower-disclosure cases.  More significantly, it is absolutely crucial that whistleblowers fully understand the potential for conflicts of interest when deciding on the best attorneys to hire.  Attorneys working for defense firms must clearly spell out these issues and ensure that when representing a whistleblower, their prospective client is fully aware of all the risks and limitations.

Among the rules, procedures, and practices that defense firms should implement or carefully consider are:

  1. At the very least, defense firms representing whistleblowers should identify this on their websites.  Corporate clients should know that the firm also represents whistleblowers and should be able to question counsel on these matters so they feel comfortable that no conflicts would arise.
  2. Whistleblower clients need full disclosure of how the defense firm’s primary practice may impact the representation.  This is particularly true whenever a case would require advocacy on behalf of a whistleblower that could expand legal interpretations benefiting whistleblowers.  It is hard to reconcile how a law firm defending some clients against whistleblowers can effectively argue before administrative agencies or courts of law legal precedents that could expand the rights of whistleblowers.  These expanded rights could and would ultimately not be to the advantage of corporate clients accused of wrongdoing.
  3. Similarly, defense firms need to reconcile how they can advocate for a whistleblower who engaged in tactics, such as removing documents or one-party tape recording, that their corporate clients may find offensive.  This is particularly true when the zealous representation of a whistleblower requires expanding the ability of whistleblowers to obtain evidence of wrongdoing, and the precedent this advocacy establishes may be used against the firm’s current or future corporate clients.
  4. The potential for a conflict of interest needs to be fully explored in every case.  One issue that firms and clients may not be fully aware of is how the “related action” provisions of the laws impact potential conflicts.  Once the SEC obtains a sanction of over $1 million in any case, all “related actions” become eligible for a reward.  Sanctions issued by other law enforcement or regulatory agencies based on “related” claims can form the basis of a reward.   When examining whether a conflict exists, law firms need to look beyond the SEC action and determine witnesses, parties, and issues that may be implicated in a “related action.” This determination is critical even if the related action is not based on any securities law violation.
  5. Defense firms can also explore ways to refer potential whistleblower clients to attorneys whose practices are based solely on representing whistleblowers.  These referrals would help ensure that the defense firm is not conflicted (either as a matter of ethics or marketing) and that the client can obtain the best counsel.

Conclusion: The Iron Curtain has Fallen

Whistleblower representation is entering a new world.  The “iron curtain” that formerly separated law firms that represent corporate crooks from those that represent whistleblowers has fallen. This new reality is not without serious risks to whistleblowers (and corporate clients).  Whistleblowers must be fully aware of the dangers of having a corporate law firm represent them.  Corporate law firms must institute procedures to guard against conflicts of interest and to ensure they can zealously represent whistleblowers.  Zealous representation is needed even when the precedents established in these cases may create trouble for their other client base.

At the end of the day, the fact that defense law firms are now representing whistleblowers affirms the success of Dodd-Frank.  It is an affirmation of the critical nature of the information whistleblowers provide to the government and the role of this insider information in stopping otherwise hard to detect corporate crimes.  The “iron curtain” has fallen, but it has fallen in the direction that helps whistleblowers.  It has fallen in the direction that affirms the quality of their disclosures. It refutes the often-repeated slander that whistleblowers are somehow simply disgruntled employees.

Whistleblowers are essential to ensuring fairness in the markets, holding wrongdoers accountable, and deterring future wrongdoing.  The SEC has publicly recognized this, and now leading corporate defense attorneys have quietly recognized it. Defense firms like Akin Gump, Winston and Strawn, and Hayes and Boone got it right when they advocated for paying whistleblowers substantial rewards.  Whistleblowers whose information holds corporate criminals accountable deserve large rewards. These rewards are in the public interest, and the SEC Dodd-Frank whistleblower program must be protected, enhanced and expanded.

Sources:

  1. Whistleblower Network News, “WNN Exclusive: SEC FOIA Documents Reveal Big Law Defense Firms are Confidentially Representing Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers,” (September 27, 2022)
  2. List of Law Firms that Obtained Rewards in Whistleblower Cases as of 2021
  3. List of Awards Obtained by the Six Defense Law Firms
  4. List of pro se Cases where Whistleblowers Obtained a Reward
  5. FAQ on the SEC’s Dodd-Frank Act program
  6. FAQ on Confidentiality of Dodd-Frank Act claims

Article By Stephen M. Kohn of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2022. All Rights Reserved.

An Investment Worth Making: How Structural Changes to the EB-5 Program Can Ensure Real Estate Developers Build a Good Foundation for Their Capital Projects

The United States has made major changes to the rules governing its EB-5 program through the enactment of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 (RIA). The RIA was a component of H.R. 2471—the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022—which President Biden signed into law on March 15, 2022. And while the RIA made many sweeping changes to the EB-5 landscape, including establishing an EB-5 Integrity Fund comprised of annual funds collected from regional centers to support auditing and fraud detection operations, two changes in particular are pertinent to developers funding capital investments. First, the RIA altered how developers calculate EB-5 job creation. Second, the RIA prioritizes the processing and adjudication of EB-5 investment in rural area projects, and it tweaked the incentives for high unemployment area and infrastructure projects. Paying careful attention to each of these two areas will enable developers to maximize the benefits afforded to it through the changes enacted by the RIA.

THE RIA MODIFIES JOB CREATION CALCULATIONS

New commercial enterprises under the EB-5 program must create full-time employment for no fewer than 10 United States citizens, United States nationals, or foreign nationals who are either permanent residents or otherwise lawfully authorized for employment in the United States. The RIA made three major changes to how regional centers measure job creation to meet this 10-employee threshold:

  • First, the RIA permits indirect job creation to account for only up to 90% of the initial job creation requirement. For example, if a developer invests in a small retail-residential complex that will eventually create 30 new jobs with the retail stores that will move into the shopping spaces, the developer could count only nine of those jobs toward the 10-employee threshold.
  • Second, the RIA permits jobs created by construction activity lasting less than two years to account for only up to 75% of the initial job creation requirement. The RIA does allow for these jobs to count for direct job creation, however, by multiplying the total number of jobs estimated to be created by the fraction of the two-year period the construction activity will last. For example, if construction on the small retail-residential complex will last only one year and create 100 new jobs, then the RIA would calculate 50 new jobs (100 total jobs multiplied by one-half (one year of a two-year period)) but the developer could count only 7.5 of those 50 jobs toward the 10-employee threshold.
  • Third, while prospective tenants occupying commercial real estate created or improved by the capital investments can count toward the job creation requirement, jobs that are already in existence but have been relocated do not. Therefore, if a restaurant is opening a new location in the small retail-residential complex, the developer could count toward those new jobs toward the job creation requirement. If the restaurant is just moving out of its current location into a space in the retail-residential complex, however, the developer could not count those jobs toward the job creation requirement.

THE RIA CREATES NEW EB-5 VISAS RESERVED FOR TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREAS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Under the previous regime, the U.S. government would set aside a minimum of 3,000 EB-5 visas for qualified immigrants who invested in targeted employment areas, which encompassed both rural areas and areas that experienced high unemployment. Now, the RIA requires the U.S. government to set aside 20% of the total number of available visas for qualified immigrants who invest in rural areas, another 10% for qualified immigrants who invest in high unemployment areas, and 2% for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects. Therefore, at a minimum, the RIA reserves nearly a third of all total EB-5 visas issued by the U.S. government for rural projects, high unemployment area projects, and infrastructure projects. Furthermore, and most significantly, the RIA provides that any of these reserved visas that are unused in the fiscal year will remain available in these categories for the next fiscal year.
The changes to the reserved visa structure create significant incentives for qualified immigrants to invest in rural, high unemployment area, and infrastructure projects. If, for example, the United States government calculates that it should issue 10,000 visas in Fiscal Year 1, then the RIA mandates reserving 2,000 visas for rural projects (20% of total), 1,000 for high unemployment area projects (10% of total), and 200 for infrastructure projects (2% of total). These numbers are significant when considering the RIA’s roll-over provision because it pushes projects in these categories to the front of the line for the green card process. If only 500 of the 20,000 visas for rural projects are used in Fiscal Year 1, then the 1,500 unused visas set aside for rural projects roll over to the next fiscal year. Therefore, if the United States government issues 10,000 new visas in Fiscal Year 2, then 3,500 visas will be reserved for rural projects in the new fiscal year (the 1,500 rollover visas from the previous year plus a new 20% of the total number of visas per the RIA), and the high unemployment area and infrastructure project reserved visas would have a new 1,000 (10% of total) and 200 (2% of total) visas in reserve, respectively.

The RIA changed the structures for investing in both targeted employment areas and non-targeted employment areas, however. The RIA raised the minimum investment amount for a targeted employment area by over 50%, increasing the sum from its previous level of US$500,000 to its new level of US$800,000. The RIA similarly raised the non-TEA, standard minimum investment amount from its previous level of US$1 million to now be US$1.05 million.  Additionally, the RIA modified the process for the creation of targeted employment areas: While under the previous regime, the state in which the targeted employment area would be located could send a letter in support of efforts to designate a targeted employment area, the post-RIA EB-5 regime now permits only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to designate targeted employment areas.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The new developments resulting from the RIA will have tangible effects on developers seeking to fund new capital investments. The percentages caps imposed on indirect job creation, relocated jobs, and other categories toward the job creation requirement will likely lengthen the amount of time spent on project creation and completion. These changes also likely should incentivize developers to focus their job creation metrics toward directly created jobs rather than through indirectly created ones. While these changes might increase the length of projects, the broadening of visa reserves through both the percentage caps and the creation of the rollover provisions will likely increase the number of projects in rural areas and high unemployment areas. Developers should carefully consider the composition of their job creation goals and calculate workforce sizes in line with these new requirements. Additionally, developers seeking to ensure they are able to succeed in obtaining visas for their desired employees by avoiding the typical backlog of visa applicants through the EB-5 program should consider investing in rural and high unemployment area projects to take advantage of the broadened application pool.

Article By Brian Graham, Adriana Reyes, and Gregory T. Lewis of K&L Gates

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

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

NYC Issues Proposed Rules for Its Automated Employment Decision Tools Law

On Friday, September 23, 2022, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) released a Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on Proposed Rules related to its Automated Employment Decision Tool law (the “AEDT Law”), which goes into effect on January 1, 2023. As we previously wrote, the City passed the AEDT Law to regulate employers’ use of automated employment decision tools, with the aim of curbing bias in hiring and promotions; as written, however, it contains many ambiguities, which has left covered employers with open questions about compliance.

The proposed rules are intended to clarify the requirements for the use of automated employment decision tools within New York City, the definitions of key terms in the AEDT law, the notices to employees and applicants regarding the use of the tool, the bias audit for the tool, and the required published results of the bias audit.

The DCWP’s public hearing on the proposed rules and deadline for comments are October 24, 2022. Although the proposed rules may be modified prior to adoption, the following summarizes the key provisions.

“Substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making”

The AEDT Law applies to an automated decision tool that is used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making.” It does not, however, specify the type of activities that constitute such conduct or what particular AI-powered employment tools are covered by the law.

The proposed rules attempt to provide guidance on this issue by defining “substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making” as one of the following actions:

  1. relying solely on a simplified output (score, tag, classification, ranking, etc.), without considering other factors; or
  2. using a simplified output as one of a set of criteria where the output is weighted more than any other criterion in the set; or
  3. using a simplified output to overrule or modify conclusions derived from other factors including human decision-making.

“Bias Audit”

Pursuant to the AEDT Law, before using an automated employment decision tool, a covered employer or employment agency must subject the tool to a “bias audit” no more than one year prior to the use of the of the tool.  The law explains that “bias audit” means an “impartial evaluation by an independent auditor,” but does not otherwise specify who or what constitutes an “independent auditor” or what the “bias audit” must contain. The proposed rules address these gaps.

First, the proposed rules define “independent auditor” as “a person or group that is not involved in using or developing an [automated employment decision tool] that is responsible for conducting a bias audit of such [tool].” This definition does not specify that the auditor must be a separate legal entity from the creator or vendor of the tool and therefore suggests that it may be acceptable for the auditor to be employed by the organization using the tool, provided the auditor does not use and has not been involved in developing the tool.

Second, the proposed rules state that the required contents of a “bias audit” will depend on how the employer or employment agency uses the tool.

If the tool selects individuals to move forward in the hiring process or classifies individuals into groups, the “bias audit,” at a minimum, would need to:

  1. calculate the selection rate for each category;
  2. calculate the impact ratio for each category; and
  3. where the tool classifies candidates into groups, the bias audit must calculate the selection rate and impact ratio for each classification.

If the automated employment decision tool merely scores candidates, the “bias audit” at a minimum, would need to:

  1. calculate the average score for individuals in each category; and
  2. calculate the impact ratio for each category.

The preamble to the proposed rules makes clear that DCWP intends these calculations to be consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“UGESP”), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4, and borrows concepts from the framework established by the UGESP in the definitions of “impact ratio” and “selection rate.”

Under the AEDT Law, upon completion of a bias audit, and prior to using the automated employment decision tool, covered employers and employment agencies must make the date and summary of the results of the bias audit publicly available on the careers or job section of their website in a clear and conspicuous manner. The proposed rules clarify that publication may be made via an active hyperlink to a website containing the required information, as long as the link is clearly identified as linking to the results of the bias audit. The required information must remain posted for at least six months after the covered employer or employment agency uses the tool for an employment decision.

Required Notices

The AEDT Law also specifies that employers and employment agencies must notify candidates for employment and employees who reside in New York City as follows:

  1. at least ten business days prior to using an automated decision tool, that such a tool will be used to assess or evaluate the candidate or employee, and allow the individual to request an alternative selection process or accommodation;
  2. at least ten business days prior to use, the job qualifications and characteristics that the tool will use in the assessment or evaluation; and
  3. if not disclosed on the employer or employment agency’s website, information about the type of data collected for the tool, the source of such data, and the employer or employment agency’s data retention policy shall be available upon written request by the individual and be provided within thirty days of the written request.

Covered employers and employment agencies have expressed concern about the practical and administrative difficulties of providing the above notices in the fast-paced environment of today’s recruiting and hiring.

In apparent response to these concerns, the proposed rules clarify that the employer or employment agency may provide the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2) by:

  1. (a) in the case of candidates, including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website at least ten business days prior to the use of the tool, and (b) in the case of employees, including notice in a written policy or procedure that is provided to employees at least ten business days prior to use;
  2. including notice in a job posting at least ten days prior to using the tool; or
  3. (a) in the case of candidates, providing notice via U.S. mail or email at least ten business days prior to use of the tool; and (b) in the case of employees, providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or email at least ten business days prior to use.

In short, under the proposed rule, an employer or employment agency could comply with the AEDT Law by providing the required notice when first posting the job.

With respect to the notice requirement in paragraph (3), the proposed rules state that an employer or employment agency must provide notice to covered individuals by including notice on the careers or jobs section of its website, or by providing written notice in person, via U.S. mail, or by email within 30 days of receipt of a written request for such information. If notice is not posted on the website, the employer or agency must post instructions for how to make a written request for such information on its careers or job section of the website.

Finally, although the AEDT Law requires an employer or employment agency to allow covered individuals to request an alternative selection process, the proposed rules state that nothing requires an employer or employment agency to provide an alternative selection process.

Article By Adam S. Forman, Nathaniel M. Glasser, Robert J. O’Hara, Alexander J. Franchilli, and Ridhi D. Madia of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Names and Brand Names

A key aspect of trademarks has been at the forefront of both fiction and real-life sports news over the past few weeks: what makes a name a name and who can use a name as a trademark? While trademarks are commercial rights, trademark law also protects a person’s right to control their own identity, including well-known pseudonyms and nicknames.

Marvel’s She-Hulk: Attorney-at-Law is, like most TV shows about lawyers, often cavalier with how it represents the law, but when the question of the protagonist’s rights in her nom de guerre came up, it was more accurate than most courtroom dramas. Jen Walters (the civilian identity of the titular She-Hulk) discovers a “super-influencer” has launched a line of cosmetics under the SHE-HULK brand and based on that use, is claiming trademark rights in SHE-HULK, going so far as to sue Jen Walters for her use of the name She-Hulk. While much of the terminology is mangled, the show’s hearing on the issue reaches points that are relevant in the real world. First, does “She-Hulk” identify a living person? And second, would another’s use of SHE-HULK be “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” (as set forth in 15 U.S. Code § 1125) of that user and the person known to the public as SHE-HULK? It being a superhero show, Jen Walters ultimately vindicates her rights to the She-Hulk name and SHE-HULK Mark.

Circumstances in the real world are rarely as cut-and-dried. In a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, NBA player Luka Doncic is attempting to reclaim the trademark rights in his own name from his ex-manager, his mother. Doncic, born in 1999, was a basketball star from his early teens. During his meteoric rise in European basketball, his mother, with his consent at the time, registered a design trademark (consisting mainly of his name) for goods and services including soaps, recorded basketball games, apparel, sports equipment, and promotional and educational services, starting with an application in the European Union in 2015 (when Doncic was 16) and filing in the U.S. in 2018 (when he was 19).

Doncic, as stated in his petition to cancel that U.S. Registration, has since withdrawn his consent to his mother’s use and registration of his name as a trademark. Instead, he has, through his own company, Luka99, Inc., applied to register a few marks including his own name, which have been refused registration because of the existing registration owned by his mother. To clear the way for his own registrations, he is seeking to cancel hers on the basis that (as in the fictional example above) her use or registration is likely to make consumers believe the goods and services offered with her authorization are associated with or endorsed by him, and because he has withdrawn his consent, her registrations are no longer permitted to remain on the register.

As Doncic was a minor when he gave consent, he has a good chance of regaining control of his name. Not everyone is so lucky, so you should be especially careful when entering any agreement that allows someone to use your name as a trademark.

Article By David H. Siegel of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

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

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

How to Use Images and Blogs to Boost Your Google My Business Profile

Whether you are wondering if you should create a listing for your business or searching for the most effective ways to boost your local presence, Google My Business is a wise investment of time. Not convinced yet? Consider the following statistics:

  • 97 percent of people learn more about a local company online than through any other source
  • Over 90 percent of the search engine market share belongs to Google
  • According to Google, 46 percent of all searches have local intent
  • 64 percent of consumers have used Google My Business to find contact details for a local business

Listing your law firm on Google is a significant step towards a complete online presence, but it doesn’t stop there. For instance, you should update your Google My Business Profile every month or so. While this profile isn’t a social media profile, it still requires the same amount of cultivation.

The Benefit of Adding Pictures

There are a few more ways you can leverage your profile to your advantage.  One of these ways is to use images to help boost your profile. For example, using photos on your Google Business Profile is beneficial not just for aesthetics but also to provide your law firm with an SEO advantage.

According to Google, businesses that use pictures on their Business Profiles see 42 percent more direction requests on Google Maps and 35 percent more clicks through to their websites than those who don’t use them. In fact, after a 2020 experiment, DigitalMaas came to the same conclusions. There’s no denying that law firms and attorneys who regularly upload photos on their listings will get more clicks and appear more on search results than their competitors who don’t.

When adding pictures, ensure you:

  • Add photos promptly. Without pictures, Google will default to showing street views which can make potential clients doubt if you are still in business.
  • Add photos regularly, including different shots and angles, taken at various times of the day.
  • Use quality photos without over-editing them. You want them to be clear but not filtered.
  • Use categories when adding pictures. Having a minimum of three relevant photos for each category is recommended.
  • Stay relevant to your location—avoid using screenshots, stock photos, GIFs, and other manually created images.

The Benefit of Blogs

Blogs are an essential piece of SEO marketing. If your firm doesn’t already publish one, now is the time. In addition to publishing your blog on your website, make sure you take its URL along with the picture and create a post from your Google My Business Account. Google will recognize your blog under your profile, and you will start to rank higher in SEO. When you add your blog to your Google Business Profile, you essentially double the benefit of having a blog without doubling the work. Linking a blog to your profile shows your authority in the legal realm and that you remain active online.

Don’t Forget Reviews!

Another key piece of optimizing your Google My Business profile is adding reviews. Google knows that reviews are the primary influence on consumer behavior, so they are a crucial ranking factor in the algorithm. However, you can’t add reviews if you don’t have any. Getting more reviews can be simple if you follow these tips:

  • Start with your long-time, loyal clients.
  • Make leaving a review as simple as possible by creating a review shortcut link or using a shortcut link generator.
  • Add a “Reviews” page on your website with a call to action to leave one.
  • Don’t forget to ask for reviews by email, text, social media, and in-person conversations.
  • Let clients know that reviews help others in similar situations to find a solution and make informed decisions.
  • Respond to reviews as this will incentivize clients to leave theirs and improves your local SEO.

Article By Meranda M. Vieyra of Denver Legal Marketing

For more business of law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
© 2022 Denver Legal Marketing LLC

OSHA Expands Criteria for Severe Violator Enforcement Program

In an announcement that expands the criteria for entry into the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Severe Violator Enforcement Program, OSHA has signaled that it is making enforcement a priority and that employers with willful, repeat, and failure-to-abate violations will be subject to significant consequences.

Key Takeaways

  • On September 15, 2022, OSHA announced that it was expanding its criteria for entering employers into its Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”). The updated SVEP directive is available here.
  • Previously, entry into the program was limited to cases involving fatalities, three or more hospitalizations, high-emphasis hazards, the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical, and enforcement actions classified as egregious.
  • Now, an employer can be entered into the program in cases involving two or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations, regardless of the hazard involved. They will continue to be subject to entry in the program in certain cases involving fatalities, three or more hospitalizations, and enforcement actions classified as egregious.
  • In light of this expansion, employers should review their compliance records and current health and safety practices and consider whether further actions are needed to mitigate enforcement risks.

Background

In 2010, OSHA created the Severe Violator Enforcement Program to “concentrate[] resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations.” Under the original SVEP, OSHA would designate employers as “severe violators” if they were involved in an enforcement action:

  • Involving a fatality in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving a catastrophe (three or more hospitalizations) in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving a high-emphasis hazard in which OSHA found two or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical in which OSHA found three or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations; or
  • Classified by OSHA as “egregious.”

Employers entered into the SVEP were subject to consequences that included mandatory enhanced follow-up inspections, a nationwide inspection of related workplaces, negative publicity, enhanced settlement provisions, and the potential for federal court enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act.

Updated Criteria

Under the new criteria, employers will continue to be entered into the SVEP in enforcement actions involving a fatality or catastrophe in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate-violations and in enforcement actions classified as egregious.

In a departure from the original criteria, cases involving two or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations will also be entered into the SVEP, regardless of whether they are linked to a certain hazard or standard. As a result of this change, OSHA expects that more employers will be entered into the SVEP.

Other Key Changes

In addition to expanding the criteria for entry into the SVEP, OSHA made key changes regarding follow-up inspections and removal from the SVEP.

  • Follow-up OSHA inspections must occur within one year, but not longer than two years after the final order. Previously, there was no required timeframe for conducting follow-up inspections.
  • Eligibility for removal will begin three years after the date an employer completes abatement. Previously, that period began running on the final order date.
  • If an employer implements an enhanced settlement agreement that includes the use of a safety and health management system that follows OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs, the employer can be eligible for removal after two years.

Implications

These changes signify that OSHA is prioritizing enforcement and intends to impose significant consequences on employers that repeatedly and/or willfully violate OSHA requirements. Employers should review their compliance records and current health and safety practices and evaluate whether additional action is needed to mitigate the risk for willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations and entry into the SVEP.

Article By Jayni A. Lanham and Mark N. Duvall of Beveridge & Diamond PC

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

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC

CFPB Plans to Increase Regulation over “Buy Now, Pay Later” Lenders

The Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (CFPB) issued a release on September 15, 2022, announcing its intent to issue additional interpretive guidance or rules to ensure “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) lenders comply with the same or similar regulations already established for credit cards following a study on the industry.

In its press release, the CFPB Director Rohit Chopra noted the rapidly growing use of “Buy Now, Pay Later is a rapidly growing type of loan that serves as a close substitute for credit cards.” While credit cards include interest charges, BNPL loans do not, making them more attractive to consumers. Instead, these loans allow consumers to purchase a product and repay the purchase price through several installment payments. As a result, BNPL loans have become prominent over the past several years, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. These previously niche loans, typically used for apparel and beauty purchases, are now used in almost all consumer-facing industries.

The CFPB noted several highlights of BNPL loans found through the study, which include:

  • Increased loan approval rates year over year;
  • Increased occurrences of late fee charges;
  • Increased product returns by consumers; and
  • Shrinking profit margins by BNPL lenders.

As a result of the study, the CFPB outlined the following concerns with the BNPL industry, mainly because the marketing of these loans leads consumers to believe the loans are a “zero-risk credit option.”

  • Limited Consumer Protections: While BNPL loans are used as an alternative to credit cards, they lack the standard credit disclosures, dispute resolution rights, etc., that similar consumer credit transactions often require.
  • Data Harvesting: Lower profit margins associated with BNPL loans have pushed the industry to monetize consumer data, potentially impacting consumer privacy.
  • Debt Accumulation: According to the CFPB, BNPL loans encourage consumers to purchase more products and borrow more, resulting in consumers becoming overleveraged. While the CFPB notes that the lenders in this space do not furnish credit data to credit reporting companies, the CFPB is concerned about this industry extending credit to consumers who may not be able to repay the debt.

Takeaways

The CFPB has yet again reinforced its commitment to regulate lenders that extend consumer credit. The CFPB’s decision to either enforce existing consumer laws (i.e., the Truth in Lending Act disclosures already required for credit cards and other consumer loans) or create new rules on the growing BNPL industry is not unexpected. However, the CFPB’s release shows a renewed focus on protecting consumers’ privacy rights and ensuring that consumers can afford to repay their credit lines before offers of credit are extended, and demonstrates once more that the Bureau will seek to regulate emerging forms of consumer credit.

Article By David T. Long Jr. and Andrew J. Narod of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

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

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Name, Image and Likeness: What Higher Education Institutions Need to Know for Legal Compliance

More than a year has passed since the NCAA v. Alston ruling and roll-out of the NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Interim Policy. What processes should institutions have in place, and what situations should they be on the lookout for at this point in the NIL game? While institutions cannot provide compensation to student-athletes or potential student-athletes in exchange for use of a student’s NIL, below are items counsel at higher institutions should have on their radar.

Review and Approval of NIL Agreements

The NCAA Interim Policy does not require student-athletes to disclose NIL agreements and/or opportunities to their institutions. In the State of Michigan, however, pursuant to House Bill 5217, beginning December 31, 2022, student-athletes must disclose proposed NIL opportunities or agreements to the institution at least seven days prior to committing to the opportunity or contract. For the institution, this means there needs to be a process in place by which student-athletes submit opportunities or agreements to the institution and the institution does a timely and thorough review of the submission. The institutional representative reviewing the submissions must be knowledgeable of the institution’s active contractual obligations and only sign off on the student-athlete’s potential NIL opportunity or contract once confident there is no conflict with an existing institutional contract. This is most likely to come up in agreements with exclusivity terms, such as sports apparel and campus-wide pouring rights agreements. If there is a conflict, the institution needs to articulate the specific conflict to the student-athlete so they can negotiate a revision, which is then subject to additional review and potential approval by the institution.

Institutions are the Regulating Bodies

Institutions in states that require submission of NIL opportunities by student-athletes need to pay close attention when reviewing submissions because the NCAA has placed most of the NIL regulatory burden on institutions. Specifically, institutions are obligated to report potential violations of NCAA policy. Among other potential violations, institutions must report possible abuses on the prohibition of pay-for-play and improper inducements of potential student-athletes and current student-athletes. Essentially, in addition to spotting potential conflicts between NIL agreements and current institution agreements, institutions need to review NIL agreements to determine if a student-athlete is being compensated for athletic achievement and/or for their enrollment or continued enrollment at a particular institution. Any indication that the student-athlete’s NIL agreement will be void if they no longer participate on an athletic team requires the institution to complete due diligence and determine the appropriateness of the arrangement in light of the NIL policy. Institutions are ultimately responsible for certifying the eligibility of student-athletes, and the presence of the previously mentioned terms place the agreement in direct violation of the language in the NIL Interim Policy and corresponding NCAA guidance.

Institutional Staff Members

It is in the best interest of institutions to train their staff members on appropriate interactions with boosters because the NCAA holds institutions responsible for the “impermissible recruiting activities engaged in by a representative of athletics interest (i.e., a booster).” Staff members need to understand the actions they are permitted to take and conversations they are permitted to have, as failure to do so could land them deep in the gray area of NIL.

  • An institutional staff member cannot directly or indirectly communicate with a potential student-athlete on behalf of a booster or NIL entity.
  • An institutional staff member cannot enter into agreements with an NIL entity to secure NIL deals between the entity and potential student-athletes.
  • An institutional staff member cannot “organize, facilitate or arrange” a meeting or any conversations between an NIL entity and a potential student-athlete, which includes transfer students coming from other institutions.

Financial Aid

Institutions should ensure they are not influencing how a student-athlete uses their compensation. Specifically, institutions should not direct student-athletes to use their NIL compensation for financial aid. Student-athletes’ financial aid is not impacted by compensation they would receive from NIL agreements. Financial aid limitations exclude compensation which also extends to NIL compensation. However, if a student receives NIL compensation, this may impact need-based financial aid.

FERPA

Many public institutions have made the argument that FERPA precludes them from disclosing NIL agreements without a release executed by the student-athlete. If a copy of an NIL agreement or summary of an NIL opportunity is provided to the institution by the student-athlete, this becomes a record of the university per the definition of FERPA and is likely part of the student-athlete’s educational record. There may be a particular circumstance in which a FERPA exception would apply to a request, but there is no broad FERPA exception that would apply in this situation. Institutions might find it strategic to include their stance on FERPA in an NIL policy to ensure all requests for NIL agreements are handled consistently.

International Students

International students can receive NIL compensation but with some caveats. In its documentation, the NCAA directs international student-athletes to their institution’s Designated School Official for “guidance related to maintaining their immigration status and tax implications.” As a result, institutions should make sure the individual(s) is/are well equipped to provide answers regarding NIL from international students.

Five Steps to Become a Well-Organized and Compliant Institution

  1. Have an NIL policy and procedures that are followed consistently and made available to student-athletes for reference and consultation;
  2. Have a process in place to review NIL agreements between the institution’s student-athletes and outside entities or individuals (if located in a state that requires student-athletes to make such disclosures);
  3. Have trained its staff (especially athletics staff) on what actions can and cannot be taken in relation to student-athletes’ NIL opportunities;
  4. Have trained its student-athletes on available resources; and
  5. Have a team of institutional staff members ready to pivot if additional laws are enacted by their state, if additional guidance is provided by the NCAA or if federal legislation is enacted.

Article By Richard T. Hewlett and Jessica E. Visser of Varnum LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Varnum LLP