Tag: Corporate Compliance

The Jobs Act: Improving Access to Capital Markets for Smaller Companies

GT Law

On April 5, 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act or “Jobs Act” was signed into law by President Obama with the stated purpose of increasing American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. Specifically, the Jobs Act:

  • creates a new category of “emerging growth company” under the securities laws and reduces certain financial reporting and disclosure obligations on these companies for up to 5 years after their initial public offering;
  • directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition on general solicitations for private offerings under Rule 506 of Regulation D and resales under Rule 144A;
  • legalizes crowdfunding through brokers and “funding portals”;
  • authorizes the SEC to increase the maximum amount permitted to be raised in a Regulation A offering from $5 million to $50 million in any 12-month period; and
  • increases the number of shareholders of record that a company may have before it becomes obligated to file SEC reports.

Creation of the ‘Emerging Growth Company’ Designation

The Jobs Act creates the “emerging growth company” as a new category of issuer under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act.

Definition of “Emerging Growth Company”

An “emerging growth company” is an issuer that had total annual gross revenues of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year. The issuer would continue to be an “emerging growth company” until the earlier of:

  • the last day of the fiscal year during which it had total annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more;
  • the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer following the fifth anniversary of its initial public offering;
  • the date on which the issuer has, during the previous 3-year period, issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt; and
  • the date on which it is deemed a “large accelerated filer.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an issuer that consummated an IPO on or prior to December 8, 2011 will not be eligible to be deemed an emerging growth company. The relief provided to emerging growth companies is available immediately.

Benefits for Emerging Growth Companies

Emerging growth companies will have more lenient disclosure and compliance obligations with respect to executive compensation, financial disclosures and certain new accounting rules. Specifically, an emerging growth company will not be required to:

  • comply with “say on pay” proposals or pay versus performance disclosures;
  • include more than two years of financial statements in the registration statement for its IPO;
  • include selected financial data for any period prior to the earliest audited period presented in connection with its IPO; or
  • comply with new or revised accounting standards that are only applicable to public reporting companies.

In addition, emerging growth companies will be exempt from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX, and be given a longer transition period for compliance with new audit standards. Further, SOX has been amended to provide that any rules of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, requiring mandatory audit firm rotation or auditor discussion and analysis will not apply to an emerging growth company. In addition, any future rules adopted by the PCAOB would not apply to audits of emerging growth companies unless the SEC determines otherwise.

The Jobs Act provides that emerging growth companies may start the IPO process by confidentially submitting draft registration statements to the SEC for nonpublic review. Confidentially submitted registration statements would need to be publicly available at least 21 days prior to beginning the road show for the IPO. Emerging growth companies would also be free to “test the waters” with qualified institutional buyers and institutional accredited investors before and during the registration process.

Analyst Reports for Initial Public Offerings of Emerging Growth Companies

The Jobs Act removes some of the restrictions on investment banks underwriting public offerings while simultaneously providing analyst research reports on a particular issuer that was designated as an “emerging growth company.”

Elimination of Prohibition on General Solicitation For Accredited Investors and Qualified Institutional Buyers

The Jobs Act directs the SEC to revise its rules to:

  • provide that the prohibition against general solicitation or general advertising will not apply to offers and sales of securities made pursuant to Rule 506, provided all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, and
  • provide that the prohibition against general solicitation or general advertising will not apply to offers and sales made under Rule 144A, provided that the seller reasonably believes that all purchasers of the securities are qualified institutional buyers.

It is currently unclear whether these exemptions will apply to offerings exempt from registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act to the extent they do not satisfy all of the conditions of Rule 506. The SEC has 90 days from the date of enactment of the Jobs Act to promulgate rules to effect elimination of the specified prohibitions on general solicitation and general advertising.

Creation of a ‘Crowdfunding’ Exemption

Crowdfunding refers to the recent (often internet facilitated) technique of seeking financing for a business through small investments from a relatively large pool of individual investors. Under current securities laws, crowdfunding raises a number of problematic registration exemption issues. The Jobs Act attempts to remedy this by creating a new crowdfunding exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for transactions involving the issuance of securities through a broker or SEC-registered “funding portal,” for which:

  • the aggregate amount of securities sold in the previous 12 months to all investors by the issuer is not more than $1 million; and
  • individual investments by any investor in the securities during any 12-month period are limited to:
    • the greater of $2,000 or 5 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor, as applicable, if either the annual income or the net worth of the investor is less than $100,000; and
    • 10 percent of the annual income or net worth of such investor, as applicable, not to exceed a maximum aggregate amount sold of $100,000, if either the annual income or net worth of the investor is equal to or more than $100,000.

Such securities would be considered restricted securities subject to a one-year holding period, with certain exceptions, such as sales to accredited investors or family members. The Jobs Act also provides express securities fraud remedies against the issuer of securities sold under the crowdfunding exemption, which includes extending liability to directors, partners and certain senior officers of the issuer.

Disclosure Requirements

The issuer must file with the SEC, provide to the broker or funding portal, and make available to potential investors at least 21 days prior to the first sale, certain information about the issuer. This information is similar to what many companies currently use in offering memoranda in private offerings and includes:

  • the name, legal status, physical address and website of the issuer;
  • the names of officers, directors and greater than 20% shareholders;
  • a description of the issuer’s current and anticipated business;
  • a description of the financial condition of the issuer, including, for offerings where the aggregate amounts sold under the crowdfunding exemption are:
    • $100,000 or less, income tax returns for the most recently completed fiscal year and financial statements, certified by the principal executive officer of the issuer;
    • more than $100,000, but less than $500,000, financial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant; or
    • more than $500,000, audited financial statements;
  • a description of the intended use of proceeds;
  • the target offering amount and the deadline to raise such amount;
  • the price to the public of the securities, or method to determine the price;
  • a description of the ownership and capital structure of the issuer, including the terms of the offered security and each other security of the issuer and how such terms may be modified, limited, diluted or qualified;
  • risks to purchasers of minority ownership and corporate actions, including issuances of shares, sales of the issuer or its assets or transactions with related parties; and
  • such other information as the SEC may prescribe.

The issuer must also annually file with the SEC and provide to investors its results of operations and financial statements.

‘Blue Sky’ Pre-emption

Securities sold pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption are “covered securities” for purposes of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act, or NSMIA, and, therefore, are exempt from state securities registration requirements, or “Blue Sky,” laws. This preemption does not prohibit state enforcement actions based on alleged fraud, deceit, or unlawful conduct.

Creation of ‘Funding Portals’

A person acting as an intermediary in an offer or sale of securities under this new crowdfunding exemption will have to register with the SEC as a broker or funding portal and will also need to register with any applicable self-regulatory organizations. Such intermediary will also have to comply with a number of requirements designed to ensure that investors are informed of the possible risks associated with a new venture, including conducting background checks on each officer, director and greater than 20% shareholders of the issuer. Additionally, the Jobs Act instructs the SEC to promulgate rules or regulations under which an issuer, broker or funding portal would not be eligible, based on its disciplinary history, to utilize the exemption.

SEC Rulemaking

The SEC is directed to issue rules as may be necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors to implement the crowdfunding exemption within 270 days after the enactment of the Jobs Act. In addition, the dollar amounts are to be indexed for inflation at least every five years for changes in the consumer price index.

Raising the Regulation A Limit to $50 million

The Jobs Act amends Section 3(b) of the Securities Act to direct the SEC to amend Regulation A so as to increase the aggregate offering amount that may be offered and sold within the prior 12-month period in reliance on Regulation A from $5 million to $50 million. The SEC is required to review the limit every two years and to increase the amount as it determines appropriate or explain to Congress its reasons for not increasing the limit on Regulation A offerings.

No ‘Blue Sky’ Pre-emption

Predecessor bills would have made the Regulation A exemption more appealing by making Regulation A offered securities exempt from “Blue Sky” laws. Although the Jobs Act does not provide that securities offered under Regulation A are explicitly exempt, it does have a provision requiring the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the impact of Blue Sky laws on offerings made under Regulation A. Securities offered and sold to “qualified purchasers,” to be defined under NSMIA, or on a national securities exchange would be “covered securities” and exempt from Blue Sky laws.

Modifying Registration Thresholds

Currently, Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act requires an issuer with assets in excess of $1 million and a class of security held by more than 500 shareholders of record to register such security with the SEC and, therefore, become subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act. The Jobs Act amends the registration thresholds to require registration only when an issuer has:

  • either 2,000 or more shareholders of record, or 500 shareholders of record who are not accredited investors, and
  • assets in excess of $10 million.

Exceptions to “Held of Record” Definition

Further, the Jobs Act amends the definition of “held of record” to exclude securities held by persons who received the securities pursuant to an employee compensation plan in transactions exempted from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. It also directs the SEC to adopt rules providing that securities acquired under the crowdfunding exemption are similarly excluded.

Increased Thresholds for Community Banks

The Jobs Act amends Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act by increasing the shareholder registration threshold in the case of an issuer that is a bank or a bank holding company to 2,000 persons. The bill also makes it easier for banks and bank holding companies to deregister and cease public company compliance requirements by increasing the threshold for deregistration for those entities from 300 persons to 1,200 persons.

Implementation of the Jobs Act

SEC Rulemaking and Studies

The Jobs Act directs the SEC to adopt rules implementing certain provisions of the act as well as to conduct a number of studies and report back to Congress.

SEC Concerns

A number of SEC Commissioners, including Chairman Mary Schapiro, have publicly expressed concerns on the balance between enhancing capital formation and the reduction in investor protections. The Jobs Act does not affect Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Act and adds some additional securities fraud remedies, so issuers should continue to be scrupulous about compliance with their disclosure obligations.

Full Text of the Jobs Act

The Jobs Act was enacted on April 5, 2012. The text of the act is currently available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3606enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr3606enr.pdf.

Article By:

 of

Department of Labor (DOL) Issues Model Notices to Employees Describing Health Insurance Exchanges

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Deadline to Provide Notices is October 1, 2013

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the new health care reform law passed in 2010, requires many employers to notify their employees of the availability of health coverage under the new health insurance exchanges that are required to be operational effective January 1, 2014. All employers subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act must provide this notice, regardless of whether the employer currently offers health coverage to its employees. Employers must provide the notice to all full and part-time employees (but not to dependents).

On May 8, 2013, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued model notices for employers to use in satisfying these requirements. A copy of the notice for employers that offer health coverage is available here and a copy of the notice for employers that do not offer health coverage is available here.

Employers are free to modify the model notices provided that the notices, as modified, continue to satisfy the content requirements set forth in the PPACA. Employers must provide the notices to their existing employees no later than October 1, 2013. Employees hired on or after October 1, 2013 must receive the notice no later than 14 days after their hire date.

The notices may be provided by first class mail or electronically if the DOL’s electronic disclosure rules are met.

Model COBRA Notice

Additionally, the DOL updated its model COBRA notice for use by employers in notifying employees of their rights to continue (after certain losses of coverage) coverage under the employer’s health plan. The updated model notice contains information about the new health insurance exchanges. A copy of the updated model notice is available here.

California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders

AM logo with tagline

California is a net exporter of corporate charters, but it remains home to many corporations. As a result, the California Corporations Code has a preternatural concern with foreign corporations.

One example is Section 1501(a) which requires the board to cause an annual report to be sent to shareholders.  This report must include a balance sheet as of year end and an income statement and statement of cash flows for the year.  The statute doesn’t require that the statements be audited, but if an independent accountant has issued a report, then that report must be sent along as well.  If there is no report, then the report must include a certificate of an authorized officer that the statements were prepared without audit from the books and records of the corporation.  If the corporation has fewer than 100 holders of record (determined in accordance with Section 605), the financial statements need not be prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles if the statements reasonably set forth the assets and liabilities and income and expense of the corporation and disclose the accounting basis used in their preparation.

The report must be sent not later than 120 days after the close of the fiscal year and must be sent at least 15 days (or, if sent by third class mail, 35 days) prior to the annual meeting of shareholders held during the following fiscal year.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(a)(1) & (2).

This requirement applies to domestic corporations, a term that embraces any corporation formed under the laws of California.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(g).  Thus, it includes corporations not formed under the General Corporation Law. See Cal. Corp. Code § 167.  However, a corporation with less than 100 holders of record (determined in accordance with Section 605) may include a bylaw provision that waives the annual report requirement.

The statute also applies to any foreign corporation if the corporation has its principal executive offices in California or it customarily holds meetings of its board in California.  Cal. Corp. § 1501(g).

Publicly traded companies are not exempted per se from this requirement.  However, corporations with an outstanding class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 will satisfy the annual report requirement if they comply with Rule 14a-16 (17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-16).  Cal. Corp. § 1501(a)(4).  [Note that this statute purports to include future amendments and this may give rise to a constitutional problem, see Why Incorporation May Be Unconstitutional.]

Here is a flow-chart describing the application of the statute.  This is probably a good time to remind readers that this blog does not provide legal advice.  There are other requirements in Section 1501 (including possible quarterly reporting requirements) that are not covered in today’s post.  Moreover, there are other nuances that I’ve not mentioned.

Article By:

 of

Top Five Traps for the Unwary in Spin-Offs

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

A wave of corporate breakups has swept through the United States over the last few years as investors have taken notice of the fact that smaller companies focused on a single business tend to outperform their more diversified peers.  A primary vehicle for these breakups has been the spin-off transaction, in which a publicly traded parent company distributes the shares of the spin-off company (spinco) to its own shareholders, creating a new, independent publicly traded entity.  The New York Times, citing Dealogic, reported that there were 93 spin-off transactions worth $128 billion in 2011, and that 2012 kept pace with 85 spin-off transactions worth $109 billion.  The rationale for a spin-off often is to unlock the value in a business or division that is trapped in a larger corporate bureaucracy.  Conglomerates tend to spread capital across all of their divisions rather than focusing on the individual opportunities within each business that are the most promising.  Holding company structures also can make decision-making more cumbersome and equity incentives less incentivizing for division management who feel as though their hard work is being diluted by the underperformance of other divisions or businesses.

Spin-offs, however, are complicated transactions that require a great deal of advance planning.  In many cases, an announcement that a parent company is considering the spin-off of one of its businesses is actually the start of a “dual-track” process wherein the parent company considers and plans for a spin-off while also remaining open to potential bids from third parties to acquire the business.  In even more complicated cases, a parent company agrees to sell a business to an acquirer in connection with a spin-off transaction.

The vast majority of spin-off transactions are designed to qualify under the rules of the Internal Revenue Code as “tax free” to the parent company and the shareholders who receive the spinco stock.

With this in mind, any company considering spinning off a division or business should keep in mind the following five potential traps.

1.  Tax-Free Qualification – Legitimate Business Purpose 

The spin-off must satisfy a legitimate business purpose in order to qualify under both the tax-free rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the Securities Act of 1933.  The tax authorities require that the spin-off be motivated in whole or in substantial part by one or more legitimate corporate business purposes in order to ensure that the purpose of the transaction is not simply “tax avoidance.”  The business purpose requirement is one of many requirements under the tax laws to qualify for a tax-free spin-off.  Because the costs of triggering tax in a spin-off transaction often are very high, most parent companies obtain a legal opinion from outside counsel and obtain a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service as a condition to completing a spin-off transaction.  As discussed in relation to trap number five below, a legitimate business purpose for the spin-off also is required under the securities laws in order for the distribution of the spinco stock to not be treated as a “sale” of securities by the parent company or the spinco requiring Securities Act of 1933 registration and the strict liability standard of care that comes with such a registration.  See the article entitled, “Five Key Tax Considerations for Spin-Off Transactions” for a more in depth discussion of tax issues raised in spin-offs.

2.  Separation of Assets and Liabilities

Before a business or a division can be spun off, both its assets and its liabilities must be separated.  Large companies with long operating histories often find that the process of separating out the spinco business is not straightforward, because the legal entities that house the business might also house other businesses and divisions that share assets, services, products, employees, vendors and customers with the spinco business.  The pre-spin separation transactions should avoid triggering contractual defaults and remedies under commercial agreements, financing agreements, intellectual property licensing agreements, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, benefit plans, etc.  Often the spinco and the parent company or another legacy business must enter into complex sharing or licensing agreements or joint ventures relating to valuable intellectual property, such as trade names, trademarks or patents, as well as employee matters.  See the article entitled “Trademark, Domain Name and Other IP Considerations for Spin-Offs” for a more in depth discussion of IP issues raised in spin-offs and see the article entitled, “Employee Benefit Issues in a Spin-Off” for a more in depth discussion of employee benefit issues raised in spin-offs.

The sharing of liabilities is often the most complicated endeavour because of the slew of legal obligations that are triggered.  In allocating liabilities to the spinco, the parent company must evaluate the impact such allocation will have on the solvency of the parent and the spinco.  Parent company directors can face personal liability under state corporate law for making an unlawful dividend because the company lacked sufficient capital to make such a dividend or for rendering the parent company insolvent by distributing out the spinco business, and the parent company itself can face claims of constructive fraudulent conveyance—i.e., the parent company received less than equivalent value, and either the parent or spinco was rendered insolvent (assets do not exceed liabilities), the parent and/or spinco was left with unreasonably small capital to run its respective business, or the parent or spinco was left with debts that exceed its respective ability to pay those debts as they become due.  Parent company directors can rely on legal experts and financial advisors to assist them in satisfying their duty of care.  A solvency opinion from a nationally recognized provider of such opinions is often a condition to the consummation of a spin-off transaction.  Such an opinion may be helpful to the directors of the parent company and spinco for a variety of reasons: (i) it can help to show that the directors properly exercised their duty of care in determining to enter into the spin-off transaction; (ii) it can assist in rebutting a fraudulent conveyance claim; and (iii) it can assist in rebutting a claim that the company had insufficient capital to make such a dividend.

3.  Transition Services

While one of the key rationales for spinning off a business or division is to allow the enterprise to operate independently, the reality in most cases is that, at least during the first year or so post-spin, a spinco must rely on its former parent company to provide many key administrative and operational services during the spinco’s transition period to a self-sufficient, independent public company.  During the pre-spin planning period, companies should consider, among other things, which transition services will be required, how they will be provided, for how long and under what pricing terms.  Typical transition services include legal, internal auditing, logistics, procurement, quality assurance, distribution and marketing.  These arrangements often have durations that last between six and 24 months.  Many parent companies agree to provide such transition services purely on a cost basis, while others will use a “cost plus” or “market” rate.

4.  Spinco Management and Board of Directors

Again, while independence from the former parent company is a key benefit for most spincos, having corporate managers with institutional knowledge and history with the enterprise is an important factor in assisting the spinco to successfully transition to independence.  Many spinco management teams include members who have served as executives at the former parent company.  In many cases, these are managers who served as division leaders who reported to the parent company CEO or CFO and are now ready to step into executive roles on their own.  It is also common for between one and three members of the parent company board to agree to take seats on the spinco board to provide the new public company board with a source of the company’s history and culture to ensure a smooth transition.  However, because of the competing fiduciary duties that these directors will face if they hold seats on both the parent and spinco boards, it is important for the spinco board to also have a majority of truly independent directors.  Spinco directors who are former executive officers of the parent also must be aware that the stock exchanges and influential shareholder services firms such as Institutional Shareholder Services will not view them as being truly independent from a corporate governance standpoint for some time after the completion of the spin-off.  This will inhibit their ability to serve on key board committees of the spinco.

5.  Preparation of the Disclosure 

Under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules, a spin-off of the shares of a subsidiary to a parent company’s shareholders does not involve the sale of securities by either the parent company or the subsidiary as long as the following conditions are met: (i) the parent company does not provide consideration for the spun-off shares; (ii) the spin-off is pro rata to the parent company shareholders; (iii) the parent company provides adequate information about the spin-off and the subsidiary to its shareholders and to the trading markets; and (iv) the parent has a valid business purpose for the spin-off.

To meet the adequate public information requirement, parent companies are required to prepare and disseminate detailed “information statements” that effectively look like initial public offering registration statements for the spinco.  These information statements are filed with the spinco’s Form 10 registration statement, which is required in order to register the spinco’s shares under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and to permit listing of such shares on a national securities exchange.  The preparation of the spinco information statement can take up to three or four months and requires a great deal of effort and cooperation among the lawyers, the business leaders, the finance department, the human resources/employee benefits department and the auditors.  In addition, under New York law, a spin-off of all or substantially all of a company’s assets may require a vote of such company’s shareholders, while under Delaware law, such a requirement is much less likely.

Article By:

 of

Electronically Stored Information, Social Media and the Rules of Professional Conduct: Are you compliant with your duties of competence and diligence?

Recently published in The National Law Review was an article about Compliance and Diligence and Electronic Media by  Charles H. Gardner of  Much Shelist, P.C.:

Electronically Stored Information and its increasingly complex progeny, social media evidence (collectively, “ESI”) are quickly being woven into the fabric of discovery and the practice of law.  As the cases and rules of professional conduct discussed below demonstrate, lawyers who fail to thoughtfully investigate and use social media evidence (both that of their own client and that of the opposing party(ies)) are not engaged in best practices.

The American Bar Association (“ABA”) Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence) states that “[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” (The Model Rules have been adopted in all of the fifty states, except California, and in the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Comment 5 to Rule 1.1 provides, in part, that “[c]ompetent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation (emphasis added).” Further, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion No. 98-411(1998) states, “[w]e believe the ethical issues are the same whether [involving] substantial legal or procedural aspects of a client’s matter or [a lawyer’s] ethical duties in furtherance of the client’s matter.”

Much has changed since the ABA adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and its predecessor guidelines. Electronic data and communication and social media communities such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter have become linchpins of society and discourse. As of December 2011, Facebook alone reported that it had 845 million monthly users and more than 483 million average daily users (http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22, last visited Feb. 12, 2012).

In the recent case of Griffin v. Maryland, 192 Md. App. 518, 535 (2010), the court opined, “[i]t should now be a matter of professional competence for attorneys to take the time to investigate social networking sites (emphasis added).” In addition, a 2010 study by the American Association of Matrimonial Attorneys found that an overwhelming eighty-one percent of the nation’s top divorce attorneys said that they have seen an increase in the number of cases in which social media evidence plays a role. Sixty-six percent of those attorneys cite Facebook as the primary source of such evidence. Accepting as an imminent practical reality that an attorney has or will soon have an affirmative duty to investigate social media evidence, what might the cost be to the attorney, the client, or both for failing to do so or, worse, failing to preserve such evidence?

Consider hypothetically the evidentiary value of photographs posted on a disability claimant’s social media page showing her rock climbing, for example. One can see just how persuasive ESI can be.  However, ESI can also be a minefield of professional liability. Consider the case of Lester v. Allied Concrete Company, Nos. CL08-150, CL09-223 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2011) in which a Virginia attorney was found to have instructed his assistant to tell his client to remove a photograph from a social media website. Finding that the lawyer had violated Virginia’s equivalent of Model Rules 3.3 (Candor toward the tribunal), 3.4 (Fairness to opposing parties and counsel), 5.3 (Responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants), 8.4 (Misconduct) and rules of court regarding conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, the court sanctioned the attorney with a fine of $540,000. In addition, the court fined the client $180,000 for spoliation of evidence. For the twenty-first century practitioner, a well thought-out ESI discovery plan could mean not only the difference between success and failure in the matter at hand, but may also mean the difference between a grateful client and a client that brings a malpractice claim, a disciplinary complaint or both for ineffectiveness in investigation and preparation. However, case investigation and preparation are not the only source of risk for attorneys and judicial officers.

The case of In re: B. Carlton Terry, Jr., No. 08234 (N.C. Judicial Standards Commission, April 1, 2009) demonstrates how critical it is for attorneys to be savvy in social media and ESI discovery in general. In that family law case, the judge, plaintiff’s counsel and defense counsel were discussing Facebook in a meeting in chambers. Plaintiff’s attorney commented that she did not know what Facebook was and did not have time for it. Following the meeting in chambers, Judge Terry and defense counsel became friends on Facebook and discussed the case in some detail. Judge Terry also conducted independent investigation into plaintiff’s social media pages and quoted from them at the hearing. The judge did not inform plaintiff’s counsel of his actions until after he had entered an oral order. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately sought to and did have the judge’s order vacated. Judge Terry voluntarily disqualified himself and the case was remanded for a new hearing, costing the taxpayers a considerable amount. Ultimately Judge Terry was publicly reprimanded by consent in formal proceedings before the Judicial Standards Committee.

Had plaintiff’s counsel conducted a thorough, or even a rudimentary, ESI investigation, the wrongdoing on the part of defense counsel and the bench could have been addressed promptly which would have spared both Plaintiff and the taxpayers significant costs in having to try the same matter twice.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the rules of professional conduct apply equally to in-house counsel and transactional attorneys as to litigators. In the more casual in-house and transactional business environments, the line between clients and business colleagues can become easily blurred. These attorneys should be especially mindful of their professional responsibilities and the implications that their actions may have on their organization in the event that litigation ensues.

Following are six simple and practical suggested steps towards developing a strong ESI discovery plan and investigation process:

  1. Educate yourself about social media and ESI in general. If you do not know where to look, you could be lost in a search engine “black hole”. Not only can you place yourself ahead of the pack in the legal community, you will also be able to communicate with your children and grandchildren!
  2. Draft a written ESI discovery plan that includes an immediate request for a discovery hold on ESI.  Be systematic and judicious in your requests. And be mindful of Model Rule 1.3 (diligence).
  3. Draft and circulate acknowledgement forms to all personnel in your organization and obtain their signatures.  These documents should educate your personnel about sound social media practices and emphasize ethical concerns as well as the legal liability to the organization, to you and to the employee, who could also face appropriate discipline for violating company policy.  Be mindful of Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding non-lawyer assistants). And, with respect to employees, be mindful of the limitations imposed by the National Labor Relations Act when drafting your policies and acknowledgement forms.
  4. Instruct your client that ESI is evidence and that the client should not tamper with or destroy such evidence until the case is completely resolved, including during the time allowed for appeals and in appellate proceedings, if any.
  5. Check your client’s social media pages.  Know what you are up against.
  6. Conduct a thorough review of any and all available ESI of the other party.  Be careful to abide by the “no contact” rules.  For example, do not send a surreptitious friend request to gain access to another party’s ESI, but rather, look only at what is publicly available to you and obtain proper warrants for any additional information.  And be prepared to argue to the court why the evidence is relevant and why it should be produced and admitted.

If you are not making diligent and competent use of ESI, you place yourself and your client at a severe disadvantage and you are arguably breaching your ethical obligations. The immediate future is a rare opportunity to be on the cutting edge of developing law.  With a little knowledge and a reasonable amount of follow-through, you can set yourself apart in the new media frontier by making sound use of the bountiful resources that new media technologies have brought to the practice of law.

Charles H. Gardner is Special Counsel to the Intellectual Property & Technology group at Much Shelist, P.C. and head of its social media practice.  Mr. Gardner is a frequent writer and lecturer on the topic of social media and new media technologies. He has been featured in Crain’s Chicago Business and The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and will be leading a CLE seminar on the “Laws of Social Media” (tailored for house counsel and business executives) on February 21, 2012.* Before joining Much Shelist, Mr. Gardner served as Director of Legal and Business Affairs for Harpo Studios, Inc. Mr. Gardner has a juris doctorate from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles (Entertainment Law Review) and a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley.  He is admitted to practice law in California, New York, Illinois, the District of Columbia and before the United States Supreme Court.

*For more information and/or for complimentary registration, please call or e-mail Mr. Rodney Abstone at CLS Executive Search at (312) 251-2564 or email rabstone@clsexecutivesearch.com. 

© 2012 Much Shelist, P.C.

Brief Filed in Litigation Challenging the NLRB’s Final Rule Requiring All Employers to Post Notice of Employee Rights Under the NLRA

Recently posted in the National Law Review  an article by Labor & Employment Practice of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding the NLRB’s Final rule:

 

 

On August 25, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a Final Rule (Rule) that requires all employers subject to the Board’s jurisdiction—i.e., the vast majority of employers doing business in the United States—to post a notice in the workplace informing employees of their right, among other things, to “[o]rganize a union,” to “take action . . . to improve your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer or with a government, and seeking help from a union,” and to “strike and picket.”

Under the Rule, the notice must be posted in the same place where other employment-related notices are posted, which may include the employer’s intranet or Internet site if the employer customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Failure to post the notice could have three adverse effects: (1) it will be an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), (2) it could toll the six-month statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practices, and (3) it could be used as evidence of an employer’s unlawful motive in unfair labor practice cases.

The Rule is scheduled to go into effect on January 31, 2012.

The Status of the Litigation Challenging the Rule

After the Rule was announced, three separate lawsuits were filed in federal court to block its implementation: two in Washington, D.C. (which were consolidated into one case) and one in South Carolina. The cases challenge, among other things, the NLRB’s authority to issue the Rule.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed on October 26 in the District of Columbia action and on November 11 in the South Carolina action. On November 15, John Kline, the Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and the Workforce, along with 35 other members of the House of Representatives, filed in both pending cases an amicus brief supporting the challenge to the Board’s authority to issue the Rule.

The amicus brief was authored by Morgan Lewis attorneys, led by Philip Miscimarra and including former NLRB member Charles Cohen. “Our brief was filed on behalf of thirty-six members of Congress, including John Kline, Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, many other members of that Committee, and additional House Members. Their interest in the litigation stems from the fact that legislative decisions are reserved for Congress. The Members we represent believe the NLRB’s creation of a notice-posting obligation—which Congress did not place into the National Labor Relations Act—is contrary to the NLRA and exceeds the NLRB’s authority,” Miscimarra said.

The brief highlights for the first time in either litigation important legislative history showing that the original version of the NLRA contained a notice provision and a specific unfair labor practice relating to the notice provision. Led by Senator Robert Wagner, the sponsor of the law, a unanimous Senate Labor Committee intentionally eliminatedthe notice provision before the NLRA became law. “As the legislative history makes clear, Senator Wagner himself, together with his colleagues, thought there should be no requirement for companies to provide notification to employees. It is time for the NLRB to honor those wishes and abandon its ill-fated notice requirement,” said Cohen.

The amicus brief also discusses how Congress intentionally limited the NLRB’s jurisdiction to actual parties in pending cases—a limitation that was deemed by Congress to be central to the NLRA’s constitutionality. Finally, the amicus brief argues that the new NLRB-created notice obligation undermines important rights afforded by other statutes that explicitly provide for notice provisions. View a copy of the amicus brief at http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/AmicusBriefUSHouseMembers_DC_15nov11.pdf. A decision regarding whether the NLRB had the authority to issue the Rule is expected before the current implementation date of January 31, 2012.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

In Ninth Circuit, Whistleblowers Not Exempt From Confidentiality Agreements

Posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney Anthony Navid Moshirnia of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP about blowing the whistle on alleged fraud against the Government does not entitle an employee to loot:

 

Blowing the whistle on alleged fraud against the Government does not entitle an employee to loot and disclose her employer’s records in violation of a confidentiality agreement – at least not in the Ninth Circuit. In an opinion handed down in March of this year, the Ninth Circuit refused to adopt a so-called “public policy exception to confidentiality agreements to protect [qui tam plaintiffs]” who misappropriate documents from their employers ostensibly to buttress claims brought under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2011). Though this opinion has been on the books since Spring, it remains relevant, and worth keeping an eye on, as it provides powerful ammunition against FCA plaintiffs that continue to tout the “public policy” exception as though it were unassailable.

After learning that her job at General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc. (“General Dynamics”) was going to be terminated, but before leaving her employment, Mary Cafasso “copied almost eleven gigabytes of data from [her employer’s] computers in anticipation of bringing a qui tam action” under the FCA.  When it discovered what Ms. Cafasso had done, General Dynamics filed suit in Arizona state court, seeking return of its purloined documents through a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Apparently to avoid complying with the TRO, which the state court granted, Ms. Cafasso filed “a conclusory six page complaint . . . alleg[ing] FCA violations and retaliation.” She then used the FCA action to persuade the Arizona court to vacate the TRO and stay General Dynamics’ lawsuit.

When Ms. Cafasso’s FCA complaint was unsealed, General Dynamics counterclaimed alleging, inter alia, breach of contract arising from Ms. Cafasso’s misappropriation of documents in violation of a confidentiality agreement. In opposition to General Dynamics’ motion for summary judgment, Ms. Cafasso argued that General Dynamics had failed to prove contract damages and that, even if it had, her conduct was permissible because “[p]ublic policy grants [a] Relator a privilege in gathering copies of documents as part of an investigation under the FCA and gives [a] Relator immunity from civil liability based on claims against her for so doing.” U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 1457036, *13 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2009).

The trial court dismissed both of Ms. Cafasso’s arguments. It found that damages were established by the stipulated damages clause in the General Dynamics confidentiality agreement. After reviewing the parties’ competing legal arguments, the trial court also found that “public policy does not immunize Cafasso, [who] confuses protecting whistleblowers from retaliation for lawfully reporting fraud with immunizing whistleblowers for wrongful acts made in the course of looking for evidence of fraud.” The court concluded that “[s]tatutory incentives encouraging investigation of possible fraud under the FCA do not establish a public policy in favor of violating an employer’s contractual confidentiality and nondisclosure rights.”

On appeal, Ms. Cafasso did not dispute that her actions violated her confidentiality agreement with General Dynamics, but nonetheless urged the Court to “adopt a public policy exception to enforcement of such contracts that would allow relators to disclose confidential information in furtherance of an FCA action.”  While noting that Ms. Cafasso’s position was not frivolous, and might apply “in particular instances for particular documents,” the Ninth Circuit found that Ms. Cafasso’s data removal was not privileged.

The Ninth Circuit appears to have relied on two factors to reach this conclusion: the scope and volume of the documents Ms. Cafasso took. With respect to scope, the Ninth Circuit faulted Ms. Cafasso’s “indiscriminate appropriation of documents,” referring to it as an “unselective taking [that included] attorney client privileged communications, trade secrets belonging to [General Dynamics] and other contractors, internal research and development information, sensitive government information, and at least one patent application that the Patent Office had placed under a secrecy order.”  The Court was also troubled by the fact that Ms. Cafasso had taken over 11 gigabytes of data, noting that “the need to facilitate valid claims does not justify the wholesale stripping of a company’s confidential documents.” In sum, the Ninth Circuit found that an “exception broad enough to protect the scope of Cafasso’s massive document gather in this case would make all confidentiality agreements unenforceable as long as the employee later files a qui tam action” – an unacceptable result.

While Cafasso stopped short of rejecting the public policy defense to data theft as a matter of law, it certainly provides a new avenue to FCA defendants attempting to prevent qui tam relators from benefitting from extrajudicial discovery.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Dodd-Frank Update — Several Regulatory and Legislative Proposals of Note

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorneys  Sylvie A. Durham, Genna Garver and Dmitry G. Ivanov of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding  the OCC, FDIC and SEC’s proposed a joint rule implementing theVolcker Rule:

GT Law

REGULATORS PROPOSE VOLCKER RULE:

On October 11, 2011, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a joint proposed rule implementing the long awaited Volcker Rule. This proposal establishes exemptions from the prohibition on proprietary trading and restrictions on covered fund activities and investments as well as limitations on those exemptions. In addition, the proposal requires certain banking entities to report quantitative measurements with respect to their trading activities and to establish enhanced compliance programs regarding the Volcker Rule, including adopting written policies and procedures. Appendices to the proposal provide the quantitative measurements to be used to report trading activities, commentary regarding the factors the agencies propose to use to distinguish permitted market making-related activities from prohibited proprietary trading and the minimum requirements and standards for compliance programs. Comments should be received on or before January 13, 2012. A copy of the proposed rule is available here.

FSOC PROPOSES RULE TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE CERTAIN NON-BANK FINANCIAL COMPANIES:

On October 11, 2011, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) issued its second proposed rule and interpretive guidance to provide additional details regarding the framework that FSOC intends to use in the process of assessing whether a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability, and further opportunity for public comment on FSOC’s approach to making determinations to require supervision and regulation of certain nonbank financial companies in accordance with Title I of Dodd-Frank, previously proposed on January 26, 2011. The proposed rule, previously proposed on January 26, 2011, has been modified to provide additional details about the processes and procedures through which FSOC may make this determination under Dodd-Frank, and the manner in which a nonbank financial company may respond to and contest a proposed determination. Importantly, the interpretive guidance sets out a three-stage process of increasingly in-depth evaluation and analysis leading up to a proposed determination that a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. The first stage would involve a quantitative analysis by applying thresholds that related to the framework categories of size, interconnectedness, leverage and liquidity risk and maturity mismatch. A company will be evaluated further in stage 2 only if it both meets the total consolidated assets threshold ($50 billion in global consolidated assets for U.S. global financial companies or $50 billion in U.S. total consolidated assets for foreign nonbank financial companies) and any one of the other enumerated metrics. Stage 2 would involve a wide range of quantitative and qualitative industry-specific and company-specific factors. Stage 3 would focus on the company’s potential to pose a threat to the U.S. financial system. Comments are due by December 19, 2011. A copy of the proposed rule is available here.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DERIVATIVES RULEMAKING:

A bill was introduced in the Senate to extend the deadline for rulemaking on derivatives to July 16, 2012. The Dodd-Frank Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 1650) would require the SEC, the CFTC and other relevant regulators to jointly adopt an implementation schedule for derivatives regulations by December 31, 2011, which would, among other things, specify schedules for publication of final rules and for the effective dates for provisions in Dodd-Frank on derivatives. The proposed bill would also allow the regulators to issue exemptions with respect to swap transactions, activities or persons from the Dodd-Frank Act derivatives provisions, would exempt end-users of swaps from margin requirements, would revise the definition of major swap participants to “prevent Main Street businesses that are using derivatives to hedge business risks from being regulated like swap dealers,” and would exempt inter-affiliate transactions from the definition of “swaps.” The bill would also create the Office of Derivatives within the SEC to “administer rules, coordinate oversight and monitor the developments in the market.” The text of the bill is available by clicking here.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO FREEZE REGULATORY RULEMAKING:

Two bills were introduced in the House of Representatives to freeze regulatory rulemaking actions during a “moratorium period” and to repeal certain existing regulations. The Job Creation and Regulatory Freeze Act of 2011 (H.R. 3194)would establish a moratorium period until January 20, 2013, prohibiting regulators from adopting any “covered regulations,” which would include final regulations that, among other things, would have an adverse effect on employment, economy or public health or are likely to “have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more.” At the same time, the bill would allow rulemaking, to the extent necessary “due to an imminent threat to human health or safety, or any other emergency” or if it promotes “private sector job creation,” encourages economic growth or reduces “regulatory burdens.” The Stop the Regulation Invasion Please Act of 2011, or STRIP Act of 2011 (H.R. 3181) would also establish a two-year moratorium period for all new rulemaking, except in certain limited circumstances. In addition, that bill would repeal, with certain exceptions, all rules that became effective after October 1, 1991. The existing rules that would continue in effect would need to be justified before the Congress based on cost-benefit analysis. The H.R. 3194 is available by clicking here; and the H.R. 3181 is available by clicking here.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Legal Issues Surrounding Social Media Background Checks

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Michelle Sherman of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP regarding establishing an internal procedure for using the Internet to make employment decisions is one more piece of a sound ethics and compliance program that addresses how your company is using social media.

Agatha Christie had a novel take on invention being the mother of necessity. She disagreed and said, “[I]nvention, in my opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save oneself trouble.” She may have been onto something when you think about businesses that are turning to outside vendors to research employees and job candidates for them. Whether or not these outside vendors are the best solution, however, remains to be seen.

  1. Companies Should Have An Internal Procedure For Researching Job Candidates And Employees On The Internet

We recommended earlier this year that businesses establish an internal procedure for making employment decisions based on Internet research, so they would not run afoul of state and federal laws that prohibit job discrimination based on protected factors. The protected factors include, for example: (1) Race, color, national origin, religion and gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (2) Sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, cancer, political affiliation, genetic characteristics, and gender identity under California law. Most states have their own list of protected factors, which should be considered depending on where your company has employees.

Not surprisingly, the legal risks of making employment decisions using the Internet have become a real concern for businesses, especially when you consider that 54% of employers surveyed in 2011 acknowledged using the Internet to research job candidates. The actual number of employers using the Internet is probably higher, and sometimes companies may not even be aware that their employees are researching job candidates and factoring that information into their evaluations. This is yet another reason to establish an internal procedure for researching job candidates, and communicating your procedure to employees who are participating in the employment process.

There is nothing wrong with researching people on the Internet so long as it is done properly. The Internet has a wealth of useful information, some of it intentionally posted by job applicants for employers to consider such as LinkedIn profiles.

With this “necessity” to do Internet searches properly, some businesses have turned to outside vendors to do the research for them, and, thereby, try to reduce their legal exposure and the administrative inconvenience of doing it themselves. At least one of these vendors has received letters concerning its business practices from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and, more recently, two U.S. Senators.

  1. The Business Practices Of Outside Vendors That Provide Social Media Background Checks Are Being Examined For Compliance With Privacy And Intellectual Property Laws

On May 9, 2011, the staff of the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection sent a “no action” letter to Social Intelligence Corporation (“Social Intelligence”), “an Internet and social media background screening service used by employers in pre-employment background screening.” The FTC treated Social Intelligence as a consumer reporting agency “because it assembles or evaluates consumer report information that is furnished to third parties that use such information as a factor in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for employment.” The FTC stated that the same rules that apply to consumer reporting agencies (such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)) apply equally in the social networking context. These rules include the obligation to provide employees or applicants with notice of any adverse action taken on the basis of these reports. Businesses should also be mindful of similar state consumer protection laws that may be applicable (e.g. California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act).

The FTC concluded by stating that information provided by Social Intelligence about its policies and procedures for compliance with the FCRA appears not to warrant further action, but that its action “is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred,” and that the FTC “reserves the right to take further action as the public interest may require.” This FTC “no action” letter was reported fairly widely, and probably increased the comfort level of businesses that wanted to use an outside service for Internet background checks.

On September 19, 2011, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) and Al Franken (D-Minn) sent a letter to Social Intelligence with 13 questions regarding whether the company is taking steps to ensure that the information it is gathering from social networks is accurate, whether the company is respecting the guidelines for how the websites and their users want the content used, and whether the company is protecting consumers’ right to online privacy. The letter raises some legitimate concerns, and requests a prompt response from Social Intelligence to the questions presented.

  1. Legal Assurances That Your Company May Want To Seek If Using An Outside Vendor

Some of the questions also warrant due consideration on the part of businesses receiving reports from outside vendors about how much weight they want to give the information provided. Further, what the business may want in the form of legal assurances from the outside vendor that no laws (e.g. FCRA, privacy, copyright, or other intellectual property laws) have been violated in gathering the information or providing screenshot copies of pages from social networking sites.

Some of the questions from the Senators which raise these concerns include, for example:

1. “How does your company determine the accuracy of the information it provides to employers?” [Social Intelligence is reportedly collecting social networking activity dating back 7 years, and, therefore, may capture something that was later removed, or was a “tag” post through a picture that the job candidate was not responsible for making public, and may have removed once it came to his attention.]

2. “Is your company able to differentiate among applicants with common names? How?” [e.g. Have they researched the correct “Jane Smith” of the hundreds on Facebook since social security numbers or other specific identifying information is not useful on social networking sites as it is with the standard background check.]

3. “Is the information that your company collects from social media websites like Facebook limited to information that can be seen by everyone, or does your company endeavor to access restricted information.”

4. “The reports that your company prepares for employers contain screenshots of the sources of the information your company compiles…These websites are typically governed by terms of service agreements that prohibit the collection, dissemination, or sale of users’ content without the consent of the user and/or the website….. Your company’s business model seems to necessitate violating these agreements. does your company operate in compliance with the agreements found on sites whose content your company compiles and sells?”

5. There appears “to be significant violations of user’s intellectual property rights to control the use of the content that your company collects and sells. …. These pictures [of the users], taken from sites like Flickr and Picasa, are often licensed by the owner for a narrow set of uses, such as noncommercial use only or a prohibition on derivative works. Does your company obtain permission from the owners of these pictures to use, sell, or modify them?”

  1. Conclusion

Establishing an internal procedure for using the Internet to make employment decisions is one more piece of a sound ethics and compliance program that addresses how your company is using social media. If using an outside vendor to perform social media background checks is part of that policy, you should assure yourself that the company is acting in compliance with the relevant laws.  

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Costs

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Emily Holbrook of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding anti-money laundering  initiatives take more precedence in the corporate world:

 

Each year, anti-money laundering (AML) initiatives take more precedence in the corporate world, particularly within the financial industry. According to Celent, global spending on AML compliance, including operations and technology, will reach a staggering $5.8 billion within the financial sector by 2013.

Overall, the AML compliance burden is expected to expand at a rate of 7.8% annually while global spending on AML software is projected to expand at a rate of 10.4% per year. But what is the motivation behind such a drive? The research firm found that 42% of respondents cited regulatory requirements, and 25% pointed to reputational risk and brand protection as the main driver for AML compliance spending. And in further findings, financial institutions cited the integration of their AML and anti-fraud operations and technologies as a long-term goal.

“Although intuitively attractive, many institutions may find it difficult to build a business case for integrating AML with anti-fraud,” said Neil Katkov, senior vice president for Celent. “Fortunately, the compliance-driven development of modern AML software, analytics and case management has created a new generation technology that can often deliver better results than legacy anti-fraud systems.”

It seems it’s out with the old and in with the new — and expensive — AML

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.