Tag: legal

The Double-Edged Impact of AI Compliance Algorithms on Whistleblowing

As the implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) compliance and fraud detection algorithms within corporations and financial institutions continues to grow, it is crucial to consider how this technology has a twofold effect.

It’s a classic double-edged technology: in the right hands it can help detect fraud and bolster compliance, but in the wrong it can snuff out would-be-whistleblowers and weaken accountability mechanisms. Employees should assume it is being used in a wide range of ways.

Algorithms are already pervasive in our legal and governmental systems: the Securities and Exchange Commission, a champion of whistleblowers, employs these very compliance algorithms to detect trading misconduct and determine whether a legal violation has taken place.

There are two major downsides to the implementation of compliance algorithms that experts foresee: institutions avoiding culpability and tracking whistleblowers. AI can uncover fraud but cannot guarantee the proper reporting of it. This same technology can be used against employees to monitor and detect signs of whistleblowing.

Strengths of AI Compliance Systems:

AI excels at analyzing vast amounts of data to identify fraudulent transactions and patterns that might escape human detection, allowing institutions to quickly and efficiently spot misconduct that would otherwise remain undetected.

AI compliance algorithms are promised to operate as follows:

  • Real-time Detection: AI can analyze vast amounts of data, including financial transactions, communication logs, and travel records, in real-time. This allows for immediate identification of anomalies that might indicate fraudulent activity.
  • Pattern Recognition: AI excels at finding hidden patterns, analyzing spending habits, communication patterns, and connections between seemingly unrelated entities to flag potential conflicts of interest, unusual transactions, or suspicious interactions.
  • Efficiency and Automation: AI can automate data collection and analysis, leading to quicker identification and investigation of potential fraud cases.

Yuktesh Kashyap, associate Vice President of data science at Sigmoid explains on TechTarget that AI allows financial institutions, for example, to “streamline compliance processes and improve productivity. Thanks to its ability to process massive data logs and deliver meaningful insights, AI can give financial institutions a competitive advantage with real-time updates for simpler compliance management… AI technologies greatly reduce workloads and dramatically cut costs for financial institutions by enabling compliance to be more efficient and effective. These institutions can then achieve more than just compliance with the law by actually creating value with increased profits.”

Due Diligence and Human Oversight

Stephen M. Kohn, founding partner of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto LLP, argues that AI compliance algorithms will be an ineffective tool that allow institutions to escape liability. He worries that corporations and financial institutions will implement AI systems and evade enforcement action by calling it due diligence.

“Companies want to use AI software to show the government that they are complying reasonably. Corporations and financial institutions will tell the government that they use sophisticated algorithms, and it did not detect all that money laundering, so you should not sanction us because we did due diligence.” He insists that the U.S. Government should not allow these algorithms to be used as a regulatory benchmark.

Legal scholar Sonia Katyal writes in her piece “Democracy & Distrust in an Era of Artificial Intelligence” that “While automation lowers the cost of decision making, it also raises significant due process concerns, involving a lack of notice and the opportunity to challenge the decision.”

While AI can be used as a powerful tool for identifying fraud, there is still no method for it to contact authorities with its discoveries. Compliance personnel are still required to blow the whistle, given societies standard due process. These algorithms should be used in conjunction with human judgment to determine compliance or lack thereof. Due process is needed so that individuals can understand the reasoning behind algorithmic determinations.

The Double-Edged Sword

Darrell West, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute’s Center for Technology Innovation and Douglas Dillon Chair in Governmental Studies warns about the dangerous ways these same algorithms can be used to find whistleblowers and silence them.

Nowadays most office jobs (whether remote or in person) conduct operations fully online. Employees are required to use company computers and networks to do their jobs. Data generated by each employee passes through these devices and networks. Meaning, your privacy rights are questionable.

Because of this, whistleblowing will get much harder – organizations can employ the technology they initially implemented to catch fraud to instead catch whistleblowers. They can monitor employees via the capabilities built into our everyday tech: cameras, emails, keystroke detectors, online activity logs, what is downloaded, and more. West urges people to operate under the assumption that employers are monitoring their online activity.

These techniques have been implemented in the workplace for years, but AI automates tracking mechanisms. AI gives organizations more systematic tools to detect internal problems.

West explains, “All organizations are sensitive to a disgruntled employee who might take information outside the organization, especially if somebody’s dealing with confidential information, budget information or other types of financial information. It is just easy for organizations to monitor that because they can mine emails. They can analyze text messages; they can see who you are calling. Companies could have keystroke detectors and see what you are typing. Since many of us are doing our jobs in Microsoft Teams meetings and other video conferencing, there is a camera that records and transcribes information.”

If a company is defining a whistleblower as a problem, they can monitor this very information and look for keywords that would indicate somebody is engaging in whistleblowing.

With AI, companies can monitor specific employees they might find problematic (such as a whistleblower) and all the information they produce, including the keywords that might indicate fraud. Creators of these algorithms promise that soon their products will be able to detect all sorts of patterns and feelings, such as emotion and sentiment.

AI cannot determine whether somebody is a whistleblower, but it can flag unusual patterns and refer those patterns to compliance analysts. AI then becomes a tool to monitor what is going on within the organization, making it difficult for whistleblowers to go unnoticed. The risk of being caught by internal compliance software will be much greater.

“The only way people could report under these technological systems would be to go offline, using their personal devices or burner phones. But it is difficult to operate whistleblowing this way and makes it difficult to transmit confidential information. A whistleblower must, at some point, download information. Since you will be doing that on a company network, and that is easily detected these days.”

But the question of what becomes of the whistleblower is based on whether the compliance officers operate in support of the company or the public interest – they will have an extraordinary amount of information about the company and the whistleblower.

Risks for whistleblowers have gone up as AI has evolved because it is harder for them to collect and report information on fraud and compliance without being discovered by the organization.

West describes how organizations do not have a choice whether or not to use AI anymore: “All of the major companies are building it into their products. Google, Microsoft, Apple, and so on. A company does not even have to decide to use it: it is already being used. It’s a question of whether they avail themselves of the results of what’s already in their programs.”

“There probably are many companies that are not set up to use all the information that is at their disposal because it does take a little bit of expertise to understand data analytics. But this is just a short-term barrier, like organizations are going to solve that problem quickly.”

West recommends that organizations should just be a lot more transparent about their use of these tools. They should inform their employees what kind of information they are using, how they are monitoring employees, and what kind of software they use. Are they using detection? Software of any sort? Are they monitoring keystrokes?

Employees should want to know how long information is being stored. Organizations might legitimately use this technology for fraud detection, which might be a good argument to collect information, but it does not mean they should keep that information for five years. Once they have used the information and determined whether employees are committing fraud, there is no reason to keep it. Companies are largely not transparent about length of storage and what is done with this data and once it is used.

West believes that currently, most companies are not actually informing employees of how their information is being kept and how the new digital tools are being utilized.

The Importance of Whistleblower Programs:

The ability of AI algorithms to track whistleblowers poses a real risk to regulatory compliance given the massive importance of whistleblower programs in the United States’ enforcement of corporate crime.

The whistleblower programs at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) respond to individuals who voluntarily report original information about fraud or misconduct.

If a tip leads to a successful enforcement action, the whistleblowers are entitled to 10-30% of the recovered funds. These programs have created clear anti-retaliation protections and strong financial incentives for reporting securities and commodities fraud.

Established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Act, these programs have been integral to enforcement. The SEC reports that whistleblower tips have led to over $6 billion in sanctions while the CFTC states that almost a third of its investigations stem from whistleblower disclosures.

Whistleblower programs, with robust protections for those who speak out, remain essential for exposing fraud and holding organizations accountable. This ensures that detected fraud is not only identified, but also reported and addressed, protecting taxpayer money, and promoting ethical business practices.

If AI algorithms are used to track down whistleblowers, their implementation would hinder these programs. Companies will undoubtedly retaliate against employees they suspect of blowing the whistle, creating a massive chilling effect where potential whistleblowers would not act out of fear of detection.

Already being employed in our institutions, experts believe these AI-driven compliance systems must have independent oversight for transparency’s sake. The software must also be designed to adhere to due process standards.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on AI Compliance and Whistleblowing, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

Supreme Court Says When It Comes to Deciding Arbitration Clauses: “I Am the Law”

On May 23, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that when parties have two conflicting contracts – one that sends disputes to arbitration and one that sends disputes to the courts – a court, not an arbitrator, must decide which contract controls. This decision is important as arbitration provisions continue to rise in popularity and situations like the one the Supreme Court encountered are not uncommon.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase Inc., v. Suski, et. al., stems from a dispute regarding two separate contracts between Coinbase, a leading cryptocurrency exchange platform, and respondents, users of Coinbase. The first contract concerned the Coinbase user agreement, which included an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause. The delegation clause provided that “[a]ll such matters shall be decided by an arbitrator and not by a court or judge.” The second contract concerned the official rules of a sweepstakes Coinbase offered, where respondents entered for a chance to win Dogecoin. The official rules contained a forum selection clause, which provided: “[t]he California courts (state and federal) shall have sole jurisdiction of any controversies regarding the [sweepstakes] promotion and the laws of California shall govern the promotion.” Thus, the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause, which sent all disputes to arbitration, and the official rules’ forum selection clause, which sent all disputes to California courts, provided for different procedural vehicles for disputes.

Respondents brought suit against Coinbase in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for claims under the Coinbase user agreement and the official rules. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration based on the Coinbase user agreement, and the District Court denied the motion, reasoning that deciding which contract governed was a question for the court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari, and was tasked to decide, when two such contracts exist, who should decide the arbitrability of a contract-related dispute between the parties – an arbitrator or the court?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court, began the Court’s analysis by noting that the Supreme Court has “previously addressed three layers of arbitration disputes: (1) merits, (2) arbitrability, and (3) who decides arbitrability. This case involves a fourth: What happens if parties have multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability?”. Justice Jackson wrote that “[b]asic legal principles establish the answer. Arbitration is a matter of contract and consent, and we have long held that disputes are subject to arbitration if, and only if, the parties actually agreed to arbitrate those disputes. Here… a court needs to decide what the parties have agreed to.” So, if there is a contract at dispute without an arbitration clause, even if there is another contract that requires arbitration, the matter will need to be decided by a court.

Coinbase argued that the user agreement’s delegation provision should have been isolated and severed from the contract and the Ninth Circuit should have considered only arguments specific to that provision. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, reasoning that if a party challenges the validity of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court also declined to heed Coinbase’s warning that its ruling would “invite chaos by facilitating challenges to delegation clauses.” To this argument, the Supreme Court replied that such chaos will not follow because disputes with one contract that mandates arbitration will go to arbitration absent a successful challenge, and situations with two contracts – one sending the dispute to arbitration and one sending the dispute to the courts – will be handled by a court.

This is an important decision in the dispute resolution space because it makes clear that even though a company may have an arbitration provision in one contract, that arbitration provision will not necessarily carry the day if there are subsequent contracts that provide for different results. As companies continue to increasingly use arbitration provisions in their contracts, they must be careful to be consistent in any future contracts or agreements.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Kroger Faces Civil Lawsuit Over Calorie Claims on Bread Products

  • The District Attorney’s Offices of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties have filed a civil lawsuit against The Kroger Co. in Santa Barbara Superior Court alleging that Kroger had violated California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws. Kroger operates several grocery stores across California such as Ralph’s, Food 4 Less, and Foods Co.
  • The complaint alleges that, between November 2018 and June 2022, Kroger marketed its CARBmaster Wheat and CARBmaster White breads as containing 30 calories per slice, while the actual calorie content was alleged to contain 50 calories or more. Additionally, the complaint alleges that false CARBmaster calorie counts were displayed on both the front packaging and the Nutrition Facts Panel before June 2022. The complaint further alleged that Kroger persists in misleadingly advertising inaccurate, lower calorie counts on its websites to this day.
  • Ventura County District Attorney, Erik Nasarenko, emphasized the importance of accurate nutritional information for consumer health and the unfair advantage false advertising provides over compliant competitors. “Consumers rely on nutritional information to make important decisions about their personal health and well-being,” he said. “For some consumers, these decisions are based upon medical necessity. False advertising of calories can mislead, or even endanger consumers, and it provides an unfair advantage over competitors who are advertising in compliance with FDA guidelines.”
  • Santa Barbara District Attorney, John Savrnoch, stressed the importance of consumers’ right to accurate product information, particularly caloric content. “Consumers are entitled to accurate information on products, especially caloric information on food items,” he stated. “My office is committed to protecting the public by enforcing the False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, and we are grateful to jointly prosecute this case with the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office.”
© 2024 Keller and Heckman LLP
For more news on the Kroger Bread Lawsuit, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section.

Supreme Court Weakens NLRB’s Ability to Obtain Injunctions in Labor Cases

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that courts must assess requests for an injunction by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) using the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions. The ruling weakens the Board’s ability to obtain quick court orders to maintain the “status quo” in favor of workers in pending labor cases.

Quick Hits

  • The Supreme Court held that federal courts must apply the traditional four-factor equitable test for preliminary injunctions when considering the NLRB’s request for a 10(j) injunction.
  • The ruling found the NRLA does not require courts to defer to the NLRB’s initial findings of a labor violation.
  • The ruling weakens the NLRB’s ability to quickly stop employer actions it alleges are unfair labor practices.

The Supreme Court held that when considering temporary injunction requests under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), courts must apply the traditional equitable four factors as set forth in the high court’s 2008 decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The decision means that courts must consider 10(j) injunction requests under the same equitable principles that they do for other preliminary injunctions without deferring to the NLRB’s determination that an unfair labor practice had occurred.

The unanimous decision comes in a labor dispute in which the trial court issued a preliminary injunction against an employer after applying a two-part test that only asked whether “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred” and whether an injunction is “just and proper.” The injunction was later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The NLRA prohibits employers from engaging in certain unfair labor practices and allows workers to file a charge with the NLRB. The NLRA provides the NLRB with authority to seek a temporary injunction in federal court and Section 10(j) states that courts may “grant the Board such temporary relief … as it deems just and proper.”

However, the Supreme Court held that the NRLA does not strip courts of their equitable powers, and they must apply the traditional four-factor rule as articulated in Winter when considering a request for a 10(j) injunction. Under that rule, a plaintiff must show “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

The Supreme Court rejected the NLRB’s argument that Section 10(j) informs the application of equitable principles and that courts should use a “reasonable cause” standard as applied by the Sixth Circuit in the case. The NLRB had pointed to the context that Congress has given it the authority to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges in the first instance and that courts must give deference to the NLRB’s final decisions.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in the Court’s opinion, stated that the reasonable cause standard “substantively lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring courts to yield to the Board’s preliminary view of the facts, law, and equities.” Justice Thomas stated the fact that the NLRB is the body that will adjudicate unfair labor practice charges on the merits does not mean courts must defer to what amounts to be the NLRB’s initial litigating position. Section 10(j) “does not compel this watered-down approach to equity,” Justice Thomas stated.

In a partial dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed that the NRLA does not strip courts of their equitable powers and that the injunction in the case should be overturned. However, Justice Jackson argued the Court should not ignore the fact that Congress, through the NRLA, granted the NLRB authority over labor disputes.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s ruling raises the bar for the NLRB to seek injunctions by requiring courts to make their own assessment of the equitable factors for issuing preliminary injunctions without deference to the NLRB’s initial findings that an unfair labor practice has occurred. Under the reasonable cause standard, the NLRB merely had to show that its legal theory was not frivolous and that an injunction was necessary to protect the “status quo” pending the NLRB’s proceedings. That standard had allowed the NLRB to quickly put a stop to employer actions that its in-house attorneys believe are labor violations during the pendency of an administrative proceeding on the merits, which could take years to resolve.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more news on the Supreme Court NLRB Ruling, visit the NLR Labor Employment section.

A Tribute to Whistleblowers: Bitcoin Billionaire to pay $40 Million to Settle Tax Evasion Suit

Michael Saylor, the billionaire bitcoin investor, will pay a record $40 million to settle allegations that he defrauded Washington D.C. by falsely claiming he lived elsewhere to avoid paying D.C. taxes. The suit – discussed in of one of our previous blogs – was originally brought by a whistleblower, Tributum, LLC., and the D.C. Attorney General intervened in the lawsuit in 2022. The settlement marks the largest income tax fraud recovery in Washington D.C. history.

Though Saylor claims he has lived in Florida since 2012, the suit alleged that Saylor actually resided in a 7,000-square-foot penthouse, or on yachts docked on the Potomac River in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, the Attorney General alleged that from 2005 through 2021, Saylor paid no income taxes. Saylor first improperly claimed residency in Virginia to pay lower taxes, then created an elaborate scheme to feign Florida residency to avoid income taxes altogether, as Florida has no personal income tax. Court filings state that MicroStrategy, Saylor’s company, submitted falsified documents to prove his residency.

According to a court filing, MicroStrategy kept track of Saylor’s location, and those records show that he met the 183-day residency threshold for D.C., meaning he was obligated to pay income taxes to the District. As we mentioned in our previous blog on the case, the complaint summarizes this tax fraud scheme as “depriv[ing] the District of tens of millions of dollars or more in tax revenue it was lawfully owed, all while Saylor continued to enjoy the full range of services, infrastructure, and other fruits of living in the District.” Despite this, he allegedly made bold claims to his friends, “contending that anyone who paid taxes to the District was stupid,” according to the Attorney General.

About the case, the D.C. Attorney General further stated that “No one in the District of Columbia, no matter how wealthy or powerful they may be, is above the law.” Holding even evasive billionaires accountable is an important part of keeping the integrity of our systems intact and ensuring that we all pay our fair share. Under the District of Columbia False Claims Act , private citizens can report tax evasion schemes , while the federal False Claims Act has a “tax bar,” so tax fraud is not actionable under that law. The IRS Whistleblower program instead offers recourse.

In addition to the $40 million settlement, Saylor has agreed to comply with D.C. tax laws. The amount of the whistleblower award in the case is still being determined, but whistleblowers are entitled to 15-25% of the government’s recovery in a qui tam False Claims Act settlement.

© 2024 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more news on Cryptocurrency Tax Evasion Settlements, visit the NLR Criminal Law & Business Crimes section.

Deep-Sea Mining–Article 1: What Is Happening With Deep-Sea Mining?

Debate continues on whether the UAE Consensus achieved at COP28 represents a promising step forward or a missed opportunity in the drive towards climate neutral energy systems. However, the agreement that countries should “transition away from fossil fuels” and triple green power capacity by 2030 spotlights the need for countries to further embrace renewable power.

This series will examine the issues stakeholders need to consider in connection with deep-sea mining. We first provide an introduction to deep-sea mining and its current status. Future articles will consider in greater detail the regulatory and contractual landscape, important practical considerations, and future developments, including decisions of the ISA Council.

POLYMETALLIC NODULES

Current technology for the generation of wind and solar power (as well as the batteries needed to store such power) requires scarce raw materials, including nickel, manganese, cobalt, and copper. The fact that these minerals are found in the millions of polymetallic nodules scattered on areas of the ocean floor gives rise to another debate on whether the deep-sea mining of these nodules should be pursued.
This issue attracted considerable attention over the summer of 2023, when the International Seabed Authority (ISA) Assembly and Council held its 28th Session and, in January 2024, when Norway’s parliament (the Storting) made Norway the first country to formally authorise seabed mining activities in its waters.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF DEEP-SEA MINERALS: UNCLOS AND ISA

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a comprehensive regime for the management of the world’s oceans. It also established ISA.

ISA is the body that authorises international seabed exploration and mining. It also collects and distributes the seabed mining royalties in relation to those areas outside each nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Since 1994, ISA has approved over 30 ocean-floor mining exploration contracts in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, with most covering the so-called ‘Clarion-Clipperton Zone’ (an environmental management area of the Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and Mexico). These currently-approved contracts run for 15 years and permit contract holders to seek out (but not commercially exploit) polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the deep seabed.

UNCLOS TWO-YEAR RULE AND ISA’S 28TH SESSION

Section 1(15) of the annex to the 1994 Implementation Agreement includes a provision known as the “two-year rule.” This provision allows any member state of ISA that intends to apply for the approval of a plan of work for exploitation of the seabed to request that the ISA Council draw up and adopt regulations governing such exploitation within two years.

In July 2021, the Republic of Nauru triggered the two-year rule, seeking authority to undertake commercial exploitation of polymetallic nodules under license. That set an operative deadline of 9 July 2023.

At meetings of the ISA Assembly and ISA Council in July 2023, the ISA Council determined that more time was needed to establish processes for prospecting, exploring, and exploiting mineral resources, and a new target was set for finalising the rules: July 2025.

The expiration of the two-year rule in July 2023 does allow mining companies to submit a mining license application at any time. However, the above extension gives the ISA Council direct input into the approval process, which will make approval of any application difficult.

NORWAY’S DEEP-SEA MINING PLAN

State legislation regulates deep-sea mining in different EEZs. Norway is one of the only countries that has its own legislation (the Norway Seabed Minerals Act of 2019) regulating the exploration and extraction of deep-sea minerals.

In December 2023, Norway agreed to allow seabed mineral exploration off the coast of Norway, ahead of a formal parliamentary decision. The proposal was voted 80-20 in favour by the Storting on 9 January 2024.

The proposal will permit exploratory mining across a large section of the Norwegian seabed, after which the Storting can decide whether to issue commercial permits.

The decision initially applies to Norwegian waters and exposes an area larger than Great Britain to potential sea-bed mining, although the Norwegian government has noted that it will only issue licenses after more environmental research has been done.

The Norwegian government has defended the plan as a way to seize an economic opportunity and shore up the security of critical supply chains. However, there is concern that this will pave the way towards deep-sea mining around the world. Green activists, scientists, fishermen, and investors have called upon Oslo to reconsider its position. They cite the lack of scientific data about the effects of deep-sea mining on the marine environment, as well as the potential impact on Arctic ecosystems. In November 2023, 120 European Union lawmakers wrote an open letter to Norwegian members of the Storting, urging them unsuccessfully to reject the project, and in February 2024, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution that raised concerns about Norway’s deep-sea mining regulations. This resolution carries no legal power, but it does send a strong signal to Norway that the European Union does not support its plans.

In May 2024, WWF-Norway announced it will sue the Norwegian government for opening its seabed to deep-sea mining. WWF-Norway claim that the government has failed to properly investigate the consequences of its decision, has acted against the counsel of its own advisors, and has breached Norwegian law.

METHODS OF POLYMETALLIC NODULE EXTRACTION

Should Norway, or any other nation, initiate commercial deep-seabed mining, one of the following methods of mineral extraction may be employed:

Continuous Line Bucket System

This system utilises a surface vessel, a loop of cable to which dredge buckets are attached at 20–25 meter intervals, and a traction machine on the surface vessel, which circulates the cable. Operating much like a conveyor belt, ascending and descending lines complete runs to the ocean floor, gathering and then carrying the nodules to a ship or station for processing.

Hydraulic Suction System

A riser pipe attached to a surface vessel “vacuums” the seabed, for example, by lifting the nodules on compressed air or by using a centrifugal pump. A separate pipe returns tailings to the area of the mining site.

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

Large ROVs traverse the ocean floor collecting nodules in a variety of ways. This might involve blasting the seafloor with water jets or collection by vacuuming.

Recent progress has been made in the development of these vehicles; a pre-prototype polymetallic nodule collector was successfully trialed in 2021 at a water depth of 4,500 metres, and in December 2022, the first successful recovery of polymetallic nodules from the abyssal plain was completed, using an integrated collector, riser, and lift system on an ROV. A glimpse of the future of deep-sea ROVs perhaps comes in the form of the development of robotic nodule-collection devices, equipped with artificial intelligence that allows them to distinguish between nodules and aquatic life.

Key to all three methods of mineral extraction is the production support vessel, the main facility for collecting, gathering, filtering, and storing polymetallic nodules. Dynamically positioned drillships, formerly utilised in the oil and gas sector, have been identified/converted for this purpose, and market-leading companies active in deep-water operations, including drilling and subsea construction, are investing in this area. It will be interesting to see how the approach to the inherent engineering and technological challenges will continue to develop.

THE RISKS OF DEEP-SEA MINING

As a nascent industry, deep-sea mining presents risks to both the environment and the stakeholders involved:

Environmental Risks

ISA’s delayed operative deadline for finalising regulations has been welcomed by parties who are concerned about the environmental impact that deep-sea mining may have.

Scientists warn that mining the deep could cause an irreversible loss of biodiversity to deep-sea ecosystems; sediment plumes, wastewater, and noise and light pollution all have the potential to seriously impact the species that exist within and beyond the mining sites. The deep-ocean floor supports thousands of unique species, despite being dark and nutrient-poor, including microbes, worms, sponges, and other invertebrates. There are also concerns that mining will impact the ocean’s ability to function as a carbon sink, resulting in a potentially wider environmental impact.

Stakeholder and Investor Risks

While deep-sea mining doesn’t involve the recovery and handling of combustible oil or gas, which is often associated with offshore operations, commercial risks associated with the deployment of sophisticated (and expensive) equipment in water depths of 2,000 metres or greater are significant. In April 2021, a specialist deep-sea mining subsidiary lost a mining robot prototype that had uncoupled from a 5-kilometer-long cable connecting it to the surface. The robot was recovered after initial attempts failed, but this illustrates the potentially expensive problems that deep-sea mining poses. Any companies wishing to become involved in deep-sea mining will also need to be careful to protect their reputation. Involvement in a deep-sea mining project that causes (or is perceived to cause) environmental damage or that experiences serious problems could attract strong negative publicity.

INVESTOR CONSIDERATIONS

Regulations have not kept up with the increased interest in deep-sea mining, and there are no clear guidelines on how to structure potential deep-sea investments. This is especially true in international waters, where a relationship with a sponsoring state is necessary. Exploitative investments have not been covered by ISA, and it is unclear how much control investors will have over the mining process. It is also unclear how investors might be able to apportion responsibility for loss/damage and what level of due diligence needs to be conducted ahead of operations. Any involvement carries with it significant risk, and stakeholders will do well to manage their rights and obligations as matters evolve.

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
For more news on Deep Sea Mining, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

A Primer for Creditors Navigating the Bankruptcy System

Bankruptcy filings affect businesses across America.

The Bankruptcy Code is complex and difficult to navigate. But used properly, it can help creditors to minimize losses when a customer files bankruptcy. This article will guide you on how to stay out of trouble and improve your chances of getting paid by a bankrupt customer.

What Does the Bankruptcy Filing Mean?

The Bankruptcy system serves three basic purposes: It (i) provides a single forum to deal with the assets and liabilities of an insolvent debtor, (ii) provides the honest, but unfortunate, debtor with a “fresh start,” and (iii) if a debtor chooses to reorganize its debts, it provides a process for saving and preserving the going-concern value of a business.

Bankruptcy has different chapters depending on the debtor’s objectives. Chapter 7 is liquidation. A trustee is appointed to take control of and sell the debtor’s property. Typically, the Customer’s assets will be surrendered to those creditors holding security interests sold by the trustee to generate proceeds for distribution to creditors. Individuals or businesses may file Chapter 7, but only individuals can obtain a discharge of their debts.

Chapter 13 is called the “wage-earner” filing, and it’s available to individuals only. In a Chapter 13, the debtor keeps his or her assets and proposes a three to five-year payment plan. Depending on several factors, including the debtor’s income and available assets and whether you are a secured or unsecured creditor, recovery can vary. Similar to Chapter 7, Chapter 13 has a trustee. But his or her role is to be a monitor and conduit for distributing plan payments to creditors.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a reorganization proceeding available to businesses and wealthier individuals whose debt levels exceed the less burdensome Chapter 13 requirements. Similar to Chapter 13 cases, the Customer will file a plan of reorganization outlining the Customer’s proposal to modify and repay debts. However, in Chapter 11 cases, creditors generally take a more active role in the proceeding and plan approval process to ensure that their rights are preserved and not adversely affected by the Customer’s proposed plan. Once a plan has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court, payments are made pursuant to its terms.

The Automatic Stay

Immediately upon the Customer’s bankruptcy filing, a substantial impact on a creditor’s ability to exercise its rights is imposed. The “automatic stay” provision of the Bankruptcy Code stops creditors in their tracks from virtually any collection activity against Customer, providing Customer with room to reorganize its debts without the threat of collection actions from their creditors.

Any action to collect the balance of the money the Customer owes or to recover the property now under the protection of the Bankruptcy Court is considered a violation of the stay. Similarly, actions to obtain, perfect, or enforce a lien on property of the bankruptcy estate are prohibited. Further, if the Customer files under Chapter 13 and the debt owed is a “consumer debt” (i.e., a debt incurred for personal, as opposed to business, needs), the “co-debtor stay” prevents actions to collect from individuals jointly liable with Customer on that debt, even if they have not filed their own bankruptcy case.

In light of the automatic stay, proceeding with great caution is of the utmost importance. In the event of willful violations of the automatic stay, the Customer may be awarded sanctions against the creditor, including payment of fines, the Customer’s attorneys’ fees, and/or the creditor losing rights in the bankruptcy case itself. If you receive notice that the Customer is seeking sanctions for your violation of the automatic stay, quickly seek the assistance of knowledgeable legal counsel to minimize your exposure.

Payment Rights and Other Remedies

In certain instances, you may be entitled to “relief” from the automatic stay. If relief is granted by the Bankruptcy Court, creditors may proceed with taking those actions initially prohibited at the outset of the bankruptcy case. For example, a creditor may be able to obtain relief and file suit against a non-filing individual that was once protected by the co-debtor stay, in order to preserve its rights and increase the likelihood of payment on the delinquent account.

If it is customary for you to sell goods on credit, and if goods were sold to Customer within 45 days immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing, you may be able to reclaim the goods from the Customer. You may also be entitled to assert an administrative priority claim for the value of any goods sold to Customer in the ordinary course of business during the 20 days immediately preceding the bankruptcy filing. To avail yourself of these options, formalities and procedures must be strictly followed, and quickly, to avoid expiration of your rights.

Some debts may be “non-dischargeable.” In other words, if the creditor can show some exception to the general rule (e.g., debts incurred through fraud, larceny, or embezzlement), the debt will not be discharged, and the Customer will remain responsible to you for repayment at the conclusion of the proceeding. Again, there are strict burdens and time requirements for creditors seeking to have their claims declared non-dischargeable, so creditors should closely monitor those deadlines and discuss with their legal counsel to preserve their rights.

Finally, you can also file a Proof of Claim with the Bankruptcy Court evidencing the debt owed to you by the Customer. Coming as no surprise, this option similarly imposes strict burdens and deadlines on filing requirements. Acting early is advisable, ensuring your claim is recognized, and you are kept abreast of the status of the bankruptcy proceeding. Filing a Proof of Claim does not guaranty repayment but does preserve your right to payment in the case.

Every bankruptcy filing is different, and the underlying facts will impact your rights and influence your overall collection strategy. Proactively seek guidance on proper pre-bankruptcy loss mitigation efforts and understand that all risks of loss cannot be avoided. If a customer does file bankruptcy, act carefully, but quickly to meet deadlines, preserve rights, mitigate losses, and receive payment during the life of the case. The most effective way to do so is by seeking competent legal counsel experienced in navigating the complex and intricate bankruptcy system.

© 2024 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Navigating the Bankruptcy Code, visit the NLR Bankruptcy & Restructuring section.

How to Achieve and Improve Chambers Rankings: A Comprehensive Guide for Law Firms

For law firms and lawyers, a Chambers & Partners ranking is an influential badge of recognition, signifying a firm’s expertise, professionalism and client service. While many firms submit basic information and lackluster, dull matter descriptions, you can distinguish your firm and its lawyers by creating strategic and compelling submissions. Achieving a coveted Chambers ranking requires more than just excellent legal work; it also requires a thoughtful approach. Here’s a guide to crafting a winning Chambers submission.

  • Understand the Criteria: Before you start writing, familiarize yourself with Chambers’ assessment criteria. Understand what they’re looking for in terms of client service, commercial vision, diligence, value for money and depth of expertise. Knowing these criteria will help you tailor your submission to highlight the most relevant aspects of your practice.
  • Be Precise and Relevant: Chambers researchers read countless submissions, so it’s crucial that yours stands out by being clear and concise. Avoid legal jargon and ensure that the information is directly relevant to the category for which you’re applying. Use straightforward language to convey your firm’s strengths and achievements.
  • Highlight Key Matters: Showcase cases that best demonstrate your firm’s expertise and accomplishments. Include a brief description of each matter, outlining the challenge, your approach and the outcome. Ensure client confidentiality by anonymizing sensitive information. Highlighting landmark cases or those involving significant complexities can make your submission more compelling.
  • Demonstrate Consistency: It’s not just about one-off successes. Show that your firm and its lawyers (especially those ones you are putting forth in the submission) consistently deliver results. Highlight any repeat business or long-term clients as evidence of sustained excellence. Consistency in performance and client satisfaction can significantly boost your submission’s strength.
  • Showcase Your Team: Highlight key individuals in your team, detailing their specific contributions, skills, and expertise. Chambers rankings often spotlight individual lawyers within specific practice areas and jurisdictions. Highlighting the strengths of your team members in the introduction sections and matter write-ups can enhance your overall submission. By showcasing the standout qualities and achievements of individual lawyers, you can provide a comprehensive picture of your firm’s capabilities.
  • Proofread and Review: Ensure that your submission is polished and free of errors. Consider having multiple team members review the document for clarity, accuracy and impact. A well-reviewed submission is likely to be more persuasive and professional.
  • Follow Submission Guidelines: Adhere strictly to guidelines and parameters provided by Chambers. This includes word limits, format specifications, number of matters submitted, firm demographic information and of course, deadlines.
  • Be Visible in Your Industry: Feedback from peers is a significant part of the Chambers research process. Staying visible in your industry is crucial. Attend and speak at industry conferences, publish articles and thought leadership pieces, and participate in relevant legal associations and groups. Engaging in these activities not only enhances your visibility but also positions you as an expert in your field, making it more likely that your peers will provide positive feedback during the Chambers research process.
  • Group Matters Around Common Themes: Highlighting your expertise in specific legal areas or developments can strengthen your submission. Group similar cases or matters under common themes or practices, such as recent legal developments or industry trends. This approach showcases your depth of knowledge and specialized skills, helping researchers and clients see the broader impact of your work.

Key Tips for Strong Matter Descriptions

  • Client Anonymity: Ensure you maintain the confidentiality of your clients unless you have explicit permission to name them. Use generic terms like “a major pharmaceutical company” or “a leading financial institution.”
  • Start with Key Points: Begin with a crisp, one-line summary that captures the essence of the matter to grab attention immediately.
  • Detail the Complexity or Significance: Highlight why the matter was particularly challenging or important, such as involving multiple jurisdictions or being precedent-setting.
  • Role of the Firm: Clearly describe the role your firm played, whether as lead counsel or in a supporting role.
  • Legal Expertise: Specify the areas of law involved, showcasing the breadth and depth of your firm’s expertise.
  • Outcome: Briefly describe the outcome, especially if it was favorable for your client, but avoid exaggerations.
  • Value Add: Highlight any additional value your firm provided, such as achieving a swift resolution or reducing potential costs.
  • Avoid Jargon: While the description should display expertise, avoid overly technical language that might alienate readers unfamiliar with specific legal terms.
  • Proofread: Ensure there are no grammatical or factual errors, and that the description is polished and professional.
  • Feedback: Consider getting feedback from colleagues or other professionals to ensure clarity and effectiveness before submitting the description.

How to Get a Lawyer Ranked in Chambers

To get a lawyer ranked in Chambers, focus on the following steps:

  1. Highlight Individual Achievements: In your submission, emphasize the individual lawyer’s key cases, leadership roles and contributions to significant matters. Detail their specific impact and success in these cases.
  2. Client Testimonials: Secure and include strong client testimonials that speak to the lawyer’s expertise, client service and successful outcomes.
  3. Peer Recognition: Ensure the lawyer is visible within the industry through speaking engagements, publications and participation in professional associations. Peer recognition can significantly influence Chambers’ evaluation.
  4. Detailed and Relevant Information: Provide comprehensive and relevant information in the submission, avoiding generic descriptions. Specifics about the lawyer’s contributions and successes will make the submission stand out.
  5. Peer Relationships: Building and maintaining strong peer relationships is essential. Make time for networking, assisting colleagues, and being active in legal communities. Helping others and being a visible, active participant in your industry can lead to positive peer reviews, which are crucial for Chambers rankings.

How Lawyers Can Move Up in Chambers Rankings

To help a lawyer move up in Chambers rankings, consider these strategies:

  1. Consistent Excellence: Demonstrate sustained excellence by highlighting repeat business and long-term client relationships. Show how the lawyer consistently delivers high-quality results.
  2. Professional Development: Encourage continuous professional development and involvement in high-profile matters or industry-leading initiatives. This demonstrates ongoing growth and expertise.
  3. Enhanced Visibility: Increase the lawyer’s visibility through strategic marketing, including thought leadership articles, media appearances and active participation in relevant industry events.
  4. Feedback and Improvement: Utilize feedback from previous Chambers submissions and the Chambers Confidential report to identify areas for improvement. Make necessary adjustments to strengthen future submissions.

Key Takeaways for Crafting a Winning Chambers Submission

A Chambers submission is more than just any other award submission; it’s an opportunity to showcase your firm’s achievements, expertise and dedication to client service. Be concise, relevant and honest in your approach. Tailor your submission to reflect both the category(ies) to which you’re applying and the unique strengths of your firm and its lawyers. Attention to detail, from adhering to guidelines to proofreading, can make the difference between a good submission and a winning one.

Crafting a standout Chambers submission requires effort, but the potential rewards, in terms of recognition and business development, are well worth the investment.

For more on Chambers submission best practices, take a look at these articles:

Copyright © 2024, Stefanie M. Marrone. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Chambers Ranking Best Practices, visit the NLR Law Office Management section.

Navigating the Nuances of LGBTQ+ Divorce in California

The end of a marriage is always challenging for the couple involved, and the impact on family members can be significant. Those in LGBTQ+ marriages are no different. Issues around child custody, property division, spousal support, and the enforcement of prenuptial agreements all apply to same-sex couples.

In California, there is no common-law marriage. In some cases, the LGBTQ+ couple may not have been married long at the time of the divorce, but they may have been together for much longer than the marriage itself. Whether they were registered as a domestic partnership will make a difference. In such cases, the couple will have similar rights and obligations as those married for the same length of time.

For example, in California, if the couple were married four years ago, spousal support—in most cases—would only be for approximately two years. However, if they were registered as domestic partners for 20 years and then had a four-year marriage, spousal support could be until either party’s death or the recipient spouse’s remarriage.

The Unique Challenges Around Parental Rights

Dealing with parental rights is difficult regardless of the orientation of the couple involved. When I advise clients, I try my best to have them focus on the best interests of their children. Divorce is typically the most challenging for the children.

Nuanced complications can arise depending on how the children came into the family. Was it by adoption, surrogacy, or assisted reproductive technology? For LGBTQ+ couples, it is essential that everything is done legally and correctly and that both parents are included in legally binding contracts. In the case of surrogacy or assisted reproductive technology (also known as IVF), mainly when sperm or eggs are donated from someone outside the relationship, it is critically important that the sperm or egg donor has no rights or obligations. Otherwise, things can get murky in a legal sense.

The bottom line is that couples need to secure an excellent lawyer to protect their interests and those of their children. Putting the children first should always be the priority.

Additional Considerations

I have been told that in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly amongst those who identify as men, there can be a preponderance of open relationships. I have been asked if that can complicate a potential divorce. Because California is a no-fault state regarding divorce, it does not matter who sleeps with whom. The only issue is if one person spends community dollars on another person outside the marriage. A relevant factor would be if it were an open marriage and what the understanding of that meant financially and otherwise. Ideally, a couple would document these nuances with their lawyer. Without pre- or post-nuptial agreements addressing such relationship guidelines, spending outside the marriage on another relationship can become a problem during divorce proceedings.

Another question I am often asked is if same-sex couples should seek divorce attorneys who identify as similar to themselves. I can easily see how that might be a comfortable choice. And I do not advocate against it. The most important criterion is the attorney’s skill and if you can relate to them. I know for myself, I am confident I can help my clients, whether they are gay, non-binary, or fluid. My commitment and level of advocacy are always going to be the same.

Concerns over the Future Loom Large

In the past, same-sex couples who married in other states faced the risk that their marriages would not be recognized in another state. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015 required that all states, including California, recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. For those married in California, we are fortunate that LGBTQ+ rights have long been progressive. On the other hand, recent rumbling from the U.S. Supreme Court suggests those protections may be in jeopardy.

I am personally troubled by what some Justices have indicated in dissenting opinions. I remember life before Roe v. Wade and life before Obergfell. I have always been concerned about subsequent elections and the future makeup of our nation’s highest court. Personally, I would hate to see our country go backward on marriage equality.

I have always believed in the institution of marriage. And I am a realist who recognizes that marriages can and do end for a multitude of reasons. It might be surprising to hear a divorce attorney say this, but I would prefer to see couples work things out. But when they cannot, I will be the best advocate for my clients, regardless of how they identify. In the end, divorce is a tricky thing to go through, and whether you are part of a same-sex couple or opposite-sex makes little difference.

© 2024 Blank Rome LLP
For more news on LGBTQ+ Family Law, visit the NLR Family Law / Divorce / Custody section.

New Florida Law Requires HOAs to Adopt Hurricane Protection Measures

Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 293 in an effort to help protect Florida’s single-family homes. Effective immediately, all homeowners associations in the state are mandated to establish hurricane protection specifications along with any other pertinent factors as determined by the association’s board of directors. These specifications should be adopted to ensure a cohesive external appearance for buildings within the HOA – including considerations such as “color and style” – while adhering to relevant building codes and affording exceptional protection to Florida homes.

The primary objective of House Bill 239 is to safeguard the welfare and safety of the state’s residents, as well as to guarantee consistency and uniformity in the implementation of hurricane protection measures by parcel owners. It is imperative to note that, except in cases where violations to these specifications occur, HOAs are prohibited from preventing homeowners from installing or upgrading hurricane protection products. This legislation applies universally to all homeowners associations, regardless of when the community was created.

Hurricane protection products under House Bill 239, include but are not limited to:

  • Roof systems recognized by the Florida Building Code which meet ASCE 7-22 48 standards
  • Permanent fixed storm shutters
  • Roll-down track storm shutters
  • Impact-resistant windows and doors
  • Reinforced garage doors
  • Erosion controls
  • Exterior fixed generators
  • Fuel storage tanks
  • Other hurricane protection products used to preserve and protect the structures or improvements on a parcel governed by the association

Most weather analysts have projected an above average hurricane season for 2024, predicting one of the busier hurricane seasons on record. This increase in activity has been attributed to record warm water temperatures and the influence of La Niña. As such, it underscores the critical importance of proactive measures to safeguard property and ensure the well-being of residents.

It is strongly encouraged that all homeowners associations begin the process of considering the standards for hurricane protection that are right for their communities and adopt a resolution encompassing these guidelines immediately.

© 2024 Varnum LLP
For more news on Protecting Florida Homes during Hurricane Season, visit the NLR Real Estate section.