Tag: Regulatory

Swiss National and Former Energy Executive Criminally Charged Under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)

Katten Muchin

In an illustration of the extraterritorial reach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Alain Riedo, a Swiss citizen and the general manager of Maxwell Technologies S.A. (Maxwell), a Swiss subsidiary of a US public company, was criminally charged with violating anti-bribery, book and records, and internal control provisions of the FCPA. According to the indictment filed in the Southern District of California, Riedo, along with unidentified co-conspirators and agents, allegedly conspired to, and made, corrupt payments to Chinese government officials and falsely recorded those payments on Maxwell books and records in an effort to retain business, prestige and increased compensation. Riedo worked for Maxwell, which manufactured and sold high-voltage/high-tension capacitors (HV/HT) in several countries, including China. From October 2002 through May 2009, Riedo allegedly conspired with a senior officer of the US parent company, a manager of the Swiss subsidiary and a Chinese national acting as Maxwell’s agent, and caused up to $2 million in bribes to be paid to Chinese government officials in order to obtain HV/HT sales contracts. According to the indictment, the bribery scheme entailed giving prospective customers quotes for HV/HT sales at prices that included a “secret mark-up” of approximately 20 percent. Invoices were prepared reflecting the marked-up prices and the agent in China kicked back the marked-up portion to employees at Chinese state-owned electric utility manufacturers. The indictment alleges that Riedo falsely recorded the inflated payments in Maxwell books, records and accounts as “commissions, sales expenses, or consulting fees.” Thereafter, Riedo allegedly electronically transmitted this erroneous financial information to Maxwell’s parent company in California, which resulted in errors in the parent’s publicly filed consolidated financial statements and other Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including false sub-certifications of the financials.

Riedo—who, according to the indictment, was separated from the company shortly after the alleged conspiracy ended—faces nine counts. No charges were filed against the companies. In fact, the indictment alleges that Riedo and the Chinese agent subverted the corporate compliance program by falsely representing in an internal FCPA questionnaire that they were not aware of any FCPA violations.

United States v. Alain Riedo, No. 13-cr-3789 JM (S.D. Cal. October 15, 2013).

Article By:

 of

Business and Economic Incentives Primer

Womble Carlyle

Competition among jurisdictions to recruit and retain companies is intense. To attract business to their communities, both state and local governmental authorities will often offer discretionary economic incentives for projects that generate substantial tax revenues or create significant employment opportunities. Companies requiring new or larger facilities or facing lease expirations for their existing operations should assess whether they might qualify for an “incentives package” from the various jurisdictions they are considering for their projects. The potential benefits will typically vary depending upon the project’s key capital expenditures, job creation potential and the company’s corresponding wage parameters and associated commitments. Companies with potentially qualifying projects should evaluate how to best leverage their unique strengths to negotiate all available incentive benefits and to maximize those benefits once they are secured.

Business and economic incentives are the tax, cash and in-kind benefits offered by state and local governments to induce a company to relocate to a new community or remain in its existing jurisdiction primarily to create or retain jobs and increase tax revenue. Incentives help businesses mitigate upfront capital and ongoing operating costs for its required projects. Tax incentives include a variety of income and sales/use tax credits, exemptions, reductions and abatements. These can also include other tax-related investment incentives, such as investment and tax credits, research and development tax incentives, and accelerated depreciation of industrial equipment. The Enterprise Zone (EZ), a special kind of tax incentive program (also known as Empowerment Zones and Empowerment Communities), has been used by the federal government and even more widely by many states.

Cash incentives include monetary grants, reimbursements of transportation or infrastructure costs and other financial incentives including alternative financing subsidies. One of the most common benefits in this category is the Industrial Development Bond (IDB) that is used by jurisdictions to offer low-interest loans to firms. A variation on the IDB is the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts that are used by many states. A TIF allows governments to float bonds to help companies based on their anticipated future tax impact. In-kind incentives include expedited permitting by the state, county and local municipality and customized worker training programs. Some jurisdictions also offer other in-kind benefits such as watered-down environmental regulations and “right to work” laws that inhibit union organizing. Some states also have federal grant monies they are empowered to allocate towards different programs and projects depending on a project’s possible “public” infrastructure needs and other specific criteria.

In offering incentives, cities and counties are typically driven more by investments that increase the tax base while states focus more on jobs that pay above average wages. Some jurisdictions will provide incentives only for manufacturing projects or for specific statutory lists of facilities such as manufacturing, distribution facilities, air cargo hubs, multimodal facilities, headquarters facilities and data centers. Other states will not provide incentives for retail or hospitality facilities. In general, cities and counties have more flexibility than states in the kinds of projects for which they will provide incentives. Some states have wage tests and require that health care insurance and benefits be provided at the employer’s cost or that at least a portion of the cost be subsidized.

Whether for a corporate expansion or relocation, it is critical for a company to initiate its incentive identification and negotiation efforts early in the site-selection process for its project. Specifically, to achieve the greatest negotiating leverage, a company should begin the pursuit of economic incentives at the same time it is are undertaking its site selection efforts, since it is at this point in the process that competition readily exists between the cities, counties and/or states interested in enticing the company to relocate or remain in their jurisdictions. Since the success of this process is, in part, dependent upon “competing” the relevant state and local jurisdictions, it is important for a company to make it clear to all who are acting for the company that no decision or no public announcement may be made about the company’s plans until the company has evaluated all relevant factors.

To begin the process, a company should form a project team that will work with various economic development representatives from the relevant jurisdictions to achieve the optimal incentives package. The project team should develop a formal incentives negotiation strategy that would include some if not all of the following components:

  • Identifying and analyzing all incentive opportunities available for the project.
  • Determining the company’s short and long term capital and operating costs as well as job creation estimates.
  • Preparing a preliminary “incentives” pro forma.
  • Outlining the plan for securing the incentives and evaluating the related commitments that will be necessary from the company.
  • Identifying and integrating important components of the company’s corporate culture into the negotiation requests and strategy.
  • Determining the essential needs of the project to be included as the non-negotiable points of the company’s business case.
  • Defining the “business case” for why a jurisdiction would benefit from the company’s relocation to that state/county, such as tax (income and sales) revenues to be generated and the jobs to be created by the company.
  • Identifying how to formulate the most productive partnership between the company and the community.
  • Determining how to work creatively within the state and local framework.
  • Considering the use of a third party economic impact study to create an effective business case showing the jurisdiction how to fund the incentives.

A company that is well positioned to benefit from business and economic incentives should engage a seasoned professional who has a successful track record in achieving incentive benefits from the jurisdictions relevant to its business. Working in coordination with the governmental authorities, the right advisor can assist the company in establishing timelines for critical dates, administering applications to secure the incentives, and obtaining formal jurisdictional approvals to ensure compliance is implemented and negotiated incentives are realized. The advisor will also participate, as requested, in presentations for internal and governmental board approval and provide ongoing information and updates to the company during key phases of the incentive pursuit process.

After the final incentives package has been negotiated, the company and the jurisdiction will prepare and negotiate the required incentives agreements and then pursue the formal final governmental approvals. Public relations personnel for the company and the governmental authority are typically involved at this stage to prepare supporting media releases and project announcements. Once all necessary approvals are obtained, the company must establish internal documentation and processes to satisfy the compliance requirements to realize the negotiated incentives, which typically takes the form of a compliance manual.

Business and economic incentives can be valuable tools for a company to reduce costs, increase savings and manage risks as they pursue a signature lease transaction, building acquisition or facility development. To achieve the optimal result, the incentives process must be carefully managed from inception to completion, toward the ultimate goal of creating a meaningful partnership between the company and the community in which the company will conduct its business.

This article originally was published in the August 2013 edition of “Focus on WMACCA,” the newsletter of the Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association. 

This article was written with Scott R. Hoffman with Cushman & Wakefield.

Article By:

 of

Investment Management Legal and Regulatory Update – October 2013

GK_Logo_Full-Color (CMYK)

SEC Issues Guidance Update for Investment Companies that Invest in Commodity Interests and Announces New Risk and Examinations Office

The staff of the Division of Investment Management has issued a Guidance Update that summarizes the views of the Division regarding disclosure and compliance matters relevant to funds that invest in commodity interests. The staff also announced the creation of a Risk and Examinations Office within the Division of Investment Management that will accompany the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) on exam visits.

Disclosure of Derivatives and Associated Risks. Any principal investment strategies disclosure related to derivatives should be tailored specifically to how a fund expects to be managed and should address those strategies that the fund expects to be the most important means of achieving its objectives and that it also anticipates will have a significant effect on its performance. In determining the appropriate disclosure, a fund should consider the degree of economic exposure the derivatives create, in addition to the amount invested in the derivatives strategy. This disclosure also should describe the purpose that the derivatives are intended to serve in the portfolio (e.g., hedging, speculation, or as a substitute for investing in conventional securities), and the extent to which derivatives are expected to be used. Additionally, the disclosure concerning the principal risks of the fund should similarly be tailored to the types of derivatives used by the fund, the extent of their use, and the purpose for using derivatives transactions.

Prior Performance Presentation. A newly registered fund that invests in commodity interests and that includes in its registration statement information concerning the performance of private accounts or other funds managed by the fund’s adviser is responsible for ensuring that such information is not materially misleading. Specifically, a fund that includes the performance of other funds or private accounts should generally include the performance of all other funds and private accounts that have investment objectives, policies, and strategies substantially similar to those of the fund.

Legend Requirement. Rule 481 under the Securities Act requires a fund to provide a legend on the outside front cover page that indicates that the SEC has not approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the disclosure in the prospectus and that any contrary representation is a criminal offense. The staff will not object if a fund that invests in commodity interests includes in the legend language that also indicates that the CFTC has not approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the disclosure in the prospectus.

Compliance and Risk Management. Day-to-day responsibility for managing a fund’s portfolio, including any commodity interests and their associated risks, rests with the fund’s investment adviser. In addition, the fund’s board generally oversees the adviser’s risk management activities as part of the board’s oversight of the adviser’s management of the fund. The staff expects that funds and their advisers would adopt policies and procedures that address, among other things, consistency of fund portfolio management with disclosed investment objectives and policies, strategies, and risks.

Each fund should have in place policies and procedures that are sufficient to address the accuracy of disclosures made about the fund’s use of derivatives, including commodity interests, and associated risks, as well as consistency of the fund’s investments in these derivatives with the fund’s investment objectives. For example, these policies and procedures should be reasonably designed to prevent material misstatements about a fund’s use of derivatives, including commodity interests, and the associated risks.

New Risk and Examinations Office. The update notes that a Risk and Examinations Office has recently been created within the Division of Investment Management to analyze and monitor the risk management activities of investment advisers, investment companies, the investment management industry and new products. The group will work closely with OCIE to make onsite visits to investment management firms.

Source: SEC Division of Investment Management Guidance, August 2013, 2013-05.

SEC Approves Registration Rules for Municipal Advisors

State and local governments that issue municipal bonds frequently rely on advisors to help them decide how and when to issue the securities and how to invest proceeds from the sales. Prior to passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, municipal advisors were not required to register with the SEC. This left many municipalities relying on advice from unregulated advisors. After the Dodd-Frank Act became law, the SEC established a temporary registration regime for municipal advisors that prohibited any municipal advisor from providing advice to, or soliciting, municipal entities or other covered persons without being registered. More than 1,100 municipal advisors have since registered with the SEC. The SEC recently adopted final rules that establish a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors.

Registered municipal advisors will also likely be subject to additional new regulation from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). In September 2011, the MSRB withdrew several rule proposals pertaining to municipal advisors pending adoption by the SEC of a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors. Among the proposals was a rule regulating political contributions by municipal advisors. The MSRB had previously indicated that it would resubmit the withdrawn rule proposals once a final definition of the term “municipal advisor” was adopted by the SEC.

Proposed Rule

In 2010, the SEC proposed a rule governing the permanent registration process. The proposal defined “municipal advisor” broadly and would have required municipal advisor registration of appointed board members of municipalities and people providing investment advice on all public funds. The SEC received more than 1,000 comment letters on the proposal, most of which raised concerns about the broad reach of the proposal.

Final Rule

The final rule requires a municipal advisor to register with the SEC if it:

  • provides advice on the issuance of municipal securities or about certain “investment strategies” or municipal derivatives; or
  • undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person.

The rule clarifies who is and is not a “municipal advisor” and offers guidance on when a person is providing “advice” for purposes of the municipal advisor definition. The rule exempts employees and appointed officials of municipal entities from registration and limits the type of “investment strategies” that will result in municipal advisor status. Additionally, instead of the proposed approach that would have required individuals associated with registered municipal advisory firms to register separately, the final rule requires firms to furnish information about these individuals.

Defined Terms

Advice. A person is providing “advice” to a municipal entity or an “obligated person” based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, including whether the advice:

  • involves a recommendation to a municipal entity;
  • is particularized to the specific needs of a municipal entity; or
  • relates to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities.

Advice, however, does not include providing certain general information.

An “obligated person” is an entity such as a non-profit university or non-profit hospital that borrows the proceeds from a municipal securities offering and is obligated by contract or other arrangement to repay all or some portion of the amount borrowed.

Investment Strategies. A person providing advice to a municipal entity or an “obligated person” with respect to “investment strategies” only has to register if such advice relates to:

  • the investment of proceeds of municipal securities;
  • the investment of municipal escrow funds; or
  • municipal derivatives.

Exemptions from the Municipal Advisor Definition

The following persons conducting the specified activities would not be required to register as a municipal advisor:

Registered Investment Advisers. Registered investment advisers and associated persons do not have to register if they provide investment advice in their capacities as registered investment advisers, such as providing advice regarding the investment of the proceeds of municipal securities or municipal escrow investments.

This exemption does not apply to advice on the structure, timing, and terms of issues of municipal securities or municipal derivatives. The SEC considers advice in these areas as outside the focus of investment adviser regulation.

Independent Registered Municipal Advisor. Persons who provide advice in circumstances in which a municipal entity has an independent registered municipal advisor with respect to the same aspects of a municipal financial product or issuance of municipal securities do not have to register, provided that certain requirements are met and certain disclosures are made.

Banks. Banks do not have to register to the extent they provide advice on certain identified banking products and services, such as investments held in deposit accounts, extensions of credit, funds held in a sweep account or investments made by a bank acting in the capacity of bond indenture trustee or similar capacity.

This exemption does not apply to banks that engage in other municipal advisory activities, such as providing advice on the issuance of municipal securities or municipal derivatives, in part because municipal derivatives were a source of significant losses by municipalities in the financial crisis.

Underwriters. Brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers serving as underwriters do not have to register if their advisory activities involve the structure, timing and terms of a particular issue of municipal securities.

Registered Commodity Trading Advisor. Registered commodity trading advisors and their associated persons do not have to register if the advice they provide relates to swaps.

Swap Dealers. Registered swap dealers do not have to register as municipal advisors if they provide advice with respect to swaps in circumstances in which a municipal entity is represented by an independent advisor.

Public Officials and Employees. Public officials do not have to register to the extent that they are acting within the scope of their official capacity. This exemption addresses an unintended consequence of the proposed rule that generated significant public comment and created the impression that public officials and municipal employees would be covered if they provided “internal” advice.

This exemption covers persons serving as members of a governing body, an advisory board, a committee, or acting in a similar official capacity as an official of a municipal entity or an obligated person. For instance, it covers:

  • members of a city council, whether elected or appointed, who act in their official capacity; and
  • members of a board of trustees of a public or private non-profit university acting in their official capacity, where the university is an obligated person by virtue of borrowing proceeds of municipal bonds issued by a state governmental educational authority.

Similarly, this exemption covers employees of a municipal entity or an obligated person to the extent that they act within the scope of their employment.

Attorneys. Attorneys do not have to register if they are providing legal advice or traditional legal services with respect to the issuance of municipal securities or municipal financial products.

This exemption does not apply to advice that is primarily financial in nature or to an attorney representing himself or herself as a financial advisor or financial expert on municipal advisory activities.

Accountants. Accountants do not have to register if they are providing accounting services that include audit or other attest services, preparation of financial statements, or issuance of letters for underwriters.

Registration Forms

The final rule requires municipal advisory firms to file the following through EDGAR:

  • Form MA to register as a municipal advisor; and
  • Form MA-I for each individual associated with the firm who engages in municipal advisory activities.

The temporary registration regime will remain in place until December 31, 2014. The new rule requires municipal advisors to register on a staggered basis beginning July 1, 2014. The expiration date of the temporary rules will be extended in order to allow municipal advisors to continue to remain temporarily registered during the staggered compliance period.

Sources: SEC Approves Registration Rules for Municipal Advisors, SEC Press Release 2013-185 (September 18, 2013); Registration of Municipal Advisors, SEC Release No. 34-70462 (September 18, 2013).

SEC Eliminates the Prohibition on General Solicitation and General Advertising in Certain Private Offerings to Accredited Investors

As we reported in our July Client Alert, the SEC amended Regulation D to implement a Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act) requirement to lift the ban on general solicitation and general advertising for certain private offerings.

JOBS Act

Congress passed the JOBS Act in 2012, which directed the SEC to remove the prohibition against general solicitation and general advertising for securities offerings relying on Rule 506, provided that sales are limited to accredited investors and an issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that all purchasers are accredited investors.

While issuers will be able to widely solicit and advertise for potential investors, the JOBS Act required the SEC to adopt rules that “require the issuer to take reasonable steps to verify that purchasers of the securities are accredited investors, using such methods as determined by the Commission.” In other words, there is no restriction on who an issuer can solicit, but an issuer faces restrictions on who is permitted to purchase its securities.

Rule 506(c)

The addition of 506(c) to the existing Rule 506 permits issuers, including hedge funds and other private funds, to use general solicitation and general advertising to offer their securities provided that:

  • all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors (as defined in Rule 501);
  • the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the investors are accredited investors;
  • all other conditions of the Rule 506 exemption are met; and
  • Form D is completed and the box is checked indicating that Rule 506(c) is being relied upon.

Verification of Accredited Investor Status

Under the new rules, the issuer will need to take reasonable steps to verify that each investor is accredited. Whether the steps taken are “reasonable” will be a principles-based determination by the issuer, in the context of the particular facts and circumstances of each purchaser and transaction. The SEC noted that the issuer should consider the nature of the purchaser and the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering; and the terms of the offering, such as a minimum investment amount.

In response to comments received with respect to the SEC’s original rule proposal, the amendment to Rule 506 also includes a non-exclusive list of methods that issuers may use to verify that purchasers are accredited investors. The methods described in the final rule include the following:

  • Verification of Income. Review IRS forms filed for last two years and obtain a written representation of expected income for the current year.
  • Verification of Net Worth. Review documentation related to assets (bank and brokerage statements, CDs and independent appraisal reports) and liabilities (credit reports).
  • Third Party Verification. Obtain a written confirmation that a person is an accredited investor from a broker-dealer, investment adviser, attorney or CPA.
  • Existing Accredited Security Holder. For any investor who invested in an issuer’s prior Rule 506 offering as an accredited investor and remains an investor, obtain a written certification (at the time of a Rule 506(c) sale) that he or she still qualifies as an accredited investor.

Preservation of Existing Rule

The existing provisions of Rule 506 as a separate exemption are not affected by the final rule. Issuers conducting Rule 506 offerings without the use of general solicitation or general advertising can continue to conduct securities offerings in the same manner and aren’t subject to the new verification rule.

Form D

In connection with these changes, Form D has been amended to require issuers to indicate whether they are relying on 506(c), which permits general solicitation and advertising in a Rule 506 offering.

The rule amendments became effective September 23, 2013.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings, SEC Release No. IA-3624 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Adopts Rule to Disqualify “Bad Actors” from Rule 506 Offerings

The SEC recently approved amendments to Rule 506 to set forth the “bad actor” (commonly known as “bad boy”) provisions that could disqualify issuers from relying on the rule. The Dodd-Frank Act directed the SEC to adopt the amendments in order to prevent issuers from relying on the Rule 506 safe harbor if certain “bad actors” were involved in the offering.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC approved disqualifications under Rule 506 that are substantially similar to the disqualifications found in other securities regulations. Persons covered by the bad boy provisions include: issuers; directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners or managing members of issuers; beneficial owners of 20% or more of the issuer’s voting equity securities; investment managers to an issuer that is a pooled investment fund and directors, executive officers, other officers participating in the offering, general partners or managing members of the investment manager; promoters connected with the issuer; persons compensated for soliciting investors as well as the directors, officers, general partners or managing members of any compensated solicitor. The disqualifying events include:

  • securities-related criminal convictions;
  • securities-related court injunctions and restraining orders;
  • final orders of a state securities commission, state insurance commission, state or federal bank, savings association or credit union regulator or the CFTC barring an individual from association with regulated entities or from engaging in securities, insurance or banking business or finding a violation of any law pertaining to fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive conduct;
  • SEC disciplinary orders relating to brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, investment advisers and investment companies and their associated persons;
  • SEC cease-and-desist orders related to violations of certain anti-fraud provisions and registration requirements of the federal securities laws;
  • suspension or expulsion from membership in, or suspension or bar from associating with a member of, a securities self-regulatory organization; and
  • SEC stop orders pertaining to the filing of a registration statement or the suspension of an exemption.

Reasonable Care Exception. Under this exception, an issuer would not lose the benefit of the Rule 506 safe harbor if it can show that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a covered person with a disqualifying event participated in the offering.

Disclosure of Pre-Existing Disqualifying Events. Disqualification applies only for disqualifying events that occur after September 23, 2013, the effective date of this rule. Matters that existed before the effective date of the rule and would otherwise be disqualifying are subject to a mandatory disclosure requirement to investors.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Disqualification of Felons and Other Bad Actors from Rule 506 Offerings, SEC Release No. 33-9414 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Proposes Amendments to Private Offering Rules (Regulation D and Form D)

In partial response to the many comments that the SEC received with respect to its proposed JOBS Act amendments to Rule 506, the SEC recently proposed the following amendments to the private offering rules.

Advance Notice of Sale. Under the proposal, issuers that intend to engage in general solicitation as part of a Rule 506 offering would be required to file the Form D at least 15 calendar days before engaging in general solicitation for the offering. Also, within 30 days of completing an offering, issuers would be required to update the information contained in the Form D and indicate that the offering has ended.

Additional Information about the Issuer and the Offering. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to provide additional information such as:

  • types of general solicitation used;
  • methods used to verify accredited investor status;
  • publicly available website;
  • controlling persons;
  • industry group;
  • asset size;
  • breakdown of investor types (accredited/non-accredited and natural person/entity) and amounts invested; and
  • breakdown of use of proceeds.

Disqualification. Under the proposal, an issuer would be disqualified from using the Rule 506 exemption in any new offering if the issuer or its affiliates did not comply with the Form D filing requirements in a Rule 506 offering.

Legends and Disclosures. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to include certain legends or cautionary statements in any written general solicitation materials used in a Rule 506 offering. The legends would be intended to inform potential investors that the offering is limited to accredited investors and that certain potential risks may be associated with such offerings.

In addition, if the issuer is a private fund and includes information about past performance in its written general solicitation materials, it would be required to provide additional information in the materials to highlight the limitations on the usefulness of this type of information. The issuer also would need to highlight the difficulty of comparing this information with past performance information of other funds. The proposal also requests public comment on whether other manner and content restrictions should apply to written general solicitation materials used by private funds.

Submission of Written General Solicitation Materials to the SEC. Under the proposal, issuers would be required to submit written general solicitation materials to the SEC through an intake page on the SEC website. Materials submitted in this manner would not be available to the general public. As proposed, this requirement would be temporary, expiring after two years.

Guidance to Private Funds about Misleading Statements. In its current form, Rule 156 under the Securities Act provides guidance on when information in mutual fund sales literature could be fraudulent or misleading for purposes of the federal securities laws. Under the proposal, the rule would be amended to apply to the sales literature of private funds.

Comments on the proposal originally were due on September 23, 2013. However, “in light of the public interest,” the SEC re-opened the comment period until October 30, 2013.

Sources: SEC Approves JOBS Act Requirement to Lift General Solicitation Ban, Commission Also Adopts Rule to Disqualify Bad Actors from Certain Offerings and Proposes Rules to Enable SEC to Monitor New Market and Bolster Investor Protections, SEC Press Release 2013-124 (July 10, 2013); Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156, SEC Release No. IC-30595 (July 10, 2013).

SEC Charges Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability

The SEC charged an investment adviser and its former owner for misleading a mutual fund’s board of directors about the firm’s ability to conduct algorithmic currency trading so the board would approve the adviser’s contract to manage the fund.

The case arises out of an initiative by the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit to focus on the “15(c) process” – a reference to Section 15(c) of the Investment Company Act that requires a fund’s board to annually evaluate the fund’s advisory agreements. Advisers must provide the board with truthful information necessary to make that evaluation.

“It is critical that investment advisers provide truthful information to the directors of the registered funds they advise,” said Julie M. Riewe, Co-Chief of SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit. “Both boards and advisers have fiduciary duties that must be fulfilled to ensure that a fund’s investors are not harmed.”

The SEC’s Enforcement Division alleged that Chariot Advisors LLC and Elliott L. Shifman misled the fund’s board about the nature, extent, and quality of services that the firm could provide. In two presentations before the board, Shifman misrepresented that his firm would implement the fund’s investment strategy by using a portion of the fund’s assets to engage in algorithmic currency trading. Chariot fund’s initial investment objective was to achieve absolute positive returns in all market cycles by investing approximately 80% of the fund’s assets under management in short-term fixed income securities, and using the remaining 20% to engage in algorithmic currency trading.

According to the SEC’s order instituting administrative proceedings, Chariot Advisors did not have an algorithm capable of conducting such currency trading. This was particularly significant because in the absence of an operating history the directors focused instead on Chariot Advisors’ reliance on models when the board evaluated the advisory contract. Even though Shifman believed that the fund’s currency trading needed to achieve a 25 to 30% return to succeed, Shifman allegedly did not disclose to the board that Chariot Advisors had no algorithm or model capable of achieving such a return.

The SEC alleges that for at least the first two months after the fund was launched, Chariot Advisors did not use an algorithm model to perform the fund’s currency trading as represented to the board, but instead hired an individual trader who was allowed to use discretion on trade selection and execution. According to the order, the trader used a technical analysis, rules-based approach for trading that combined market indicators with her own intuition.

The SEC further alleges that the misconduct by Shifman and Chariot Advisors caused misrepresentations and omissions in the Chariot fund’s registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and viewed by investors.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the order are true and whether any remedial sanctions are appropriate.

Sources: SEC Charges North Carolina-Based Investment Adviser for Misleading Fund Board About Algorithmic Trading Ability, SEC Press Release 2013-162 (August 21, 2013); In the Matter of Chariot Advisors, LLC and Elliott L. Shifman, Investment Company Act Release No. 30655 (August 21, 2013).

Article By:

of

A Quick Reminder Regarding Complaints in the Workplace

barnes

Last year we reported on a landmark EEOC decision where the Agency concluded that discrimination against transgender individuals is actionable under Title VII. In that case, the EEOC held that Title VII prohibits an employer from taking adverse action based on the fact an employee/applicant fails to “adhere” to gender-based expectations or norms. It remains to be seen whether courts will agree with the EEOC’s position, but the decision appears to suggest that the argument may be viable in some jurisdictions.

There’s another angle to this issue, though: Can an employer be held liable for Title VII retaliation stemming from a complaint alleging transgender harassment? The biggest hurdle a Plaintiff will face in this context is whether the complaint amounts to “protected activity” under Title VII. Generally speaking, an employee can establish that she engaged in “protected activity” for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim by demonstrating a “reasonable belief” that a violation of the statute occurred. This is true regardless of whether the underlying conduct amounts to actionable discrimination and/or harassment. A clever Plaintiffs’ attorney could conceivably point to the EEOC’s decision and argue that his or her client held a “reasonable belief” that a complaint regarding transgender-based harassment was protected activity under Title VII (and the adverse employment action was somehow linked to that complaint).

Bottom line: Even a “routine” complaint of unfair treatment can form the basis of a retaliation claim down the line. That being said, employers must be certain to thoroughly investigate all workplace complaints, regardless of how petty they may seem.

Article By:

 of

New Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Rules to Protect Telephone Consumers from Autodial/Robocalls

Lewis & Roca

On October 16, 2013, new Federal Communication Commission rules took effect to further protect consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). See 47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. The changes ordered by the FCC are designed to protect consumers from unwanted autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls, also known as “telemarketing robocalls.” The new TCPA rules accomplish four main things: (1) require prior written consent for all autodialed or pre-recorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines; (2) require mechanisms to be in place that allow consumers to opt out of future robocalls even if during the middle of a current robocall; (3) limit permissible abandoned calls on a per-calling campaign basis in order to discourage intrusive calling campaigns; and (4) exempt from TCPA requirements calls made to residential lines by health care related entities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. None of the FCC’s actions change the requirements for prerecorded messages that are non-telemarketing, informational calls such as calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt organizations, calls for political purposes, and calls for other non-commercial purposes including those to people in emergency situations.

Under the FCC’s new rules, “prior written consent” will require two things: a clear and conspicuous disclosure that by providing consent the consumer will receive auto-dialed or prerecorded calls on behalf of a specific seller, and a clear an unambiguous acknowledgement that the consumer agrees to receive such calls at the mobile number. The content and form of consent may include an electronic or digital form of signature such as the FTC has recognized under the E-SIGN Act. See Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. However, prior written consent may be terminated at any time. In addition, the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.” 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(v)(A)(ii).

Read the full rule here.

Article By:

To Track or Not to Track Re: Digital Advertising

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Digital advertising based on tracking users’ interests and related privacy concerns have been the subject of many recent news articles.  What does this mean for businesses?  Evolving industry practices and new legislation relating to online privacy and user tracking likely require changes to online privacy practices and policies.

Online privacy and user tracking are in the news almost daily.  Consider these highlights from the past few weeks about online tracking of California minors, big data brokers, California legislation addressing “do not track,” new mobile and online interest-based advertising technology, and a warning to all website operators from the Better Business Bureau:

New Privacy Rights for California Minors

On September 23, 2013, Governor Brown signed into law new Sections 22580 through 22582 of the California Business and Professions Code titled “Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World.”  The new law, which goes into effect January 1, 2015, requires an operator of a website (including online services and applications, such as a social media site) or mobile application that is “directed to minors” to allow minors (defined as anyone younger than 18 years old residing in California) who are registered users the opportunity to un-post or remove (or request removal of) their posted online content.  The operator also must provide minors with notice and “clear instructions” about how to remove their posted content.  The operator is not, however, required to remove posted content in certain specific circumstances, such as when the content was posted by a third party.

This new law also prohibits website and mobile app operators from advertising to California minors certain products and services that minors cannot legally purchase, such as alcoholic beverages, firearms, ammunition, spray paint, tobacco products, fireworks, tanning services, lottery tickets, tattoos, drug paraphernalia, electronic cigarettes, “obscene matter” and lethal weapons.  Operators also are prohibited from using, disclosing or compiling certain personal information about the minor for the purpose of marketing these products or services.

Senator Rockefeller Expands Investigation of Data Brokers

On September 25, 2013, Governor Rockefeller (W.VA) announced that he sent letters to 12 operators of popular family-, health- and personal-finance-related consumer websites requesting details about whether and what information collected from consumers is shared with data brokers.  In his letter to the operator of self.com, for example, Rockefeller noted that “[w]hile some consumers may not object to having their information categorized and used for marketing purposes, before they share personal information it is important that they know it may be used for purposes beyond those for which they originally provided it.”

California Adds Do-Not-Track Disclosure Requirements Effective January 1, 2014

On September 27, 2013, California Governor Brown signed into law amendments to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), a 2004 law requiring all commercial websites and online service providers collecting personally identifiable information about California residents to “conspicuously” post a “privacy policy.”  The amendments to CalOPPA, which take effect on January 1, 2014, add two new disclosure requirements for privacy policies required by CalOPPA:

  • The privacy policy must explain how the website “responds to ‘Do Not Track’ signals from web browsers or other mechanisms that provide California residents the ability to exercise choice” about collection of their personally identifiable information (Cal Bus and Prof Code §22575(b)(5)).
  • The privacy policy must disclose whether third parties use or may use the website to track (i.e., collect personally identifiable information about) individual California residents “over time and across third-party websites” (Cal Bus and Prof Code §22575(b)(6)).

The “Bill Analysis” history indicates that CalOPPA amendments are not intended to “prohibit third-party or any other form of online tracking” but rather to “implement a uniform protocol for informing Internet users about tracking . . . and any options they may have to exercise choice . . .” (6/17/13 – Senate Judiciary).

A website operator may meet the “do not track” disclosure requirement by including a link in the privacy policy to “an online location containing a description, including the effects, of any program or protocol the operator follows that offers the consumer that choice” (Cal Bus and Prof Code §22575(b)(7)).

The reference in §22575(b)(7) to “an online location” suggests that businesses already complying with the “enhanced notice link” requirements of the Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising of the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) will comply with amended CalOPPA.  Among other requirements, the DAA’s self-regulatory program requires website owners/operators (called “First Parties”) to provide “clear, meaningful and prominent” disclosure about data collection and use for advertising purposes, and to offer consumers a way to opt out of tracking, such as through the DAA’s consumer choice page.  As noted in the Bill Analyses, while the DAA’s consumer choice mechanism enables consumers to opt out of receiving advertising based on online tracking data, it only works for companies that participate in the DAA’s program and “does not allow consumers not to be tracked.”

User Credentials Subject to California Breach Laws Effective January 1, 2014

Governor Brown also signed into law amendments to California’s breach notification laws on September 27, 2013.  As amended, the definition of “personal information” that triggers breach notification requirements includes consumers’ online credentials: “user name or email address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.”

Mobile Advertising: Mobile Telephone as Tracking Device

In the October 6, 2013, edition of the New York Times, an article titled “Selling Secrets of Phone Users to Advertisers” describes sophisticated profiling techniques for mobile phone users that feed on data collected through partnerships with other various online service providers.  These companies are developing alternatives for cookies, which do not work on mobile devices and, as the new California law illustrates, are increasingly irrelevant as an online tracking technique because users can block or delete them.

New Tracking Technology from Microsoft and Google

On October 9, 2013, AdAge reported that Microsoft is developing a new kind of tracking technology to replace cookies.  The new technology would function as a “device identifier,” allowing user tracking across devices that use Microsoft Windows, Xbox, Internet Explorer, Bing and other Microsoft services.  Similarly, USA Today reported that Google is developing its own digital tracking mechanism known as “AdID.”  While both of these new trackers will be used to collect and aggregate date for advertising and marketing purposes, they purportedly will offer users more control over how and what online activity is tracked and who has access to their personal data.

Better Business Bureau Issues Compliance Warning to Website Operators

On October 14, 2013, the Better Business Bureau issued a Compliance Warning noting that a “significant minority of website operators” are omitting the “enhanced notice link” (as required by the DAA’s Self-Regulatory Program for Online Behavioral Advertising) when ad networks and other third parties collect data for interest-based advertising purposes but cannot provide their own notice on the website on which the data collection occurs.  The Better Business Bureau operates the Online Interest-Based Advertising Accountability Program, through which it monitors businesses’ advertising practices and enforces the DAA’s self-regulatory program, even for companies that are not participating in it.

All of this news has created consumer confusion.  While consumers are increasingly aware of being tracked, they don’t know what exactly it means or which websites are doing it—and they are not happy about it.  A study from data privacy company TRUSTe found that 80 percent of consumers are aware of being tracked and 52 percent don’t like it.

What to Do?

A check-up for the privacy policy (or “privacy statement,” which is the increasingly popular industry term) posted on your company’s website is a good way to start evaluating your company’s digital advertising and privacy practices.  The online privacy statement is the primary means by which website operators (also known as “publishers”) communicate their privacy practices to users.

These Four steps can help you successfully evaluate your company’s privacy statement:

First, find out if your company’s marketing strategy includes advertising based on consumer information collected through cookies or other tracking technology.  Even if this type of advertising is not part of current plans, your company’s website still may have third-party tracking activities occurring on it, and these activities must be disclosed in the privacy statement as of January 1, 2014.

Second, review the privacy statement displayed on your company’s website(s) and/or mobile application(s) and make sure it accurately, clearly and completely discloses the information collected from users, how it is collected (e.g., by your company or by third parties), how your company uses the information, and whether and how the information is disclosed to third parties.  If you use information that you collected from consumers for targeted advertising, make sure the privacy statement says so.  A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently reviewed a company’s online privacy policy to evaluate whether users reading the privacy policy would understand that they were agreeing to allow user profiles and targeted advertising based on the contents of their e-mails.  The court found that the lack of specificity in the company’s privacy policy about e-mail interception meant that users could not and did not consent to the practices described in the online privacy policy.

Third, find out when and how the privacy statement is or was presented to users who provide personal information through the company website(s) and/or mobile application(s).  Is the privacy statement presented as a persistent link in the footer of each webpage?  Are users required to agree to the privacy statement?  If not, consider implementing a mechanism that requires users to do so before providing their personal information.

Finally, if your privacy statement needs to be updated, make sure you notify all consumers in advance and ensure that the changes you propose are reasonable.  Unreasonable and overbroad changes made after the fact can cause reputational harm.  Instagram learned this at the end of 2012 when it tried to change its terms of service so that users’ photos could be used “in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to [the user].”  After a hail of consumer complaints, Instagram withdrew the revised terms and publicized new, more reasonable ones.

Article By:

of

Government Shutdown Now Over – But What About Sequestration?

DrinkerBiddle

The government may be back up and running and funded under a short-term continuing resolution (CR), but the battle is far from over as Congress heads toward new deadlines to address budgetary matters.  There has been some confusion about what the current budget agreement means in terms of sequestration’s annual cuts to discretionary and mandatory programs instituted in 2012.  The law signed by the President to address the short-term continuing resolution and temporarily raise the debt ceiling does not provide federal agencies flexibility to administer new sequestration cuts at this time.  With the government spending levels remaining at FY 2013 levels for the duration of the CR, a new round of sequester cuts are not set to kick in until January 2014.

The law established a short-term budget conference committee, with a set deadline of Dec. 13, 2013 to outline recommended spending levels and program cuts.  Of note is that the committee deadline is set in advance of when the second year of the sequester will begin.  The deadline provides a window of opportunity for the new budget conferees to address how the sequester cuts are applied in FY 2014.   The conferees may contemplate making other adjustments to entitlement programs (Medicare and Medicaid) to address health care spending issues that will be negotiated during their deliberations.  In addition, Medicare payments to physicians are set to be cut by approximately 25 percent if Congress does not address the cut by December 31, 2013 and offset the cut with a payfor that would likely include cuts to other health care entities. Any of these negotiations and decisions, if ultimately accepted by Congress, could impact the size of the Medicare sequester cuts in January FY 2014.

Article By:

 of

A Tip For Dealing with Automatic Gratuities in 2014

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

A new Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“) rule, set to take effect in January 1, 2014, may eliminate a common practice in the restaurant industry. Often, an automatic gratuity, normally 18%, is added to the bill of large parties. Automatic gratuities were adopted by restaurant employers as a means for ensuring that servers do not get stiffed on expensive bills. Servers heavily rely on tips to supplement a salary that is often times lower than the federal minimum wage.

Traditionally, automatically-added gratuities have been classified as employee tips. As such, it is up to the employees to report the money as income. Starting in January, automatic gratuities will be categorized as “service charges” – making them regular wages and subject to payroll tax withholdings. Employers will have to track and report any automatic tips and will be required to include the “service charge” payments in employees’ W-2 wages. Further, employers will no longer be able to count these tips as a credit to reduce their minimum wage obligation. It is a lose-lose situation because servers will not see their automatic gratuity money until payday; making it more difficult to survive on a small salary.

Many major chains, like Olive Garden and Red Lobster, have eliminated automatic gratuities in response to the approaching deadline. For restaurants that opt to keep the automatic gratuity system, payroll accounting will become much more complicated. Tips from automatic gratuities will have to be factored into hourly pay rates, which means hourly rates could vary based on how many large parties are served in any given hour.

It would be wise for smaller restaurants to follow the chain restaurants’ lead by eliminating automatic gratuities altogether. Doing so will not only to lessen compliance requirements and tax burdens, but will also keep employees happy by ensuring that the tips they earn can immediately be pocketed.

Article By:

 of

Government Shutdown Aftermath: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Under Pressure to Finalize Medicare Payment Rules

MintzLogo2010_Black

  • Because of the prolonged government shutdown, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may encounter delays in promulgating final payment rules that would otherwise be effective January 1, 2014.
  • It is reasonable to expect that CMS will miss the November 1, 2013 statutory deadline to publish final rules due to the staff shortage from the shutdown as well as the complexity of many significant rule changes that were proposed earlier this year.
  • There is precedent for delaying the effective date of an entire payment rule to allow for the proper 60-day notice and comment period, and there are cases where only portions of a rule that represent significant changes have been delayed.
  • Providers should assess whether CMS has taken the requisite time to properly account for stakeholder input through the comment process, and, if not, they should identify possible remedies.

Despite the short-term resolution to the government budget and debt-ceiling “crisis,” health care providers serving approximately 50 million Medicare beneficiaries may be waiting longer than usual this year to see what rates they will be paid in 2014 as a result of the government shutdown. Any delay is likely to cause great angst amongst providers, including physicians, hospitals, laboratories, and post-acute care facilities such as home health agencies, whose livelihood depends to a significant degree on the terms of annual reimbursement rules. These include the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS), the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (HOPPS), the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) and the Home Health Prospective Payment System (HHPPS).

As we noted prior to the government shutdown, over three quarters of the staff at CMS, the federal agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, are subject to a furlough. Most of the remaining staff are funded through non-annual discretionary appropriations, such as those who are working to implement the health care marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act. Therefore, even though the government reopened on October 17, 2013, the likelihood that CMS and other executive branch offices will finalize a series of important 2014 Medicare payment rules by the November 1st statutory deadline is becoming increasingly doubtful.

Much depends on the progress executive branch officials had already made on specific payment rules before the shutdown, on how fast staff are able to ramp up now that it is over (for the time being), and on competing priorities and deadlines for the Administration. Adding to the complexity of finalizing the payment rules this year, CMS had proposed numerous significant changes that could greatly impact reimbursement for calendar year 2014. Some of the most significant changes that were proposed in earlier rulemaking include:

Home Health Prospective Payment System
  • Responding to this proposed rule, industry stakeholders have been vocal in their concerns over portions of the proposed rule, which imposes a 14% reduction in Medicare home health funding by means of the maximum allowable rebasing adjustment of 3.5% each year from 2014 to 2017. In comments submitted to the agency, numerous stakeholders from the home health sector specified methodological flaws in the rule including that it was drafted using outdated data and the wrong base year; its impact was only analyzed for 2014 even though it applies to 2014-2017; and that it failed to include an adequate small business impact analysis per the Regulatory Flexibility Act – in fact, the Small Business Administration has expressed concern with the proposed HHPPS rule.
Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System
  • Collapsing Outpatient Visits: Collapsing 20 hospital clinic visits, Type A emergency department (ED) and Type B ED visit codes into 3 new codes – one for each type of visit.
  • Packaging: Identifying seven new categories of items and services whose costs will be packaged into payment for other services to which they are integral, ancillary or supportive, including, among others, radiation oncology, clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, and drugs, biologicals, and radiopharmaceuticals that function as supplies when used in a diagnostic test or procedure.
  • New Cost Centers: Using distinct cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) for cardiac catheterizations, CT scans and MRIs to calculate OPPS payment weights – a change which represents significant cuts to CT and MRI reimbursement (approx. 26% and 11%, respectively).
Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
  • New National Limitation Amounts (NLAs) that will govern reimbursement for over 100 tier 1 molecular pathology codes, covering genetic testing ranging from cancers to rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis.
Physician Fee Schedule
  • Cuts in reimbursement for independent laboratories (-26%), radiation therapy centers (-13%), diagnostic testing facilities (-7%), radiation oncology (-5%), pathology (-5%), and interventional radiology (-4%), among others.
  • Capping for certain services in the PFS at the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) or Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) rates for 2013.
  • Revisions to the Medicare Economic Index (MEI) that could cut reimbursement for diagnostic testing facilities, portable x-ray suppliers, and radiation therapy centers.

Legal Background for Payment Rule Timing

Various laws and executive orders govern when a Medicare payment rule must be posted for public comment, the required length of time of the notice and comment process, and when the final rule is to become effective.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) normally requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of a rule. Furthermore, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) generally requires an agency to delay the effective date of a major rule by 60 days in order to allow for congressional review of the agency action. Finally, in order to receive the proper stakeholder input, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires CMS to provide a 60-day notice and comment period before promulgating a rule. Thus, CMS has a statutory deadline of November 1, 2013 if it wants to have an effective date of January 1, 2014 for a Medicare payment rule.

A comment period of at least 60 days is the default under Executive Order 12866, § 6(a)(1) (Sept. 30, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended by Exec. Orders 13258 (Feb. 26, 2002) and 13422 (Jan. 18, 2007) (providing that “each agency should afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days”).

If CMS finds good cause to waive the delay in the effective date of a final rule because the delay is unnecessary, impractical, or contrary to the public’s interest, or the statute permits waiving the delay, the final rule may become effective upon publication.

A History of Delays

CMS regularly misses the November 1 deadline, and in some cases the final rule is published in late November. In certain instances, CMS has delayed the effective date of a payment rule to account for the 60-day notice and comment period as well as the 30-day minimum effective date requirement. For example, for the CY 2003 PFS, CMS delayed the effective date from January 1 to March 3 after publishing the final rule on December 31, 2002. During the last government shutdown in 1995, CMS published the CY 1996 PFS on December 8th and retained an effective date of January 1, 1996 for the overall rule, but extended comments for new or revised payment codes until Feb 6th. The agency has used similar processes for other payment rules, such as the CY 2008 HOPPS rule that extended the comment period until the end of January for certain codes that were significantly changed.

Recent history seems to indicate that if the rules are delayed into December, there is a small, albeit infrequently used, possibility that rules/codes that are significantly changed may have a delayed comment and effective date. However, CMS has also ignored such deadlines in the past and, through a variety of methods, has been able to justify shorter notice and comment periods and effective dates less than 60 days from original publication.

Conclusion

It is reasonable to believe that due to the government shutdown and ensuing staff shortage, CMS could incur significant delays in publishing Medicare final payment rules, in some cases until well after the “standard” statutory November 1st deadline. While CMS has extended notice/comment periods and effective dates, it has done so rarely and only when delays relate to significant substantive changes made in the rules. Because a series of complex and economically significant changes to reimbursement rates and rules has been proposed for 2014, stakeholders should work to ensure that CMS provides adequate time for consideration of industry input via notice and comment in compliance with the spirit and letter of the law.

Article By:

of

California Enacts New Data Privacy Laws

Sheppard Mullin 2012

As part of a flurry of new privacy legislation, California Governor Jerry Brown signed two new data privacy bills into law on September 27, 2013: S.B. 46 amending California’s data security breach notification law and A.B. 370 regarding disclosure of “do not track” and other tracking practices in online privacy policies. Both laws will come into effect on January 1, 2014.

New Triggers for Data Security Breach Notification

California law already imposes a requirement to provide notice to affected customers of unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, personal information in certain circumstances. S.B. 46 adds to the current data security breach notification requirements a new category of data triggering these notification requirements: A user name or email address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.

Where the information subject to a breach only falls under this new category of information, companies may provide a security breach notification in electronic or other form that directs affected customers to promptly change their passwords and security questions or answers, as applicable, or to take other steps appropriate to protect the affected online account and all other online accounts for which the customer uses the same user name or email address and password or security question or answer. In the case of login credentials for an email account provided by the company, the company must not send the security breach notification to the implicated email address, but needs to provide notice by one of the other methods currently provided for by California law, or by clear and conspicuous notice delivered to the affected user online when the user is connected to the online account from an IP address or online location from which the company knows the user ordinarily accesses the account.

Previously, breach notification in California was triggered only by the unauthorized acquisition of an individual’s first name or initial and last name in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the name or the data elements are unencrypted: social security number; driver’s license or state identification number; account, credit card or debit card number in combination with any required security or access codes; medical information; or health information. S.B. 46 not only expands the categories of information the disclosure of which may trigger the requirement for notification, it also—perhaps unintentionally—requires notification of unauthorized access to user credential information even if that information is encrypted. Thus, S.B. 46 significantly expands the circumstances in which notification may be required.

New Requirements for Disclosure of Tracking Practices

A.B. 370 amends the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA) to require companies that collect personally identifiable information online to include information about how they respond to “do not track” signals, as well as other information about their collection and use of personally identifiable information. The newly required information includes:

  • How the company responds to “do not track” signals or other mechanisms that provide consumers the ability to exercise choice over the collection of personally identifiable information about their online activities over time and across third-party websites or online services, if the company collects such information; and
  • Whether third parties may collect personally identifiable information about a consumer’s online activities over time and across different websites when a consumer uses the company’s website.

These disclosures have to be included in a company’s privacy policy. In order to comply with the first requirement, companies may provide a clear and conspicuous hyperlink in their privacy policy to an online description of any program or protocol the company follows that offers the user that choice, including its effects.

It’s important to note that the application of CalOPPA is broad. It applies to any “operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California who use or visit its commercial Web site or online service.” As it is difficult to do business online without attracting users in technologically sophisticated and demographically diverse California, these provisions will apply to most successful online businesses.

What to Do

In response to the passage of these new laws, companies should take the opportunity to examine their data privacy and security policies and practices to determine whether any updates are needed. Companies should review and, if necessary, revise their data security breach plans to account for the newly added triggering information as well as the new notification that may be used if that information is accessed. Companies who collect personally identifiable information online or through mobile applications should review their online tracking activities and their privacy policies to determine whether and what revisions are necessary. The California Attorney General interprets CalOPPA to apply to mobile applications that collect personally identifiable information, so companies that provide such mobile apps should remember to include those apps in their review and any update.

Article By:

 of