Posted on

US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Emergency Stay Blocking New COVID-19 Rules

Last Thursday (4 November 2021) we reported on the U.S. DOL’s announcement of new employer COVID-19 vaccine mandates (see US Department of Labor Announces Emergency COVID-19 Employer Requirements .

Yesterday (6 November 2021), a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, granted an emergency stay prohibiting enforcement of the rules for now, saying they raise “grave statutory and constitutional issues.”   The order, temporarily blocks implementation of the new rules and the Court ordered the U.S. Government to file papers by Monday afternoon in an effort to ensure swift consideration of the request to issue an injunction against the vaccine mandate and corresponding testing requirements under the new rules.

Click here to read the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Emergency Stay Order (November 6, 2021).

Stay tuned!

 

Posted on

SEC Adds Chinese Government Interference to Required Risk Reporting

Debbie Klis, a Rimon partner based in Washington, DC, has published a post on the Rimon IM Report noting that just yesterday (26 July 2021) a senior SEC official advised that Chinese companies listed on stock exchanges in the United States, must disclose the potential risks associated with the Chinese government interference as part of their normal reporting requirements.

You can read the entire post Chinese Companies Listed on US Exchanges Must Disclose Potential Risk Associated with Potential Government Interference.

You can also learn more about Debbie and her practice here:  Bio: Debbie A. Klis and if you want to obtain more information, feel free to contact Debbie A. Klis directly. Of course you can always contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or the Rimon Law lawyer with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

“Family Office”? What’s In a Name

The Implosion Heard Around the (Financial Markets) World

What Can We Expect from the Regulators?

– Robin Powers, Partner, Rimon, P.C.

Archegos Capital Management’s collapse last week, and the resulting losses for several global banks, has and will impact financial markets for the foreseeable future. Regulatory efforts will likely focus on the ever-expanding shadow banking sector and shed light on its transparency (or lack thereof) and the risks. Shadow banking is a blanket term to describe financial activities that take place among non-bank financial institutions outside the scope of federal regulators and generally is defined to include family offices. *

Scrutiny of nonbanks was already a priority for Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen after last year’s Treasury market turmoil surrounding hedge funds, dislocations in the repurchase agreement market in 2019, and of course, the GameStop story earlier this year.

The current regulatory examination follows on the heels of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203) (commonly referred to as Dodd-Frank) which overhauled financial regulation in the aftermath of the 2009 financial crisis. Under the Dodd-Frank legislation, family offices won a special carve-out from Congress that allows them to avoid SEC registration if they serve a single family and don’t give investment advice. Family offices made the case to Congress at the time that they only make conservative investments to preserve family wealth and they do not try to beat the markets. And so, despite managing around $10 billion, Archegos is not directly regulated by the SEC because it manages Hwang’s wealth as a single-family office.

CFTC Commissioner Dan Berkovitz said, “The collapse of Archegos Capital Management and the billions of dollars in losses to investors and other market participants is a vivid demonstration of the havoc that errant large investment vehicles called ‘family offices’ can wreak on our financial markets.” He added, “A ‘family office’ has nothing to do with ordinary families. Rather, it is an investment vehicle used by centimillionaires and billionaires to grow their wealth, reduce their taxes, and plan their estates.”

On March 31st U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen led the first meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) under the new Biden administration. The FSOC was scheduled to discuss hedge fund activity and analysts expect it also addressed Archegos.
As calls for closer scrutiny of the shadow banking sector grow louder, we can expect policymakers to revisit systemically important financial institution designations for nonbank financial entities. Being designated as systemically important would allow for tougher regulation and oversight from the Federal Reserve.

Want to know more.  You can always contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, about any posting on Legal Bytes, but if you want to know more about the content of this post or you need assistance, feel free to reach out to Robin Powers directly or any of the Rimon professionals with whom you regularly work.

* Over 10,000 family offices globally manage an estimated $5-15 trillion in assets – larger than the entire hedge fund industry. The largest family offices operate like sophisticated investment firms, but they don’t have the same oversight. Unlike hedge funds, family offices do not have to disclose their assets, bank relationships, and other operational information.
Posted on

NYS Power of Attorney Legislation

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has signed legislation amending New York State’s law relating to power of attorney forms.  The legislation makes granting, using and understanding a power of attorney simpler and removes much of the complexity traditionally associated with individual powers of attorney in New York.  Under the previous statute, these forms could be invalidated on technicalities if the exact wording of the statute wasn’t followed. Furthermore, often the form was not easy to put into effect – especially if you didn’t have a lawyer there to help the grantor understand what they were signing and the powers they were agreeing to grant. A hardship to many vulnerable nursing home and assisted living residents – especially during this pandemic.

While understanding the implications and legal effect of granting a power of attorney is still an essential ingredient to effectiveness and enforcement, the new law, Chapter 323 of the 2020 Session Laws, becomes effective 180 days from December 15, 2020.  What’s changed?

  • The new law modifies the prior requirement of “exact wording” in the “Caution to the Principal” and “Important Information for the Agent” sections of a power of attorney. Although those sections are still required, the ‘exact language’ requirement has been replaced with a “substantially conforms” standard – making it less likely that innocuous and immaterial technical differences will invalidate the power;
  • The new legislation creates a presumption in favor of the validity of the power of attorney form and expressly provides that anyone accepting an acknowledged power of attorney with no actual knowledge the signature isn’t genuine, may rely on the presumption the signature is, in fact, genuine;
  • Although the unwillingness or inability of an agent to provide an opinion of counsel or certification is grounds to refuse to honor a power of attorney, if a third party has a good faith belief the power is valid and has no knowledge that it isn’t valid or the agent doesn’t have the authority for a particular act, they can now feel comfortable honoring the power of attorney in reliance on the agent’s authority. In fact, the new law allows a judge to impose penalties (including attorneys’ fees) if an institution unreasonably refuses to accept a presumptively valid power of attorney form;
  • One other welcome benefit of the new law. The statutory gifts rider has been eliminated and the authority to make gifts above “standard amount” is to be included in a modifications section in the power of attorney itself. If there is no gifting language in the modification, the authority to make gifts is now $5,000 in any calendar year (up from the previous $500).

To many, welcome and long overdue changes to the power of attorney law in New York State. You can read the amended version of the legislation that was signed by the Governor of New York State here:  NYS Power of Attorney Legislation.

As always, if you have questions about anything in this post, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Rimon lawyers with whom you regularly work.

 

Posted on

California CPRA – CCPA 2.0

On Election Day in California, voters will not only be determining choices among candidates standing for election, but they will also be deciding the fate of Proposition 24, referred to as the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).  Proposition 24 is intended to build upon the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) that came into force at the beginning of 2020. Among other things, the CPRA would create a California Privacy Protection Agency, a new regulatory agency that would ultimately take over privacy enforcement responsibility from the Office of the California Attorney General.

Among the areas that would be affected by the CPRA would be a clear ban on discrimination against anyone choosing to ask a company to delete their information and opt-out of marketing communications, stronger rights to prevent data sharing by companies (e.g., cross-context behavioral advertising), clearer mechanisms to enable consumers to correct information that is not accurate and a requirement that companies tell consumers how long they plan to retain the information.

Proposition 24 would also legitimize marketing and promotional schemes that offer consumers a discount or access to benefits in exchange for voluntarily disclosing personally identifiable information (e.g., in the context of rewards or loyalty programs).  Privacy and data protection proponents and opponents have long debated whether consumers should have an option to pay for privacy – viewed as a logical consequence of offering benefits in exchange for information that can be used for marketing and promotional purposes.

Since the CCPA came into force, companies have already been scrambling to comply.  If Proposition 24 passes and CCPA 2.0 comes into force, companies will again have to review and likely revamp their policies and practices to deal with the added new compliance obligations. Just as significantly, a separate California Consumer Privacy Agency would likely end up brining many more enforcement actions since protecting the privacy rights of California consumers will be its only mission.  Proponents of Proposition 24 say that may well be a good thing for California consumers, but they also argue that an agency solely focused on data protection will also mean more clarity, consistency and guidance surrounding some of the nuances of the California requirements.

Stay tuned. Election day is only a week away.

Posted on

Swiss-US Privacy Shield

In July, we reported that the EU Court had invalidated the viability of the US-EU Privacy Shield (EU Invalidates the Privacy Shield . . BUT Says Contracts May Save the Day!).  A few weeks ago (September 8, 2020), the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC) also decided to remove the United States from a list of nations that are considered to be providing “adequate level of data protection.”

Unlike the EU Court’s decision, decision by the Swiss FDPIC does not automatically invalidate the applicability of the Privacy Shield, because the list of countries on or off the list is technically not legally binding. That said, if your company is relying on the Swiss-US Privacy Shield to continue to transfer data from Switzerland to the United States, it would not be prudent to assume these transfers will continue to be viewed as complying with the adequate protection standards under Swiss law.  It seems to make sense to re-assess the risks and start relying on corporate policies and regulations, as well as legally binding contract clauses to ensure they are consistent with Swiss data protection law.

Even when the company policies and contract provisions are properly constructed, there still remains the risk that even these protections may be considered inadequate.  For example, if local authorities have the right to obtain the data without safeguards and legal protections consistent with those required under Swiss regulation, the transfer may be considered in contravention of Swiss law.  Similarly, if the entity to which the data is being transferred is not legally obligated, for any reason, to cooperate with the enforcement requirements that may apply under Swiss law this too creates a problem.  While encryption technology exists that can ensure no personal data can become available in another country, that approach only makes sense for pure storage capability (e.g., cloud based storage) but NOT if the data is intended to be used, displayed or otherwise handled in another nation.

While further guidance and information may ultimately be promulgated by the FDPIC, at present, a review of current procedures and data transfers, the exercise of caution and consideration of implementing additional steps to deal with this development in Switzerland, as with the EU Court decision, seems to be a prudent course of action.

At Rimon Law, our professionals are available to answer question about these developments, so feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the Rimon lawyers with whom you regularly work for information about this or any other matters.

Posted on

EU Invalidates the Privacy Shield . . BUT Says Contracts May Save the Day!

Today (July 16, 2020), the EU Court of Justice, (the EU’s highest court) struck down the validity of the Privacy Shield – a mechanism that well over 5,000 U.S. companies have been using and relying upon in order to legally justify the transfer of personal data across the Atlantic into the US.  This same court had previously invalidated the “Safe Harbor” protocol, concluding the Safe Harbor failed to adequately protect privacy rights of EU citizens, since it accorded law enforcement in the United States priority over the rights of EU citizens – permitting law enforcement virtually unrestricted access to the data.

This new case began when Max Schrems, an Austrian privacy advocate, complained to Irish data protection regulators that Facebook’s reliance on standard contract clauses to permit data being transferred from the European Union to the United States did not provide adequate protection. Schrems argued that it didn’t prevent intelligence officials and other third parties in the United States from getting at the information. The Commissioner at the Irish Data Protection Authority took the complaint to Ireland’s high court and they referred certain questions regarding the validity of standard contractual clauses to the EU Court of Justice. Although Schrems’ complaint never raised the Privacy Shield issue, it was raised in oral argument before the court, opening the door for the court to include it in their opinion and decision.

While the European Court invalidated the Privacy Shield, it didn’t buy Schrems’ argument that standard contractual clauses should be deemed invalid as a matter of EU law or regulation. They basically said that standard contract clauses could be among the “effective mechanisms” if they required both sides involved in the transfer to ensure information is accorded the equivalent level of protection as required under EU law. They went on to note that the parties should not use those clauses if they can’t comply with that requirement.

As a result, while neutering the Privacy Shield, they did uphold the validity of the use of standard contractual clauses to legally move personal information outside the European Union, if these clauses were effective in providing the same level of privacy protection as the EU requires.

The case is Between the Data Protection Commissioner and Facebook Ireland Ltd. and Maximillian Schrems (Case Number C-311/18) and as always, if you have any questions or need more information about this posting, feel free to contact me, Joe Rosenbaum, or any of the lawyers at Rimon with whom you regularly work.

Posted on

Warning Against COVID-19 Claims and more . . .

On April 24, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it had sent warning letters to 10 multi-level marketing companies regarding claims they or their participants (distributors) were making in social media posts and online related to COVID-19.
The claims included supposed health benefits, as well as pitching business opportunities related to the pandemic. You can read the announcement and obtain more detailed information at FTC Sends Warning Letters to Multi-Level Marketers Regarding Health and Earnings Claims They or Their Participants are Making Related to Coronavirus. These new letters come on the heels of letters previously sent to companies about unsupported claims concerning products that can treat or prevent coronavirus (FTC, FDA Send Warning Letters to Seven Companies about Unsupported Claims that Products Can Treat or Prevent Coronavirus).

The FTC and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) have sent scores of warning letters to companies that may be violating federal law by making deceptive or scientifically unsupported claims about the ability of these products to treat or cure coronavirus. Warning letters have also been sent to voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service providers and other companies warning against “assisting and facilitating” illegal coronavirus-related telemarketing calls.

You can visit the FTC Coronavirus Warning Letters to Companies web page to see a list of warning letters related to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The FTC also keeps track of consumer complaints related the pandemic and updates the data regularly.  As of yesterday, there were almost 30,000 COVID-19 related consumer complaints, and although less than 50% of all these complaints report a loss, the estimated fraud losses based on those that do is now well over $20,000,000.  For the latest statistics, visit Coronavirus (COVID-19) Consumer Complaint Data, which the FTC updates regularly.

The FTC and the Department of Justice have also issued a joint statement expressing their views on unfair competition and antitrust laws and regulations to make it clear, especially in these extraordinary times of crisis, how firms (including competitors) are permitted to engage in pro-competitive collaboration that does not violate the antitrust laws.  You can read the statement at Joint Antitrust Statement Regarding COVID-19.

Rimon lawyers continue to follow these and related developments applicable to the Paycheck Protection Program and other government initiatives available through the SBA and related to the COVID-19 pandemic. For more information or assistance you can contact me, Joe Rosenbaum or any of the Rimon lawyers with whom you regularly work.  Stay safe!!

 

 

 

Posted on

Paycheck Protection Program & Disaster Relief Loan Information Released (Updated)

Following up on our post yesterday (US Chamber of Commerce Issues Coronavirus Small Business Guide), you can find the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Information Sheet for Lenders and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Application Form (and accompanying instructions) just released by the US Small Business Administration.

The SBA has established a streamlined process for disaster loan assistance that you can access online at COVID-19 ECONOMIC INJURY DISASTER LOAN APPLICATION.

As noted previously, the lawyers at Rimon Law are following these developments closely and while you may already be deluged with summaries, information bulletins and alerts, we are and remain available to help any time across a broad spectrum of businesses, industries, relationships, activities and transactions that have been affected by the COVID-119 pandemic.

 

Posted on

US Dept. of Labor Issues FFCRA Guidance

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division released its initial guidance providing information describing how to take advantage of the protections and relief offered by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) which takes effect April 1, 2020. The guidance includes links to information for employees and employers, as well as links to questions and answers and other useful information about the FFCRA.  The DOL has a separate Coronavirus Resources webpage, providing a large number of references and links to additional information.

The US DOL has also released an FFCRA Poster that every covered employer must post in a conspicuous place on its premises, although the guidance does allow an employer to satisfy this requirement by emailing or directly mailing the notice to employees or by posting the notice on an employee information internal or external website.  Although there is no legal requirement at this time to post the notice in other languages, DOL is currently working on translating the notice.

The legal professionals at Rimon are available to help and as always, if we can’t help you – especially in these challenging times – we will assist you in finding someone who can!  Stay safe and following the recommendations of your national, state, provincial and local authorities to keep yourself, your family, colleagues and friends healthy and prevent the spread of this infection.