The National Law Forum

Triggers That Require Reporting Companies to File Updated Beneficial Ownership Interest Reports

On January 1, 2024, Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 and its annual National Defense Authorization Act. Every entity that meets the definition of a “reporting company” under the CTA and does not qualify for an exemption must file a beneficial ownership information report (a “BOI Report”) with the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Reporting companies include any entity that is created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe (this includes corporations, LLCs, and limited partnerships).

In most circumstances, a reporting company only has to file an initial BOI Report to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. However, when the required information reported by an individual or reporting company changes after a BOI Report has been filed or when either discovers that the reported information is inaccurate, the individual or reporting company must update or correct the reporting information.

Deadline: If an updated BOI Report is required, the reporting company has 30 calendar days after the change to file an updated report.

What triggers an updated BOI Report? There is no materiality threshold as to what warrants an updated report. According to FinCEN, any change to the required information about the reporting company or its beneficial owners in its BOI Report triggers a responsibility to file an updated BOI Report.

Some examples that trigger an updated BOI Report:

Any change to the information reported for the reporting company, such as registering a new DBA, new principal place of business, or change in legal name.
A change in the beneficial owners exercising substantial control over the reporting company, such as a new CEO, a sale (whether as a result of a new equity issuance or transfer of equity) that changes who meets the ownership interest threshold of 25%, or the death of a beneficial owner listed in the BOI Report.
Any change to any listed beneficial owner’s name, address, or unique identifying number provided in a BOI report.
Any other change to existing ownership information that was previously listed in the BOI Report.

Below is a reminder of the information report on the BOI report:

(1) For a reporting company, any change to the following information triggers an updated report:
- Full legal name;
- Any trade or “doing business as” name;
- A complete current address (cannot be a post office box);
- The state, territory, possession, tribal or foreign jurisdiction of formation; and
  TIN.
(2) For the beneficial owners and company applicants, any change to the following information triggers an updated report:
- Full legal name of the individual;
- Date of the birth of the individual;
- A complete current address;
- A unique identifying number and the issuing jurisdiction from one of the following non-expired documents; and
- An image of the document.

It is important to note that if a beneficial owner or company applicant has a FinCEN ID and any change is made to the required information for either individual, then such individuals are responsible for updating their information with FinCEN directly. This is not the responsibility of the reporting company

The Gig Continues: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22

On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Castellanos et al., v. State of California and Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, et al., upholding the 2020 voter initiative known as Proposition 22 the allows certain gig economy companies to classify drivers as independent contractors.

In 2019, California Assembly Bill 5, also known as AB5, expanded the landmark California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, and made the “ABC” test law.

Pursuant to the ABC test, in order to maintain independent contractor status, the hiring entity must establish each of the following three factors:

that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.

As a result, AB5 is widely perceived as the most draconian independent contractor test in the country.

The impact of AB5 has been pronounced and widespread, perhaps most noticeably for California’s gig economy.

In November 2020, following significant investment by affected companies such as Uber and Lyft, Proposition 22 hit the ballot. It asked voters whether “App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies” should be exempted from providing employee rights and benefits to their drivers. In other words, whether gig drivers could be classified independent contractors. The initiative passed by 59% of the vote, and was codified as Business and Professions Code section 7451.

Shortly thereafter, drivers’ groups and unions challenged Proposition 22, arguing that section 7451 was unconstitutional because it infringed upon the power granted to the legislature to regulate workers’ compensation. After winning that argument in the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the dispute.

The state’s highest court rejected the challenge in a unanimous decision, holding that the state constitution does not preclude the “electorate from exercising its initiative power to legislate on matters affecting workers’ compensation.” The decision was careful to examine only the question presented, i.e., whether section 7451 was unconstitutional. The Court specifically declined further exploration of the underlying workers’ compensation issue, stating: “We reserve these issues until we are presented with an actual challenge to an act of the Legislature providing workers’ compensation to app-based drivers.”

As a result of this decision, covered gig workers may maintain independent contractor status, with additional rights such as guaranteed earnings above minimum wage, health care stipends, and insurance — but without the protections of California’s employment laws — while maintaining the flexibility often attractive to those who choose this work.

In addition to drivers for app-based companies covered by Proposition 22, there are other limited exceptions to AB5, such as businesses that work through referral agencies, real estate professionals, and workers providing professional services. Each of the applicable tests is involved and often complicated.

At this stage, before classifying anyone as an independent contractor in California, companies would be wise to review the issues closely with their counsel.

Struck by CrowdStrike Outage? Your Business Loss Could Be Covered

Over the last week, organizations around the globe have struggled to bring operations back online following a botched software update from cybersecurity company CrowdStrike. As the dust settles, affected organizations should consider whether they are insured against losses or claims arising from the outage. The Wall Street Journal has already reported that insurers are bracing for claims arising from the outage and that according to one cyber insurance broker “[t]he insurance world was expecting to cover situations like this.” A cyber analytics firm has estimated that insured losses following the outage could reach $1.5 billion.

Your cyber insurance policy may cover losses resulting from the CrowdStrike outage. These policies often include “business interruption” or “contingent business interruption” insurance that protects against disruptions from a covered loss. Business interruption insurance covers losses from disruptions to your own operations. This insurance may cover losses if the outage affected your own computer systems. Contingent business interruption insurance, on the other hand, covers your losses when another entity’s operations are disrupted. This coverage could apply if the outage affected a supplier or cloud service provider that your organization relies on.

Cyber policies often vary in the precise risks they cover. Evaluating potential coverage requires comparing your losses to the policy’s coverage. Cyber policies also include limitations and exclusions on coverage. For example, many cyber policies contain a “waiting period” that requires affected systems to be disrupted for a certain period before the policy provides coverage. These waiting periods can be as short as one hour or as long as several days.

Other commercial insurance policies could also provide coverage depending on the loss or claim and the policy endorsements and exclusions. For example, your organization may have procured liability insurance that protects against third-party claims or litigation. This insurance could protect you from claims made by customers or other businesses related to the outage.

If your operations have been impacted by the CrowdStrike outage, there are a few steps you can take now to maximize your potential insurance recovery.

First, read your policies to determine the available coverage. As you review your policies, pay careful attention to policy limits, endorsements, and exclusions. A policy endorsement may significantly expand policy coverage, even though it is located long after the relevant policy section. Keep in mind that courts generally interpret coverage provisions in a policy generously in favor of an insured and interpret exclusions or limitations narrowly against an insurance company.

Second, track your losses. The outage likely cost your organization lost profits or extra expenses. Common business interruption losses may also include overtime expenses to remedy the outage, expenses to hire third-party consultants or technicians, and penalties arising from the outage’s disruption to your operations. Whatever the nature of your loss, tracking and documenting your loss now will help you secure a full insurance recovery later.

Third, carefully review and comply with your policy’s notice requirements. If you have experienced a loss or a claim, you should immediately notify your insurer. Even if you are only aware of a potential claim, your policy may require you to provide notice to your insurer of the events that could ultimately lead to a claim or loss. Some notice requirements in cyber policies can be quite short. After providing notice, you may receive a coverage response or “reservation of rights” from your insurer. Be cautious in taking any unfavorable response at face value. Particularly in cases of widespread loss, an insurer’s initial coverage evaluation may not accurately reflect the available coverage.

If you are unsure of your policy’s notice obligations or available coverage, or if you suspect your insurer is not affording your organization the coverage that you purchased, coverage counsel can assist your organization in securing coverage. Above all, don’t hesitate to secure the coverage to which you are entitled.

Listen to this post

DOE Ramping Up General Service Lamp Enforcement

Largely out of public view, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been ramping up enforcement of its “backstop” efficiency standard and sales prohibition regarding general service lamps, including incandescent bulbs. After a period of enforcement discretion (previewed in published guidance) that has now passed, we expect at least some of DOE’s efforts to become public in the coming months as the Department begins to settle enforcement actions and assess civil penalties against non-compliant lamp manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers.

The Final Rule

Following a rulemaking process that took many twists and turns over the past decade (as summarized in a prior alert), as of July 25, 2022, the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt hour (lm/W) is prohibited. 10 C.F.R. § 430.32(dd).

A “general service lamp” (GSL) is a lamp that:

Has an ANSI base;
For an integrated lamp, is able to operate at a voltage or in a voltage range of 12 or 24 volts, 100–130 volts, 220–240 volts, or 277 volts;
For a non-integrated lamp, is able to operate at any voltage;
Has an initial lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and less than or equal to 3,300 lumens;
Is not a light fixture;
Is not an LED downlight retrofit kit; and
Is used in general lighting applications.

10 C.F.R. § 430.2. GSLs include, but are not limited to, general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general service light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light-emitting diode lamps. GSLs consist of pear-shaped A-type bulbs, but also five categories of specialty incandescent lamps (rough service lamps, shatter-resistant lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, high lumen incandescent lamps, and vibration service lamps), incandescent reflector lamps, and a variety of decorative lamps (T-Shape, B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, M-14 of 40W or less, and candelabra base lamps). DOE maintains exclusions for twenty-six categories of lamps, including appliance lamps and colored lamps, among others. Id.

Approximately 30 percent of light bulbs sold across the United States in 2020 were incandescent or halogen incandescent lamps. Almost all such lamps would fail to meet the statutory 45 lm/W backstop standard. Because many LED lamps, in contrast, can meet the 45 lm/W standard, DOE’s actions are accelerating a transition to LEDs.

Federal and State Enforcement

During this transition, DOE enforcement is likely to most aggressively target manufacturers and importers continuing to distribute non-compliant lamps, and will include the assessment of civil penalties. DOE is authorized to assess penalties of as much as $560 for each non-compliant lamp sold. While enforcement actions typically settle for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, DOE has obtained seven-figure settlements for more significant violations or where a business has repeatedly failed to comply.

Specifically with respect to general service lamps (but not for other covered products), the Department is also authorized to enforce against distributors and retailers who sell non-compliant lamps, and early indications are that DOE is beginning to act on that authority. Because the federal backstop standard is enforced at the time of sale, lamps imported into the United States before July 25, 2022, are not exempt from enforcement if sold after the deadline.

Separately, some states—including California—also enforce their own efficiency standards for products not subject to federal standards. The California Energy Commission recently settled an enforcement action for over $120,000 against a company that was selling state-regulated LEDs that were not certified in California’s compliance database prior to sale, and which did not meet state standards.

Next Steps

Businesses operating at any stage in the lamp supply chain should, therefore, take immediate steps to ensure they are not making, importing, distributing, or selling to consumers any lamps that do not meet applicable federal or state requirements. To determine whether a particular general service lamp meets the backstop standard, one can take the total lumens produced by the lamp and divide it by its wattage. If the calculated number is below 45, and the product does not qualify for any of the listed exclusions, then it is non-compliant, and its continued sale could prompt federal enforcement.

Environmental Compliance in 2024: What Does it Take to Avoid Triggering EPA Scrutiny?

As environmental concerns continue to take center stage, more and more companies are finding themselves facing scrutiny from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, from a risk management perspective, environmental compliance is more important than ever in 2024—and this is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future.

What does this mean for companies whose operations have (or have the potential to have) environmental impacts? The short answer is that they need to make EPA compliance a priority. They must proactively address all areas of concern, and they must be prepared to demonstrate their proactive efforts to the EPA if necessary.

The EPA’s enforcement arm is extremely active, and several offices within the agency are tasked with uncovering and addressing environmental regulations violations. As discussed below, many federal environmental laws include criminal enforcement provisions as well, and the EPA regularly works with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to pursue criminal charges when warranted.

7 Keys to Avoiding EPA Scrutiny in 2024 (and Beyond)

With all of this in mind, what do company owners and executives need to know in order to avoid triggering EPA scrutiny in 2024 (and beyond)? Here are seven tips for effectively manage environmental compliance in today’s world:

1. Thoroughly Assess the Company’s Environmental Compliance Obligations

The EPA enforces numerous federal environmental statutes, and it has promulgated an extraordinarily long, dense, and complicated set of regulations under these statutes. The EPA enforces a number of environmentally focused Executive Orders (EOs) as well. As a result, for all companies, the first step toward implementing an effective EPA compliance program is determining which laws, regulations, and EOs apply. Here are just some of the most common examples:

Clean Air Act (CAA) compliance
Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) compliance
Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) compliance
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) compliance
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) compliance
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) compliance
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) compliance
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) compliance
Environmental Executive Order (EO) compliance

Determining applicability requires an in-depth understanding of each source of authority’s focus and scope. As a result, assessing a company’s environmental compliance obligations generally involves engaging experienced outside EPA counsel.

2. Develop Custom-Tailored Environmental Compliance Policies, Procedures, and Protocols

Of course, simply understanding a company’s compliance obligations is not enough. To effectively manage environmental compliance, companies must develop environmental compliance policies, procedures, and protocols that are custom-tailored to their operations and facilities. These should be sustainable practices that will increase operational efficiency and reduce costs and waste.

This, too, involves working with experienced EPA counsel. To establish and maintain EPA compliance, companies may need to take a variety of different steps. Depending on the specific environmental risks a company’s operations present (or may present), these steps may include:

Applying for a license, permit, or registration with the EPA
Passing EPA inspections
Restricting or preventing the discharge of contaminants or pollutants
Issuing notifications to consumers and/or the EPA
Promptly remediating spills and other exposure events

These are just a handful of numerous possibilities. While managing EPA compliance will be relatively straightforward for some companies, for others it can be a substantial undertaking. In both cases, developing custom-tailored policies, procedures, and protocols is a critical step toward effective regulatory compliance management.

3. Prioritize Environmental Compliance as an Element of Corporate Culture and Responsibility

Managing EPA compliance is not a one-time event. In other words, while developing custom-tailored policies, procedures, and protocols is a critical step toward effective compliance management, it is ultimately just one step in an ongoing process.

To effectively manage EPA compliance, companies need to take a top-down approach. They need to prioritize environmental compliance as an element of corporate culture and responsibility, and they need to make clear that personnel at all levels of the organization play an important role in protecting both the environment and the company. Lack of understanding and commitment at the executive level is a red flag for the EPA, and ineffective implementation of a company’s EPA compliance program can significantly increase its risk of both committing violations and facing enforcement.

4. Monitor and Audit Environmental Compliance

Another critical aspect of effectively managing a company’s environmental compliance-related risk is internally assessing compliance on an ongoing basis. Once a company has implemented its custom-tailored policies, procedures, and protocols, it must determine whether these are functioning as intended. While they should be, companies cannot afford to assume that this is the case. Ineffective training, oversights during implementation, changes in a company’s operational procedures, and various other issues can lead to compliance failures despite the implementation of an otherwise well-suited EPA compliance program.

Internally assessing compliance has two main components: (i) continuous monitoring, and (ii) periodic auditing. Companies should have safeguards in place that are designed to detect material violations when they occur. Companies must also conduct compliance audits at least annually to perform a deep-dive analysis of the efficacy of their compliance efforts. Crucially, if a company’s monitoring or auditing efforts uncover a violation of environmental rules, the company must then respond appropriately—and it must do so as efficiently as possible.

5. Generate and Store Environmental Compliance Documentation as a Matter of Course

When facing scrutiny from the EPA, being prepared to affirmatively demonstrate a company’s good-faith environmental compliance efforts is essential. In almost all cases, this is both the most effective and the most efficient way to resolve an EPA inquiry. Doing so requires clear and comprehensive documentation of the company’s ongoing compliance efforts, including its efforts to monitor, audit, and enforce compliance.

This means that companies need to generate and store environmental compliance documentation as a matter of course. By building documentation into their procedures and protocols, companies can do this efficiently and in a manner that facilitates demonstrating compliance to the EPA when necessary.

6. Respond Promptly (and Appropriately) to Information Requests and Other Inquiries

Companies can hear from the EPA under a variety of different circumstances. While different types of inquiries call for different types of responses, in all cases, a prompt and informed response is critical.

Once the EPA initiates an inquiry, it isn’t simply going to go away. Delay tactics will raise red flags; and, in the meantime, the EPA will be continuing its investigative and enforcement efforts. As part of their EPA compliance policies and procedures, companies should establish a step-by-step process for responding to the EPA in various scenarios. In most scenarios, the first step in this process will be engaging the company’s outside EPA counsel to provide guidance.

7. Update the Company’s Environmental Compliance Program as Necessary

Just as companies need to monitor their EPA compliance efforts on an ongoing basis, they must also monitor for any changes that necessitate updates to their environmental compliance programs. These changes could involve either: (i) changes in the environmental legislation; or, (ii) changes in the company’s operations that present new environmental compliance risks. In both cases, prompt action is key, as the EPA expects companies to consistently maintain comprehensive compliance.

Failing to Effectively Address Environmental Compliance: What Are the Risks?

Ideally, companies will maintain effective EPA compliance programs, and this means that they won’t have to worry about the risks of noncompliance. But, let’s say a company doesn’t do everything that is required. If the EPA has grounds to pursue enforcement, what are the risks involved?

Depending on the circumstances, the risks of environmental noncompliance can include:

Loss of License, Permit, or Registration – Companies may need to obtain a license, permit, or registration from the EPA in various scenarios. Failure to comply with the terms of licensure, permitting, or registration can lead to temporary suspension or permanent revocation.
“No Sale” Orders, Injunctions, and Other Administrative Remedies – The EPA also has the authority to impose “no sale” orders, injunctions, and other administrative remedies as necessary. If a company’s products or operations pose immediate environmental risks, the EPA can—and will—step in to intervene.
Civil Monetary Penalties – Environmental noncompliance can also trigger civil monetary penalties in many cases. Under several statutes, these penalties accrue on a daily or per-violation basis, which can lead to substantial financial liability for companies of all sizes.
Criminal Fines – As noted above, many of the statutes within the EPA’s enforcement jurisdiction include provisions for criminal enforcement. In criminal enforcement cases, companies can face substantial fines—and, in the aggregate, these fines can easily total millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions, of dollars.
Federal Imprisonment for Owners, Executives, and Others – Criminal enforcement cases can also expose companies’ owners, executives, and others to the risk of federal imprisonment. While relatively rare, the EPA and DOJ do not hesitate to pursue incarceration of implicated individuals when warranted.

PFAS CERCLA Expansion Now On Hold

We have regularly reported on the EPA‘s long-anticipated rule to designate PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA. In April 2024, the EPA also issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which aimed to have seven additional PFAS added to the CERCLA list of “hazardous substances.” EPA originally set a deadline of April 2025 to finalize the rule to add seven additional PFAS to CERCLA; however, EPA’s July 2024 Unified Agenda now indicates that the deadline to finalize the rule for the additional seven PFAS is “to be determined.”

The shift in priorities away from an expanded PFAS CERCLA designation is a significant development that anyone follows PFAS regulatory or litigation news.

CERCLA PFAS Scope Designation To Date

On January 10, 2022, the EPA submitted a plan for a PFAS Superfund designation to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) when it indicated an intent to designate two legacy PFAS – PFOA and PFOS – as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as the Superfund law). The EPA previously stated its intent to make the proposed designation by March 2022 when it introduced its PFAS Roadmap in October 2021. Under the Roadmap, the EPA planned to issue its proposed CERCLA designation in the spring of 2022. On August 12, 2022, a CERCLA PFAS designation took a significant step forward when the OMB approved the EPA’s plan for PFOA and PFOS designation. This step opened the door for the EPA to put forth its proposed designation of PFOA and PFOS under CERCLA and engage in the required public comment period.

When OMB initially contemplated approving the EPA’s proposed rule, it designated the rule as “other significant”, which meant that the rule was predicted to have costs or benefits less than $100 million annually. However, the OMB received several pieces of feedback expressing concern that such an estimate fa undervalued the impact that such a designation will have. More specifically, the Chamber of Commerce provided its own estimate that the CERCLA designation would have a cost impact of over $700 million annually. As a result, the OMB changed its designation of the EPA’s propose rule to “economically significant”, which triggered the EPA to have to conduct a RIA prior to proposing the PFAS CERCLA designation. Under the RIA, the EPA will have to provide support for its position that a CERCLA designation is justified to achieve EPA goals and to provide support for the contention that such a designation is the least burdensome and most cost-effective way to achieve the EPA’s goals.

Despite the call for a RIA by the OMB, the EPA nevertheless released its final CERCLA designation in May 2024, the significance of which, if it survives legal challenges, will be felt for some time.

Additional CERCLA Designation

In February 2023, the EPA sent a proposed rule to the OMB that states the following:

“EPA plans to publish in the Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking requesting public input on whether the agency should consider designating as hazardous substances precursors to PFOA and PFOS, whether the agency should consider designating other PFAS as CERCLA hazardous substances and whether there is information that would allow the agency to designate PFAS as a class or subclass.”

The OMB reviewed the proposal and on March 24, 2023, approved the proposal so as to permit the EPA to proceed with publishing the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

On April 13, 2023, the EPA published in the Federal Register an ANPRM that seeks public comment on a proposal to list as “hazardous substances” the following additional PFAS: PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, PFBA, PFHxA, and PFDA. The EPA indicated that the seven PFAS were chosen based on available toxicity data for the chemicals.

CERCLA PFAS Designation: Impact On Businesses

Once a substance is classified as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA, the EPA can force parties that it deems to be polluters to either cleanup the polluted site or reimburse the EPA for the full remediation of the contaminated site. Without a PFAS Superfund designation, the EPA can merely attribute blame to parties that it feels contributed to the pollution, but it has no authority to force the parties to remediate or pay costs. The designation also triggers considerable reporting requirements for companies. Currently, those reporting requirements with respect to PFAS do not exist, but they would apply to industries well beyond just PFAS manufacturers. The CERCLA PFAS scope in any final regulation is therefore critical to numerous industries that were or are downstream users of PFAS.

The downstream effects of a PFOA and PFOS designation would be massive, but a designation of the entire class of PFAS or even various subclasses of PFAS would be potentially unquantifiable in financial magnitude. With over 15,000 PFAS in existence according to the EPA and many of them in continued use to this day, the potential environmental pollution ramifications touch on countless industry types. Companies that utilized PFAS in their industrial or manufacturing processes and sent the PFAS waste to landfills or otherwise discharged the chemicals into the environment will be at immediate risk for enforcement action by the EPA given the EPA’s stated intent to hold all PFAS polluters of any kind accountable. Waste management companies should be especially concerned given the large swaths of land that are utilized for landfills and the likely PFAS pollution that can be found in most landfills due to the chemicals’ prevalence in consumer goods. These site owners may be the first targeted when the PFOA/PFOS designation is made, which will lead to lawsuits filed against any company that sent waste to the landfills for contribution to the cost of cleanup that the waste management company or its insured will bear. However, with a broader PFAS designation a possibility now, there should naturally be concern regarding re-openers in the future for these same sites.

Of course, all of the above are subject now to legal challenges of the final CERCLA designation, which will play out over the next several months. In addition, EPA (and the rest of the country) are now living in a post-Chevron world, which is sure to have significant impacts on challenges to EPA’s intentions with respect to PFAS under CERCLA. It is perhaps for these reasons that EPA recently adjusted its deadline to finalize the expended PFAS CERCLA designation to a status of “to be determined.” This is quite significant and shows to me that EPA is adjusting its resources to prepare for the legal challenges to come, as well as focusing more earnestly on initiatives that it can pass prior to a potential shift in party power in the November 2024 elections.

Conclusion

While it is likely fair to say that almost all significant PFAS initiatives that EPA wishes to undertake will not be pushed forward until after the November election cycle, it is nevertheless of great importance for companies, insurers, and financial world specialists to continue to monitor PFAS developments. Even with a party shift in November, PFAS is unlikely to be wiped off of the map, so to speak, in terms of an environmental issue. The awareness of PFAS issues among media, politicians and citizens is simply too great at this point. In addition, developments that will be critical to monitor because of the impact that they may have on PFAS litigation, which will surely subsume PFAS regulatory impacts if November brings a party power shift.

Washington Shake-Up: Vice President Harris to Lead Democratic Nomination for 2024 Presidency

Following President Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race on Sunday, the nation’s capital has experienced another political shock, leading to swift mobilization within the Democratic Party. President Biden quickly endorsed Vice President (VP) Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, triggering a rapid wave of support from Congressional leaders, governors, stakeholders, and party donors including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), all 24 Democratic governors, EMILYs List, and the United Auto Workers.

VP Harris has secured enough backing from Democratic delegates to clinch her party’s nomination to challenge former president Donald Trump in November. With the election a little over 100 days away, we have highlighted VP Harris’ stance on key issues during her tenure in Congress and her 2020 Presidential bid.

Technology

VP Harris is very familiar with the tech industry due to her roots in Silicon Valley as San Francisco’s district attorney, and her subsequent roles as Attorney General and US Senator from California. Although she hasn’t called for the breakup of big tech like some of her former colleagues in the Senate, she has criticized tech CEOs for the data privacy practices and targeted advertising tactics that their companies deploy, and voiced support for general regulation of big tech firms. In the White House, she serves as President Biden’s lead on AI initiatives and has actively promoted policies aimed at mitigating AI risks such as algorithmic bias, disinformation, and privacy concerns, while maximizing its benefits for Americans.

Climate Change

VP Harris has a long history of challenging the oil industry for its role in pollution and is likely to take it a step further than President Biden in tackling climate change. In the 2020 Presidential race, Harris proposed a $10 trillion climate plan aimed at achieving a carbon-neutral US economy by 2045, featuring initiatives such as a climate pollution fee and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

In the Senate, Harris authored legislation that would have authorized grants to fund projects that address the specific climate-related challenges faced by vulnerable communities and invest in critical upgrades to the nation’s water infrastructure.

As California’s attorney general, VP Harris brought lawsuits against major oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) for failing to stop underground storage tanks from leaking gasoline at 800 sites across the state, and also filed an investigation into ExxonMobil over its climate change disclosures.

Health Care

Maternal health was at the forefront of Harris’ health care priorities during her tenure in the Senate and has continued in her current role as Vice President. She sponsored landmark legislation such as the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, aimed at tackling the crisis facing Black maternal health care. This legislation enhances data collection, expands access to prenatal, postpartum, and doula care in underserved communities, promotes implicit bias training for health care professionals, and funds research and innovation to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities for Black women. Although the bill was not enacted, it remained a priority in both chambers of Congress after Harris’ departure from the Senate. It is also the centerpiece bill of the Congressional Black Maternal Health Caucus. Harris also championed legislation aimed at addressing the impact of uterine fibroids on women’s health through initiatives such as research funding, patient support tactics, and health care provider training. Additionally, she supported legislation to establish a loan repayment program for mental health professionals working in areas with critical workforce shortages.

In her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris introduced a health care plan that proposed a gradual transition toward Medicare-for-All over a decade. Her plan allowed individuals and employers to initially buy into Medicare while maintaining strict regulations for private insurance options. She also consistently opposed efforts to restrict access to reproductive health care services.

Tax

With numerous tax provisions under former President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act set to expire in 2025, all eyes are on VP Harris’ anticipated tax policy proposals. During her tenure in Congress, she championed a significant tax reform bill that would have introduced the LIFT credit—a refundable tax credit of $3,000 for single filers and $6,000 for married couples—benefiting a large portion of middle- and working-class Americans. Unlike the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), this credit’s amount would not depend on the number of children reported on a taxpayer’s return but would phase out as income increased. Harris emphasized that this credit aimed to boost families’ after-tax income to help them cope with rising living costs.

Additionally, she sponsored legislation in Congress aimed at protecting workers from harassment and discrimination, funding earthquake mitigation efforts, and providing housing assistance to low-income families. During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris advocated strongly for repealing Trump’s tax law. She proposed implementing a financial transaction tax to expand Medicare coverage and advocated for taxing capital gains as part of her broader economic platform.

A Look Ahead

With midterm elections looming in the House and 33 Senate seats up for election, the impact of VP Harris’ nomination on Congressional races will be watched closely. As the first woman of color and the highest-ranking woman in US history to hold the office of Vice President, Harris’ nomination marks a pivotal moment in American politics. It may influence voter behavior, candidate strategies across the aisle, and the broader political landscape leading up to the November elections.

The Democratic National Convention (DNC) is scheduled to be held in Chicago, Illinois, from August 19 to August 22. However, due to upcoming state ballot deadlines which precede the convention date, a virtual roll call where delegates formally select Kamala Harris as the nominee will conclude by August 7. Harris is expected to choose her running mate in the coming days, as her campaign team has sent vetting materials to Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

This Michigan Supreme Court Case Has the Potential to Guide Drone and Air Rights Law for the Nation

While at first glance the Michigan Supreme Court case of Long Lake Township v. Maxon, appears to be a simple zoning dispute with a Fourth Amendment twist, the real impact of the case may ultimately fall on drones and air rights law, particularly the rights of landowners to exclude drones from flying in the airspace immediately above their land, and relatedly the ability of state and municipal governments to regulate such flights.

The history of the case is straightforward. When the Michigan municipality of Long Lake Township sought to enforce a zoning ordinance against Todd Maxon, Mr. Maxon asked the trial court to exclude all evidence obtained by flying a drone over Mr. Maxon’s land. After the trial court refused to exclude the evidence on the grounds that the photographs did not violate the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court ruled that the Fourth Amendment issue was irrelevant because a legal proceeding to enforce a local zoning ordinance is not required to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (the requirement to exclude such evidence is known as the “exclusionary rule”).

Now, we await the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision as to whether the exclusionary rule applies, and if so, whether the use of the drone to inspect Mr. Maxon’s land for zoning compliance violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches.

A decision on that second question will center on landowners’ right to exclude drones from the airspace immediately above their land, because a warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area that society recognizes as reasonable. It follows then, that, if a landowner has no legal right to exclude drones from flying over his or her land, then it would be inherently unreasonable to expect privacy in portions of their property that can be observed from such public drone flight paths above their land, as courts routinely rule that there cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy in land that can be observed from adjacent, publicly-accessible space.

As drone technology developed from a curious, niche hobby into a potential billion-dollar business with the ability to change the way packages are delivered to our homes and offices, legal debates quickly followed about whether all airspace above the blades of the grass constitutes “publicly navigable airspace” that is beyond the control of the landowners below, or if those landowners maintain some residual control over some airspace above their land. A decision from the Michigan Supreme Court on this issue would be one of the highest level state or federal courts to confront this question.

Hopefully, the exclusionary rule will not prevent a thorough analysis of the issue, as its resolution will ultimately be necessary to confirm the permissibility of local government regulation of the time, place, and manner of drone flights, and landowners’ airspace control rights, and only when those questions are resolved will drone technology be able to fully flourish in the United States as part of a legal regime that acknowledges and respects the traditional property rights of landowners.

This is a bellwether. This decision will affect the course of not just Michigan, but all of America about how it treats drone surveillance.

It’s a Cruel Summer (for Employers Still Facing Uncertainty of Looming Federal Trade Commission Noncompete Rule)

Summer 2024 may be remembered for its uncertainty. On top of the surprises in political campaigns and the Supreme Court’s overruling of decades-old precedents, employers nationwide still face uncertainty with the FTC’s looming rule banning the vast majority of employee noncompetes across the United States. This uncertainty was underscored on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declined to enjoin the FTC’s Noncompete Rule (the “Rule”) from taking effect September 4, 2024.

What will happen in September remains unclear, as the nation still awaits a final ruling next month from U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas. On July 3, 2024, Judge Brown temporarily enjoined the Rule, but only for the named plaintiffs — not nationwide.

One thing is certain: Without a nationwide vacatur of the Rule or an injunction against its enforcement, employers will face further uncertainty.

Back in the Northern District of Texas, Plaintiff Ryan LLC and Intervenor U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed briefs this week requesting that Judge Brown’s injunction against the Rule be expanded nationwide. They argued that expanding the injunction nationally would “spare tens of thousands of American businesses the illegal burdens imposed by the rule,” promptly conclude litigation, and avoid “a torrent of lawsuits.”

The FTC’s responsive brief in Texas is expected late next week, with a final ruling from Judge Brown expected on or before August 30, 2024.

What Should Employers Be Doing Now?

Our advice from the July 5, 2024, article remains relevant — for now. We will continue monitoring developments in the courts and providing updates on best practices.

Get ready to distribute the required notices informing employees that their noncompetes will no longer be enforced. The Noncompete Rule requires notifying current and former employees that their noncompete agreements will not be — and cannot be — enforced going forward, with notice being provided at the employees’ last known street address, email address, or phone number. For large employers, this could be a significant undertaking to prepare. Since no courts have stopped the FTC rule from taking effect on a nationwide basis, it would be prudent for employers to start gathering all the information they would need to comply with the notice requirement. That said, employers should still wait until after further action is taken by the courts, or in another one of the cases challenging the Rule, before sending the notices.
Businesses should explore whether they might have other ways to accomplish some of the same goals as noncompetes, such as nondisclosure agreements or fixed-duration employment contracts.
Businesses should review their other restrictive covenants, including non-solicitation and no-hire clauses, to ensure those clauses are narrowly tailored to protect their legitimate interests, thereby reducing the risk that they will be challenged as being within the Rule’s catchall provision prohibiting terms that “function[ ] to prevent” a worker from working for a different company after employment.
Businesses should have confidentiality agreements in place with employees and should prepare for a potential wave of trade secret litigation as employees are increasingly enticed to leave their employment to work for competitors. This means businesses will need to be prepared for increased costs of data and forensic work that are generally prevalent in trade secret and confidentiality litigation matters.
It may be time for businesses potentially impacted by the Rule to substantively review their existing agreements and policies as described in the points above and get started on drafting replacement forms of agreements that will comply with the Rule — if it goes into effect.

Relying on Noncompete Clauses May Not Be the Best Defense of Proprietary Data When Employees Depart

Much of the value of many companies often is wrapped up with and measured by their intellectual property (IP) portfolios. Some forms of IP, such as patents, are known by the public. Others derive their value from being hidden from the public. Many companies, for example, have gigabytes of data or “know-how” that may be worth millions, but only to the extent that they remain secret. This article discusses some ways to keep business information confidential when an employee who has had access to that information leaves the company.

Many companies traditionally turned to employment agreements, specifically noncompete clauses, to protect proprietary competitive information. The legality of noncompetes is in question following the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) ban on them, which is being challenged in court by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, causing confusion and concerns about protecting information via noncompete agreements. As covered in Wilson Elser’s prior articles* on this subject, the timeline of the FTC rule in question was as follows:

The FTC promulgated new rules to take effect in September 2024 banning all noncompete agreements.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old method of reviewing agency rules (Chevron Deference), throwing all agency rules, including the FTC’s rule on noncompetes, into question.
The District Court for the Northern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the FTC from enforcing its new rule banning noncompetes.

After this flurry of activity, noncompetes are, for now, not banned. But do they offer an effective solution for businesses seeking to protect their proprietary information?

Noncompete Clauses Are Not Always Effective
Vortexa, Inc. v. Cacioppo, a June 2024 case from the District Court for the Southern District of New York, illustrates the limitations of noncompete clauses in employment agreements. That case presents the familiar fact pattern of an employee leaving and going to work for a competitor. With some evidence of the employee’s access to proprietary competitive information in hand (but no evidence of actual misappropriation), the former employer sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the employee from working for the competitor for one year, the term stated in the noncompete clause in the employee’s contract with the former employer. The contract also included common non-disclosure and confidentiality clauses.

Absent evidence of actual misappropriation, the plaintiff employer relied on the “Inevitable Disclosure” doctrine, which assumes that a departing employee will inevitably disclose confidential information when they go work for a competitor. The court refused to apply this doctrine, explaining that inevitable disclosure may substitute for actual evidence of misappropriation only when the information is a trade secret. Here, none of the information about which the former employer was concerned was a trade secret.

The proprietary information that the former employee had was pricing data, marketing strategies and “intricacies of the business.” These types of information do not, in and of themselves, constitute trade secrets. In addition, the information was not afforded trade secret treatment because (1) some of it was ascertainable by the competitor without reference to the first employer’s information; (2) the companies sell different products; (3) some of the information was developed without the expenditure of a good deal of money and effort; (4) some of the information was provided to clients without a non-disclosure agreement; (5) some of the information was shared on company-wide collaboration channels; and (6) “google drive log records show that [the former employee] opened and viewed these documents, which underlines the lack of security protecting this purportedly confidential information.”

Most of these reasons for the information not being accorded trade secret status cannot be changed by any action of the employer. For example, if information can be generated by means independent of the first employer, that information cannot be protected by trade secret law and nothing the first employer can do will change that after the fact. However, any business seeking to protect its valuable competitive information can change the way that it secures, protects and manages access to its competitive information, and this may be enough to ensure that its information is protected by trade secret law.

What Businesses Should Do to Protect Their Proprietary Competitive Information
Generally, proprietary competitive information can be protected as a trade secret by operation of law or via contract. In many cases, the “boots and suspenders” approach is best – the information should be protected both by contract and by meeting the requirements for protection under trade secret law. As described, a contract alone is sometimes ineffective, so information that derives its value from not being generally known to the public should also be treated in such a manner that the courts would see it as being a trade secret.

Specifically, for something to qualify for trade secret protection under federal and state statues and common law, it must be securely kept and carefully protected from disclosure. Some easy ways to protect information are to (1) restrict access to folders on a company’s internal computer systems, (2) physically lock rooms that contain hard copies and (3) have computers lock automatically when not accessed for set time periods. Protecting information via noncompete, confidentiality and non-disclosure contractual obligations is another way to ensure that information remains secret, such that it is protected under trade secret law. Internal policies on how information may be shared with third parties, such as clients, also are helpful evidence of trade secret treatment. In addition, the business may consider maintaining records on the time, effort and monetary expenditures required to develop proprietary information, which should allow the business to demonstrate that making such information freely available to a competitor is fundamentally unfair.

In some cases, information protected as a trade secret may be the most valuable IP that a company owns. But the value can easily be lost if the company does not properly secure the information. Different scenarios call for different methods of security, and a good rule of thumb to protect information from disclosure by a departing employee is to protect this information both by contract and as a trade secret.

The first step for any business is to think through their overall data protection strategy and consult with experienced intellectual property counsel to put appropriate protections in place.

The National Law Forum

Triggers That Require Reporting Companies to File Updated Beneficial Ownership Interest Reports

Like this:

The Gig Continues: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22

Like this:

Struck by CrowdStrike Outage? Your Business Loss Could Be Covered

Listen to this post

Like this: