280 Search Results

October 17, 2018 |
SEC Warns Public Companies on Cyber-Fraud Controls

Click for PDF On October 16, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a report warning public companies about the importance of internal controls to prevent cyber fraud.  The report described the SEC Division of Enforcement’s investigation of multiple public companies which had collectively lost nearly $100 million in a range of cyber-scams typically involving phony emails requesting payments to vendors or corporate executives.[1] Although these types of cyber-crimes are common, the Enforcement Division notably investigated whether the failure of the companies’ internal accounting controls to prevent unauthorized payments violated the federal securities laws.  The SEC ultimately declined to pursue enforcement actions, but nonetheless issued a report cautioning public companies about the importance of devising and maintaining a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to protect company assets. While the SEC has previously addressed the need for public companies to promptly disclose cybersecurity incidents, the new report sees the agency wading into corporate controls designed to mitigate such risks.  The report encourages companies to calibrate existing internal controls, and related personnel training, to ensure they are responsive to emerging cyber threats.  The report (issued to coincide with National Cybersecurity Awareness Month) clearly intends to warn public companies that future investigations may result in enforcement action. The Report of Investigation Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 empowers the SEC to issue a public Report of Investigation where deemed appropriate.  While SEC investigations are confidential unless and until the SEC files an enforcement action alleging that an individual or entity has violated the federal securities laws, Section 21(a) reports provide a vehicle to publicize investigative findings even where no enforcement action is pursued.  Such reports are used sparingly, perhaps every few years, typically to address emerging issues where the interpretation of the federal securities laws may be uncertain.  (For instance, recent Section 21(a) reports have addressed the treatment of digital tokens as securities and the use of social media to disseminate material corporate information.) The October 16 report details the Enforcement Division’s investigations into the internal accounting controls of nine issuers, across multiple industries, that were victims of cyber-scams. The Division identified two specific types of cyber-fraud – typically referred to as business email compromises or “BECs” – that had been perpetrated.  The first involved emails from persons claiming to be unaffiliated corporate executives, typically sent to finance personnel directing them to wire large sums of money to a foreign bank account for time-sensitive deals. These were often unsophisticated operations, textbook fakes that included urgent, secret requests, unusual foreign transactions, and spelling and grammatical errors. The second type of business email compromises were harder to detect. Perpetrators hacked real vendors’ accounts and sent invoices and requests for payments that appeared to be for otherwise legitimate transactions. As a result, issuers made payments on outstanding invoices to foreign accounts controlled by impersonators rather than their real vendors, often learning of the scam only when the legitimate vendor inquired into delinquent bills. According to the SEC, both types of frauds often succeeded, at least in part, because responsible personnel failed to understand their company’s existing cybersecurity controls or to appropriately question the veracity of the emails.  The SEC explained that the frauds themselves were not sophisticated in design or in their use of technology; rather, they relied on “weaknesses in policies and procedures and human vulnerabilities that rendered the control environment ineffective.” SEC Cyber-Fraud Guidance Cybersecurity has been a high priority for the SEC dating back several years. The SEC has pursued a number of enforcement actions against registered securities firms arising out of data breaches or deficient controls.  For example, just last month the SEC brought a settled action against a broker-dealer/investment-adviser which suffered a cyber-intrusion that had allegedly compromised the personal information of thousands of customers.  The SEC alleged that the firm had failed to comply with securities regulations governing the safeguarding of customer information, including the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule.[2] The SEC has been less aggressive in pursuing cybersecurity-related actions against public companies.  However, earlier this year, the SEC brought its first enforcement action against a public company for alleged delays in its disclosure of a large-scale data breach.[3] But such enforcement actions put the SEC in the difficult position of weighing charges against companies which are themselves victims of a crime.  The SEC has thus tried to be measured in its approach to such actions, turning to speeches and public guidance rather than a large number of enforcement actions.  (Indeed, the SEC has had to make the embarrassing disclosure that its own EDGAR online filing system had been hacked and sensitive information compromised.[4]) Hence, in February 2018, the SEC issued interpretive guidance for public companies regarding the disclosure of cybersecurity risks and incidents.[5]  Among other things, the guidance counseled the timely public disclosure of material data breaches, recognizing that such disclosures need not compromise the company’s cybersecurity efforts.  The guidance further discussed the need to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures.  However, the February guidance did not address specific controls to prevent cyber incidents in the first place. The new Report of Investigation takes the additional step of addressing not just corporate disclosures of cyber incidents, but the procedures companies are expected to maintain in order to prevent these breaches from occurring.  The SEC noted that the internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws are not new, and based its report largely on the controls set forth in Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.  But the SEC emphasized that such controls must be “attuned to this kind of cyber-related fraud, as well as the critical role training plays in implementing controls that serve their purpose and protect assets in compliance with the federal securities laws.”  The report noted that the issuers under investigation had procedures in place to authorize and process payment requests, yet were still victimized, at least in part “because the responsible personnel did not sufficiently understand the company’s existing controls or did not recognize indications in the emailed instructions that those communications lacked reliability.” The SEC concluded that public companies’ “internal accounting controls may need to be reassessed in light of emerging risks, including risks arising from cyber-related frauds” and “must calibrate their internal accounting controls to the current risk environment.” Unfortunately, the vagueness of such guidance leaves the burden on companies to determine how best to address emerging risks.  Whether a company’s controls are adequate may be judged in hindsight by the Enforcement Division; not surprisingly, companies and individuals under investigation often find the staff asserting that, if the controls did not prevent the misconduct, they were by definition inadequate.  Here, the SEC took a cautious approach in issuing a Section 21(a) report highlighting the risk rather than publicly identifying and penalizing the companies which had already been victimized by these scams. However, companies and their advisors should assume that, with this warning shot across the bow, the next investigation of a similar incident may result in more serious action.  Persons responsible for designing and maintaining the company’s internal controls should consider whether improvements (such as enhanced trainings) are warranted; having now spoken on the issue, the Enforcement Division is likely to view corporate inaction as a factor in how it assesses the company’s liability for future data breaches and cyber-frauds.    [1]   SEC Press Release (Oct. 16, 2018), available at www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-236; the underlying report may be found at www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-84429.pdf.    [2]   SEC Press Release (Sept. 16, 2018), available at www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-213.  This enforcement action was particularly notable as the first occasion the SEC relied upon the rules requiring financial advisory firms to maintain a robust program for preventing identify theft, thus emphasizing the significance of those rules.    [3]   SEC Press Release (Apr. 24, 2018), available at www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-71.    [4]   SEC Press Release (Oct. 2, 2017), available at www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-186.    [5]   SEC Press Release (Feb. 21, 2018), available at www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-22; the guidance itself can be found at www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2018/33-10459.pdf.  The SEC provided in-depth guidance in this release on disclosure processes and considerations related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, and complements some of the points highlighted in the Section 21A report. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these issues.  For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm’s Securities Enforcement or Privacy, Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection practice groups, or the following authors: Marc J. Fagel – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8332, mfagel@gibsondunn.com) Alexander H. Southwell – New York (+1 212-351-3981, asouthwell@gibsondunn.com) Please also feel free to contact the following practice leaders and members: Securities Enforcement Group: New York Barry R. Goldsmith – Co-Chair (+1 212-351-2440, bgoldsmith@gibsondunn.com) Mark K. Schonfeld – Co-Chair (+1 212-351-2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com) Reed Brodsky (+1 212-351-5334, rbrodsky@gibsondunn.com) Joel M. Cohen (+1 212-351-2664, jcohen@gibsondunn.com) Lee G. Dunst (+1 212-351-3824, ldunst@gibsondunn.com) Laura Kathryn O’Boyle (+1 212-351-2304, loboyle@gibsondunn.com) Alexander H. Southwell (+1 212-351-3981, asouthwell@gibsondunn.com) Avi Weitzman (+1 212-351-2465, aweitzman@gibsondunn.com) Lawrence J. Zweifach (+1 212-351-2625, lzweifach@gibsondunn.com) Washington, D.C. Richard W. Grime – Co-Chair (+1 202-955-8219, rgrime@gibsondunn.com) Stephanie L. Brooker  (+1 202-887-3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com) Daniel P. Chung (+1 202-887-3729, dchung@gibsondunn.com) Stuart F. Delery (+1 202-887-3650, sdelery@gibsondunn.com) Patrick F. Stokes (+1 202-955-8504, pstokes@gibsondunn.com) F. Joseph Warin (+1 202-887-3609, fwarin@gibsondunn.com) San Francisco Marc J. Fagel – Co-Chair (+1 415-393-8332, mfagel@gibsondunn.com) Winston Y. Chan (+1 415-393-8362, wchan@gibsondunn.com) Thad A. Davis (+1 415-393-8251, tdavis@gibsondunn.com) Charles J. Stevens (+1 415-393-8391, cstevens@gibsondunn.com) Michael Li-Ming Wong (+1 415-393-8234, mwong@gibsondunn.com) Palo Alto Paul J. Collins (+1 650-849-5309, pcollins@gibsondunn.com) Benjamin B. Wagner (+1 650-849-5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com) Denver Robert C. Blume (+1 303-298-5758, rblume@gibsondunn.com) Monica K. Loseman (+1 303-298-5784, mloseman@gibsondunn.com) Los Angeles Michael M. Farhang (+1 213-229-7005, mfarhang@gibsondunn.com) Douglas M. Fuchs (+1 213-229-7605, dfuchs@gibsondunn.com) Privacy, Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection Group: Alexander H. Southwell – Co-Chair, New York (+1 212-351-3981, asouthwell@gibsondunn.com) M. Sean Royall – Dallas (+1 214-698-3256, sroyall@gibsondunn.com) Debra Wong Yang – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com) Christopher Chorba – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7396, cchorba@gibsondunn.com) Richard H. Cunningham – Denver (+1 303-298-5752, rhcunningham@gibsondunn.com) Howard S. Hogan – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3640, hhogan@gibsondunn.com) Joshua A. Jessen – Orange County/Palo Alto (+1 949-451-4114/+1 650-849-5375, jjessen@gibsondunn.com) Kristin A. Linsley – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8395, klinsley@gibsondunn.com) H. Mark Lyon – Palo Alto (+1 650-849-5307, mlyon@gibsondunn.com) Shaalu Mehra – Palo Alto (+1 650-849-5282, smehra@gibsondunn.com) Karl G. Nelson – Dallas (+1 214-698-3203, knelson@gibsondunn.com) Eric D. Vandevelde – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com) Benjamin B. Wagner – Palo Alto (+1 650-849-5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com) Michael Li-Ming Wong – San Francisco/Palo Alto (+1 415-393-8333/+1 650-849-5393, mwong@gibsondunn.com) Ryan T. Bergsieker – Denver (+1 303-298-5774, rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com) © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

October 5, 2018 |
What Employers Need to Know About California’s New #MeToo Laws

Click for PDF On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown signed several new workplace laws, and vetoed others, that arose out of the #MeToo movement.  We briefly review the newly signed legislation and also highlight bills that Governor Brown rejected.  Unless otherwise indicated, these new laws will take effect on January 1, 2019. New Requirements for Employers New Training Requirements Expanded Requirements for Harassment and Discrimination Training.  Most California employers are aware that, under existing California law, employers with 50 or more employees must provide at least two hours of prescribed training regarding sexual harassment within six months of an individual’s hiring or promotion to a supervisory position and every two years while an employee remains in a supervisory position.  SB 1343 expands this requirement in two critical ways: The training requirements now cover all employers with five or more employees, which includes temporary or seasonal employees, meaning that many smaller employers are now subject to California’s training requirements. All covered employers must now provide at least one hour of sexual harassment training to non-supervisory employees by January 1, 2020, and once every two years thereafter, which may greatly expand the scope of required training for employers with large line-level workforces. SB 1343 also requires the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to make available online training courses that employers may use to meet these requirements.  However, employers may wish to work with their counsel and Human Resources departments to develop training that is specific to their business and industry, which is generally regarded as more effective than “one size fits all” trainings. Education and Training for Employees in Entertainment Industry.  AB 2338 requires, prior to the issuance of a permit to employ a minor in the entertainment industry, that the minor and the minor’s parents or legal guardians receive and complete sexual harassment training.  The law also requires that talent agencies ensure that minors have a valid work permit, and that agencies provide adult artists with accessible educational material “regarding sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, and reporting resources,” as well as nutrition and eating disorders. Anti-Harassment Legislation Restrictions on Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreements and More Rigorous Sexual Harassment Standards.  SB 1300 amends California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to agree to a non-disparagement agreement or other document limiting the disclosure of information about unlawful workplace acts in exchange for a raise or bonus, or as a condition of employment or continued employment.  Employers are also prohibited from requiring an individual to “execute a statement that he or she does not possess any claim or injury against the employer” or to release “a right to file and pursue a civil action or complaint with, or otherwise notify, a state agency, other public prosecutor, law enforcement agency, or any court or other governmental entity.”  Under the law, any such agreement is contrary to public policy and unenforceable.  (Some of these activities, such as reporting to law enforcement, are already protected, of course.)  While negotiated settlement agreements of civil claims supported by valuable consideration are exempted from these prohibitions, employers will want to review their various employee agreement templates to ensure none contain these or other types of prohibited clauses. SB 1300 also codifies several legal standards that may make it more challenging for employers to prevail on harassment claims before trial.  For example, the law provides that a single incident of harassing conduct may create a triable issue of fact in a hostile work environment case; that it is irrelevant to a sexual harassment case that a particular occupation may have been characterized by more sexualized conduct in the past; and that “hostile working environment cases involve issues ‘not determinable on paper.'”  Employers can expect to see SB 1300 cited in any plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment in a sexual harassment case, and they will need to give serious consideration as to whether and how to seek summary judgment in light of the new law. Limitations on Confidentiality in Settlement Agreements.  SB 820 prohibits provisions in settlement agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2019 that prevent the disclosure of facts related to sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination claims that have been “filed in a civil action or a complaint filed in an administrative action.”  Note, however, that SB 820 does not prohibit provisions precluding the disclosure of the settlement payment amount, and the law carves out an exception for provisions protecting the identity of the claimant where requested by the claimant. Expanded Sexual Harassment Liability to Cover Certain Business Relationships.  Businesses in the venture capital, entertainment, and similar industries will want to be alert to SB 224, which modifies California Civil Code section 51.9 and would include within the elements in a cause of action for sexual harassment when the plaintiff proves, among other things, that the “defendant holds himself or herself as being able to help the plaintiff establish a business, service, or professional relationship with the defendant or a third party.”  The law identifies additional examples of potential defendants under the statute, such as investors, elected officials, lobbyists, directors, and producers. Limitations on Barring Testimony Related to Criminal Conduct or Sexual Harassment.  AB 3109 prohibits waivers of a party’s right to testify in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding concerning alleged criminal conduct or sexual harassment by the other party to a contract, when the party has been required or requested to attend the proceeding pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or written request from an administrative agency or the legislature. Mandating Gender Diversity on Boards of Directors for Publicly Held Corporations SB 826 requires a minimum number of female directors on the boards of publicly traded corporations with principal executive offices in California.  The location of a corporation’s principal executive office will be determined by the Annual Report on Form 10-K. Under SB 826, a corporation covered by the law must have at least one female member on its board of directors by December 31, 2019, and additional female members by 2021 depending on the size of the board.  If the corporation has a board of directors with: four members or less, no additional female directors are required; five members, the board must have at least two female directors by December 31, 2021; and six or more members, at least three female directors are required to be in place by December 31, 2021. The California Secretary of State can impose fines of $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations. Potential challengers of this law argue that it suffers from numerous legal deficiencies, including that it violates the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.  Indeed, Governor Brown himself acknowledged in his signing statement that this new law has “potential flaws that indeed may provide fatal to its ultimate implementation” and will likely be subject to challenge.  For more information on SB 826, please consult our Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance group’s analysis, available here. Bills Vetoed by Governor Brown Governor Brown also vetoed several bills relating to sexual harassment that could have significantly impacted employers in California, including: The closely watched AB 3080, which sought to forbid mandatory arbitration agreements in the workplace. AB 1867, which sought to require employers with fifty or more employees to “maintain records of employee complaints alleging sexual harassment” for a period of five years after the last day of employment of either “the complainant or any alleged harasser named in the complaint, whichever is later.” AB 1870, which sought to extend the deadline in which a complainant may file an administrative charge with the DFEH alleging employment discrimination from one year to three years. AB 3081, which sought to require a client employer and a labor contractor to share all “civil legal responsibility and civil liability for harassment” for all workers supplied by that labor contractor and prohibit an employer from shifting its duties or liabilities to a labor contractor. Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have about these developments. We have been engaged by numerous clients recently to conduct investigations of #MeToo complaints; to proactively review sexual harassment policies, practices and procedures for the protection of employees and the promotion of a safe, respectful and professional workplace; to conduct training for executives, managers and employees; and to handle related counseling and litigation. To learn more about these issues, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or the following Labor and Employment or Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance practice group leaders and members: Labor and Employment Group: Catherine A. Conway – Co-Chair, Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7822, cconway@gibsondunn.com) Jason C. Schwartz – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com) Rachel S. Brass – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8293, rbrass@gibsondunn.com) Jesse A. Cripps – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7792, jcripps@gibsondunn.com) Theane Evangelis – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7726, tevangelis@gibsondunn.com) Michele L. Maryott – Orange County (+1 949-451-3945,mmaryott@gibsondunn.com) Katherine V.A. Smith – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com) Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance Group: Elizabeth Ising – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8287, eising@gibsondunn.com) Lori Zyskowski – Co-Chair, New York (+1 212-351-2309, lzyskowski@gibsondunn.com) Stewart L. McDowell – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8322, smcdowell@gibsondunn.com) © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

September 17, 2018 |
Update On Calif. Immigrant Worker Protection Act

Los Angeles partner Jesse Cripps and Washington, D.C. associate Ryan Stewart are the authors of “Update On Calif. Immigrant Worker Protection Act” [PDF] published in Law360 on September 17, 2018.

August 1, 2018 |
Who’s Who Legal Recognizes Nine Gibson Dunn Partners

Nine Gibson Dunn partners were recognized by Who’s Who Legal in their respective fields. In Who’s Who Legal Corporate Tax 2018, three partners were recognized: Sandy Bhogal (London), Hatef Behnia (Los Angeles) and Eric Sloan (New York). In the 2018 Who’s Who Legal Project Finance guide, two partners were recognized: Michael Darden (Houston) and Tomer Pinkusiewicz (New York). In the Who’s Who Legal Labour, Employment & Benefits 2018 guide, two partners were recognized: William Kilberg (Washington, D.C.) and Eugene Scalia (Washington, D.C.). Two partners were recognized by Who’s Who Legal Patents 2018: Josh Krevitt (New York) and William Rooklidge (Orange County). These guides were published in July and August of 2018.

July 18, 2018 |
Jesse Cripps and Michele Maryott Named Among California’s Top Labor & Employment Lawyers

The Daily Journal named Los Angeles partner Jesse Cripps and Orange County partner Michele Maryott to its 2018 list of Top Labor and Employment Lawyers, which features attorneys based in California. The list was published on July 18, 2018.

July 6, 2018 |
Update on California Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450)

Click for PDF On July 5, 2018, Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of California issued an important ruling involving California employers’ legal obligations during federal immigration enforcement actions at the workplace.  In the lawsuit at issue, the federal government seeks to invalidate a series of recent California “sanctuary” statutes, including AB 450, which imposes various restrictions and requirements on California employers, including that employers are not permitted to voluntarily consent to a federal agent’s request to access the worksite and employee records without a warrant.  In his 60-page order yesterday, Judge Mendez granted in part and denied in part the federal government’s motion for preliminary injunction and forbade California and its officials from enforcing several portions of AB 450 during the pendency of the litigation. While private California employers will not be subject to many of AB 450’s requirements for the time being, the fight over AB 450 is likely to proceed, including at the appellate level.  In the meantime, employers should make sure that they are knowledgeable about their obligations (and potential future obligations) under federal immigration law and AB 450 and seek counsel regarding how best to prepare for and ensure compliance with those obligations. Background California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (also known as “Assembly Bill 450” or AB 450) into law on October 5, 2017.  AB 450 became effective on January 1, 2018, and applies to both public and private employers.  The statute prohibits employers from consenting to immigration enforcement agents’ access to the workplace or to employee records (unless permitted by judicial warrant) and also requires that employers provide prompt notice to employees of any impending inspection.  Violations of these requirements may result in penalties of between $2,000 and $5,000 for the first offense, and up to $10,000 for subsequent offenses.  The law does not provide for a private right of action; rather it is enforced exclusively through civil action by California’s Labor Commissioner or Attorney General, who recovers the penalties. AB 450 Requirements, The Specifics AB 450 sets forth several obligations (each of which is limited by the phrase, “except as otherwise required by federal law”) on employers that can be grouped into three main categories detailed below.  The California Labor Commissioner and Attorney General also provided joint guidance that sheds additional light on the application of AB 450 available here:  https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/AB_450_QA.pdf. Deny Access To Premises/Employee Records.  Under the new law, employers are prohibited from “provid[ing] voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent’s [attempt] to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor.”  Employers may only permit access when the agent provides a judicial warrant.[1]  A judicial warrant must be issued by a court and signed by a judge.[2]Similarly, employers may not “provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records.”  Again, the employer may permit access when the agent provides a judicial warrant or subpoena or when the employer is providing access to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other documents for which a Notice of Inspection (“NOI”) has been provided to the employer.[3]The state-provided guidance makes clear that “whether or not voluntary consent was given by the employer is a factual, case-by-case determination that will be made based on the totality of the circumstances in each specific situation,” but, at minimum, the new law “does not require physically blocking or physically interfering with an immigration enforcement agent in order to show that voluntary consent was not provided.” Provide Employees Notice.  AB 450 requires employers to provide each current employee notice of any upcoming inspections of I-9 records or other employment records within 72 hours of receiving an NOI.[4]  Notice must be posted in the language the employer normally communicates with its employees and contain (at minimum): (i) the name of the immigration agency conducting the inspection; (ii) the date the employer received the NOI; (iii) the nature of the inspection; and (iv) a copy of the NOI.After an inspection has been completed, employers must provide any affected employees (employees identified by the agency as potentially lacking work authorization or having deficiencies in their authorization documents) with notice of that information.[5]  Specifically, the affected employee (and his/her authorized representative) must receive a copy of the agency’s notice providing the results of the inspection and written notice of the employer’s and employee’s obligations resulting from the inspection within 72 hours of its receipt.  Employers must provide this notice by hand at work, if possible, or otherwise via both mail and email. Limit Reverification Of Current Employees.  Finally, the law penalizes employers for the reverification of the employment eligibility of a current employee “at a time or in a manner not required by [federal law.]”[6] Federal Government Response Within weeks of AB 450 becoming law, ICE’s Acting Director Thomas Homan responded by announcing that the agency planned to increase significantly the number of worksite-related investigations it initiated nationwide during 2018.  Homan later called AB 450 and Senate Bill 54, a related statute enacted at the same time as AB 450 that seeks to limits permissible cooperation between California agencies and federal immigration authorities, “terrible.”  And he stated that Californians “better hold on tight.” On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice filed legal action against the state of California, Governor Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra in federal court, requesting that the Court invalidate AB 450 and other so-called sanctuary laws on the ground, in part, that they are preempted by federal immigration law and are therefore unconstitutional.[7] The federal government also moved for a preliminary injunction forbidding enforcement of AB  450 during the pendency of the lawsuit.[8]  In short, the federal government contends that the laws intentionally obstruct federal law and impermissibly interfere with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their lawful duties and, thereby violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit generated significant interest, including no fewer than sixteen amici curiae briefs in support of both sides and multiple (unsuccessful) motions to intervene.  The California defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, filed on May 4, 2018, is pending before the Court. The district court heard argument on the federal government’s preliminary injunction motion on June 20, 2018, in Sacramento, California.  Yesterday, the Court found in the federal government’s favor (in part), enjoining California and its officials from enforcing all provisions of AB 450 except for the provisions relating to employee notice.[9] The Court noted that the lawsuit involves several “unique and novel constitutional issues,” including “whether state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state agents and private citizens from voluntarily complying with a federal program.”  In a detailed legal analysis, noting that it “expresse[d] no views on the soundness of the policies or statutes involved,” the Court found: That the federal government is likely to prevail in its arguments against the provisions of AB 450 that impose penalties on private employers who “voluntarily consent to federal immigration enforcement’s entry into nonpublic areas of their place of business or access to their employment records” because they “impermissibly discriminate[] against those who choose to deal with the Federal Government;” That the federal government is likely to prevail in its arguments against AB 450’s prohibition on reverification of employee eligibility, albeit “with the caveat that a more complete evidentiary record could impact the Court’s analysis at a later stage of th[e] litigation;” and That the federal government is not likely to prevail in its arguments against AB 450’s notice requirements adopted in Cal. Labor Code section 90.2.  The Court explained that “notice provides employees with an opportunity to cure any deficiency in their paperwork or employment eligibility” and does not impermissibly impede the federal government’s interests. As a result, the Court enjoined California from enforcing all provisions of AB 450 as applied to private employers except those regarding employee notice.  Private employers therefore only need to ensure compliance with those notice requirements for the time being.  As the Court itself noted, however, its ruling was only as to the likelihood of success at this early stage of the litigation and is subject to further review and a final determination on the merits after additional evidence is presented, as well as to further potential review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Practical Considerations & Best Practices While yesterday’s ruling enjoins enforcement of most of the obligations imposed by AB 450, the ruling is only temporary and employers should seek counsel from immigration and/or employment counsel and should determine in advance how they will comply with these obligations, should AB 450 go into full effect.  Among other measures, employers should consider: Preparing facility managers and other employees most likely to encounter an immigration enforcement agent seeking access to the worksite or records on the proper procedures for handling an inspection, including how to determine whether the agent has a valid judicial warrant (as opposed, for example, to an administrative subpoena) and to consult immediately with counsel; Implementing procedures for handling notice to employees on an expedited basis, including a template to ensure all necessary information is provided (the state Labor Commissioner has provided a form template available here: https://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE/LC_90.2_EE_Notice.pdf); and Ensuring any reverification of employment eligibility complies with federal legal obligations and conducting training on the verification and reverification process.    [1]   Cal. Gov. Code § 7285.1(a), (e).    [2]   Guidance No. 11, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/AB_450_QA.pdf.    [3]   Cal. Gov. Code § 7285.2(a)(1), (a)(2).    [4]   Cal. Labor Code § 90.2(a).    [5]   Cal. Labor Code § 90.2(b).    [6]   Cal. Labor Code § 1019.2(a).    [7]   U.S. v. State of California, Case No. 1:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1041431/download.    [8]   Id. at Dkt. No. 2, available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1041436/download.    [9]   Id. at Dkt. No. 193 (E.D.Cal. July 5, 2018). The following Gibson Dunn lawyers assisted in preparing this client update: Jesse Cripps and Ryan Stewart. Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed above. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or any of the following in the firm’s Labor and Employment practice group: Catherine A. Conway – Co-Chair, Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7822, cconway@gibsondunn.com) Jason C. Schwartz – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com) Rachel S. Brass – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8293, rbrass@gibsondunn.com) Jesse A. Cripps – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7792, jcripps@gibsondunn.com) Michele L. Maryott – Orange County (+1 949-451-3945, mmaryott@gibsondunn.com) Katherine V.A. Smith – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com)

June 28, 2018 |
French Supreme Court Holds That Ultimate Controlling Shareholder of a Liquidated French Subsidiary Should Compensate Employees for Job Loss

Click for PDF The French Supreme Court for civil law matters (Cour de cassation) made public on June 28, 2018 an important decision dated May 24, 2018.  The Social Chamber (Chambre sociale) of the Cour de cassation decided that the ultimate controlling shareholder of a liquidated French subsidiary committed several faults justifying to condemn it to compensate the French employees for the loss of their jobs. In early 2010, Lee Cooper France filed for bankruptcy and was ultimately liquidated.  74 employees were dismissed.  27 of these employees went to court to obtain that Sun Capital Partners Inc. be recognized as the co-employer of the dismissed employees.  The former employees were also asking that Sun Capital Partners Inc. be condemned to pay damages as a consequence of its extra-contractual tortious liability having led to the loss of their jobs. Sun Capital Partners Inc. was not found to be the co-employer of the French employees. It was held, however, that it was tortiously liable to pay damages (of several tens of thousands dollars) to each of the dismissed employees to compensate them for the loss of their jobs. The Court started by considering that Sun Capital Partners Inc. was the main shareholder of the “Lee Cooper group”, holding Lee Cooper France via companies it controls.  From the court decision, it appears that Lee Cooper France was 100% controlled by a Dutch company named Vivat Holding BV, itself 100% controlled by another Dutch company named Avatar BV, itself 100% controlled by another Dutch company named Lee Cooper Group SCA, itself controlled by Sun Capital Partners Inc. The issue raised by the Court is that Lee Cooper France financed the “group” for amounts disproportionate with its means.  Examples are as follows: the right to use the trademark “Lee Cooper” was transferred for no consideration to a company named “Doserno”, which was 100% controlled by Lee Cooper Group SCA which subsequently charged royalties for the use of the “Lee Cooper” trademark by Lee Cooper France; Lee Cooper France granted a mortgage over a building it owned to secure a bank loan to the exclusive benefit of another subsidiary of the group.  The building was subsequently sold to the benefit of the lenders; an inventory of goods to be resold was given as a security to lenders and then sold to Lee Cooper France which was then opposed the lenders’ retention right; and services performed for other entities of the group were only partially paid for. Although Sun Capital Partners Inc. was “isolated” from Lee Cooper France by four layers of corporate entities having the status of limited liability corporations, Sun Capital Partners Inc. was held liable for having “via the companies of the group, made detrimental decisions in its sole shareholder interest which led to the liquidation of Lee Cooper France.” The decision, which does not involve any piercing of the corporate veil, is based only on theories of tortious liability, the various entities of the group of companies controlled by Sun Capital Partners Inc. being treated as mere instruments for the commission of these faults by the controlling shareholders. This decision is a reminder that intra-group transactions involving French entities need to be carefully reviewed to ensure the existence of a corporate interest for the French entity. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed in this update. For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or any of the following members of the Paris office by phone (+33 1 56 43 13 00) or by email (see below): Jean-Philippe Robé – jrobe@gibsondunn.com Eric Bouffard – ebouffard@gibsondunn.com Jean-Pierre Farges – jpfarges@gibsondunn.com Pierre-Emmanuel Fender – pefender@gibsondunn.com Benoît Fleury – bfleury@gibsondunn.com © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

June 28, 2018 |
India – Legal and Regulatory Update (June 2018)

Click for PDF The Indian Market The Indian economy continues to be an attractive investment destination and one of the fastest growing major economies. After a brief period of uncertainty, following the introduction of a uniform goods and services tax and the announcement that certain banknotes would cease to be legal tender, the growth rate of the economy has begun to rebound, increasing to 7.7 percent in the first quarter of 2018, up from 6.3 percent in the previous quarter. In the World Bank’s most recent Ease of Doing Business rankings, India climbed 30 spots to enter the top 100 countries. This update provides a brief overview of certain key legal and regulatory developments in India between May 1, 2017 and June 28, 2018. Key Legal and Regulatory Developments Foreign Investment Compulsory Reporting of Foreign Investment: The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI“) has notified a one-time reporting requirement[1] for Indian entities with foreign investment. Each such entity must report its total foreign investment in a specified format (asking for certain basic information such as the entity’s main business activity) no later than July 12, 2018. Indian entities can submit their reports through RBI’s website. Indian entities that do not comply with this requirement will be considered to be in violation of India’s foreign exchange laws and will not be permitted to receive any additional foreign investment. This one-time filing requirement is a precursor to the implementation of a single master form that aims to integrate current foreign investment reporting requirements by consolidating nine separate forms into one single form. Single Brand Retail: The Government of India (“Government“) has approved up to 100% foreign direct investment (“FDI“) in single brand product retail trading (“SBRT“) under the automatic route (i.e., without prior Government approval), subject to certain conditions.[2] Previously, FDI in SBRT entities exceeding 49% required the approval of the Government. The Government has also relaxed local sourcing conditions attached to such foreign investment. SBRT entities with more than 51% FDI continue to be subject to local sourcing requirements in India, unless the entity is engaged in retail trading of products that have ‘cutting-edge’ technology. All such SBRT entities are required to source 30% of the value of goods purchased from Indian sources. The Government has now relaxed this sourcing requirement by allowing such SBRT entities to count any purchases made for its global operations towards the 30% local sourcing requirement for a period of five years from the year of opening its first store. The Government has clarified that this relaxation is limited to any increment in sourcing from India from the preceding financial year to the current one, measured in Indian Rupees. After this five year period, the threshold must be met directly by the FDI-receiving SBRT entity through its India operations, on an annual basis. Real Estate Broking Service: The Government has clarified that real estate broking service does not qualify as real estate business and is therefore eligible to receive up to 100% FDI under the automatic route.[3] Introduction of the Standard Operating Procedure: In mid-2017 the Government abolished the Foreign Investment Promotion Board – the Government body responsible for rendering decisions on FDI investments requiring Government approval. Instead, in order to streamline regulatory approvals, it has introduced the Standard Operating Procedure for Processing FDI Proposals (“SOP“).[4] The Government has designated certain competent authorities who are to process an application for FDI in the sector assigned to them. For example, the Ministry of Civil Aviation is responsible for considering and approving FDI proposals in the civil aviation sector. Under the SOP, the competent authorities must adhere to time limits within which a decision must be given. Significantly, the SOP mandates a relevant competent authority to obtain the DIPP’s concurrence before it rejects an application or imposes conditions on a proposed investment. Mergers and Acquisitions Relaxation of Merger Notification Timelines: Previously, parties to a transaction, regarded as a combination within the meaning of the [Indian] Competition Act, 2002 were required to notify the Competition Commission of India (“CCI“) within 30 days of a triggering event, such as execution of transaction documents or approval of a merger or amalgamation by the board of directors of the combining parties. Now, the CCI has exempted parties to combinations from the 30 day notice requirement until June 2022.[5] This move will provide parties involved in a combination sufficient time to compile a comprehensive notification and will possibly lead to faster approvals by easing the burden on CCI’s case teams. Rules for Listed Companies Involved in a Scheme: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI“)’s listing rules requires listed companies involved in schemes of arrangement under the [Indian] Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act“), to file a draft version of the scheme with a stock exchange. This is in order to obtain a no objection/observation letter before the scheme can be filed with the National Company Law Tribunal. In March 2017, SEBI issued a revised framework for schemes proposed by listed companies in India. In January 2018, SEBI issued a circular[6] amending the 2017 framework. As a part of the 2018 amendments, SEBI clarified that a no objection/observation letter is not required to be obtained from a recognized stock exchange for a demerger/hive off of a division of a listed company into a wholly owned subsidiary, or a merger of a wholly owned subsidiary into its parent company. However, draft scheme documents will still need to be filed with the stock exchange for the purpose of information. The stock exchange will then disseminate the information on their website. Companies Act Action Against Non-Compliant Companies: Registrars of companies (“RoC“) in various Indian states, acting on powers granted under the Companies Act, have initiated action against companies which have either not commenced operations or have not been carrying on business in the past two years. In September 2017, the Government announced that over 200,000 companies had been struck-off from the register of companies based on the powers described above.[7] Further, the director identification numbers for individuals serving as directors on the board of such companies were cancelled, resulting in their disqualification to serve on the board of any company for a period of five years. The striking-off was targeted at Indian companies that failed to fulfill regulatory and compliance requirements (such as filing annual returns) for three years.[8] Notification of Layering Rules: The Government has notified a proviso to subsection 87[9] of Section 2 of the Companies Act along with the Companies (Restriction on Number of Layers) Rules, 2017 (the “Layering Rules“).[10] The effect of these notifications is that an Indian company which is not a banking company, non-banking financial company, insurance company or a government company, is not allowed to have more than two layers of subsidiaries. For the purposes of computing the number of layers, Indian companies are not required to take into account one layer consisting of one or more wholly owned subsidiaries. Further, the Layering Rules do not prohibit Indian companies from acquiring companies incorporated outside India which have subsidiaries beyond two layers (as long as such a structure is permitted in accordance with the laws of the relevant country). Provisions of Companies Act Extended to all Foreign Companies: India has enacted the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017 in order to amend various sections of the Companies Act. The provisions of the amendment act are being brought into effect in a phased manner. Recently, the Government has notified a provision in the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017[11] which extends the applicability of sections 380 to 386 and sections 392 and 393 of the Companies Act to all foreign companies which have a place of business in India or conduct any business activity in the country. Prior to this amendment, these provisions were only applicable to foreign companies where a minimum of fifty percent of the shares were held by Indian individuals or companies. These provisions of the Companies Act include a requirement to (a) furnish information and documents to the RoC, such as certified copies of constitutional documents, the company’s balance sheet and profit and loss account; and (b) comply with the provisions governing issuance of debentures, preparation of annual returns and maintaining books of account. Notification of Cross Border Merger Rules: The Government had notified Section 234 of the Companies Act and Rule 25A of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules 2016. Please refer to our regulatory update dated May 1, 2017 for further details. In this update, we had referred to the requirement of the RBI’s prior permission in order to commence cross border merger procedures under the Companies Act. On March 20, 2018, the RBI issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Cross Border Merger) Regulations, 2018 (the “Cross Border Merger Rules“).[12] The Cross Border Merger Rules provide for the RBI’s deemed approval where the proposed cross-border merger is in accordance with the parameters specified by it. These parameters include, where the resultant company is an Indian company, a requirement that any borrowings or guarantees transferred to the resultant entity comply with RBI regulations on external commercial borrowings within a period of two years from the effectiveness of the merger. End-use restrictions under the existing RBI regulations do not have to be complied with. However, where the resultant company is an offshore company, the transfer of any borrowings in rupees to the resultant company requires the consent of the Indian lender and must be in compliance with Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and regulations issued thereunder. In addition, repayment of onshore loans will need to be in accordance with the scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal. Currently, these provisions apply only to mergers and amalgamations, and not to demergers. Labour Laws States Begin Implementing Model Labour Law: In mid-2016, the Government introduced the Model Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Bill (“S&E Bill“). The S&E Bill, as is the case with other shops and establishments legislation in India, mandates working hours, public holidays and regulates the condition of workers employed in non-industrial establishments such as shops, restaurants and movie theatres. States in India can either adopt the S&E Bill in its entirety, superseding existing regulations, or choose to amend their existing enactments based on the S&E Bill. The S&E Bill seeks to update Indian laws, adapting them to current business requirement for non-industrial establishments. For example, the S&E Bill (a) enables establishments to remain open 365 days in a year, and (b) allows women to work night shifts, while containing provisions for employers to ensure safety of women workers. Registration provisions under the new legislation have also been eased. In late 2017, the State of Maharashtra notified a new shops and establishments statute based on the S&E Bill.  Other states in India are expected to follow suit. Start–ups Issue of Convertible Notes by Start-ups: The Government had eased funding for start-ups in India in January 2016. Please refer to our regulatory update dated May 18, 2016, for an overview of this initiative. In January 2017, the RBI had permitted start-ups to receive foreign investment through the issue of convertible notes.[13] The revised FDI Policy issued in 2017 now incorporates these provisions. The provisions allow for an investment of INR 2,500,000 (approx. USD 36,700) or more to be made in a single tranche. These notes are repayable at the option of the holder, and convertible within a five year period. The issuance of the notes is subject to entry route, sectoral caps, conditions, pricing guidelines and other requirements that are prescribed for the sector by the RBI.[14] Capital Gains Tax Charging of Long Term Capital Gains Tax: An important amendment to Indian tax laws introduced by the Finance Act, 2018[15] is the levy of tax at the rate of 10% on capital gains made on the sale of certain securities (including listed equity shares) held at least for a year. The tax is levied if the total amount of capital gains exceeds INR 100,000 (approx. USD 1,448). This amendment came into effect on April 1, 2018. However, all gains made on existing holdings until January 31, 2018 are exempt from the tax.  In all such ‘grandfathering’ cases, the cost of acquisition of a security is deemed to be the higher of the actual cost of acquisition and the fair market value of the security as on January 31, 2018. Where the consideration received on transfer of the security is lower than the fair market value as on January 31, 2018, the cost of acquisition is deemed to be the higher of the actual cost of acquisition and the consideration received for the transfer.[16] [1] RBI Notification on Reporting in Single Master Form dated June 7, 2018. Available at https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Notification/PDFs/NT194481067EB1B554402821A8C2AB7A52009.PDF [2] Press Note No. 1 (2018 Series) dated January 23, 2018, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India. [3] Id.  [4] Standard Operating Procedure dated June 29, 2017. Available at http://www.fifp.gov.in/Forms/SOP.pdf  [5] MCA Notification dated June 29, 2017. Available at http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/notification/S.O.%202039%20%28E%29%20-%2029th%20June%202017.pdf  [6] SEBI Circular dated January 3, 2018. Available at https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/jan-2018/circular-on-schemes-of-arrangement-by-listed-entities-and-ii-relaxation-under-sub-rule-7-of-rule-19-of-the-securities-contracts-regulation-rules-1957-_37265.html. [7] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, “Department of Financial Services advises all Banks to take immediate steps to put restrictions on bank accounts of over two lakh ‘struck off’ companies”, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=170546 (September 5, 2017). [8] Live Mint, “Govt blocks bank accounts of 200,000 dormant firms”, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/oTcu9b66rZQnvFw6mgSCGK/Black-money-Bank-accounts-of-209-lakh-companies-frozen.html (September 6, 2017).  [9] MCA Notification vide S.O. No. 3086(E) dated September 20, 2017.  [10] Notification No. G.S.R. 1176(E) dated September 20, 2017. Available at http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/CompaniesRestrictionOnNumberofLayersRule_22092017.pdf[11] MCA Notification dated February 9, 2018. Available at http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Commencementnotification_12022018.pdf [12] FEMA Notification dated March 20, 2018. Available at https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/CBM28031838E18A1D866A47F8A20201D6518E468E.pdf  [13] RBI Notification of changes to RBI regulations dated January 10, 2017. Available at https://rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=10825&Mode=0 [14] Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2017. Available at http://dipp.nic.in/sites/default/files/CFPC_2017_FINAL_RELEASED_28.8.17.pdf [15] Section 33 of the Finance Act, 2018. Available at http://egazette.nic.in/writereaddata/2018/184302.pdf [16] CBDT Notification No. F. No. 370149/20/2018-TPL. Available at https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/news/faq-on-ltcg.pdf Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. For further details, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or the following authors in the firm’s Singapore office: India Team: Jai S. Pathak (+65 6507 3683, jpathak@gibsondunn.com) Karthik Ashwin Thiagarajan (+65 6507 3636, kthiagarajan@gibsondunn.com) Prachi Jhunjhunwala (+65.6507.3645, pjhunjhunwala@gibsondunn.com) © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

June 27, 2018 |
Supreme Court Holds That Public-Sector Union “Agency Fees” Violate The First Amendment

Click for PDF Decided June 27, 2018 Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466  Today, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the First Amendment does not permit public-sector unions to collect mandatory fees from non-members to cover the costs of collective bargaining. Background: Mark Janus, a non-union State employee, brought a First Amendment challenge to mandatory “agency fees” that public-sector labor unions collect from non-members ostensibly to cover the costs of collective bargaining with government employers.  Janus argued that the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education—which upheld agency fees because they avoid labor strife and prevent non-members from benefiting from collective bargaining without paying for union membership—should be overruled because agency fees compel non-members to subsidize union speech intended to influence governmental policies on matters of public importance, such as education, healthcare, and climate change, that frequently arise in collective bargaining between public-sector unions and government employers. Issue: Whether Abood should be overruled and compulsory public-sector agency fees invalidated under the First Amendment. Court’s Holding: Yes.  Public-sector agency fees violate the First Amendment because they compel non-members to subsidize union speech on matters of public concern.  Abood is overruled. “Because the compelled subsidization of private speech seriously impinges on First Amendment rights, it cannot be casually allowed.” Justice Alito, writing for the 5-4 Court What It Means: This issue was presented to the Court in 2016 in Friedrichs v. CTA.  Following the death of Justice Scalia, however, the Court split 4-4 and summarily affirmed the judgment below.  In Janus, the Court reached the issue that it had not addressed in Friedrichs. The Court embraced a broad view of the First Amendment’s limitations on compelled speech.  The agency fees at issue infringed non-members’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to lend their support to union speech on a host of controversial issues of public concern that could arise during collective-bargaining discussions.  According to the Court, that was unacceptable, and the First Amendment instead requires public-sector employees to affirmatively choose to support a union before any fees can be collected from them. The Court expressly overruled Abood because its “free-rider” rationale—that agency fees were necessary to prevent non-members from enjoying the benefits of union membership as to collective bargaining without incurring the costs—could not justify the burdens imposed on First Amendment rights by agency fees.  The fees were unnecessary to ensure that unions were willing to serve as the exclusive representative for all employees, because that designation included numerous other benefits (such as a privileged place in negotiations). The Court’s decision invalidates the laws of more than 20 states that require public-sector unions to collect agency fees.  Public-sector unions may see their funding and membership levels drop as a consequence. The Court’s holding applies “when a State requires its employees to pay agency fees,” and thus does not reach private-sector unions.  The Court deemed it “questionable” whether the First Amendment would be implicated when a State merely authorizes—yet does not require—private parties to enter into an agency-fee agreement, but left the question open. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court.  Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders: Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Caitlin J. Halligan +1 212.351.3909 challigan@gibsondunn.com Mark A. Perry +1 202.887.3667 mperry@gibsondunn.com Nicole A. Saharsky +1 202.887.3669 nsaharsky@gibsondunn.com   Related Practice: Labor and Employment Catherine A. Conway +1 213.229.7822 cconway@gibsondunn.com Eugene Scalia +1 202.955.8206 escalia@gibsondunn.com Jason C. Schwartz +1 202.955.8242 jschwartz@gibsondunn.com   © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

June 21, 2018 |
Gibson Dunn Partners Named Top Employment Lawyers

Six Gibson Dunn partners were recognized in the 2018 Guide to World-Class Employment Lawyers by Human Resource Executive (HRE) magazine and Lawdragon. Los Angeles partner Catherine Conway and Washington, D.C. partners Eugene Scalia and Jason Schwartz were named among the 100 Most Powerful Employment Lawyers in the United States. Palo Alto partner Stephen Fackler was included among the Top 20 Lawyers in Employee Benefits, and Los Angeles partner Jesse Cripps and Orange County partner Michele Maryott were named among the 40 Up and Comers in Employment Law. This is the eleventh annual guide to leading corporate, defense-side employment lawyers produced by Lawdragon and HRE.

June 18, 2018 |
FLSA Turns 80: The Divide Over Joint Employment Status

Washington, D.C. partner Jason Schwartz and associate Ryan Stewart are the authors of “FLSA Turns 80: The Divide Over Joint Employment Status,” [PDF] published in Law360 on June 18, 2018.

May 29, 2018 |
Gibson Dunn Named Winner in Three Categories for D.C. Litigation Department of the Year

Click for PDF National Law Journal’s 2018 D.C. Litigation Department of the Year contest recognized Gibson Dunn as co-winner in the General Litigation [PDF] and Labor & Employment [PDF] categories and the winner in the Products Liability/Mass Torts [PDF] category.  Gibson Dunn was the only firm to win in three categories.  Profiles ran in the magazine’s June issue and noted the firm’s “winning streak in 2017 was marked by cases that may prove instructive for future litigation.”

May 25, 2018 |
Gibson Dunn Receives Chambers USA Excellence Award

At its annual USA Excellence Awards, Chambers and Partners named Gibson Dunn the winner in the Corporate Crime & Government Investigations category. The awards “reflect notable achievements over the past 12 months, including outstanding work, impressive strategic growth and excellence in client service.” This year the firm was also shortlisted in nine other categories: Antitrust, Energy/Projects: Oil & Gas, Energy/Projects: Power (including Renewables), Intellectual Property (including Patent, Copyright & Trademark), Labor & Employment, Real Estate, Securities and Financial Services Regulation and Tax team categories. Debra Wong Yang was also shortlisted in the individual category of Litigation: White Collar Crime & Government Investigations. The awards were presented on May 24, 2018.  

May 21, 2018 |
Supreme Court Upholds Agreements To Individually Arbitrate Employment-Related Disputes

Click for PDF Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300; National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307 Decided May 21, 2018 Today, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that an employee’s agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with his employer through individual arbitration is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court rejected the argument that enforcing the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver would violate employees’ right to engage in collective action under the National Labor Relations Act. Background: The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that agreements to arbitrate transactions involving interstate commerce “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” except “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  9 U.S.C. § 2.  In these consolidated cases, the employees agreed to arbitrate work-related disputes through individual arbitration, but later sued their employers in federal courts, arguing that the arbitration agreements were invalid because they violated employees’ right to engage in “concerted activities” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  29 U.S.C. § 157. Issue: Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve work-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class proceedings, is enforceable under the FAA, notwithstanding the employee’s NLRA right to engage in concerted activities.Court’s Holding: Yes.  Arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration of employment disputes are enforceable notwithstanding the NLRA collective-action right. What It Means: The Supreme Court ruling confirms that courts will continue to enforce agreements between employers and employees to arbitrate their disputes on an individual basis, rather than in class action litigation. This case continues the Supreme Court’s trend of enforcing the FAA’s strong policy favoring arbitration. The Court held that under the FAA’s saving clause, litigants only can challenge an arbitration agreement on grounds that would apply to “any” contract—not on grounds specific to arbitration. The Court’s reasoning suggests that state laws restricting arbitration are not likely to withstand challenge under the FAA. Clients should consult a Gibson Dunn attorney regarding the nuances created by different jurisdictions. The Court determined that the NLRA’s “concerted activities” provision was intended to protect organizing and collective bargaining in the workplace, not the treatment of class actions or class arbitration. Interestingly, the Solicitor General said the arbitration agreements are enforceable, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) said they are not enforceable – and both argued their positions before the Supreme Court. For this reason (and others), the Court declined to afford Chevron deference to the NLRB’s view. “It is this Court’s duty to interpret Congress’s statutes as a harmonious whole rather than at war with one another. And abiding that duty here leads to an unmistakable conclusion.” Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court.  Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders: Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Caitlin J. Halligan +1 212.351.3909 challigan@gibsondunn.com Mark A. Perry +1 202.887.3667 mperry@gibsondunn.com Nicole A. Saharsky +1 202.887.3669 nsaharsky@gibsondunn.com   Gibson Dunn’s Labor and Employment lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding arbitration programs. Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders or the attorneys with whom you work: Labor and Employment Practice Catherine A. Conway +1 213.229.7822 cconway@gibsondunn.com) Eugene Scalia +1 202.955.8206 escalia@gibsondunn.com Jason C. Schwartz +1 202.955.8242 jschwartz@gibsondunn.com   Related Practice: Class Actions Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. +1 213.229.7804 tboutrous@gibsondunn.comm Christopher Chorba +1 213.229.7396 cchorba@gibsondunn.com Theane Evangelis +1 213.229.7726 tevangelis@gibsondunn.com   © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising: The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

May 2, 2018 |
The Latest Legislative Responses to #Metoo: New Requirements for Sexual Harassment Training, Arbitration and Settlement Agreements in New York and Evolving Legislation in Other States

Click for PDF Against a backdrop of increased national focus on sexual harassment in the workplace, New York recently enacted a law requiring employers to provide employees with annual sexual harassment training, prohibiting mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims, and restricting the use of confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements.  Similar proposals have been enacted or are pending in numerous other states. TRAINING REQUIREMENTS New York’s new training requirement, which is included in the state budget for FY18–19,[1] mandates that employers provide annual interactive sexual harassment training to all employees by October 9, 2018.  Governor Cuomo signed the budget bill on April 12, 2018.  The law directs the New York State Department of Labor and New York State Division of Human Rights to “produce a model sexual harassment prevention training program to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.”  All employers must either “utilize the model sexual harassment prevention training program” or “establish a training program . . . that equals or exceeds the minimum standards provided by such model training.”  Employers must provide such training “to all employees on an annual basis.” The law also tasks the Department of Labor and Division of Human Rights with publishing a “model sexual harassment prevention guidance document and sexual harassment prevention policy.”  Employers must either adopt the model policy or establish an equivalent policy, and must provide the policy “to all employees in writing.”  Further, the legislation requires all contractors submitting a bid to the State or a state agency under competitive bidding laws to certify, “under penalty of perjury, that the bidder has and has implemented a written policy addressing sexual harassment prevention in the workplace and provides annual sexual harassment prevention training to all of its employees.” Similar legislative proposals are pending in several other states.  Delaware is considering a bill that would require employers with fifty or more employees to provide at least two hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees every two years.[2]  A Pennsylvania bill would require employers to provide interactive sexual harassment training to “all current employees” every two years, and would require employers to provide “additional interactive training” to all supervisors.[3]  And California and Connecticut—states that already impose mandatory sexual harassment training obligations on employers—are considering strengthening their previously enacted laws.  Under current California and Connecticut law, employers with fifty or more employees must provide sexual harassment training to supervisors every two years.  Connecticut proposals would reduce the number of employees to fifteen[4] or to three,[5] and would extend training to supervisory and nonsupervisory employees.  A California proposal would reduce the number to five or more employees and extend training to all employees.[6]  A separate California bill would require employers with fifty or more employees to “maintain records of employee complaints of sexual harassment for [ten] years.”[7] ARBITRATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS New York’s recently enacted law also limits the use of arbitration and nondisclosure agreements with respect to sexual harassment claims.  The law prohibits employers from including in any written contract “any clause or provision . . . which requires as a condition of the enforcement of the contract or obtaining remedies under the contract that the parties submit to mandatory arbitration to resolve any allegation or claim of an unlawful discriminatory practice of sexual harassment.”[8]  The prohibition does not apply “where inconsistent with federal law,” and it does not apply to contracts entered into before the bill’s enactment.  The law also prohibits employers from including in any settlement agreement, “the factual foundation for which involves sexual harassment, any term or condition that would prevent the disclosure of the underlying facts and circumstances to the claim or action.”  A confidentiality clause may be included where “the condition of confidentiality is the complainant’s preference.”  Like the federal requirements for a valid release of age discrimination claims, the complainant must have twenty-one days to consider the non-disclosure clause, and may revoke the agreement within seven days after signing. In March 2018, the State of Washington enacted similar restrictions.  One Washington law voids any provision in an employment contract that “requires an employee to waive the employee’s right to publicly pursue a cause of action arising under [the Washington State Law Against Discrimination] or federal antidiscrimination laws or to publicly file a complaint with the appropriate state or federal agencies, or [that] requires an employee to resolve claims of discrimination in a dispute resolution process that is confidential.”[9]  Washington also enacted a law that prohibits an employer from requiring an employee, “as a condition of employment, to sign a nondisclosure agreement . . . that prevents the employee from disclosing sexual harassment or sexual assault occurring in the workplace.”[10]  The law “does not prohibit a settlement agreement between an employee or former employee alleging sexual harassment and an employer from containing confidentiality provisions.” Several other states are actively considering similar laws.[11]  Some of these proposals would void provisions that waive an employee’s substantive or procedural rights in connection with sexual harassment claims.  For instance, the Maryland legislature passed a bill in early April that would void, except as prohibited by federal law, any provision in an employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of sexual harassment.[12]  Although the law has not yet been signed by the Governor, the bill unanimously passed the Senate, and passed the House by a vote of 136-1.  Similarly, in California, the legislature is considering a bill that would prevent employers from requiring employees to arbitrate harassment claims or to waive any right, forum, or procedure available under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act or Labor Code.[13]  Other states have considered bills that would prohibit employers from making settlements contingent on an employee signing a nondisclosure agreement.  Some states are considering narrower laws that would void nondisclosure agreements that purport to restrict an employee’s ability to discuss criminal conduct.  For instance, Arizona recently enacted a law that expressly permits sexual harassment victims to disregard nondisclosure agreements if asked to do so by law enforcement or during a court proceeding.[14]  The original bill was broader, and would have voided all nondisclosure agreements covering sexual harassment.  (“Whistleblower” carve-outs are often expressly included in confidentiality provisions already pursuant to, among other things, EEOC and SEC provisions and the Defend Trade Secrets Act.) One key issue to monitor is the extent to which state laws purporting to prohibit arbitration of sexual harassment claims are challenged in court as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The FAA’s “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration,” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011), requires the enforcement of arbitration agreements “save upon grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  9 U.S.C. § 2.  A number of these new state laws seem to expressly contemplate the potential that they are preempted by federal law—the New York provision, for example, does not apply “where inconsistent with federal law.”  These anticipated preemption challenges may come on the heels of the publication of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending decision on the enforceability of class action waivers in employment agreements.[15] * * * Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have about these developments.  We have been engaged by numerous clients recently to conduct investigations of #MeToo complaints; to proactively review sexual harassment policies, practices and procedures for the protection of employees and the promotion of a respectful and professional workplace; to conduct training for executives, managers and employees; and to handle related counseling and litigation.  To learn more about these issues, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or the following Labor and Employment practice group leaders: Catherine A. Conway – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7822, cconway@gibsondunn.com) Jason C. Schwartz – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com)    [1]   S.B. 7507C, 2018 State Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2018).    [2]   H.B. 360, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2018).    [3]   H.B. 2282, 2018 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2018).    [4]   H.B. 5043, 2018 Gen. Assemb., Feb. Sess. (Conn. 2018).    [5]   S.B. 132, 2018 Gen. Assemb., Feb Sess. (Conn. 2018).    [6]   S.B. 1343, 2018 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2018).    [7]   A.B. 1867, 2018 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2018).    [8]   S.B. 7507C, 2018 State Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2018).    [9]   S.B. 6313, 65th Leg., 2018 Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2018). [10]   S.B. 5996, 65th Leg., 2018 Reg. Sess. (Wash 2018). [11]   As of the publication of this alert, the following states have considered or are considering similar bills:  Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.  There is also a similar proposal that has been introduced in Congress. [12]   S.B. 1010, 2018 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2018). [13]   A.B. 3080, 2018 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2018). [14]   H.B. 2020, 53rd Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2018). [15]   Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (argued Oct. 2, 2017); Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300 (argued Oct. 2, 2017); N.L.R.B. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 16-307 (argued Oct. 2, 2017), all consolidated. © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

May 1, 2018 |
Federal District Court Enjoins Philadelphia Ordinance Prohibiting Employers from Asking Applicants About Their Wage History

Click for PDF On April 30, 2018, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania preliminarily enjoined enforcement of a Philadelphia Ordinance prohibiting employers from asking applicants about their wage history.[1]  Although over a dozen states and localities have recently enacted similar wage-history laws, this is the first court decision to rule on whether such laws violate employers’ First Amendment rights. Aimed at reducing the wage gap between men and women, the Ordinance imposes two prohibitions on Philadelphia employers:  It prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s wage history and from relying on wage history to make a salary determination unless that history was knowingly and willingly disclosed by the applicant.[2] In a 59-page opinion, the District Court concluded that the plaintiff—the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, represented by Gibson Dunn—was entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Ordinance’s inquiry provision.  The Court determined that the Chamber was likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment challenge for two reasons.  First, the Court held that wage-history inquiries do not concern unlawful activity under the first prong of the Central Hudson test for restrictions of commercial speech.[3]  “[W]hile using wage history to formulate salaries is made illegal” by the Ordinance, the Court reasoned, “other uses of wage history are not illegal.”[4]  The Court concluded that the City’s contrary position “would stand Central Hudson on its head.”[5] Second, the District Court held that the City had failed to show that the Ordinance “directly advances” a substantial government interest, as required under the third Central Hudson prong.[6]  Although the City had asserted a substantial interest in reducing discriminatory wage disparities, the Court ruled that the City’s evidence was “riddled with conclusory statements, amounting to ‘various tidbits’ and ‘educated guesses.'”[7]  “[M]ore is needed,” the Court emphasized.[8]  Without substantial evidence “that inquiry into salary history results in lower salaries for women and minorities,” it is “impossible to know whether the Inquiry Provision will directly advance the [City’s] substantial interests.”[9] The District Court also concluded that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction had been met.  The Court explained that the Chamber had demonstrated irreparable harm by “alleg[ing] a real and actual deprivation of its and its members’ First Amendment rights through declarations,” and that “the City cannot claim a legitimate interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law.”[10] The District Court did uphold the Ordinance’s provision prohibiting employers from relying on an applicant’s salary history in making a salary determination unless that history is knowingly and willingly disclosed.[11]  The Court reasoned that reliance on wage history is not speech for First Amendment purposes.[12]  Nonetheless, the Court’s decision preliminarily enjoining the Ordinance’s inquiry provision will enable employers to use wage-history information to ascertain prevailing market wages and to identify potentially unaffordable applicants at the outset of the hiring process.  The decision may also prompt employers to mount a First Amendment challenge to similar wage-history laws in other jurisdictions.    [1]   Chamber of Commerce for Greater Phila. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1548, slip op. at 54 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2018).    [2]   Phila. Code §§ 9-1131(2)(a)(i)–(ii).    [3]   Chamber of Commerce for Greater Phila., No. 17-1548, slip op. at 12 (discussing Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980)).    [4]   Id. at 14.    [5]   Id. at 15.    [6]   Cent. Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566.    [7]   Chamber of Commerce for Greater Phila., No. 17-1548, slip op. at 30.    [8]   Id.    [9]   Id. at 30, 33–34. [10]   Id. at 46. [11]   See Phila. Code § 9-1131(2)(a)(ii). [12]   Chamber of Commerce for Greater Phila., No. 17-1548, slip op. at 40.   Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or the authors: Miguel A. Estrada – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8500, mestrada@gibsondunn.com) Amir C. Tayrani – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3692, atayrani@gibsondunn.com) Kellam M. Conover – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3755, kconover@gibsondunn.com) © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

March 18, 2018 |
Fifth Circuit Vacates Labor Department’s “Fiduciary Rule” “In Toto” in Chamber of Commerce of U.S.A., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor

Click for PDF On March 15, 2018, in a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the U.S. Department of Labor’s controversial “Fiduciary Rule.”[1]  The Rule would have expanded who is a “fiduciary” under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, imposing significant new obligations and liabilities on broker-dealers and insurance agents who sell annuities to IRAs.  As the Fifth Circuit’s opinion explained, the Department had “made no secret of its intent to transform the trillion-dollar market for IRA investments, annuities and insurance products, and to regulate in a new way the thousands of people and organizations working in that market.”[2] The Fifth Circuit ruled for plaintiffs—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), the Financial Services Institute (“FSI”), the Financial Services Roundtable (“FSR”), the Insured Retirement Institute (“IRI”), and other leading trade associations—on each of their principal arguments.  Specifically, the Court reasoned that the Labor Department’s new definition of “fiduciary” was inconsistent with the plain text of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, as well as with the common-law meaning of “fiduciary,” which depends upon a special relationship of trust and confidence; that the Department impermissibly abused its authority to grant exemptions from regulatory burdens as a tool to impose expansive new duties that were beyond its power to impose; and that the rule impermissibly created private rights of action against brokers and insurance agents when Congress had not authorized those claims.  The Court therefore held that the Fiduciary Rule and the exemptions adopted alongside it were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and vacated them “in toto.”[3] Under the APA, “vacatur” is a remedy by which courts “set aside agency action” that is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise outside of the agency’s statutory authority.[4]  Its effect is to “nullify or cancel; make void; invalidate.”[5]  Because the effect of vacatur is, in essence, to remove a regulation from the books, its effect is nationwide.  As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has explained, “When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed.”[6]  The Fifth Circuit’s judgment, which is scheduled to take effect on May 7, thus will effectively erase the “fiduciary” rule from the books without geographical limitation. The Fifth Circuit’s decision was the second ruling last week to address the Fiduciary Rule.  On March 13, the Tenth Circuit addressed a more limited challenge to one aspect of the Rule, specifically, the procedures and reasoning followed by the Department in regulating products known as “fixed indexed annuities.”[7]  Although the Tenth Circuit rejected that challenge, it made clear it was not addressing two threshold issues that had not been presented:  whether the Labor Department had authority to promulgate the Rule and whether the Rule permissibly defined the term “fiduciary.”  The March 15 decision of the Fifth Circuit now conclusively resolves those questions in the negative.  And because the Fifth Circuit vacated the Rule on grounds the Tenth Circuit did not address, no “circuit conflict” is presented by the two decisions.[8] Gibson Dunn represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, SIFMA, the FSI, FSR, and IRI, among other associations, in their successful challenge to the Fiduciary Rule.  The American Council of Life Insurers and the Indexed Annuity Leadership Council filed parallel actions through separate counsel at WilmerHale and Sidley Austin, and Gibson Dunn presented oral argument before the Fifth Circuit for all three cases.    [1]   Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., No. 17-10238, slip op. 46 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2018).    [2]   Id. at 45.    [3]   Id. at 46.    [4]   5 U.S.C. § 706(2).    [5]   Black’s Law Dictionary (online 10th ed. 2014).  See, e.g., Kelso v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 13 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 (D.D.C. 1998) (quoting United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 41 (1950)) (explaining that “basic understandings of vacatur dramatize that, by definition, that which is vacated loses the ability to ‘spawn[ ] any legal consequences'”).    [6]   Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1989)).    [7]   See Mkt. Synergy Grp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., No. 17-3038 (10th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018)    [8]   A third challenge to the Fiduciary Rule is currently being held in abeyance.  See Nat’l Ass’n for Fixed Annuities v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., No. 16-5345 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 22, 2018) (holding case in abeyance pending joint status report within 10 days of the decision of the Fifth Circuit). The following Gibson Dunn lawyers assisted in preparing this client update: Eugene Scalia, Jason Mendro, Andrew Kilberg and Brian Lipshutz. Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these issues.  For further information, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, or the following authors: Eugene Scalia – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8206, escalia@gibsondunn.com) Jason J. Mendro – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3726, jmendro@gibsondunn.com) Please also feel free to contact the following practice group leaders: Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice: Eugene Scalia – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8206, escalia@gibsondunn.com) Helgi C. Walker – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3599, hwalker@gibsondunn.com) Labor and Employment Practice: Catherine A. Conway – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7822, cconway@gibsondunn.com) Jason C. Schwartz – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com) Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits Practice: Michael J. Collins – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3551, mcollins@gibsondunn.com) Stephen W. Fackler – Palo Alto/New York (+1 650-849-5385/212-351-2392, sfackler@gibsondunn.com) © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

February 15, 2018 |
Michele Maryott and Theane Evangelis Named Litigators of the Week

The Am Law Litigation Daily named partners Michele Maryott and Theane Evangelis as its Litigators of the Week [PDF] for their trial victory on behalf of Grubhub “in a bellwether case that could have a lasting impact on how gig-economy workers are classified.”  The profile was published on February 15, 2018.  

January 24, 2018 |
Das Urteil des BAG schafft erfreuliche Rechtsklarheit für Arbeitgeber

Munich partner Mark Zimmer is the author of “Das Urteil des BAG schafft erfreuliche Rechtsklarheit für Arbeitgeber” [PDF] published in issue 1-2/2018 dated 24 January 2018 of the German publication Compliance-Berater. The article comments on a decision of the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labor Court) dated 29 June 2017, which facilitates undercover investigations against fraudulent employees.

January 19, 2018 |
2017 Trade Secrets Litigation Round-Up

2017 saw a number of interesting developments in trade secrets law, including the emergence of several trends under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, as courts grappled with the federal civil trade secrets statute enacted just over a year and a half ago.  On the criminal side, we saw the Trump administration aggressively prosecute individuals for trade secret theft and cyberespionage, including an engineer who allegedly sold military trade secrets to an undercover FBI agent whom he believed to be a Russian spy.  We also saw the U.S. Supreme Court deny certiorari in two closely watched trade secrets cases under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Jason Schwartz, Greta Williams, Mia Donnelly and Brittany Raia discuss these and other significant 2017 developments in trade secrets law in their article “2017 Trade Secrets Litigation Round-Up” published in BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal in January 2018. Reprinted with permission from BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, January 19, 2018.  © 2018, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.  Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed in this update.  Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work or the authors in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office: Jason C. Schwartz (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com) Greta B. Williams (+1 202-887-3745, gbwilliams@gibsondunn.com) Mia C. Donnelly (+1 202-887-3617, mdonnelly@gibsondunn.com) Brittany A. Raia (+1 202-887-3773, braia@gibsondunn.com) Please also feel free to contact any of the following practice group leaders and members: Labor and Employment Group: Catherine A. Conway – Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7822, cconway@gibsondunn.com) Jason C. Schwartz – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com) Intellectual Property Group: Josh Krevitt – New York (+1 212-351-2490, jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com) Wayne Barsky – Los Angeles (+1 310-557-8183, wbarsky@gibsondunn.com) Mark Reiter – Dallas (+1 214-698-3360, mreiter@gibsondunn.com) Michael Sitzman – San Francisco (+1 415-393-8200, msitzman@gibsondunn.com) Privacy, Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection Group: Alexander H. Southwell – New York (+1 212-351-3981, asouthwell@gibsondunn.com) Benjamin B. Wagner – Palo Alto (+1 650-849-5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com) © 2018 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney Advertising:  The enclosed materials have been prepared for general informational purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.