New School Racial Accommodation Guidance Gives Important Insights For Schools & Other Organizations On Obama Administration Affirmative Action Enforcement


Race One Of Many Enforcement Priorities On Administration Agenda

Schools as well as U.S. private businesses and governmental agencies generally should examine two new guidance documents available here detailing what voluntary affirmative action and racial integration options that the Obama Administration views current law as allowing jointly released by the Departments of Justice and Education on December 2, 2011 for insights into the Administration’s affirmative action and race discrimination agenda.

The guidance withdraws and replaces Bush Administration Guidance with the legal standards that the Obama Administration for voluntary affirmative action in the schools under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as construed by the Obama Administration.  Not unexpectedly, the Obama Administration views the allowable and desirable voluntary affirmative actions to be significantly more expansive than the Bush Administration policy previously recognized.

Although the two documents– one for school districts and one for colleges and universities specifically relate to voluntary affirmative action efforts in schools, it shows important insights for both schools and other business and government organizations about the Obama Administration’s perspectives on affirmative action. 

The guidance specifically addressed the consideration of race by educational institutions is primarily based on three Supreme Court decisions, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,  Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger..   It makes clear that the Obama Administration believes educators can permissibly – and are expected by the Administration to consider the race of students in carefully constructed plans to promote diversity or, in K-12 education, to reduce “racial isolation.” 

The guidance also gives many examples of options that the Obama Administration says  schools and postsecondary institutions can consider to further diversity or reduce racial isolation.  Among other options, the guidance for K-12 schools discusses school and program site selection, drawing school attendance boundaries, grade realignment and restructuring feeder patterns, among other options.  The guidance for postsecondary institutions describes how race can be taken into account in admissions, in pipeline programs, in recruitment, and in mentoring, tutoring, retention and support programs as efforts to achieve diversity.

The new policy is part of a ongoing series of guidance and enforcement actions by the Obama Administration which expand expectations and enforcement of racial and other federal discrimination laws In light of the rising risks of enforcement, U.S. school and other agencies, as well as private businesses should act to control their exposure by reviewing, updating and strengthening their policies, practices and workforce and vendor training to minimize the risks and costs of paying discrimination judgments and defending discrimination investigations, charges or lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs, the Justice Department or other federal regulators or both.

Enforcing federal race and other discrimination laws is a high priority of the Obama Administration.   Business and government agency leaders increasingly recognize the need to tighten procedures to manage these discrimination risks.

The new policies and other recent regulatory and enforcement actions should alert private businesses and state and local government agencies that they should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges.  All organizations, whether public or private need to ensure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current federal nondiscrimination laws and that these compliance activities are well-documented to facilite defense against potential challenges.  When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements.  The scope and applicability of  federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by the differences in perspectives of the Obama Administration from the Bush Administration, as well as statutory, regulatory, judicial precendent and enforcement changes 

For Help With Compliance & Risk Management and Defense

If you need help in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other  internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping private and governmental organizations and their management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; schools and other governmental agencies and others design, administer and defend innovative compliance, risk management, worforce, compensation, employee benefit, privacy, procurement and other management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, procurement, conflict of interest, discrimination managment, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions.  The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Fraud, Internal Controls, M&A, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Justice Department Landlord Suit Shows Businesses Face Rising Disability Discrimination Enforcement Risks


DOJ Sues Another Landloard For Disability Discrimination

Latest Action Shows Obama Justice Department Aggressively Enforcing Discrimination Laws

The Justice Department on November 23, 2011 sued the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and employees of UNK for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against students with disabilities.

The lawsuit  filed in the U.S. District Court for Nebraska, charges that UNK and its employees engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Fair Housing Act or denied rights protected by the act by denying reasonable accommodation requests by students with psychological or emotional disabilities seeking to live with emotional assistance animals in university housing.

The Justice Department suit also charges that UNK requires students with psychological disabilities to disclose sensitive medical and other information that is unnecessary to evaluate their accommodation requests. 

The latest in a growing series of disability discrimination lawsuits brought by the Justice Department against public and private landlords and a growing list of other businesses, the UNK lawsuit arises from a complaint filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by a student enrolled at UNK who sought to live with an emotional assistance dog that had been prescribed.  The lawsuit seeks a court order prohibiting future discrimination by the defendants, monetary damages for those harmed by the defendants’ actions, and a civil penalty.

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. With regard to disability discrimination, the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to give reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities so that all have equal housing opportunities and limits the medical information that landlords can require from persons seeking disability accommodation in order to receive an accommodation.

The Obama Administration Justice Department has made enforcement of disability and other federal discrimination laws a key priority.  Businesses should tighten policies, practices and training to minimize exposures to Justice Department or private plaintiff complaints for violations under these laws.

If you need assistance in conducting a risk assessment of or responding to a challenge to your organization’s existing policies or practices for dealing with the issues addressed in these publications or other compliance, labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation, internal controls or other management practices, contact attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

For Added Information and Other Resources

If you found this update of interest, you also may be interested in reviewing some of the other updates and publications authored by Ms. Stamer available including:

For Help Or More Information

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other  internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit  and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions.  The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Fraud, Internal Controls, M&A, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New NAE Accounting Method Safe Harbor Announced


Revenue Procedure 2011-46 provides a book safe harbor method of accounting for taxpayers using the nonaccrual-experience (NAE) method of accounting under § 448(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code and § 1.448-2 of the Income Tax Regulations.

In general, under the NAE book safe harbor method, taxpayers within the scope of the revenue procedure may compute its uncollectible amount by multiplying the portion of the year-end allowance for doubtful accounts on the taxpayer’s applicable financial statement that is attributable to current year NAE-eligible accounts receivable by 95 percent. Rev. Proc. 2011-46 also provides procedures for obtaining automatic consent to change to the NAE book safe harbor method and to make certain changes within the NAE book safe harbor method.  

Revenue Procedure 2011-46 will be in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2011-42 on Oct. 17, 2011.

 

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

 ©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, M&A, Tax | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee Low-Income Housing Relief In New York, Pennsylvania


The Internal Revenue Service has announced special relief designed to promote greater availability of low-income housing in New York and Pennsylvania for areas affected by Hurricane Irene.

Notice 2011-87 suspends certain requirements under § 42 of the Internal Revenue Code for low-income housing credit projects to provide emergency housing relief needed as a result of the devastation in the State of New York caused by either Hurricane Irene during the period of August 26, 2011 to September 5, 2011, or the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee during the period of September 7, 2011 to September 11, 2011. 

Meanwhile, Notice 2011-83 suspends those same requirements under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code for certain low-income housing credit properties in Pennsylvania to provide emergency housing relief needed as a result of the devastation in Pennsylvania caused by either Hurricane Irene during the same periods.
 
Notice 2011-83 was published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2011-43, dated Oct. 24, 2011.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here 

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, M&A, Tax | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

IRS Releases Final Rules On Disregarded Entities


The Internal Revenue Service has published new guidance on disregarded entities and excise taxes.

TD 9553 contains final regulations relating to disregarded entities and excise taxes. These regulations also make conforming changes to the tax liability rule for disregarded entities and the treatment of entity rule for disregarded entities with respect to employment taxes. These regulations affect disregarded entities in general and, in particular, disregarded entities that pay or pay over certain federal excise taxes or that are required to be registered by the IRS.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

 

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, M&A, Tax | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Businesses Face Rising Disability Discrimination Enforcement Risks


Enforcing disability discrimination laws is a high priority of the Obama Administration Business leaders increasingly recognize the need to tighten procedures to manage disability discrimination risks.  The rising tide of enforcement actions highlights this expanding exposure.

The July, 2011 Justice Department announcement of disability discrimination settlement agreements with Norfolk County, Massachusetts; Daviess County, Kentucky; and the City of Madison, Indiana, illustrates that the Obama Administration is equally ready to enforce disability discrimination laws against state and local government agencies as well as private sector businesses.

The July, 2011 settlement agreements with Norfolk County, Massachusetts; Daviess County, Kentucky; and the city of Madison, Indiana, were reached under Project Civic Access (PCA), the department’s wide-ranging initiative to ensure that cities, towns and counties throughout the country comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The Justice Department has now reached 193 agreements under the PCA initiative.

The settlement agreements are a reminder that private businesses and state and local government agencies alike should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against potential disability or other Civil Rights discrimination challenges.  All organizations, whether public or private need to make sure both that their organizations, their policies, and people in form and in action understand and comply with current disability and other nondiscrimination laws.  When reviewing these responsibilities, many state and local governments and private businesses may need to update their understanding of current requirements.  The scope and applicability of disability and various other federal nondiscrimination and other laws have been expanded or modified in recent years by statutory, regulatory or enforcement changes. 

For Help With Labor & Employment, Employee Benefits Or Other Risk Management and Defense

If you need help in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your organization’s compliance, risk manage or other  internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit  and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend union-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions.  The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources at www.solutionslawpress.com.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Fraud, Internal Controls, M&A, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

97 Months Prison Sentence For Virginia Businessman Shows Risks of Misleading Investors


The sentencing of a Virginia business man provides a sharp reminder to businesses and others offering investment opportunities to avoid making unsupportable promises or engaging in other communications or actions that could  mislead investors.

Julius Everett “Bud” Johnson, 62, a resident of Richmond, Va., was sentenced today to 97 months in prison for his role in an investment scheme resulting in millions of dollars in losses, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia, Acting Special Agent in Charge Jeannine A. Hammett of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) and Special Agent in Charge Michael Morehart of the FBI Richmond Field Office. The sentencing follows Johnson’s April 11, 2011 guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit mail, wire and bank fraud and one count of engaging in unlawful monetary transactions. In addition to his prison sentence, Johnson also is expected to face a significant restitution obligation estimated to be approximately $8.9 million. The Justice Department charged in court filings that from July 2009 until at least March 2010, Johnson and a co-conspirator promised investors of returns within a period of one to four years of up to 10 percent to investors making investments that Johnson promised would be funneled directly into one a various specific companies that he owned and operated including Virginia Group Benefits (VGB); Mid-Atlantic Insurance (MAI); F.I.C. Financial Group Inc.; Benefit Contractors Administrators Inc. (BCA); River City Cleaners LLC; Roberts Awning LLC; Norvell Awning LLC; MHC Linen Services LLC; The Everett Group; and Living Well.

Rather than investing the monies collected as promised, the Justice Department charged that Johnson used a significant portion of the invested funds to repay other investors and to cover operating costs for unrelated businesses.

The conviction of Johnson resulted from the joint investigation and enforcement of the Department of Justice’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force established by President Obama continues to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force operates to coordinate the efforts of the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate, prosecute and punish significant financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

For Help With Monitoring Developments, Compliance, Investigations Or Other Needs

If you need assistance with fraud prevention and detection or other internal controls or compliance matters, the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, can help.

Ms. Stamer has more than 24 years experience advising a broad range of public and private businesses, employee benefit plans and others about risk management and compliance, including the design and administration of corporate compliance and other management programs, internal investigations and discipline, dealing with governmental investigations and enforcement actions and other compliance, public policy, regulatory, staffing, and other operations and risk management concerns.

She regularly designs and presents risk management, compliance and other training for insurance, employee benefits, financial services, and a wide range of other organizations and their leaders. Ms. Stamer also regularly works with federal and state agencies, represents clients in dealings with these and other agencies, publishes and speaks extensively on regulatory and compliance, performance management, and other operations and risk management concerns.

A widely published author and speaker, her publications and insights appear in the Health Care Compliance Association, Atlantic Information Service, Bureau of National Affairs, World At Work, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insurance, the Dallas Morning News, and a many other national and local publications.

You can get more information about Ms. Stamer and her other experience here. If you need help investigating or responding to a known or suspected compliance, litigation or enforcement or other risk management concern, assistance with reviewing, updating, administering or defending a current or proposed employment, employee benefit, compensation or other management practice, wish to inquire about federal or state regulatory compliance audits, risk management or training, or need legal representation on other matters please contact Ms Stamer here or at (469) 767-8872. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile here.  

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, P.C. Non-exclusive license to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Officers, Shareholder Liability, Tax | Leave a comment

Rising NLBR Enforcement Actions Signal Need To Prepare To Defend Anti-Union and Other Non-Union Specific Practices Against Potential Challenges


The National Labor Regulations Board (NLRB)’s announcement of a settlement against a Connecticut nursing home operator this week in conjunction with a series of other enforcement actions highlight the need for businesses to tighten defenses and exercise other caution to minimize their organization’s exposure to potential NLRB charges or investigation.   

As reflected by many of these enforcement actions, the exposures arise both from active efforts by businesses to suppress union organizing or contracting activities, as well as the failure to identify and manage hidden labor law exposures in the design and administration of more ordinary human resources, compliance, business operations and other policies and practices.

Recent Actions Highlight Risks

On May 17, 2011, the NLRB announced here  that Connecticut nursing home operator Spectrum Healthcare has agreed to settle a NLRB case involving multiple allegations of unlawful suspensions, discharges and unilateral changes in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and other federal labor laws by offering reinstatement and back pay to all discharged and striking workers and signing a new three-year collective bargaining agreement with its employees’ union, New England Health Care Employees Union District 1199, SEIU.

Along with the contract and reinstatement of all employees, the company agreed to pay $545,000 in back pay and pension benefits to employees who were harmed by the unfair labor practices, and to expunge any disciplinary records related to the case. As a result, all NLRB charges against the company have been withdrawn. Spectrum admits to no wrongdoing in the settlement.

The settlement, reached midway through a hearing before an NLRB administrative law judge in Connecticut and approved by the judge yesterday, ends a long-running dispute which grew into a strike by almost 400 employees at four nursing homes in Connecticut operated by Spectrum Healthcare, LLC.  Complaints issued by the NLRB Regional Office in Hartford alleged that, beginning in the fall of 2009, several months after the prior collective bargaining agreement expired, Spectrum discharged seven employees and suspended three others to retaliate against their union activities and to discourage other employees from supporting the union. In addition, one employee was discharged and seven others were suspended after the employer unilaterally changed its tardiness discipline policy without first bargaining with the union.

The complaints further alleged that in April 2010, employees at the four nursing homes — in Derby, Ansonia, Winsted, and Hartford — went on strike to protest the unfair labor practices. When the strikers offered unconditionally to return to work in late August, the employer refused to take them back. Under federal labor law, if a strike is called because of an unfair labor practice, employees are entitled to reinstatement after an unconditional offer to return to work.

The reinstated employees are due to return to the facilities this week.

The Spectrum Healthcare settlement is reflective of the growing number of NLRB enforcement orders against employers generally and health care providers specifically under the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration has close ties and has expressed its strong and open support for union and union organizing activities.  The adoption of a series of union friendly labor law reforms was one of the key campaign promises of President Obama during his election campaign.  While other legislative priorities and the change in the leadership of the House of Representatives appears to have slowed efforts to push through this agenda, it has not slowed the Administration’s efforts to support unions with strong enforcement activities.  Empowered by a difficult economic and job situation and an awareness of the Obama Administration’s strong support for union organizing and other activities, unions are stepping up organizing efforts and more aggressively challenging employers actions.

Over the past few months, public awareness of the Obama Administration’s aggressive enforcement agenda on behalf of unions has drawn new attention as a result of the widespread media coverage of NLRB actions challenging Boeings planned relocation of certain manufacturing jobs intervention in a planned relocation of certain manufacturing operations.  See, e.g., Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon releases statement on Boeing complaint; National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facilityHowever, the Boeing and Spectrum Healthcare actions represent only the tip of the iceberg of the rising number of NLRB enforcement activities, most of which take place with little media or public attention.

Along side the Spectrum Healthcare and Boeing actions, in recent weeks, the NLRB also has been busy with several other enforcement activities.  For instance:

  • On May 9 2011, the NLRB issued a complaint against Hispanics United of Buffalo (HUB), a nonprofit that provides social services to low-income clients, that alleges that HUB unlawfully discharged five employees after they took to Facebook to criticize working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. The case involves an employee who, in advance of a meeting with management about working conditions, posted to her Facebook ; and
  • On May 17, the NLRB secured a temporary injunction from a U.S. District Court in San Jose California against San Jose area waste hauling company OS Transport LLC,   charged with engaging in unfair labor practices including the termination of a lead organizer and another Union supporter, retaliation against Union efforts in the form of unfavorable assignments, threats to Union supporters, and promises of improved treatment of employees who disavow the Union for the alleged purpose of defeating a union. o offer reinstatement to two drivers and restore full assignments to other drivers who had expressed support for a union during an organizing campaign. More Details here.,

In addition, in recent weeks, the NLRB also has:

Amid this difficult enforcement environment, business leaders should exercise special care to prepare to defend their actions against both potential organizing efforts, to understand the types of actions and activities that may help fuel charges, and take steps to manage these and other union organization and other labor risks.  

For Help With Labor & Employment, Employee Benefits Or Other Risk Management and Defense

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your labor and employment, employee benefits, compliance, risk manage or other  internal controls practices or actions, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 24 years of work helping employers and other management; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit, labor-management relations and other management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend labor-management relations, wage and hour, discrimination and other labor and employment laws, privacy and data security, internal investigation and discipline and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions. 

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on management, reengineering, investigations, human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and risk management, federal sentencing guideline and other enforcement resolution actions, and related matters.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters.

Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For more information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

 ©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

 

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Fraud, Internal Controls, M&A, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Executive’s Sentencing Reminder To Government Contractors, Subcontractors of Need To Manage Bid Rigging & Other Compliance Risks


The U.S. Department of Justice’s May 10 announcement of the sentencing of a company executive for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in connection with bids on a contract for the repair of refuse carts for the city of Chicago highlights the need for businesses and business leaders to use care to manage and maintain evidence of the honestly and accuracy of minority subcontractor and other representations made when bidding and contracting for government contracts and other conduct in connection with their business dealings with federal, state or local government agencies.

Dishonesty, Misrepresentations On Minority Recruitment Basis of Conviction

A U.S. District Judge sentenced Douglas E. Ritter, the former president of an Illinois refuse disposal container repair company, to serve 16 months in prison and to pay $35,303 in restitution for his participation in a conspiracy to defraud the city of Chicago on a contract for the repair of refuse carts from as early as November 2004 to as late as September 2008.  The Justice Department had charged Ritter, along with his business partner Steven Fenzl, in an indictment filed on April 21, 2009, in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Ritter pleaded guilty to the conspiracy on June 3, 2010. Fenzl, a California resident, was found guilty by a jury on Sept. 28, 2010, of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud. Fenzl is scheduled to be sentenced on June 15, 2011.

According to the indictment, Ritter, Fenzl and their co-conspirator conspired to deceive city of Chicago officials about the number of legitimate, competitive bids submitted for the contract. Specifically, the Justice Department charged that Ritter and his co-conspirators fraudulently induced other companies to submit bids for the contract at prices determined by Ritter and his co-conspirators and greater than the price for which Ritter’s company had submitted a bid. The Justice Department also charged that the submitted bids included fraudulent documents indicating that, if awarded the contract, the bidder would enter into subcontracts to buy goods or services for a specified percentage of the contract from a minority-owned business and a women-owned business, as required by the city of Chicago. According to the indictment, Ritter and his co-conspirators also fraudulently certified to the city on Ritter’s company’s bid that it had not entered an agreement with any other bidder relating to the price named in any other bid submitted to the city for the contract. 

Doing Business With Governments or Their Subcontractors Carries Special Responsibilities & Risks

While the opportunity to do business with government agencies or their subcontractors can offer valuable business opportunities for many businesses, dealing with government agencies directly or as a subcontractor comes with special obligations and exposures.  

Government contractors and subcontractors generally face special bidding and contracting, pricing, employment, subcontracting, purchasing, reporting, audit, attestation and certification and other obligations.  While many of these requirements are long-standing, businesses contracting for many projects funded by Stimulus Bill or other legislation passed as part of efforts to stimulate the economic recovery since 2008 often apply to a broader range of businesses, apply stiffer nondiscrimination, audit and other requirements or carry other special obligations beyond those that may have historially applied to similar contracts.  Violation of these responsibilities can result in contract termination or penalties, program disqualification, administrative or civil penalties and in some instance criminal prosecution.  Since the Obama Administration has identified enforcement of Stimulus Bill and certain other government contracting requirements as a priority, businesses also should be prepared to deal with potentially heightened scrutiny of their conduct.    Accordingly, businesses doing business directly or indirectly with federal, state or local governments should take steps to manage their compliance and associate risks.

Risk Management & Compliance Efforts Essential

To minimize exposures to these and other risks, businesses doing business directly with government entities or indirectly providing goods and services as a subcontractor to government contractor should carry out proper due diligence, internal controls and other procedures to manage these risks.  As part of these efforts, businesses and their leaders doing business directly or indirectly with government agencies or their subcontractors should strive to:

  • Fully understand all contractual, regulatory and other requirements for bidding or participating in the arrangement;
  • Carefully audit and monitor their and any subcontractors or supplier’s qualifications and compliance with applicable requirements;
  • Establish and administer appropriate credentialing, training, oversight, recordkeeping and documentation, enforcement, and other policies, processes and procedures to manage and monitor compliance; and
  • Develop and administer effective processes for reporting, investigation, and resolution of suspected or reported compliance concerns.

Business and their leaders also should develop an understanding of the likely consequences of a charge or conviction of violation of these rules on their business, their contracting eligibility and officers, executives and employees accused or found to have participated in, tolerated or other having other culpability for such violations and processes and procedures for mitigating these risks in the event of a problem.

Because the applicable rules and guidance seem to constantly evolve, anticipating and staying on top of these requirements is critical, but often challenging.  For this reason, management also should require or members of its management team responsible for helping the company to maintain compliance periodically to review regulatory developments on a quarterly or monthly basis and to retain documentation of these efforts. 

Conducting periodic reviews of issued and impending guidance can help reduce the risk of potential problems and help companies and their management anticipate and meet critical compliance responsibilities as well as anticipate and plan for policy and operational changes and the budgetary, workforce and other resources needed to meet these responsibilities.

Of course, these and other documented efforts to promote compliance also often are invaluable when a compliance problem arises.  Since no plan is foolproof, companies and their leaders also should plan for the possibility that members of their workforce may act inappropriately or other issues may result in a compliance concern.  If a problem happens, the ability of a company and its management to provide credible evidence of showing the diligent efforts to watch and maintain compliance through these and other prudent activities often is critical to determining the liability and other consequences imposed in response to the problem by regulators, courts, customers and business partners and others with the power to hold the company accountable. 

For Added Information or Assistance With These Concerns

If you would like to explore arranging for Board or management risk management training from Ms. Stamer, have questions about your organization’s compliance obligations, or your organization needs advice or other help dealing with these or other risk management, compliance, internal controls or human resources concerns,  please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment attorney and management consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872. 

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, Ms. Stamer has worked with organizations and their leaders to monitor and manage legal and operational risks, manage the performance of employees, subcontractors and other service providers and suppliers, to  design, administer and defend risk management and compliance efforts, and other management related activities.  As a key component of this work, she helps organizations and their management monitors the employment, employee benefit, and other operationally defined regulatory and other developments impacting their legal compliance and operational risks.  She consults to and advises with management about the design, administration, documentation and defense of their compliance and risk management efforts to promote defensibility and operational effectiveness.  She also advises and assists management to audit and investigate compliance, performance and other concerns arising in the course of their operations.  She represents companies and their management in reporting compliance concerns to, responding to audits or investigations, and negotiating compliance resolutions with the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, FTC, Homeland Security, the Justice Department and state attorneys’ general, state insurance regulators, state health departments and medical licensing boards, and a broad range of other regulatory and licensing agencies and officials.  She regularly services as special counsel to companies, board members and officers, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and administrators, insurers and others on health and other managed care, insurance, retirement, severance and other employee benefit fiduciary and insurance litigation and enforcement actions.  She also regularly conducts training, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related matters.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources.  Here are some other recent updates that might be of interest to business leaders or members of their teams:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

 

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Improving the Effectiveness of Compliance & Risk Management By Getting HR On The Compliance Team


Businesses leaders concerned with managing risk that can arise when an employee or other workforce member violates Sentencing Guideline or other rules for which the business or leader is legally accountable should not overlook the value of getting their human resources department and others responsible for managing performance on the compliance team.

Human Resources Key Compliance & Internal Controls Player

While human resources’ responsibilities clearly should include helping the company manage compliance with the core human resources, compensation and employee benefit regulations that businesses traditionally recognize as within the purview of human resources, management should not overlook the role that human resources plays in helping to manage other critical performances by its employees and other workforce members.

The ability of a business and its leaders to operate their organization in a defensible manner in light of applicable Federal Sentencing Guideline, Sarbanes-Oxley, industry specific regulaitons and other laws and regulations, as well as meet other mission critical contractual and operational performance largely depends on its ability to get its people and processes to perform reliably in the required manner and to capture relevant evidence that can help mitigate risks when something goes wrong.  Effective human resources management is critical to these efforts.

Many members  of management miss invaluable opportunities to strengthen their defenses and the effectiveness of their management efforts by inadequately leveraging human resources as a member of the management team.  In addition to expecting human resources to manage compliance with applicable human resources laws, management also should expect human resources to play a key role in helping the company to monitor and manage the behaviors by employees and others in the workforce that are likely to be critical to the company’s effort to demonstrate its policy, efforts and corporate culture of compliance as necessary to manage Federal Sentencing Guideline and compliance risks. In an all too often senario, documentation created by human resources or other managers possessing an inadequate awareness and understanding of the industry specific compliance requirements impacting their company often creates a record that damages the ability of a company or management official to defend charges brought by government prosecutors or agencies.  Human resources or other managers that don’t understand these requirements frequently don’t understand the significants of actions they encounter in the course of carrying out their performance oversight and management responsibilities.  This frequently can result in the creation of a record that reflects an inappropriate tolerance or even promotion of the prohibited conduct that can complicate the ability to defend the company or management against charges at a later date.

Because the performance of its people is the primary source of compliance exposures, human resources should be a well-informed and active member of the team.  Management should expect members of the human resources team to understand and take a lead role in helping to educate and document efforts by the company to administer the internal controls required to administer the company’s compliance efforts.

To fulfill these responsibilities, management should require human resources to:

  • Be fully informed of the relevant compliance responsibilities and compliance and ethics policies of the company,
  • To recognize behaviors by employees or contractors that may signal potential exposures for the company or its management,
  • To understand when and how to report and coordinate with the Compliance Officer, legal counsel and others in management to investigate and management,
  • To understand when and how to document appropriately efforts to manage these responsibilities in a manner that creates and preserves evidence of compliance efforts needed or helpful to promote the ability of the company and its management to defend against a potential a government investigation, whistleblower or other challenge, and
  • To administer these and other performance management activities in a manner that minimizes the exposure to employment discrimination or other labor and employment liability.

Documented Monitoring For New Developments Helps Present Problems

Because the applicable rules and guidance seem to constantly evolve, anticipating and staying on top of these requirements is critical, but often challenging.  For this reason, management also should require or members of its management team responsible for helping the company to maintain compliance periodically to review regulatory developments on a quarterly or monthly basis and to retain documentation of these efforts. 

Conducting periodic reviews of issued and impending guidance can help minimize the risk of potential problems and help companies and their management anticipate and meet critical compliance responsibilities as well as anticipate and plan for policy and operational changes and the budgetary, workforce and other resources needed to meet these responsibilities.

Of course, these and other documented efforts to promote compliance also often are invaluable when a compliance problem arises.  Since no plan is foolproof, companies and their leaders also should plan for the possibility that members of their workforce may act inappropriately or other issues may result in a compliance concern.  In an event of a problem, the ability of a company and its management to provide credible evidence of showing the diligent efforts to monitor and maintain compliance through these and other prudent activities often is critical to determining the liability and other consequences imposed in response to the problem by regulators, courts, customers and business partners and others with the power to hold the company accountable. 

Managing Labor & Employment Exposures Arising In Connection With Management

Of course, the role of human resources in helping to manage performance does not supplant the responsibility of human resources to monitor and manage compliance with applicable labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other laws. 

As with other members of the company management team, management also should expect human resources leaders to conduct their management of these responsibilities – in a manner that promotes the ability of the company to manage human resources risks as well as train and support others to do the same. 

Management should expect, and hold members of human resources and other responsible for managing workforce performance to possess and adequate understanding and awareness of labor and employment and other laws that may create exposures in the course of the management process and to manage in a documented and defensible manner that minimizes the risk that management efforts will create unnecessary human resources liability risks. 

With the human resources, employee benefits, tax, payroll and other related laws, regulations and enforcement constantly evolving, members of the human resources management team also should be expected to keep a close eye out for changes in rules or other responsibilities impacting the company’s human resources, compensation and employee benefit plans.   

Management should expect the human resources leadership team to monitor developments on a regular basis and to notify management of developments that may warrant or require changes in policies, practice, operations, costs or other relevant resources and risks. 

In connection with these efforts, management also should ensure that special attention is paid to managing employee benefit related risks and should document the efforts by the Board or members of senior management showing the efforts by the company and these individuals to prudently select the internal and external parties charged with responsibility over these plans, and to prudently monitor their qualifications and performance as necessary to meet potentially applicable legal standards.

Companies and members of management responsible for making decisions about what employee benefit plans are maintained by the company, the staffing and funding of these arrangements and other matters impacting on the operations on the plan often fail to adequately anticipate the potential liabilities that the company or the executive or board member personally may face if the employee plans are not appropriately funded, maintained or administered.  Companies and their management should ensure that they understand these exposures and the processes and documentation needed to mitigate these exposures.  They also should take steps to investigate and confirm that those responsible for carrying out plan related responsibilities are appropriately qualified to serve in these positions, possess the knowledge, temperament and resources necessary to prudently carry out these responsibilities in accordance with applicable standards, are appropriately bonded as required by law.  Management involved in these decisions also should take well documented steps to prudently monitor the appropriateness of the performance and the continued qualification of those individuals and organizations delegated responsibility for performing plan related functions on a periodic basis and at other times when prudently warranted by the circumstances. 

With Labor, Internal Revenue Service, Health & Human Services and other federal and state regulators constantly evolving, management also should ensure that compliance responsibilities are carefully monitored on a periodic basis and that relevant information is reported to management as soon as possible to allow the company time to respond appropriately. 

Under applicable employee benefit regulations and laws, the ability to produce evidence showing the diligent efforts by the company and management leaders to monitor and maintain compliance through these and other prudent activities also often helps a plan sponsor and its management, its plan and responsible plan fiduciaries or both to avoid or minimize liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Code or other laws. 

With the agencies responsible for implementing these rules busy issuing new regulations and other guidance required to implement the constant stream of changes enacted by Congress, this can be challenging.  Management should consider appointing a member of human resources or other suitable member of its team to monitor these developments and report periodically to the management team at least quarterly to help ensure that the company has sufficient lead time to respond to these developments.

 Those interested in developments affecting qualified retirement programs may find it  helpful to share the Recap of IRS Employee Plans 2011 1st Quarter Guidance article and other resources recently published in Solutions Law Press HR & Benefits Update with their human resources leaders and others within their organization involved in these activities.

For Added Information or Assistance With These Concerns

If you would like to explore arranging for Board or management risk management training from Ms. Stamer, have questions about your organizations compliance obligations, or your organization needs advice or other help dealing with these or other risk management, compliance, internal controls or human resources concerns,  please contact the author of this update, Board Certified Labor and Employment attorney and management consultant Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872. 

Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, Ms. Stamer has worked with organizations and their leaders to monitor and manage legal and operational risks, manage the performance of employees and other service providers, design, administer and defend risk management and compliance efforts, and other management related activities.  As a key component of this work, she helps organizations and their management monitors the employment, employee benefit, and other operationally defined regulatory and other developments impacting their legal compliance and operational risks.  She consults to and advises with management about the design, administration, documentation and defense of their compliance and risk management efforts to promote defensibility and operational effectiveness.  She also advises and assists management to audit and investigate compliance, performance and other concerns arising in the course of their operations.  She represents companies and their management in reporting compliance concerns to, responding to audits or investigations, and negotiating compliance resolutions with the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, FTC, Homeland Security, the Justice Department and state attorneys’ general, state insurance regulators, state health departments and medical licensing boards, and a broad range of other regulatory and licensing agencies and officials.  She regularly services as special counsel to companies, board members and officers, employee benefit plan fiduciaries and administrators, insurers and others on health and other managed care, insurance, retirement, severance and other employee benefit fiduciary and insurance litigation and enforcement actions.  She also regularly conducts training, speaks and publishes extensively on these and other related matters.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources.  Here are some other recent updates that might be of interest to business leaders or members of their teams:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.   

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

 

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Internal Controls, Officers, Shareholder Liability, Tax | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

IRS Establishes Safe Harbor Election for Allocating Success-Based Fees Paid On Certain Business Transactions


The Internal Revenue Service is establishing a new safe harbor that businesses may elect to use when allocating success-based fees paid in connection with a business organization under Treasury Regulation § 1.263(a)-5(e)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations. 

IRS Establishes Safe Harbor Election for Allocating Success-Based Fees Paid On Certain Business Transactions

The Internal Revenue Service is establishing a new safe harbor that businesses may elect to use when allocating success-based fees paid in connection with a business organizsatoin under Treasury Regulation § 1.263(a)-5(e)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations. 

Revenue Procedure 2011-29 will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2011-18 on May 2.  It will provide that in lieu of maintaining the documentation required by § 1.263(a)-5(f), electing taxpayers may elect to treat 70 percent of the success-based fee as an amount that does not facilitate the transaction. The remaining portion of the fee must be capitalized as an amount that facilitates the transaction.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

 

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here.

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, M&A, Tax | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Plan Sponsors. Their Owners & Management & Others Risk Personal Liability If Others Defraud Plans or Mismanage Employee Benefit Plan Responsibilities


Appropriate Prevention, Monitoring & Response Key To Risk Mitigation

Executives, board members, and other business leaders of companies providing health, 401(k) or other employee benefits under plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) should heed a series of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders and lawsuits of the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor Department) as important reminders of the potential personal liability exposures executives can may face if their company’s benefit programs are not appropriately maintained and administered.

On March 29, 2011, the Labor Department sued the owner of Eyeglass Factory, Inc. (EGF), Stephen Schaffer, for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to ensure that EGF timely forwarded health plan contributions collected from employees to pay health plan contributions to the plan and failing to ensure that he and other plan fiduciaries and service providers were bonded in accordance with ERISA’s fidelity bond requirements. The Labor Department suit charges that from July 1, 2000 to October 1, 2000, Schaffer and EGF withheld and failed to forward to the health plan contributions deducted from employee pay for health insurance coverage and contributions made to the flexible benefit plan sponsored by EGF from January 1, 2000 to December 4, 2000.  The employees’ paycheck withholdings were commingled with the company’s general assets and used for its general operating expenses. The Labor Department is asking the court to order that Schaffer and other defendants make restitution to the plan for the misapplied contributions, including lost opportunity costs, to correct prohibited transactions and to appoint an independent fiduciary to oversee the plans once Schaffer is removed as the plan fiduciary.

The Schaffer suit follows the Labor Department’s successful prosecution of a breach of fiduciary duty action against Larry Lauterback, the president and former owner of a Minnesota Cement Company, for his role in allowing his construction company to commingle with company assets and divert to company use employee health and 401(k) contributions withheld from employee’s pay.  In Solis v. Larry Lauterback, the District Court ordered Lauterback to restore $17,273.18 in unremitted employee contributions and lost opportunity costs to the company’s health and dental plan, and $747.20 in unremitted employee contributions to the company’s 401(k) plan and enjoins Lauterback from serving or acting as a fiduciary or service provider to any employee benefit plan for three years..  The order followed the entry of a consent judgment against Lauterback and the plan sponsor, Slate Cement, Inc., for failure to remit employee contributions, failure to forward employee contributions to medical and dental providers, co-mingling employee contributions of the general assets and using those assets for company operations.

The Schaffer and Lauterback actions taken in March, 2011 are only the most recent in a series of enforcement actions taken against business executives, board members, plan vendors and others for their role in committing or failing to take prudent steps to prevent or redress alleged misconduct relating to the maintenance, administration and funding of various employee benefit programs regulated by ERISA.  In recent months and years, the Labor Department has filed several lawsuits and taken other civil, criminal and administrative enforcement actions against business executives and businesses for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising from their failure to adequately prevent or redress actions that violate ERISA or other laws. While misuse of employee contributions by plan sponsors is a common focus of many of these actions, plan sponsors, plan service providers and members of their management with discretionary authority or responsibility over plan assets or administration or the election of those appointed to administer those responsibilities often arise out of the failure or these individuals to take prudent steps to prevent, monitor or address misconduct by other plan fiduciaries or service providers.

Plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and their management should anticipate these risks will continue to rise as the Labor Department moves forward to adopt and implement revisions and enhancements to its fiduciary regulations such as those provided for in the new “Interim Final Regulation Relating to Improved Fee Disclosure for Pension Plans” scheduled to take effect in July, 2011 and the Proposed Regulation on the “Definition of the Term Fiduciary” published by the Labor Department in July and October, 2010 respectively.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department enforcement activities highlight the longstanding and ongoing policy of aggressive investigation and enforcement of alleged misconduct by companies, company officials, and service providers in connection with the maintenance, administration and funding of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans.  Labor Department officials report that these aggressive enforcement activities during its Fiscal year 2010 resulted in monetary recoveries from 2,301investigations,  264 referrals for litigation and 128 civil lawsuits, as well as 281 criminal investigations and the indictment of 96 people.

In addition to prosecutions brought by the Labor Department, companies and individuals that exercise discretion and control of the administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA also may be sued personally by participants and beneficiaries for breach of fiduciary under ERISA.  A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record and existing precedent makes clear that where the Labor Department perceives that a plan sponsor or its management fails to take appropriate steps to protect plan participants, the Labor Department will aggressively pursue enforcement regardless of the size of the plan sponsor or its plan, or the business hardships that the plan sponsor may be facing.

Companies and other individuals that in name or in function possess or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the maintenance, administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA are accountable for complying with the high standards required by ERISA for carrying out these duties.  Despite these well-document fiduciary exposures and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Labor Department and private plaintiffs, many companies and their business leaders fail to appreciate the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment and administration of employee benefit plans.  Frequently, companies sponsoring their employee benefit plans and their executives mistakenly assume that they can rely upon vendors and advisors to ensure that their programs are appropriately established the establishment and maintenance of these arrangements with limited review or oversight by the sponsoring company or its management team.  In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that the functional definition that ERISA uses to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions relating to the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans. For this reason, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.  

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries, Service Providers & Their Boards & Management Should Manage Exposures

Given these exposures, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.  

To help guard and position themselves to defend against these and other exposures, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers and others involved in the administration of health or other employee benefit plans should seek the advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience with employee benefit and other related matters to develop an understanding of ERISA and other laws and the duties and liabilities that these rules may create for their organizations and themselves personally.  For additional tips and information about managing these risks, see here.

For Help With These Or Other Risk Management Matters

If you need assistance in auditing or assessing, updating or defending your wage and hour or with other labor and employment, employee benefit, compensation or internal controls practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, management attorney and consultant Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for more than 23 years of work helping employers; employee benefit plans and their sponsors, administrators, fiduciaries; employee leasing, recruiting, staffing and other professional employment organizations; and others design, administer and defend innovative workforce, compensation, employee benefit  and management policies and practices. Her experience includes extensive work helping employers implement, audit, manage and defend wage and hour and other workforce and internal controls policies, procedures and actions.  The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on wage and hour, worker classification and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here 

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Fraud, Internal Controls, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Safeguarding Yourself From Liability For Another’s Employee Benefit Plan Embezzlement Or Other Misconduct


TPA’s Embezzlement Guilty Plea Reminds Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers To Ensure Fiduciaries, Administrators & Staff Prudently Selected, Monitored & Bonded

 

The guilty plea of an Ohio-based third-party administrator to embezzlement of $1 million in plan assets reminds employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors and members of their management participating in plan related activities, plan administrators and other plan fiduciaries and plan service providers (“plan decision-makers”) of the importance of ensuring appropriate, well-documented credentialing and selection, oversight, auditing and bonding the individuals and companies acting as fiduciaries and others participating in administration of plans or their assets (“plan workforce members”) to minimize their potential exposure to potential personal liability as a result of the fraud under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Cox Prosecution Reflective DOL Readiness To Prosecute Parties For Misuse of Plan Monies & Other Plan Fraud

According to a February 23, 2011 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announcement, Rhonda Sue Irvin Cox, owner of Irvin Administrative Solutions LLC (IAS), pleaded guilty to taking $1 million of retirement plan assets from client plans administered  by IAS.   The DOL reports that between January 2003 and April 2007, Cox plead guilty to using used her position with ISC to embezzle the funds from 12 of 59 plans for which IAS served as a third party administrator. Cox also pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements in documents required under ERISA to be kept and certified by the plans’ administrator.  Scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011, Cox faces a maximum of five years in prison on each criminal count, a $250,000 fine and a special assessment. Cox is scheduled to be sentenced on June 1, 2011.

The DOL and Justice Department have a long-standing record of aggressive investigation and prosecution of embezzlement or other fraud impacting health and other employee benefit plans.  Their criminal and civil enforcement and prosecution record makes clear this commitment remains strong. 

Plan Sponsors, Fiduciaries & Service Providers May Face Civil Liability From When Others Defraud Their Plans

While plan decision-makers generally are aware that individuals defrauding health or other employee benefit plans risk criminal and civil prosecution, many fail to recognize their own potential civil liability exposures that may arise out of the fraudulent acts or other misconduct of another plan workforce member. 

Embezzlement of plan assets is one of many acts of misconduct that can create potential fiduciary liability exposure for plan decision-makers under ERISA.  Until confronted with potential fraud, misconduct or other misfeasance by a plan fiduciary, service provider or other plan workforce member, many plan decision-makers lack an adequate appreciation of the personal liability they may incur if they cannot demonstrate appropriate steps were taken to protect their health plan from this misconduct.

Under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules, embezzlement or other misuse of employee contributions or other plan assets as well as certain other misconduct or misfeasance by a plan fiduciary, service provider or other plan workforce member can create personal liability exposures for plan decision-makers with responsibility or discretionary authority over the selection, retention, or management of plan workforce members if the plan decision-maker cannot demonstrate appropriate steps were taken to select, monitor and bond the plan workforce and other prudent action was taken to prevent and redress the fraud.  Accordingly, health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, service providers, their management, and others serving as, or selecting, managing or retaining companies or individuals that participate in the handling of health plan assets or administration should act to strengthen their health plans and themselves against these exposures.

Risk Management Strategies & Tips

When embezzlement or other concern affecting their health plan arises, plan decision-makers concerned about protecting their health plans and themselves must act promptly in a carefully documented, prudent manner to investigate and respond to the concern. They should be prepared to present well-documented evidence of the scope and limits of their responsibility, authority, awareness, and potential for the selection, monitoring and oversight of the plan workforce member or others responsible for the performance of those actions, the adequacy of the bonding arrangements for the plan, and other efforts to prudently protect the plan before, during and after the discovery of the concern.  While these and other steps can help strengthen the ability of a plan decision-maker to liability exposures that can result from the other plan workforce member’s embezzlement of plan assets or other misconduct, plan sponsors and plan decision-makers also should acquire suitable fiduciary and other liability insurance coverage and make other arrangements to help provide for the potential financial costs and other demands that are likely to arise in the event that it becomes necessary to investigate or redress fraud or other misconduct.   Learn more here.

For Help With Investigations, Policy Review & Updates Or Other Needs

If you need help investigating or responding to fraud or other misconduct affection a health or other employee benefit plan, dealing with an employee benefit plan investigation or enforcement action by the Labor Department, private plaintiffs or another public or private party, reviewing current or proposed health plan processes or procedures, or responding to other employee benefit, labor and employment or other related controls and practices, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here or at (469)767-8872.

The Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Committee, a Council Representative on the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Government Affairs Committee Legislative Chair for the Dallas Human Resources Management Association, and past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Ms. Stamer works, publishes and speaks extensively on HIPAA and other privacy and data security, health plan, health care and other human resources and workforce, employee benefits, compensation, internal controls and related matters.

For more than 23 years, Ms. Stamer has counseled, represented and trained employers and other employee benefit plan sponsors, plan administrators and fiduciaries, insurers and financial services providers, third party administrators, human resources and employee benefit information technology vendors and others privacy and data security, fiduciary responsibility, plan design and administration and other compliance, risk management and operations matters.  In connection with this work, Ms. Stamer regularly counsels and helps clients to defend a broad range of clients about employee benefit plan fraud and other fiduciary responsibility concerns.  Throughout her career, she has represented and served as special counsel to health and other employee benefit plans, plan sponsors, plan service providers, officers, directors and other management officials, bankruptcy trustees, debtors and creditors, and others in connection with health and other employee benefit plan fraud and other fiduciary responsibility and related investigations, prosecutions and other actions involving the Labor Department, IRS, HHS, Justice Department, state insurance and attorneys general, bankruptcy actions, and participant, beneficiary and vendor disputes.  She also is recognized for her publications, industry leadership, workshops and presentations on these and other employee benefits, insurance and human resources concerns and regularly speaks and conducts training on these matters. Her insights on these and other matters appear in the Bureau of National Affairs, Spencer Publications, the Wall Street Journal, the Dallas Business Journal, the Houston Business Journal, and many other national and local publications. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience or to access other publications by Ms. Stamer see here or contact Ms. Stamer directly.

About Solutions Law Press

Solutions Law Press™ provides business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other resources, training and education on health care, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and other key operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press resources including:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information – including your preferred e-mail – by creating or updating your profile at here or e-mailing this information here. To unsubscribe, e-mail here.

 

©2011 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.  All other rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, CEO, D&O, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Fiduciary Responsibility, Fraud, Internal Controls, Officers, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tax Return Preparers – Including Tax-Exemption Forms – Must Get New Preparer Tax ID Number


New Internal Revenue Service regulations require all paid tax return preparers (including attorneys, CPAs, and enrolled agents) to apply for a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) — even if the preparer already has one — before preparing any federal tax returns in 2011.  PTIN is required to prepare or submit any return or other form unless it is specifically listed as exempt from the requirement.  Parties needing to register for a PTIN should see here.

IRS officials recently have indicated that the IRS considers all forms filed with the IRS to be a “tax return” for purposes of the PTIN requirement unless specifically exempted by Notice 2011-6.  This construction gives the PTIN requirement sweeping reach.  For instance, TEGE officials recently have confirmed that as Form 1023/1024 is not exempted at this time, the IRS requires that anyone compensated for preparing all or a substantial portion of a 1023 or 1024 (or supervising the preparation of a 1023/1024) to have a PTIN.

IRS Chief  Counsel (Procedure & Administration) has indicated that it is open to receiving comments as to 

IRS Chief  Counsel (Procedure & Administration) has indicated that it is open to receiving comments as to what tax forms should and should not be on the list of exempted forms.  Interested persons may submit their commits to CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2011-6), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044 or electronically to Notice.Comments@irscounsel.treas.gov. Submitted comments should reference “Notice 2011-6” in the subject line of any electronic communications.) 

IRS officials recently have indicated that the IRS considers all forms filed with the IRS to be a “tax return” for purposes of the PTIN requirement unless specifically exempted by Notice 2011-6.  This construction gives the PTIN requirement sweeping reach.  For instance, TEGE officials recently have confirmed that as Form 1023/1024 is not exempted at this time, the IRS requires that anyone compensated for preparing all or a substantial portion of a 1023 or 1024 (or supervising the preparation of a 1023/1024) to have a PTIN. 

IRS Chief  Counsel (Procedure & Administration) has indicated that it is open to receiving comments as to

For Assistance or More Information

If your business needs assistance with non-profit employee benefit, human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or other related concerns,please contact the author of this  article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Exempt Organizations Coordinator of the Gulf States Area TEGE Advisory Council, Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting health care, educational, fraternal benefit societies, trade associations, and others with formation, non-profit and tax-exemption, compensation, benefit and employment matters. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters.. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience see CynthiaStamer.com.

We hope that this information is useful to you.  Solutions Law Press offers a variety of updates, publications, training and other resources to assist its businesses and their leaders meet their legal and operational challenges. To learn more about these and other Solutions Law Press, Inc. resources, see solutionslawpress.com.  If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register at here.

©2011 Solutions Law Press.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Tax | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Businesses, Their Leaders & Owners Risk Liability If Mismanage Employee Benefit Obligations


Businesses leaders struggling to deal with economic setbacks frequently may be tempted to use employee benefit plan contributions or funds for added liquidity or otherwise fail to take appropriate steps to protect and timely deposit plan contributions or other plan assets.  A long and ever-mounting series of decisions demonstrates the risks that distressed businesses, their officers, directors and other employees fail to make appropriate arrangements for the proper fulfillment of employee benefit plan related obligations.

The latest wave of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders, judgments and prosecutions of business owners, executives, board members, and other business leaders of distressed companies over the past year document the potential personal businesses and their leaders may face if their health, 401(k) or other employee benefit programs are not appropriately funded and administered as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). 

While the U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) long has aggressively pursued fiduciary responsibility enforcement actions against distressed or bankrupt companies and their officers, directors and other executives for their alleged involvement in the mishandling of their business’ medical, 401(k) or other pension and other employee benefit programs, the ongoing economic downturn has fueled a sharp increase in these EBSA enforcement activities.  

EBSA enforcement actions during 2009 continue to highlight the longstanding and ongoing policy of aggressive investigation and enforcement of alleged misconduct by companies, company officials, and service providers in connection with the maintenance; administration and funding of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record makes clear that where the Labor Department perceives that a plan sponsor or its management fails to take appropriate steps to protect plan participants, the Labor Department will aggressively pursue enforcement regardless of the size of the plan sponsor or its plan, or the business hardships that the plan sponsor may be facing.

EBSA reports enforcing $1.3 billion in recoveries related to pension, 401(k), health and other benefits during fiscal year 2009. EBSA has filed numerous lawsuits to compel distressed companies and/or members of their management to pay restitution or other damages for alleged breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties, to appoint independent fiduciaries, or both for plans sponsored by bankrupt or financially distressed companies.

Recent settlements and judgments obtained by the Labor Department and through private litigation document that officers and other members of management participating, or possessing authority to influence, the handling of heath, 401(k) and other pension, or other employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA may be exposed to personal liability if these benefit programs are not maintained and administered appropriately. This risk is particularly grave when the sponsoring company becomes financially distressed or goes bankrupt, as the handling of employee benefit and other responsibilities becomes particularly disrupted and the lack of company liquidity often leaves executives and service providers as the only or best source of recovery for government officials and private plaintiffs.

In the December 2, 2009 decision in Solis v. Struthers Industries Inc., for instance, a federal district judge ordered business leader Jomey B. Ethridge liable to pay $303,084.61 to restore assets belonging to the 401(k) plan of bankrupt Struthers Industries in an ERISA fiduciary responsibility action filed by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Filed by the EBSA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Struthers Industries lawsuit alleged that Ethridge and Struthers Industries allowed employee contributions to be used for purposes other than providing benefits resulting in losses of $310,084.57.  According to court documents, Struthers Industries designed and built heat transfer and pressure vessels at its Gulfport facility. In 2001, its 401(k) plan had 278 participants and assets totaling $8,279,083. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003, and its assets were auctioned off in 2005. An independent fiduciary was appointed by the court in 2007 to manage the plan’s assets.  The ordered Ethridge personally to pay $303,084.61 in restitution to the plan for his involvement in the mishandling of the plan’s assets. The order also bars Ethridge from acting as a benefit plan fiduciary in the future.

The Struthers Industries decision comes on the heels of EBSA’s success in Solis v. T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. last month in recovering more than $89,000 from business owners and operators found to have breached fiduciary duties to the participants of the T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. Profit Sharing Plan by improperly loaning plan assets to he plan sponsor and an affiliated company. The Labor Department sued T.E. Corcoran Co. and its owners, John F. Corcoran and Thomas E. Corcoran Jr., alleging that the company and its owners caused the plan to lend money to the two companies at below market interest rates, without terms of payment and without documentation in violation of ERISA. The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also named as a defendant Coran Development Co. Inc., a company co-owned by the Corcorans.  T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. was the sponsor and administrator of the plan, while John and Thomas Corcoran were trustees of the plan, making all three fiduciaries and parties in interest with respect to the plan. ERISA specifically prohibits the use of employee benefit plan funds to benefit parties in interest.

The Corcoran judgment requires that the plan account balances of defendants John F. Corcoran and Thomas E. Corcoran Jr. be offset in the amount of $89,273 plus interest to be allocated to the accounts of the other plan participants. The offset will make whole all of the accounts of the non-trustee participants. In addition, the court order appoints an independent trustee to oversee the final distribution of the plan’s assets and the proper termination of the plan, requires the defendants to cooperate fully with the independent trustee in this process, and then prohibits them from serving as fiduciaries to any ERISA-covered plan for 10 years.

A complex maze of ERISA, tax and other rules make the establishment, administration and termination of employee benefit plans a complicated matter. When the company sponsoring a plan goes bankrupt or becomes distressed, the rules, as well as the circumstances can make the administration of these responsibilities a powder keg of liability for all involved. Companies and other individuals that in name or in function possess or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the maintenance, administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA frequently are found to be accountable for complying with the high standards required by ERISA for carrying out these duties based on their functional ability to exercise discretion over these matters, whether or not they have been named as fiduciaries formally.

Despite these well-document fiduciary exposures and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Labor Department and private plaintiffs, many companies and their business leaders fail to appreciate the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment and administration of employee benefit plans. Frequently, companies sponsoring their employee benefit plans and their executives mistakenly assume that they can rely upon vendors and advisors to ensure that their programs are appropriately established the establishment and maintenance of these arrangements with limited review or oversight by the sponsoring company or its management team.

In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that the functional definition that ERISA uses to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions relating to the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans.

For this reason, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

If your business needs assistance with distressed or bankruptcy company, defined benefit plan funding or other employee benefit, human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or other related concerns or in responding to restructuring and bankruptcy, employment or employee benefits related charges, audits, investigations or suits, please contact the author of this  article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, fiduciaries, bankruptcy creditors and trustees, investors, purchasers and others about employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation and other services related concerns involved with distressed businesses or benefit plans, bankruptcy and restructuring transactions and other corporate or plan related events. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a Joint Committee on Employee Benefit Council Member, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented these and other business clients on employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Her experience includes significant experience representing and advising clients about the planning, implementation, risk management and defense of reductions in force and other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, insurance, compliance and other concerns affecting transactions involving bankrupt or distressed corporations. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Among her many publications are her recent November, 2009 publication, Calculation of Minimum Contributions Required For Single Employer Pension Plans: The Final Rules for The Measurement of Assets and Liabilities For Pension Funding Purposes under Final Treasury Regulation Section 1.430(d)” and A Proactive Approach To Hr And Benefits Planning For Mergers, Acquisitions, Downsizing, Reengineering And Other Organizational Changes.” Persons interested in a copy of either of these publications may contact Ms. Stamer. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience see CynthiaStamer.com.

We hope that this information is useful to you.  Solutions Law Press offers a variety of updates, publications, training and other resources to assist its businesses and their leaders meet their legal and operational challenges.  If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register at Businesses leaders struggling to deal with economic setbacks frequently may be tempted to use employee benefit plan contributions or funds for added liquidity or otherwise fail to take appropriate steps to protect and timely deposit plan contributions or other plan assets.  A long and ever-mounting series of decisions demonstrates the risks that distressed businesses, their officers, directors and other employees fail to make appropriate arrangements for the proper fulfillment of employee benefit plan related obligations.

The latest wave of recent fiduciary liability settlement orders, judgments and prosecutions of business owners, executives, board members, and other business leaders of distressed companies over the past year document the potential personal businesses and their leaders may face if their health, 401(k) or other employee benefit programs are not appropriately funded and administered as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). 

While the U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) long has aggressively pursued fiduciary responsibility enforcement actions against distressed or bankrupt companies and their officers, directors and other executives for their alleged involvement in the mishandling of their business’ medical, 401(k) or other pension and other employee benefit programs, the ongoing economic downturn has fueled a sharp increase in these EBSA enforcement activities.  

EBSA enforcement actions during 2009 continue to highlight the longstanding and ongoing policy of aggressive investigation and enforcement of alleged misconduct by companies, company officials, and service providers in connection with the maintenance; administration and funding of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. A review of the Labor Department’s enforcement record makes clear that where the Labor Department perceives that a plan sponsor or its management fails to take appropriate steps to protect plan participants, the Labor Department will aggressively pursue enforcement regardless of the size of the plan sponsor or its plan, or the business hardships that the plan sponsor may be facing.

EBSA reports enforcing $1.3 billion in recoveries related to pension, 401(k), health and other benefits during fiscal year 2009. EBSA has filed numerous lawsuits to compel distressed companies and/or members of their management to pay restitution or other damages for alleged breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties, to appoint independent fiduciaries, or both for plans sponsored by bankrupt or financially distressed companies.

Recent settlements and judgments obtained by the Labor Department and through private litigation document that officers and other members of management participating, or possessing authority to influence, the handling of heath, 401(k) and other pension, or other employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA may be exposed to personal liability if these benefit programs are not maintained and administered appropriately. This risk is particularly grave when the sponsoring company becomes financially distressed or goes bankrupt, as the handling of employee benefit and other responsibilities becomes particularly disrupted and the lack of company liquidity often leaves executives and service providers as the only or best source of recovery for government officials and private plaintiffs.

In the December 2, 2009 decision in Solis v. Struthers Industries Inc., for instance, a federal district judge ordered business leader Jomey B. Ethridge liable to pay $303,084.61 to restore assets belonging to the 401(k) plan of bankrupt Struthers Industries in an ERISA fiduciary responsibility action filed by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Filed by the EBSA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, the Struthers Industries lawsuit alleged that Ethridge and Struthers Industries allowed employee contributions to be used for purposes other than providing benefits resulting in losses of $310,084.57.  According to court documents, Struthers Industries designed and built heat transfer and pressure vessels at its Gulfport facility. In 2001, its 401(k) plan had 278 participants and assets totaling $8,279,083. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003, and its assets were auctioned off in 2005. An independent fiduciary was appointed by the court in 2007 to manage the plan’s assets.  The ordered Ethridge personally to pay $303,084.61 in restitution to the plan for his involvement in the mishandling of the plan’s assets. The order also bars Ethridge from acting as a benefit plan fiduciary in the future.

The Struthers Industries decision comes on the heels of EBSA’s success in Solis v. T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. last month in recovering more than $89,000 from business owners and operators found to have breached fiduciary duties to the participants of the T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. Profit Sharing Plan by improperly loaning plan assets to he plan sponsor and an affiliated company. The Labor Department sued T.E. Corcoran Co. and its owners, John F. Corcoran and Thomas E. Corcoran Jr., alleging that the company and its owners caused the plan to lend money to the two companies at below market interest rates, without terms of payment and without documentation in violation of ERISA. The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also named as a defendant Coran Development Co. Inc., a company co-owned by the Corcorans.  T.E. Corcoran Co. Inc. was the sponsor and administrator of the plan, while John and Thomas Corcoran were trustees of the plan, making all three fiduciaries and parties in interest with respect to the plan. ERISA specifically prohibits the use of employee benefit plan funds to benefit parties in interest.

The Corcoran judgment requires that the plan account balances of defendants John F. Corcoran and Thomas E. Corcoran Jr. be offset in the amount of $89,273 plus interest to be allocated to the accounts of the other plan participants. The offset will make whole all of the accounts of the non-trustee participants. In addition, the court order appoints an independent trustee to oversee the final distribution of the plan’s assets and the proper termination of the plan, requires the defendants to cooperate fully with the independent trustee in this process, and then prohibits them from serving as fiduciaries to any ERISA-covered plan for 10 years.

A complex maze of ERISA, tax and other rules make the establishment, administration and termination of employee benefit plans a complicated matter. When the company sponsoring a plan goes bankrupt or becomes distressed, the rules, as well as the circumstances can make the administration of these responsibilities a powder keg of liability for all involved. Companies and other individuals that in name or in function possess or exercise discretionary responsibility or authority over the maintenance, administration or funding of employee benefit plans regulated by ERISA frequently are found to be accountable for complying with the high standards required by ERISA for carrying out these duties based on their functional ability to exercise discretion over these matters, whether or not they have been named as fiduciaries formally.

Despite these well-document fiduciary exposures and a well-established pattern of enforcement by the Labor Department and private plaintiffs, many companies and their business leaders fail to appreciate the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the establishment and administration of employee benefit plans. Frequently, companies sponsoring their employee benefit plans and their executives mistakenly assume that they can rely upon vendors and advisors to ensure that their programs are appropriately established the establishment and maintenance of these arrangements with limited review or oversight by the sponsoring company or its management team.

In other instances, businesses and their leaders do not realize that the functional definition that ERISA uses to determine fiduciary status means that individuals participating in discretionary decisions relating to the employee benefit plan, as well as the plan sponsor, may bear liability under many commonly occurring situations if appropriate care is not exercised to protect participants or beneficiaries in these plans.

For this reason, businesses providing employee benefits to employees or dependents, as well as members of management participating in, or having responsibility to oversee or influence decisions concerning the establishment, maintenance, funding, and administration of their organization’s employee benefit programs need a clear understanding of their responsibilities with respect to such programs, the steps that they should take to demonstrate their fulfillment of these responsibilities, and their other options for preventing or mitigating their otherwise applicable fiduciary risks.

If your business needs assistance with distressed or bankruptcy company, defined benefit plan funding or other employee benefit, human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or other related concerns or in responding to restructuring and bankruptcy, employment or employee benefits related charges, audits, investigations or suits, please contact the author of this  article, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.

Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, fiduciaries, bankruptcy creditors and trustees, investors, purchasers and others about employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation and other services related concerns involved with distressed businesses or benefit plans, bankruptcy and restructuring transactions and other corporate or plan related events. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a Joint Committee on Employee Benefit Council Member, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented these and other business clients on employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Her experience includes significant experience representing and advising clients about the planning, implementation, risk management and defense of reductions in force and other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, insurance, compliance and other concerns affecting transactions involving bankrupt or distressed corporations. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Among her many publications are her recent November, 2009 publication, Calculation of Minimum Contributions Required For Single Employer Pension Plans: The Final Rules for The Measurement of Assets and Liabilities For Pension Funding Purposes under Final Treasury Regulation Section 1.430(d)” and A Proactive Approach To Hr And Benefits Planning For Mergers, Acquisitions, Downsizing, Reengineering And Other Organizational Changes.” Persons interested in a copy of either of these publications may contact Ms. Stamer. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience see CynthiaStamer.com.

We hope that this information is useful to you.  Solutions Law Press offers a variety of updates, publications, training and other resources to assist its businesses and their leaders meet their legal and operational challenges.  If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register at here.

©2009 Solutions Law Press.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Workforce Reductions May Trigger Plant Closing & Union Notice, Benefit, & Other Obligations


While some businesses report improved business or hiring outlooks for the upcoming year, many others are running out of time before the economic downturn and financing restrictions will force them to implement workforce reductions, close plants, or shut down all or portions of their business operations. 

Where a distressed business contemplates a plant closing or mass layoff, the business and its leaders should consider its potential responsibilities under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and where applicable, make appropriate arrangements to comply or implement the restructuring to minimize or avoid triggering WARN obligations.   In addition to WARN, business contemplating or implementing a plan closing, mass layoff or other reductions in force also should evaluate and make appropriate arrangements to address potential obligations under state plant closing laws, the medical coverage continuation mandates of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA),  retirement plan funding, notice and distribution, vesting or other obligations, for unionized environments, union notification, negotiation or other obligations, voluntary or contractually obligated termination pay or other severance obligations, unemployment, and other obligations. In this respect, particular attention generally is warranted to ensure that vesting and funding requirements for employee benefit plans are assessed and fulfilled, including any new or accelerated obligations to vesting if the reductions result in a partial or complete plan termination, cause underfunding of a defined benefit plans, special tax, securities or other obligations arising from the vesting of payment of deferred compensation under Internal Revenue Code § 409, golden parachute payments under Code §280G or other special compensation or benefits, as well as providing for appropriate application of employee benefit contributions withheld from pay., or otherwise.  Employers and members of management also will want to ensure that any employee contributions withheld from final pay are timely paid into trust or otherwise properly applied and that appropriate funding arrangements are put in place to meet employee benefit responsibilities, particularly since executives and others exercising discretion over these matters often become the targets of government or private plaintiff fiduciary liability claims when their distressed corporation fails to make appropriate arrangements.  Read more.

Noncompliance with  or mismanagement of these responsibilities not only can trigger expensive liabilities for businesses, they often expose commonly controlled or affiliated businesses, successors, officers, directors and management employees to risks.  For instance, various tax and benefit rules frequently provide that other related businesses, acquiring entities and other businesses may under certain situations become liable as successors, expose assets to liens, or face other risks.  Similarly, employment, employee benefit and tax laws under various circumstances may expose officers, directors or other leaders with discretion or control over certain decisions or activities to person liability when certain employee benefit, payroll or other responsibilities are not met.  To minimize these exposures, businesses and their business leaders concerned about a distressed business or anticipating the bankruptcy, merger, acquisition or sale of a business should seek the advise of competent counsel about these potential exposures and opportunities to mitigate these risks.

If your business needs assistance with distressed or bankruptcy company, defined benefit plan funding or other employee benefit, human resources, corporate ethics, and compliance practices, or other related concerns or in responding to restructuring and bankruptcy, employment or employee benefits related charges, audits, investigations or suits, please contact the author of this update, attorney Cynthia Marcotte Stamer here.

Ms. Stamer is experienced with assisting employers, fiduciaries, bankruptcy creditors and trustees, investors, purchasers and others about employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation and other services related concerns involved with distressed businesses or benefit plans, bankruptcy and restructuring transactions and other corporate or plan related events. Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and Chair of the American Bar Association RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and a Joint Committee on Employee Benefit Council Member, Ms. Stamer has advised and represented these and other business clients on employee benefit, labor and employment, compensation, employee benefit and other personnel and staffing matters for more than 22 years. Her experience includes significant experience representing and advising clients about the planning, implementation, risk management and defense of reductions in force and other labor and employment, employee benefits, compensation, insurance, compliance and other concerns affecting transactions involving bankrupt or distressed corporations. Ms. Stamer also speaks and writes extensively on these and other related matters. Among her many publications are her recent November, 2009 publication, Calculation of Minimum Contributions Required For Single Employer Pension Plans: The Final Rules for The Measurement of Assets and Liabilities For Pension Funding Purposes under Final Treasury Regulation Section 1.430(d)” and A Proactive Approach To Hr And Benefits Planning For Mergers, Acquisitions, Downsizing, Reengineering And Other Organizational Changes.” Persons interested in a copy of either of these publications may contact Ms. Stamer. For additional information about Ms. Stamer and her experience see CynthiaStamer.com.

We hope that this information is useful to you.  Solutions Law Press offers a variety of updates, publications, training and other resources to assist its businesses and their leaders meet their legal and operational challenges.  If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please register at Businesses leaders struggling to deal with economic setbacks frequently may be tempted to use employee benefit plan contributions or funds for added liquidity or otherwise fail to take appropriate steps to protect and timely deposit plan contributions or other plan assets.  A long and ever-mounting series of decisions demonstrates the risks that distressed businesses, their officers, directors and other employees fail to make appropriate arrangements for the proper fulfillment of employee benefit plan related obligations.

©2011 Solutions Law Press.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Bankruptcy, Director Liabiloity, Employment, Reengineering, Shareholder Liability, Tax | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment