Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Plaintiff challenging healthcare law went bankrupt – with unpaid medical bills

Obama administration lawyers say her case is an example of why an
insurance mandate is needed to prevent 'uncompensated care that will
ultimately be paid by others.'

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times


Reporting from Washington— Mary Brown, a 56-year-old Florida woman who
owned a small auto repair shop but had no health insurance, became the
lead plaintiff challenging President Obama's healthcare law because
she was passionate about the issue.

Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she
doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said
Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent
Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the
Supreme Court plans to hear later this month.

But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for
bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills
could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example
of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address.

The central issue before the Supreme Court is whether the government
can require people to buy health insurance. Under the law, those who
fail to buy insurance after 2014 could face a fine of up to $700.

The business federation, along with other critics of the law, calls
the insurance mandate a "threat to individual liberty" that violates
the Constitution.

Obama administration lawyers argue that the requirement is justified
because everyone, sooner or later, needs healthcare. Those who fail to
have insurance are at high risk of running up bills they cannot pay,
sticking the rest of society with the cost, they argue. Brown's
situation, they say, is a perfect example of exactly that kind of
"uncompensated care that will ultimately be paid by others."

"This is so ironic," Jane Perkins, a health law expert in North
Carolina, said of Brown's situation. "It just shows that all Americans
inevitably have a need for healthcare. Somebody has paid for her
healthcare costs. And she is now among the 62% whose personal
bankruptcy was attributable in part to medical bills."

Lawyers who represent Brown dispute the significance of her
bankruptcy. They say her unpaid medical bills were only a small part
of her debts and did not cause her bankruptcy. They say that she and
her husband owe $55,000 to others, including credit card companies.
And they say her financial troubles were caused by the failure of her
auto repair shop.

Brown, reached by telephone Thursday, said the medical bills were her
husband's. "I always paid my bills, as well as my medical bills," she
said angrily. "I never said medical insurance is not a necessity. It
should be anyone's right to what kind of health insurance they have.

"I believe that anyone has unforeseen things that happen to them that
are beyond their control," Brown said. "Who says I don't have
insurance right now?"

Brown's problems are not likely to affect the outcome in the high
court. In January, the business group told the court it had found two
new plaintiffs who could take Brown's place. But Brown played a
crucial role in the case reaching the Supreme Court.

"There was time pressure" to find a plaintiff for the case, Harned
said. "And candidly, it is not as easy as it sounds" to find someone.
She recalls that Brown was outspoken and stepped forward as a
volunteer. The lawyers found a second plaintiff in Kaj Ahlburg, a
retired New York investment banker living in Port Angeles, Wash.

But when U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson declared the mandate
unconstitutional in January 2011, he pointed to Mary Brown's
complaint. "She is a small-business owner" who "does not believe the
cost of health insurance is a wise or acceptable use of her
resources," he said.

In August, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed.
Florida and 25 other states were suing, but they needed an individual
to contest the mandate. "Mary Brown has standing to challenge the
individual mandate," the judges said, and "as long as at least one
plaintiff has standing to raise" the claim, the court can rule. The
Obama administration appealed, and the Supreme Court said in November
it would decide the constitutional challenge.

But by then, Brown's small auto repair shop near Panama City, Fla.,
had closed, and she and her husband had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition. Brown said in the petition that her only income was $275 a
month in unemployment benefits.

Her bankruptcy came to light in December, when a Wall Street Journal
reporter interviewed her about her role in the historic case. In a
video interview, Brown said freedom from government was the issue.
"I'm not fighting just for me," she said. "It's my choice to have
healthcare, not theirs."

Shortly afterward, lawyers for the National Federation of Independent
Business informed the court of Brown's troubles, and sent along a copy
of her bankruptcy filing.

The couple owed $2,140 to Bay Medical Center in Panama City, $610 to
Bay Medical Physicians, $835 to an eye doctor in Alabama and $900 to a
specialist in Mississippi.

"This is a very common problem. We cover $30 million in charity and
uncompensated care every year," said Christa Hild, a spokeswoman for
the hospital center. "If it's a bad debt, we have to absorb it."

The business group's lawyers say they weren't backing away from their
bankrupt plaintiff. "She wants to continue in the case. And as long as
she doesn't want healthcare, she qualifies as a plaintiff in our
mind," Harned said.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Monday, March 12, 2012

Mary Brown, 'Obamacare' foe -- and broke

Mary Brown, whose case against the 2010 healthcare reform law is
pending before the Supreme Court, argues that the government shouldn't
be able to force her to carry health insurance. Joined by three other
individuals and a small-business trade association, she's asking the
justices to rule that the law's insurance mandate is unconstitutional
and that the rest of the act should be thrown out with it. But new
revelations about her own situation make the case for the other side.

As The Times' David Savage reported, Brown and her husband have fallen
on hard times since filing the lawsuit, largely because their auto
repair business in Florida failed. The couple have filed for
bankruptcy protection, asking a federal court to wipe out close to
$60,000 in consumer debts. Significantly, their unpaid bills include
$2,750 owed to a local hospital and physicians group and $1,735 to
out-of-state medical specialists.

The disclosures are political gold for the Obama administration,
transforming Brown from a champion of individual liberty into an
exemplar of a problem the new law was designed to address. Uninsured
and underinsured Americans rack up about $60 billion in medical bills
every year that they cannot afford, forcing doctors and hospitals to
pass those costs on to federal taxpayers and those patients who can
pay their bills. It's not impinging on personal freedom to ask people
to cover their own medical tabs. The mechanism Congress created to do
that is the individual mandate.

The insurance mandate and premium subsidies in the healthcare law are
expected to significantly reduce the amount of uncompensated care and
cost shifting. The mandate also helps balance the law's insurance
reforms, which bar companies from denying coverage to people with
preexisting conditions and from making their policies prohibitively
expensive. To prevent people from signing up for coverage when they
need treatment, then dropping it when they're healthy, Congress
required all adult Americans to maintain health insurance coverage or
pay a tax penalty.

Brown and her allies contend that the law wouldn't work as Congress
intended if the mandate were removed, so the entire act must be
scrapped if the mandate is found unconstitutional. But her own
complaints about the cost illustrate the flaw in that reasoning. Much
of the law is aimed at slowing the growth of healthcare expenses and
improving the quality of care. Those provisions are still valuable
regardless of what happens to the mandate. Nor do the insurance
reforms fail if the mandate is eliminated. Lawmakers would simply have
to find another mechanism to discourage people who can afford
insurance from gaming the system. Republicans in Congress have
proposed several ways to do so, including financial penalties and
waiting periods for people who seek insurance only when they need
treatment.

Although Brown is wrong about the mandate, her concerns about cost are
valid. In their zeal to make sure insurance policies were
comprehensive, lawmakers didn't give people enough flexibility to save
money by insuring themselves against only the largest risks. Nor have
they done enough to rein in the escalating price of medical care. But
those are reasons to keep building on the 2010 law, not to repeal it.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Obama tells business leaders the nation needs changes in tax laws to help the economy

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told business leaders Tuesday that
the nation needs to reform its tax system to help boost the economy,
saying the American people "instinctually understand" that the U.S.
needs a more balanced approach to solve its economic problems.

"The economy is getting stronger and the recovery is speeding up. The
question now is how do we make sure it keeps going," Obama said to the
Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of top
U.S. corporations.

The president told more than 90 executives that the nation would "have
to deal with revenue and that's something that I think the American
people instinctually understand, that if we do this in a balanced way,
we can solve our problems." He said the nation was not in a similar
situation as debt-laden Greece, saying "we don't have to cut by 25
percent and raise taxes by 25 percent."

"These are relatively modest adjustments that can stabilize our
economy, give you the kind of business confidence that you need to
invest and make sure America wins for the future," Obama said, adding
the business community would be an "important voice" in the debate.

Obama outlined his administration's efforts to jumpstart
manufacturing, noting that the U.S. auto industry had rebounded
following the economic downturn, and noted the passage of trade
agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, and the
administration's work to bring Russia into the World Trade
Organization.

Obama recently outlined a corporate tax overhaul that would lower
rates but eliminate loopholes and subsidies supported by the business
world. The plan is unlikely to pass in an election year but sets up a
debate with Obama's Republican opponents on taxes.

Republicans noted that a former chairman of the Business Roundtable,
Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon, accused Obama in 2010 of creating an
"increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation" and
the organization had expressed disappointment over Obama's rejection
of the Keystone XL pipeline in January.

The president's plan would lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent,
and Obama has called for Bush era tax cuts to end on individuals
making more than $200,000, thus increasing their taxes, and for a 30
percent minimum tax on taxpayers who make $1 million or more. The plan
has been assailed by Republicans, who contend it will curb business
development.

Republican Mitt Romney, for example, has called for a 25 percent
corporate tax rate, in line with what some congressional Republicans
have sought. He has proposed lowering the top personal income tax rate
to 28 percent from the current 35 percent.

Obama said it was important to reform taxes to reward "companies that
are investing here in the United States, making sure we are able to
cut our tax rates here but also broaden the base. That is going to be
a difficult task. Anybody who has been in tax discussions in any
legislation, but especially Congress, knows it's like pulling teeth
but it's the right thing to do for us to become more competitive."

Attendees included James McNerney of Boeing, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan
Chase, Brian Moynihan of Bank of America, and Ursula M. Burns of Xerox
Corp. The organization is led by former Michigan Gov. John Engler, a
Republican.


For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Friday, March 2, 2012

Adviser to Businesses Laments Changes to Bankruptcy Law

By IAN MOUNT

For the past 23 years, Chuck Benjamin has been working as a turnaround
consultant, primarily for troubled private companies with annual
revenues of $25 million to $250 million. During that time, his company
— Benjamin Capital Advisors of Rye Brook, N.Y., and Boca Raton, Fla. —
has handled some 70 cases. "My endgame is to save companies," said Mr.
Benjamin, 71, "hopefully for their owners."

That has become much more difficult in recent years, he says, as
changes in bankruptcy law have given unsecured creditors more power
and made bankruptcy more expensive. These legal changes and increased
costs have in turn pushed troubled companies to liquidate their assets
instead of reorganizing, Mr. Benjamin said, which ends up eliminating
the original owners — and many jobs — in the process. The following is
a condensed version of a recent conversation.

Q. You say the bankruptcy process is broken. How so?

A. When bankruptcy evolved, it was to protect debtors, the owners. The
whole concept was forgiving debts or restructuring so the business
would survive in the hands of the owners. But the rules have changed
over the years. Today, if they have to go into Chapter 11, the odds of
the owners keeping the business are much lower. So there's no
incentive for the owners to enter Chapter 11 and reorganize. Why save
a company for somebody else?

Q. What changed?

A. First, the Supreme Court's 1999 LaSalle decision basically meant
that any company that entered bankruptcy was on the market and could
be bought either whole or piecemeal. And then in 2005, Congress passed
the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, and that
changed the face of Chapter 11 for privately held businesses. No. 1,
B.A.P.C.P.A. changed the landlord's position. It limits the time to
just seven months for debtors to decide whether to accept or reject
the lease in bankruptcy. It used to be you could get extended almost
forever the time you could accept or reject a lease. Now they have
seven months. That's not a long time to decide which locations to
close while you're in trouble and you're trying to work through all
kinds of other issues.

The second change is exclusivity, that is, the debtor's exclusive
right to file a plan of reorganization. It used to be you had all
kinds of extensions. Sometimes bankruptcies used to take two, three,
four, five years. I had one that was in Chapter 11 for seven years.
But it survived. Now you have 18 months where the owner has the
exclusive right to file plans for reorganization. Unsecured creditors
know that after 18 months they can file a plan excluding the debtor.
After you're in Chapter 11 for eight or 10 months, creditors say, "I'm
just going to hang on. I'll file my own plan and take over the
company. Or after 18 months we'll just liquidate it."

Q. It's hard to see anything positive about a bankruptcy that takes seven years.

A. Sometimes staying in bankruptcy a longer time was better, because
it gave a debtor time to catch its breath.

Q. Who wins from this change?

A. The LaSalle decision and B.A.P.C.P.A. have given unsecured
creditors a huge advantage, and the result is the cost of bankruptcy
has gotten so high — because of professional and other costs — that
the ability to continue the company under current ownership has
reached almost zero. I understand the plight of unsecured creditors,
but everyone who sells on unsecured account understands the risk.
Every businessman understands this when he sells and makes a credit
decision.

Q. Really? Small-business owners offer credit like this routinely. You
don't think they expect to get paid?

A. You know that old saying, "Let the buyer beware"? I think it's
every businessman's responsibility to know to whom he sells and offers
credit. If I sell to you and you begin to pay very slowly — which
often happens before a bankruptcy — I should stop selling to you on
credit. But if I continue to sell to you to make a buck, it's not your
fault, it's mine.

Q. So what happens instead of reorganization these days?

A. Companies are liquidated. Back in 1983, the Lionel case allowed
companies the freedom to sell off assets as opposed to filing a plan
of reorganization. It expanded what could be sold in a "363 sale." The
363 component was originally designed to allow companies to sell off
spoilable product, like fruit. If you were in the grocery business and
you filed bankruptcy, it allowed you to sell off assets. The Lionel
case expanded that so you could sell major assets, virtually including
the whole company. That's a quick way to avoid a plan of
reorganization.

Q. How does a 363 sale work?

A. The 363 sale requires nothing more than saying, "I'm going to sell
you my equipment," and I publish that, and for 30 or 40 days people
have a right to object to it and the judge can decide, O.K., sell it,
or if there's a higher or better bid, it goes to the highest or best
bidder. That happened in the Brunschwig & Fils bankruptcy where I was
the chief restructuring officer. I sold the company's assets for $10
million, very successful, but the original owners lost control and 116
employees lost their jobs. In the old days we would have been able to
reorganize the company.

Q. How do these changes affect a troubled company's ability to get
financing during reorganization?

A. All of these changes say to the world that the chance of a company
surviving bankruptcy is much lower. And if it's much lower, the banks
aren't going to give debtor-in-possession financing — and rightfully
so. The D.I.P. financer gets a priority lien. Last in, first out. But
the company has to survive to have the money to pay that
super-priority lien.

Q. Does this change how troubled companies act?

A. Debtors are delaying seeking help longer and longer and longer.
They're very frustrated. They're walking in molasses. They figure if
they wait another week the economy is going to turn.

Q. What should business owners do instead of filing for Chapter 11?

A. People need to seek help quicker, change their business plan
quicker, and avoid Chapter 11. It's just an absolute last resort. It's
virtually nonsurvivable. One of the things we do as consultants is
take two weak companies that are facing annihilation and we merge them
and we get one survivable company — without a bankruptcy. We also try
to make out-of-court settlements with creditors, as opposed to Chapter
11 proceedings. In Chapter 11, the debtor pays for attorneys,
accountants and consultants of the creditors' committee. They even pay
for the investment bankers. The owner is paying the other side to
oppose him. It's tilted to the unsecured creditor side.

Q. But doesn't this law fix some biases toward debtors that allowed
them to drag out the process, hurting their creditors as they did so?

A. The law probably does fix some problems, but you have to look at
the nuances. There are some cases with the tighter rules where the
creditors get a little more but the company fails. The other option is
the bankruptcy lingers and the creditors get a little less but the
company survives, and that way the creditors continue to have a
customer.

Q. You're a small-business owner yourself. How is your business doing?

A. Business right now is kind of quiet. I think this is the calm
before the storm.

For more information on these matters please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

iPad legal fight highlights China's trademark minefield

By Katie Hunt

Apple is locked in a high-stakes legal fight over the rights to its
iPad brand in China, but the technology giant is just one of many
multinational companies to have come unstuck while trying to navigate
the country's complex trademark system.

Drug company Pfizer, auctioneer Sotheby's, luxury fashion house Hermes
and coffee chain Starbucks, along with many others, have fought court
battles over trademarks and logos in China - with mixed results.

Legal experts describe a situation where the law favours opportunistic
"trademark squatters", who register trademarks - often by the hundred
- in the hope of turning a quick profit, rather than the companies who
actually use them to do business.

"It's a first-to-file jurisdiction, so foreign companies with
well-known brands are advised to come in here as soon as possible and
register their trademarks," says Stan Abrams, a US lawyer, who teaches
intellectual property law at Beijing's Central University of Finance
and Economics.

By contrast, the US operates a "first-to-use" system meaning that the
party that files for a trademark has to show that is has used, or
intends to use, the trademark for business purposes.

Infringements
Reports suggest that Facebook is working hard to solve trademark
infringements in China as it prepares for its massive share listing.
Individuals can also encounter problems.

Apple is locked in a high-stakes legal fight over the rights to its
iPad brand in China, but the technology giant is just one of many
multinational companies to have come unstuck while trying to navigate
the country's complex trademark system.

Drug company Pfizer, auctioneer Sotheby's, luxury fashion house Hermes
and coffee chain Starbucks, along with many others, have fought court
battles over trademarks and logos in China - with mixed results.

Legal experts describe a situation where the law favours opportunistic
"trademark squatters", who register trademarks - often by the hundred
- in the hope of turning a quick profit, rather than the companies who
actually use them to do business.

"It's a first-to-file jurisdiction, so foreign companies with
well-known brands are advised to come in here as soon as possible and
register their trademarks," says Stan Abrams, a US lawyer, who teaches
intellectual property law at Beijing's Central University of Finance
and Economics.

By contrast, the US operates a "first-to-use" system meaning that the
party that files for a trademark has to show that is has used, or
intends to use, the trademark for business purposes.

Infringements
Reports suggest that Facebook is working hard to solve trademark
infringements in China as it prepares for its massive share listing.
Individuals can also encounter problems.

The technology giant says it bought the rights to the iPad name in
China and nine other countries from the Taiwan unit of a now
struggling Hong Kong electronics company called Proview International
for £35,000 in 2009.

Proview International had registered the name back in 2001 and used it
to develop its own device, which was not a big success.

However, a Chinese court in Shenzhen ruled in November that the
trademark belonged to Shenzhen Proview, a mainland Chinese unit of
Proview International. Apple's appeal in that case begins on
Wednesday.

Apple maintains that the 2009 contract gave it worldwide rights to the
iPad name and Proview "refuses to honour their agreement with Apple in
China" while Shenzhen Proview has claimed to be unaware that the
Taiwan unit signed away the trademarks.

Apple declined to comment further given that their case is still
pending in China, while Roger Xie, a Chinese lawyer representing
Shenzhen Proview contacted by BBC News, said he was too busy to answer
questions about the case.

Time pressure?
Experts say that Apple's problems most likely stem from a lack of due
diligence on the 2009 trademark deal.

"My personal guess is that they were under immense time pressure,"
says Eugene Low, a trademark lawyer at Mayer Brown JSM in Hong Kong.

"It's very surprising that they overlooked this problem. Anyone can go
to the PRC trademark office's online database and do a simple search
that would reveal the owner."

While Proview still claims ownership of the iPad brand and is asking
commercial authorities to ban iPad sales in some Chinese cities, Mr
Low says ultimately it is in the interests of the company and its
creditors to settle the case.

"It's not in their interest for Apple to stop selling iPads in China.
They want to realise whatever assets Proview has."

Mr Abrams says the sticking point is likely to be the amount Proview
is prepared to settle for.

"I have a feeling what they (Proview) can live with and what Apple can
live with are very far apart. It's the only asset left for this
company essentially... and there are rumours that Proview is being
manipulated by its creditors."

According to a report by Bloomberg news agency, Shenzhen Proview is
controlled by its creditors, including two of China biggest banks -
Bank of China and China Minsheng Banking Corp.

Politics?

Mr Abrams says that Apple and its contractors employ millions of
workers in China and this will work in the technology giant's favour
should the case "turn political", as he puts it.

"Who is more important as a company to this country?" he asks. "Apple
is a big employer, the products are popular, it's a big multinational,
it pays taxes. Proview is a non-entity"

"If politics are involved at all, then Apple looks pretty good."

Many foreign companies have weathered disputes over their intellectual
property in China.

Earlier this week Hermes lost a Shanghai court case over a translation
of its name and Pfizer fought and lost a long court battle over the
Chinese name of its Viagra brand, which was registered first by a
Chinese company.

Starbucks and Sotheby's, however, both won their cases against Chinese
companies using translations of their names.

While the Proview case is embarrassing and could ultimately prove
costly for Apple, it is unlikely to deal a devastating blow to its
business in China, where fights have broken out as customers scrambled
to purchase new Apple products.

"Worst-case scenario is rebranding in China but even with that people
are still going to buy their products. It's not going to kill them,"
says Mr Abrams.

"If there's any lessons to be learned it's due diligence and making
sure your lawyer doesn't screw up when you sign your contract."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Assessing the Global Business Outlook for Data Privacy

By, Catherine Dunn

According to a new White House report on consumer data privacy
protection, trust is worth a lot of money to U.S. businesses—users
have to know their data will be protected if the economic engine of
digital innovation is to keep roaring. Ergo, the U.S. needs a privacy
framework that's "flexible" enough to accommodate industry innovation,
and comprehensive enough that consumers will feel safe—and keep
clicking.

But trust between consumers and companies in the U.S. is only part of
the equation. There's another important element, too: how compatible
U.S. safeguards are with those of the rest of the world, and
particularly Europe. This new proposal arrives a month ahead of a
conference on data protection between E.U. and U.S. officials in
Washington, D.C., leading to questions about whether Europe and the
U.S. are any closer to getting on the same page when it comes to data
privacy.

The answer not only depends on who you ask, but also what section of
the White House's report you're looking at. The white paper lists
seven principles and stresses that these principles should form the
basis of voluntary codes of conduct adopted by industry. Once adopted,
the Federal Trade Commission would have the power to enforce
compliance to those codes. The paper also includes a call for Congress
to pass legislation based on these principles, and devotes a section
to "international interoperability"—which considers how data can be
sent across international borders without violating laws on either
side of the transaction.

Let's start with the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. As Joseph
Turrow, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania, told NPR's Fresh Air, even the wording of
the report's title is a noteworthy choice:

[Europeans] believe in privacy as [a] human right. And that's the
interesting thing about how [the upcoming] Commerce Department report
is positioned: as a right. There are some advocates who don't like
what they see in the policy because they think it's too loose. But the
very fact that it's called a right is interesting rhetorically. Some
people would say they're moving in the right direction.

Privacy expert Lisa Sotto says that while the seven rights derive from
the Fair Information Practice Principles—which were issued by the U.S
Department of Education, Health, and Welfare in the 1970s—this updated
version also reflects contemporary European ideals: "A number of the
principles would seek to import European data protection standards to
the U.S., such as the right to access and correct data," says Sotto,
head of the global privacy and data security Practice at Hunton &
Williams in New York.

Next up: FTC enforcement and voluntary codes of conduct, which might
be a harder sell to Europeans. In fact, argues Jeffrey Chester, head
of the Center for Digital Democracy, the whole notion of
self-regulation by industry undercuts the basic tenants of the
European regulatory regime. "The Europeans are building a
comprehensive online privacy framework that places the interests of
citizens first," he says, while the U.S. self-regulatory approach
advances the interests of U.S. data mining companies. "This is digital
apples and oranges."

The section on interoperability, says Stuart Levi, a partner at
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York, can be read as a
signal to Europe: "We want you to recognize what we do here, and
accept what we do here."

"The U.S. is hedging its bets," adds Levi, co-head of the firm's
intellectual property and technology group. In other words, even if
the U.S. doesn't get a comprehensive data privacy and protection
policy passed into law, the Obama administration at least wants the
E.U. to recognize that a self-regulatory regime is valid and worthy of
respect.

The topic of global privacy regulations is now at a new pivot point.
Are the new E.U. framework and White House "Bill of Rights" the
beginning of a more global approach to data privacy, or are both sides
far enough down the digital road that it will be nearly impossible to
reconcile the legal and philosophical differences? For multinational
companies and web brands that rely on global access to data and
customers, the answer will be crucial to their success in a
21st-century marketplace.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Jefferson County sets public hearing on sexually oriented business law

PORT TOWNSEND — An ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses
in Jefferson County appears to be headed for approval next month after
nearly seven years of delays.


Jefferson County commissioners have been considering the ordinance
that would cover such businesses as strip clubs and sex novelty shops
since March 2005, when nine moratoriums on such establishments going
into business until county regulations were approved.


What could be a final public hearing on the final draft of the
ordinance was scheduled on Monday for 10:15 a.m. March 12 when the
three commissioners will consider final approval of the proposal.


That hearing is to be conducted before the commissioners in their
chambers at the county courthouse, 1820 Jefferson St., in Port
Townsend.


"I would dearly love to see these moratoriums come to an end," said
county Commissioner Phil Johnson who pointed out that the ordinance
would allow such businesses in more than one place in the county.


County Associate Planner David Wayne Johnson, who has taken the lead
on the developing the ordinance for the county Department of Community
Development, said such businesses would be allowed in areas zoned for
rural village centers, convenience centers, crossroad centers and
light industrial zones.


Both Quilcene and Brinnon are zoned as rural village centers and Glen
Cove Industrial Park south of Port Townsend is a light industrial
zone.


All are areas where sexually-oriented businesses could be established
under the law.


Commissioner Johnson said it "seemed odd" that such businesses would
be allowed to be "scattered" around the county.


Planner Johnson said the county had to zone sexually-oriented
businesses in more than one location because otherwise, the action
could be interpreted as creating a "red light district" and construed
as unconstitutional.


County Administrator Philip Morley said if all goes well there will be
no need to extend the moratorium once again.


"I am pleased to see we are getting to this point, quite frankly,"
said county Commissioner David Sullivan.


Some of the ordinance borrows from the city of Port Townsend law that
was adopted seven years ago and allows such businesses in the downtown
historic district.


As proposed, the ordinance requires that adult businesses be 1,000
feet away from churches and schools.


The county sheriff would administer licensing and the county hearing
examiner would hear any appeals of license denials, Morley said.


Johnson said the sheriff's office must take a role in review of
applications for adult-oriented because of the fear that such
businesses could be fronts for organized crime, including money
laundering and prostitution.


The county first discussed an adult business ordinance in early May
2005, but the matter fell by the wayside, with other issues taking
priority.


There is no county adult business law now in place.


"We think that this is a good final cut for the code for the
licensing," planner Johnson said.


"I think we can get this all done and have the public hearing" before
the moratorium expires.


The latest moratorium expires April 24.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Monday, February 13, 2012

Business concerns stall House's foreign law bill

By Kathy Adams

RICHMOND — A proposal to ban the use of foreign law in Virginia was on
its way to passing the House of Delegates, despite objections from
religious groups that it was a back-door attack on Islam that could
also harm followers of other faiths.

Then business interests expressed concern and legislators decided to
take a closer look.

For now, the measures have been sent back to the drawing board, but
supporters say they plan to try again next year.

House Bill 825, from Rep. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County, would
have prohibited judges and state administrators from using any legal
code established outside the United States to make decisions. It was
one of two proposals this year to address that issue.

Muslim advocates condemned the effort, calling it a thinly veiled
attack on Shariah law, their religious tenets. Other members of the
religious community joined in, including the Jewish Community
Federation, saying the ban also would infringe on their rights,
especially to settle certain family matters, such as wills and
divorces, according to their faith.

Nonetheless, the House Courts of Justice Committee approved the bill
10-6 and sent it to the full House for consideration.

But when legislators started hearing from business groups concerned
about how the proposal could affect their dealings abroad and foreign
companies located here, they sent the bill back to committee.

"I had some business concerns," said Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott
County, after making the motion Thursday to kick back the bill. "It's
just something that needs more work."

A subcommittee voted Friday to carry the measure over to next year,
when the assembly will also take up a broader version, HB 631, from
freshman Del. Richard Morris, R-Isle of Wight County.

The Council for American-Islamic Relations attacked Morris' bill
first, pointing to language in it that was identical to a measure
drafted by anti-Shariah activist David Yeralshami. Although Marshall's
bill was more narrow, it seemed to have the same anti-Muslim
undertones, said the council and outside legal experts.

"This one is more cautiously drafted than a lot of these bills because
it doesn't mention Shariah law," said Douglas Laycock, a
constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia. "Although
everyone knows what it's about."

"I think the goal and the objectives are still the same, and that's to
stigmatize the Muslim community," said Gadeir Abbas, staff attorney
for the Council for American-Islamic Relations. "The business
community doesn't want it, the religious community doesn't want it and
it's not good for Virginia."

Marshall and Morris dispute that their bills target Muslims.

"All we're saying is that this legislature is absolutely going to be
in charge of how the courts incorporate foreign law," he said. "This
doesn't target any specific individual, religion or country's set of
laws."

In the past two years, 20 states have considered similar legislation.
Last month, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down
Oklahoma's version as discriminatory because it specifically mentioned
Shariah law.

Del. Greg Habeeb, R-Salem, said Marshall's proposal was different,
especially because it didn't mention any specific religion. Habeeb and
Marshall are both Christians.

"We could go down a really dangerous path with this type of
legislation, which is why we've spent hours and hours of analysis,"
Habeeb said during a hearing. "This is not the bogeyman bill. †It's
a statement of public policy."

Proponents of the legislation, such as the conservative Center for
Security Policy, argue it's intended to prevent foreign law from
infringing on Americans' rights, although their discussion focuses
only on Shariah law.

A study by the center reported finding 50 cases in 23 states during
the past two years where judges used Shariah law in their decisions.
Three were in Virginia: two marriage cases and one child custody
dispute, according to the report.

There's no widespread evidence of judges using foreign law in Virginia
or elsewhere, said Corey Saylor, national legislative director for the
Council for American-Islamic Relations.

"It's a nonissue," he said. "The Constitution is the law of the land,
and to my knowledge no one's questioning that."

Where the proposals would have applied is in family settlements, said
Morris' staff and religious leaders. For example, Jewish couples often
go to a rabbinical court to decide a divorce agreement and then ask a
domestic relations court to enforce it.

Marshall's bill would have banned that, as well as the use of Muslim
Shariah law or Catholic canon law, opponents said.

"It could have unintended consequences on legal practices in the
religious community throughout the commonwealth," said Charles
Swadley, interim president of the Virginia Interfaith Center for
Public Policy.

"We're afraid of it," added Richard Samet, an attorney who testified
against the bill on behalf of the Jewish Community Federation.

The chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee, Del. Dave Albo,
R-Fairfax County, voted against the bill due to concerns it could
invalidate foreign adoptions, international letters of credit and
certain international contracts.

The proposals could have created a nightmare for Virginia's courts,
UVa's Laycock said. The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia
agreed, saying the bills would have caused uncertainty for businesses,
litigants and people involved in family disputes.

"The idea that there can be no reliance on foreign law in a Virginia
court is utterly impractical," he said. "You cannot be a state with
commercial enterprises in a global economy and not deal with foreign
law."

Several subcommittee members said they weren't comfortable signing off
on Marshall's bill with so many legal questions unanswered.

"This is a very serious issue," said freshman Del. Peter Farrell,
R-Henrico County. "I don't want foreign law dominating me as an
American citizen. But the drafting does not seem to be correct and
we're being asked to rush this."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Thursday, February 9, 2012

8 Legal Steps for Starting Your Business

American Express Forum

With each new year, budding entrepreneurs look to turn their vision
into a business. These startups are often overflowing with tremendous
ideas, energy and optimism — but don't always have a roadmap for the
legal aspects involved in starting a business. In the flurry of
drumming up new customers, getting ready for a website launch and
building the first prototype, it's all too easy to put off some of the
less glamorous, more administrative aspects of running a company.


Yes, company filings and regulations are not the most exciting parts
of your startup. Yet they're critical to the health of your business
and personal finances. Here's a quick rundown of eight administrative
aspects you need to consider for your startup or small business. Of
course, depending on your situation and type of business, hiring a tax
accountant and/or good attorney with specific experience in your
industry can go a long way to helping you steer clear of trouble.


1. Did You Pick a Name? Make Sure You're Legally Permitted to Use It


Before you start printing out business cards, make sure the great new
name you thought of isn't infringing on the rights of an already
existing business. In most cases, you don't need an attorney for this
task, as you can perform a free search online that looks at business
names registered with the Secretary of State — that will tell you if
the name is available in your state. Then, take your search to the
next level and conduct a no-conflict, free trademark search to see if
your name is available for use in all 50 states.


And considering you can still infringe on someone else's trademark
even if they've never formally registered it with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, you should also do a comprehensive search into all
state and local databases (look for an affordable online service to
help you with this).


2. Register a Fictitious Business Name/DBA


Ever notice those endless fictitious name announcements in the
classifieds of your local paper? You may need one, too. A DBA (Doing
Business As) must be filed whenever your company does business under a
different name. If you've got a sole proprietorship or general
partnership, a DBA is needed if your company name is different from
your own name. For an LLC or corporation, a DBA must be filed to
conduct business using a name that's different from the official
Corporation or LLC name you filed. For example, my company is
officially incorporated as CorpNet, Inc., so we needed to file DBAs
for the variations CorpNet.com and CorpNet. These are typically filed
at the state and/or county level.


3. Incorporate Your Business or Form an LLC


Forming an LLC or corporation is an essential step to protect your
personal assets (such as your personal property or your child's
college fund) from any liabilities of the company. Each business
structure has its own advantages and disadvantages, depending on your
specific circumstances. Three popular options are: the LLC (great for
small businesses that want legal protection, but minimal formality), S
Corporation (great for small businesses that can qualify), or C
Corporation (for companies who plan to seek funding from a VC or go
public).


And one other word of advice, Delaware and Nevada are two popular
states for business incorporation. However, if your business has less
than five shareholders, you're better off forming an LLC in the state
where you operate your business (i.e. where you live).


4. Get a Federal Tax ID Number


To distinguish your business as a separate legal entity, you'll need
to obtain a Federal Tax Identification Number, also referred to as an
Employer Identification Number (EIN). Issued by the IRS, the tax ID
number is similar to your personal social security number and allows
the IRS to track your company's transactions. If you're a sole
proprietor, you're not obligated to get a Tax ID number, but it's
still good practice as you won't have to provide your personal social
security number for business matters.


5. Learn About Employee Laws


Your legal obligations as an employer begin as soon as you hire your
first employee. You should spend time with an employment law
professional to fully understand your obligations for these (and
other) procedures: federal and state payroll and withholding taxes,
self-employment taxes, anti-discrimination laws, OSHA regulations,
unemployment insurance, workers' compensation rules, and wage and hour
requirements.


6. Obtain the Necessary Business Permits and Licenses


Depending on your business type and physical location, you may be
required to have one or more business licenses or permits from the
state, local or even federal level. Such licenses include: a general
business operation license, zoning and land use permits, sales tax
license, health department permits, and occupational or professional
licenses.


7. File for Trademark Protection


You're not actually required by law to register a trademark. Using a
name instantly gives you common law rights as an owner, even without
formal registration. However, as expected, trademark law is complex
and simply registering a DBA in your state doesn't automatically give
you common-law rights. In order to claim first use, the name has to be
'trademarkable' and in use in commerce.


Since you've spent untold hours brainstorming the ideal name, and
you'll be putting even more effort into cultivating name recognition,
you should consider registering your trademark for proper legal
protection. Registering a trademark makes it exponentially easier to
recover your properties, like if someone happens to use your company
name as their Twitter handle. Having the right documentation means you
have the legal right to that handle, and Twitter will take steps to
give it to you.


8. Open a Bank Account to Start Building Business Credit


When you rely on your personal credit to fund your business, your
personal mortgage, auto loan and personal credit cards all affect your
ability to qualify for a business loan (and for how much). Using
business credit separates your personal activities from that of the
business. To begin building your business credit, you should open a
bank account in the name of your company, and the account should show
a cash flow capable of taking on a business loan.


Get Your Legal Ducks in a Row


No matter how busy things with your startup get, set aside some time
to address these matters and take your legal obligations seriously.
Getting your legal ducks in a row right from the start will help you
avoid any pitfalls down the road, and will help you scale your
business successfully as you grow.

For more information on these matters please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Opponents: Congress went too far in healthcare law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress went beyond its powers by requiring
Americans to buy insurance under President Barack Obama's sweeping
healthcare overhaul, opponents told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday
in arguing the law's centerpiece provision should be struck down.
In separate written briefs, 26 states and an independent business
group argued Congress overstepped its authority under the Constitution
to regulate interstate commerce by mandating that individuals buy
health insurance or pay a penalty by 2014.
They were responding to Obama administration arguments, filed with the
high court last month, that defended the provision, known as the
individual mandate, as a constitutional attempt to address a crisis in
the national health care market.
The court has scheduled three days of oral arguments on the healthcare
battle for March 26-28, with an election-year ruling likely by late
June on the law that aims to provide more than 30 million uninsured
Americans with coverage.
The 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business
called it an unprecedented move by Congress to force individuals to
buy insurance. The states say the entire law would be invalid if the
Supreme Court strikes down the mandate.
A ruling striking down the law would be a huge political and legal
defeat for Democrat Obama ahead of the Nov. 6 election, when he seeks
another four-year term. A ruling upholding his signature domestic
achievement would be a major vindication.
Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the Bush administration
who is arguing for the states, said Congress may not circumvent
constitutional limits by enacting a comprehensive regulatory scheme.
"The individual mandate is an unprecedented law that rests on an
extraordinary and unbounded assertion of federal power," he wrote in
the brief, arguing that the mandate "was not a valid exercise of
Congress' Commerce power."
Attorneys for the independent business group said the predominant
purpose of the mandate was to force the uninsured to get coverage and
to provide an annual subsidy of $28 to $39 billion to insurers and
their customers.
They said Congress can regulate interstate commerce by setting rules
that govern commercial activity between the states, but the powers
were limited and Congress cannot force individuals to buy a product
like health insurance.
"Forcing people into commerce does not regulate commerce. Otherwise,
Congress could compel the purchase of any product," they said in the
written brief.
One of the attorneys, Gregory Katsas, told reporters Congress had
never before in U.S. history made such a requirement. If the Supreme
Court upholds the mandate, Congress next could force people to buy a
specific car model, he said.
The legal arguments by the states and the business group were
substantially the same to those they previously have made in the legal
battle over the healthcare law.
The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent
Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health
and Human Services, No. 11-400.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Alabama Legislature Considers Immigration Law Tweaks

Birmingham--The Alabama Legislature begins its regular session today
and one of the big issues lawmakers will consider is changing the
state's immigration law. That law, HB56, is considered the nation's
toughest crackdown on illegal immigrants. When it passed last year it
got very little attention from Alabama's business community, but as
WBHM's Tanya Ott reports, business leaders are driving the latest
efforts to modify the law.

Whoever said "All publicity is good publicity" probably never had
dozens of protestors gathered in front of their office calling them
Hitler. At lunch time, in Birmingham's business district, students
from several local colleges held a mock funeral in front of a bank.
They accuse the company of funding private detention centers where,
they claim, illegal immigrants have died. University of Alabama at
Birmingham Student William Anderson organized the event.

"Everybody that voted for HB56 should be ashamed of themselves. And
they should all be pushing for full repeal, not tweaking anything. You
can't tweak hate."

It's not likely the legislature will repeal the law, but there is
mounting pressure to tweak it. Among other things, the law requires
schools to record the legal status of all students. It also requires
proof of citizenship to renew a driver's license or enter into any
government contract.

"The problem the governments have run into is the law is very broad in
its definition of contractor or subcontractor."

Cindy Crawford is editor of the Birmingham Business Journal.

"So to follow the law and cover all their bases, governments have sent
paperwork requests to just about every company they do business with."

The Business Journal itself received a notice from a local city that
subscribes to the newspaper asking for the immigration status of all
newspaper employees and subcontractors. It's the law of unintended
consequences. Long lines at the courthouse to renew car license tags
and vegetable crops rotting in the fields since workers fled.

Business leaders got caught flat-footed when the law passed. It was
soon obvious it would have a significant effect on economic
development. Especially after two foreign autoworkers -- a German
executive with Mercedes Benz and a Japanese worker at a Honda plant –
were detained under the law. The St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper ran
an editorial inviting companies to relocate to the "Show Me State" …
not the "Show Me Your Papers" state. Brian Hilson is the CEO of the
Birmingham Business Alliance.

"It's not like business prospects are sounding an alarm and coming to
us and telling us that they are rethinking their plans to do business
in Alabama. It's the unknown. It's what they're not saying to us."

Hilson says there's no way to know how much business the state is
losing, but researchers at the University of Alabama peg the cost at
up to $11 billion in lost jobs and income and sales tax revenues.
Scott Beason rejects that number and any efforts to significantly
change the law. Beason is the Republican state senator who
co-sponsored the original bill.

"If people begin to cave from political pressure, that donors want
something changed, they'll have to do it against the vast majority of
the people in their district and go with the small special interest
group that makes their decision based on profit."

A public opinion poll conducted last week found 42% of respondents say
they support the law, but think it goes too far. Already, several
legislators have introduced bills to modify it and the courts have
ruled some provisions unconstitutional. Still, there's no disputing
supporters of the law have achieved their main goal: driving illegal
immigrants out of Alabama.

~ Tanya Ott

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Monday, February 6, 2012

Business Law: Creditors still free to challenge gifts, trusts

The abolition of gift duty in October 2011 generated much public
interest given the number of family trusts that have been established
in New Zealand. The abolition essentially means that, from October 1
last year, it is possible to make gifts of unlimited value.

In the context of family trusts, this means that assets (most commonly
the family house) are able to be transferred to a trust in full by way
of gift for no value.

While that makes things tidier on the balance sheet and avoids the
need for an annual gifting programme as required previously, it also
means creditors will have less substantial assets available to satisfy
their claims if default situations arise, since considerable personal
value can now be transferred away outright by gift.

However, as with many things, nothing is as simple as it first
appears. Under the Property Law Act and the Insolvency Act creditors
are able to challenge gifts in certain circumstances.

Section 60 of the Property Law Act 1952 (which has now been replaced
by section 346 of the Property Law Act 2007) provides that a transfer
of property with "intent to defraud creditors" is able to be
challenged by that creditor. This topic was recently considered by the
Court of Appeal in the case of Taylor v Official Assignee.

The Taylors (T) had established their family trust in 2000 after Mr T
became involved in a new IT business venture.

The evidence was that the Taylors had approached their lawyer to set
up the trust following advice from their accountant that it would be a
sensible move given the new business. They established a trust and
transferred their family house into that trust at market value - and
then started an annual gifting programme of $27,000 each per annum to
forgive the purchase price debt owed by the trust.

That type of structure was common practice for the establishment of a
family trust except in this case, at the time the trust was
established, Mrs T owed Inland Revenue Department $4800 in tax
arrears.

By the time the house was transferred to the trust the IRD debt had
been reduced to $3000 and then paid off entirely by December 15, 2000.
Problems arose later when Mrs T's health deteriorated and she incurred
new tax arrears in 2002 which eventually resulted in her being
declared bankrupt in 2006 owing approximately $123,000 to IRD.

The Official Assignee sought to have all the trust transactions
(including the original transactions in 2000) cancelled on the basis
they were undertaken with intent to defraud IRD. The judge in the High
Court accepted this and essentially decided that the Taylors were
lying when they said they established the trust in order to protect
assets in light of the new business venture - instead he decided the
motivation was Mrs T's desire to defraud IRD.


The Court of Appeal, however, rejected that interpretation and instead
accepted that the Taylors were being truthful when they said the trust
was established for asset protection purposes - as indicated by the
fact that Mrs T's tax arrears in 2000 were less than 3% of their
assets, the arrears were paid off in full that year and the form of
the trust transaction was a standard and common form.

In certain circumstances, evidence of fraud at a later time can permit
an inference of fraud at an earlier time (which would expose trust
transactions to being challenged). However, in this case the Court of
Appeal was sympathetic to the significant health problems subsequently
suffered by Mrs T which contributed to the post-2002 tax arrears. The
court decided the trust was established for legitimate purposes and
the later tax arrears did not void the standard trust transactions.


Though each situation will depend on its own facts, the Taylor
decision will be of comfort to many people who have established family
trusts for legitimate purposes and who subsequently encounter
financial difficulties.

For more information on these matters please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Friday, January 27, 2012

Europe's Proposed New Data Laws Called a Burden on Business

Europe's proposed new laws on data protection are burdensome and expensive, but may give companies incentive to put more measures in place to secure data, according to representatives of business interests.

The mandatory notification of data breaches "as soon as possible" normally within 24 hours has caused the most concern. But other elements of the European Commission's proposed reform of the Data Protection Directive has alarmed many in industry.

Under the proposed law companies would be obliged to inform both the relevant Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and all affected individuals of any data security breach, including unauthorized destruction or loss.

Organizations that fail to issue notifications about a personal data breach in a timely or complete fashion to the supervisory authority will face fines of up to 2 percent of their current revenues. Mark Fullbrook, director of IT security company Cyber-Ark, questioned the reason for a time limit: "If the goal of this law is to provide consumers with upfront information about the security of their information, then a 24-hour notification period is hardly going to enable that. If you look at any of the serious breaches that have occurred over the last year, not one of the affected organizations was able to articulate the true extent of the breach within a day."

"I remain unconvinced that legislating around the disclosure of breaches actually provides any real incentive for organizations to employ best practices when it comes to data security. Let's face it, imposing a fine or a time limit is just like putting a plaster over a gaping wound -- it only goes so far," he added.

Many security firms however were quick to see the business advantage in helping companies meet these new requirements. "The most effective way to identify exactly what data has been compromised, and thus generate accurate breach notifications within 24 hours, is by deploying centralized protective monitoring systems that automatically collect and analyze all log data generated by the IT infrastructure," said LogRythh vice president Ross Brewer.

However Brewer also warned about the danger of "over-disclosure", which, he said, is a risk as many companies don't know what information has been compromised and may be forced to issues a blanket breach notification.

But the "cost of implementing security measures to proactively protect corporate information from potential data breaches and attacks, is far less than the ultimate cost of a data breach," pointed out Aziz Maakaroun, managing partner of Outpost24 UK. "Rather than suffering from the financial and reputational damage that comes as a result of a data breach, surely it would be more beneficial for businesses to take steps to prevent data breaches from ever occurring in the first place."

Consumers' right to be forgotten also came under fire from industry. "Introduction of the so-called "right to be forgotten" goes beyond a justifiable desire to enhance individuals' ability to erase their personal data on the Internet and creates a right that will be difficult to implement and that may have a chilling effect on the use of the Internet in the E.U. The new rules for allocating responsibility between data controllers and data processors will place a heavy burden on many E.U. companies to revise their contracts with non-EU service providers, a process over which they may have little control," said Wim Nauwelaerts, partner in the privacy and data security practice at Brussels law firm Hunton & Williams.

"In a further difficulty, the new regulations also require 'data portability' which means businesses risk having to transfer valuable data to their competitors if requested to do so by the individuals themselves," added Mark Owen, partner at London media law firm Harbottle & Lewis. "All this may well make it much more difficult for companies to use behavioral advertising techniques and will also place an administrative burden on insurance companies and suppliers of credit who routinely rely on statistical profiling. "

The Commission claims that the new measures will save European businesses money by unifying the bloc's 27 different national data privacy laws. "Instead of the current obligation of all companies to notify all data protection activities to data protection supervisors -- a requirement that has led to unnecessary paperwork and costs businesses €130 million per year -- the Regulation provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data," said the Commission.

However many companies will have to perform privacy impact assessments at a cost of around €14,000 (US$18,163). Companies with more than 250 people will also have to appoint a data protection officer.

"A big question is whether the business community will be willing or able to police itself. If it can't, businesses could find themselves exposed to regular reviews by official regulatory bodies. The definition of a 'breach' will also have to be made clear. Will it depend on the number of records or documents exposed, for example, or on the type of information leaked? Organizations should prepare for both of these options," said Christian Toon, head of information security for Iron Mountain Europe.

The incentive for companies to prepare for the new laws are increased fines based on global revenues -- up to 2 percent of worldwide revenues for the most serious infractions. Commission experts said however that the fines would be proportional to the seriousness of the offense and that smaller businesses would not be fined for a first infraction.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.




Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Microsoft's GC Makes a Business Case for Gay Marriage

By  Brian Glaser 

Earlier this month, Microsoft general counsel and executive vice president of legal and corporate affairs Brad Smith took to the company's official blog with a post titled "Marriage Equality in Washington State Would Be Good for Business,"in which he outlined the business case for the company's support of same-sex marriage legislation in Washington, where Microsoft is based.

His core argument centers on the idea that in order "to be successful, it's critical that we have a workforce that is as diverse as our customers. . . There simply is no substitute for their diverse backgrounds, perspectives, skills, and experiences. Inclusiveness is therefore a fundamental part of our values, and is integral to the company's business success."

Smith says that the Redmond-based tech giant—along with Concur, Group Health, Nike, RealNetworks, and Vulcan Inc.—are throwing support behind billSV 6239 in the Washington State Senate and HB 2516 in the House because:

As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington's employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits, and their families. Employers in the technology sector face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent. . . Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples—Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.

Writing for The Seattle Times, Janet I. Tiu points out that this is not a new position for the company:

Microsoft made a similar argument when it joined some 70 corporations in supporting a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Microsoft has been involved in other gay rights issues before, as in 2005, when a bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians failed by a single vote in the state Senate and Microsoft's lack of support for the bill was criticized, and last year when it and other tech companies were put in the middle of an e-commerce culture war.

But while Microsoft may be reiterating a long-held position, the timing of this most recent announcement in a business-focused election year, along with the presence of a larger corporate coalition joining in the call for marriage equality, may have a bigger impact. As Carly Rothman writes in New Jersey's The Star-Ledger:

New Jersey businesses, take heed. The six states that allow gay marriage are New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa—all of which are a heck of a lot closer to New Jersey than to Washington State. If a top company like Microsoft is worried about losing talent to any of those states, then New Jersey business have even more reason to be afraid.


For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.




Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"





Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Amendment to labour law can create more jobs

Businesses have long been calling for amendments to the labour legislation to assist in the recruitment and dismissal of workers. According to Johan Botes, director in employment at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr business law firm, a critical re-think of South African employment law might assist in motivating businesses to reconsider their reluctance in employing inexperienced job applicants.
"Presently, employees who are incapable of performing can only be dismissed from employment after the employer had determined that the employee failed to meet the required work standard, that the employee was aware of the standard, that the employee was afforded sufficient opportunity to meet the standard and that dismissal is the appropriate sanction. This process is not always clearly understood by employers frustrated by an employee that is clearly not able to do the work," Botes explains.

Relaxation of strict rules can be the answer

The legislature brought some relief to employers in 2002 when introducing a lower threshold against which employers are tested should they dismiss a probationary employee for poor performance (Schedule 8, Item 8 to the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995).

Botes notes that if the intention is truly to get businesses to act as institutions of learning, where on-the-job training is provided to workers fresh from school, university or colleges, a relaxation of the strict rules against dismissal for poor performance for first-time job seekers may be the way to go.

Employers are often reluctant to grow their business where such growth requires the hiring of new staff. One of the reasons for this is that it is difficult for the average employer to dismiss staff who is thought to be capable of doing the work required, but could then not come to grips with the work once employed. If employers are able to readily terminate the service of new recruits who lack the necessary experience, they may be more inclined to give such youngsters a chance in the first place.

Workers can gain invaluable experience

Botes thinks that employers and needy job seekers may both be pleasantly surprised by the results. "If an employer knows that it can terminate the services of a new job-seeker at will or whilst being tested against for reasons that are automatically unfair only, the employer may decide to provide employment to a larger group of staff than those actually required, knowing that it can retain the best of them after a short trial period.

"While the rest of the workers who were not the best at the tasks may then fail to remain employed with the same employer, they would have gained invaluable experience which may assist them greatly in obtaining further employment. The difficulty in getting that into the employment market presents a huge obstacle to our goals of meaningfully reducing unemployment," says Botes.

The current high hurdles laying in the path of employers before being able to dismiss employees for incapacity due to poor performance has not incentivised employers to become institutions of on-the-job training. A different approach is needed if business is expected to actively assist in addressing our skills shortage.
For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


Sunday, January 22, 2012

Craft distillers fret over new liquor laws


Stacked high in a warehouse southeast of Ellensburg sit more than 1,400 cases of botanical liqueurs that Mhairi Voelsgen, co-founder of broVo Spirits, thought she had sold.

The Washington State Liquor Control Board decided in October to carry the new distiller's Douglas fir, rose geranium, ginger and lemon balm liqueurs. That decision typically precedes an order of up to 200 cases of each product, so broVo went ahead with the run, adding a fifth flavor — lavender — and making several hundred extra cases that it thought would sell fast.

As the last batch was completed on Nov. 10, the liquor-control board canceled broVo's "listings," which is liquor-board parlance for products it carries regularly in many liquor stores.

"Our timing was impeccable," Voelsgen says wryly.

Voters had just passed Initiative 1183 by a wide margin, and the state needed to start winding down its liquor business in anticipation of large grocery stores taking over liquor sales.

The transition puts Washington's fledgling distillery industry in a tough spot. Many are new businesses in their critical launch phases and need regular orders to gain recognition and keep cash flowing.

Even distilleries that can make it to June worry they will not find distributors or large grocery stores to stock their products. They also worry that new fees will raise craft liquor prices beyond consumers' reach.

Only big stores — those measuring at least 10,000 square feet — will be allowed to sell spirits in Washington beginning June 1. That aspect of I-1183 was meant to keep convenience stores out of the business, something that bothered voters about a previous initiative.

For young distilleries, though, it means few small liquor shops featuring local products, the way boutique wine shops do now. Washington's existing 300-some liquor stores can continue selling liquor regardless of their size.

"The craft distilleries are the most ill-affected by 1183," said David Lusby, sales manager of Vinum Wine Importing and Distributing in Seattle. "Under the previous system, they were guaranteed distribution through the state, and under 1183 they're not."

Craft-distillery boom

For decades, distilling was almost a dead art in Washington.

While Oregon's cocktails swelled with locally made whiskey and absinthe, Washington had little liquor to call its own.

That changed dramatically beginning in 2008, when Washington's Legislature passed a craft-distillery law allowing small distilleries to open tasting rooms and sell limited amounts of liquor from them.

In less than four years, the number of craft distilleries has zoomed from zero to 40, with more than a dozen applications pending.

Washington has its own gin, vodka and whiskey as well as more exotic spirits such as absinthe from Woodinville, berry liqueurs from Kent and a limoncello expected to arrive soon from Sodo.

As the state's only liquor-store overseer, the liquor-control board has served as a sort of incubator for distilleries.

Once a distillery got a listing with the state, its liquor became available all over Washington, and details like price, shelf space and how many stores carried their products were negotiated with one customer: the state.

Even distilleries without listings were special-ordered by individual liquor stores.

"The board has a soft spot for Washington's craft distillers," said board spokesman Brian Smith.

Chris Marr, one of three people on the state's liquor-control board, was the main sponsor for the craft-distillery legislation when he was a state senator from Spokane.

Under I-1183, distilleries can sell liquor directly to stores and restaurants, but most do not have the necessary sales force or delivery capability. Instead, they are wooing distributors in hopes of being marketed alongside bigger brands.

"It's sad to say this, but not every distillery is going to find a distributor partner that meets the same level of service they had with the state system," said Lusby at Vinum, which has applied for a license to distribute liquor in Washington.

I-1183 imposes fees on distributors that are so high, particularly during the first couple years, that many smaller distributors will probably wait to enter the market, he said. And Vinum expects to represent only three or four Washington distilleries.

Boutique sales

Grocery chains are not talking yet about how much liquor they plan to carry, Lusby said.

"They're focused on whether they have 10,000 square feet, but apart from that it's pretty quiet," he said.

The minimum-size limitation is unique to Washington.

In other states, artisan distillers count on small wine and liquor shops to sell their products, said Susan Karakasevic, whose family owns the seven-employee Charbay Winery and Distillery in St. Helena, Calif.

"We fit best with small restaurants or wine shops, where there's personal contact with the customer," she said.

Charbay began making brandy and grappa in 1983 and vodka in 1998, and has since added rum, whiskey and tequila. They have been sold in 43 states, including Washington, but rarely in major grocery chains.

John McKay, executive vice president for Costco Wholesale's northern region, said it carries selected craft spirits in some markets. In Alaska, it regularly stocks an Alaskan vodka called Permafrost, he said, and in California it recently stocked a product from Woodinville Whiskey.

Steven Stone, founder and head distiller of Sound Spirits in Seattle and president of the Washington Distillers Guild, said he doesn't know if big players like Safeway will carry local products in Washington.

But smaller chains including Seattle-based Metropolitan Markets and Bellingham-based Haggen have already called asking what's available, Stone said.

Rethinking plans

Meanwhile, distilleries are scrambling to stay in the game.

They fought an early liquor-control board decision to stop taking special orders after Jan. 1, saying it could hurt new distilleries that do not have listings — including broVo, whose listings were canceled because it would have taken too long to put the products on shelves in a system that's being phased out.

As a result, the liquor board is requiring distilleries that want special-order eligibility to sign an agreement promising to buy back any stock left on May 31.

"That's fantastic," said Orlin Sorensen, co-owner of Woodville Whiskey. "That means we can sell full throttle through May 31."

Still, many Washington distilleries are looking for other ways to make money during the transition.

"It's caused me to rethink my business plan," said Ryan Hembree, founder and head distiller at Skip Rock Distillers in Snohomish, which started bottling potato vodka last spring.

Skip Rock had not yet landed a regular listing with Washington's liquor stores when I-1183 passed.

Hembree is not even sure he will receive more special orders; the liquor-control board bought so much of his vodka initially that bottles have been discounted to move them off shelves before June.

Hembree is looking to other areas.

"I was planning on building Washington first, as my home territory," he said. "Over the next six months, I'll do a lot more business in other states."

He's already selling vodka in British Columbia and hopes to get listings in Oregon and Idaho.

Priced out of market?

Distilleries are worried that even if their products land on grocery shelves, the prices might rise beyond what consumers will pay.

Unlike mass producers selling liquor at Costco and Safeway, craft distilleries cannot sell in huge volumes.

If retailers and distributors insist on the same margins they get nationally, the prices on many craft spirits are bound to climb, said Stone, the Washington Distillers Guild president.

Those margins would be compounded by Washington's high liquor taxes and new fees imposed by I-1183 on liquor retailers and distributors.

Stone estimates his Ebb & Flow gin and vodka could climb as much as $10 a bottle to about $42.

"We're all trying to figure out what's going to happen," he said. "It could be we have to concentrate on going out of state more, where taxes are lower. Then we'd have to absorb shipping costs, but it could be that's less."

Stone also plans to push for changes in the law. For example, he thinks it was an oversight that I-1183 kept a limit that allows craft distilleries to sell just two bottles per person a day from their tasting rooms.

Privatization elsewhere

Selling in other states might help Washington distilleries in the short run, but changes could be coming there as well.

Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association, which represents Costco and others, met recently with Idaho's governor and other officials to discuss privatizing its liquor system.

Despite the challenges, broVo's Voelsgen has hope.

"The public has been demanding a private system for a while, and I'm hopeful we'll get more specialty stores and people committed to local products," she said.

For more information on these matters, call our office at 305 548 5020.



Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"