On August 31, the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought suit to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-mobile, the second and fourth largest mobile phone service providers in the nation. The DOJ asserts that the combination would result in “higher prices, fewer choices, and lower quality products.”
The DOJ’s argument is bolstered by the observation that T-mobile has been an engine for innovation and competition in the market in the past, as it was the first carrier to bring Android-powered handsets to market and to introduce various unlimited service plans. However Deutsche Telekom, the company that owns T-mobile, has stated that that it no longer plans on investing capital in the U.S. mobile phone service market. This statement, if credible, would make it more difficult for a court to conclude that T-mobile would be able to continue to serve as a source of competition and innovation in the future.
The Network Lecture Series: Nathan Bush’s Corruption and Fraud in China Part I
On August 29th, 2011, Nathan Bush, Partner at O’Melveny & Myers, Beijing, delivered a lecture titled “Corruption & Fraud in Contemporary China: Challenges for U.S. Companies & Investors.” Mr. Bush’s lecture addressed two equally important questions:
(1) What pressures do U.S. companies face when operating in China, and
(2) What challenges do Chinese companies face when listing on American stock exchanges?
The Unveiling of a Jobs-Tax Proposal
In a roomful of business leaders, Governor Jerry Brown recently released a jobs-tax package that, as described by the Governor’s office, expands a jobs-credit and reduces taxes for businesses investing in manufacturing. The jobs-tax package — a three-point jobs plan — would:
1. Expand the current jobs credit by increasing the credit from $3,000 to $4,000, increasing eligibility to employers with fewer than 50 employees, placing a sunset on the credit at the end of 2013, and preventing double-dipping with the Enterprise Zone credit;
2. Provide a sales-and-use-tax exemption (SUT) for purchases of manufacturing equipment. Specifically, the proposal would include an exemption for firms in the manufacturing; biopharmaceuticals; alternative energy production such as solar, wind and tidal; and software publishing industries; and
3. Implement a mandatory Single Sales Factor (SSF) Apportionment for all multistate businesses. (more…)
The Effects of Upcoming SEC Regulations Governing Accredited Investor Status
In March the SEC finished receiving comments on an alteration mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act that changes the calculation which determines whether an individual can be considered an “accredited investor.” The alteration, which already went into effect upon passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, excludes the net equity an investor may have in his/her home from the calculation of his/her net worth. This change is significant because there are a large number of relatively small financial institutions that are only allowed to engage accredited investors as clients, given those institutions do not comply with the plethora of filing/reporting requirements generally required for public offerings.
Johnson, Sylvester, Funke, oh my!: The ARB Paves the Way for Greater SOX Whistleblower Protection
Earlier this year, The Network reported on some changes made to the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) whistleblower provisions by the enactment of the Dodd-Frank bill. In recent months, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) – the appeals board for decision issued by Administrative Law Judges in the Department of Labor – has made monumental transformations to existing case law regarding whistleblower retaliation claims. The alterations the ARB has made are a clear departure from previous SOX whistleblower case law and revitalized whistleblowing as a public service deserving of protection.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, it is illegal for any public company subject to SOX to discharge employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents for informing certain entities about certain enumerated SOX violations. If an employee suspects that retaliatory acts were taken against them for their role in reporting a SOX violation, the employee must file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within 180 days of the retaliatory act – increased from 90 days by Section 922(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act. After OSHA conducts an investigation, it issues an initial decision. If either party disputes OSHA’s decision, that party may appeal to the Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges. There, the purported whistleblower must establish a prima facie case for SOX protection. In order to establish a prima facie case, the claimant must prove (1) he or she engaged in SOX protected activity, (2) the respondent took unfavorable employment actions against complainant, and (3) the protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse action.
Revamping Patent Law: What it Means for Business Method Patents
The Senate and House of Representatives recently passed legislation that revamps patent law by updating the process for challenging patents and awarding a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim.Of particular interest to our readers, the “American Invents Act” (S. 23 and H.R. 1249) creates a new post-grant review procedure that applies to all patents and a special one (section 18) that applies only to business method patents relating to financial services. (more…)
Dodd-Frank One Year Later: A Lot of Unfinished Business
The one-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) marks an important moment to review and reflect on the transformative changes that have taken place since enactment of the sweeping reforms. Yet, much of the work to implement those reforms is still underway.A slew of reports and studies were released to recognize the significant milestone, and of which there are a few worth reviewing:
Transparent Oil: New Dodd-Frank Requirements
Written by Anderson Franco & Angélica Salceda
Theoil industryhas recently criticized the Dodd-Frank Act’s oil and gas reporting rules by claiming that the transparency requirements will result in restrained money flows between oil companies and governments. Under Dodd-Frank, all oil, gas and mining companies registered with the SEC must report payments to foreign governments on a country-by-country, and project-by-project basis.
The transparency requirements will provide detailed, standardized, and comparable data that will pressure governments to improve their revenue reports and strengthen oversight. Critics claim that the disclosures required by Dodd-Frank undermine the voluntary standard established by theExtractive Industries Transparency Initiative(EITI).
TheEITIis a global standard that promotes revenue transparency and provides a methodology for monitoring and reconciling company payments and government revenues. Nevertheless, only 11 of the 35 EITIimplementing countries fully comply with the requirements.
SEC Rolls Out the “Skin in the Game” Regulation to Mitigate Moral Hazard for Lenders and Bond Issuers Involved in Asset-Backed Securities
On March 31 the SEC began seeking public comment on its proposed “skin in the game” regulation, which would require lenders and bond issuers of asset-backed securities (ABS’s) to retain 5% of the credit risk of the securities they issue. This requirement would apply to each of the tiers of ABS’s issued individually, preventing a lender or bond issuer from issuing a large proportion of risky securities and yet only retaining its 5% stake in those safer, higher-grade securities it issues. In the alternative, a lender or bond issuer could also comply with the regulation by retaining 5% of the first-loss residual interest of all ABS’s issued or a 5% interest in a representative sample of the underlying securities.
The rule is one of the many proposed by the SEC in accordance with the mandates of the Dodd-Frank Act. The rule was motivated by the public perception that there was an incentive problem, often referred to as a moral hazard, inherent in lending practice that became hegemonic in the mortgaged-backed securities (MBS’s) market. The potential problem lies in the fact that the banks and lenders extending loans to home buyers may not fully appreciate the credit risk of doing so because of their ability to turn around and easily sell these mortgages on the secondary market (commonly referred to as the “originate-and-distribute” model). Large financial institutions, acting as intermediaries between these lenders and investors, would buy mortgages and combine many of them into an investment tool, dividing the pool of mortgages into traunches (with returns on investment commensurate with the perceived security of the traunch invested in). While this securitization process is effective at providing greater liquidity in the mortgage market (as more investors will be willing to invest in the industry if the risk of default can be managed and mitigated through diversification and stratification inherent in the securitization process) the process also debased the incentive for lenders and bond issuers to ensure that borrowers were truly credit-worthy and able to sustain their mortgage payments.
Don’t Count Me In: Firms Scramble to Avoid Making the “Systemically Important” List
As reported in a previous post on this forum (see Fed Proposes Definitions for Systemically Important Nonbank Financial Institutions) the Fed proposed a rule on February 8th regarding when a company would be considered “systemically important.” This rule is significant because the designation would be accompanied by a large number of regulatory requirements (which would be accompanied by increased compliance costs), including the ominous authority/responsibility the FDIC will have to “wind down” the company in the event it nears failure.
Financial institutions are now engaged in a major lobbying effort to shape the definition of systemically important institutions in order to avoid the accompanying regulatory requirements. The decision is left up to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is scheduled to discuss this issue at its next meeting in May. Large bank holding companies, such as Bank of America, are clearly set to come under the umbrella of the regulation, due to the size of the assets they control (greater than $50 billion). However, insurance companies that fall under this threshold are looking to avoid the list, arguing that they do not present the same systemic risks that banks do because they are not susceptible to a run on their assets.