Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  13686-13692 displayed

1  1956 1957 1958 1959 1960  3627

---

Davies, Ward, Phillips & Vineberg, LLP

Flash: Minister of Industry Proposes Fines for Telecoms that Abuse a Dominant Position
Canada's Federal Industry Minister, Maxime Bernier, tabled proposed amendments to the Competition Act ("Act") on December 7, 2006 that would authorize the Competition Tribunal to order telecommunications service providers to pay an administrative monetary penalty ("AMP") of up to $15 million in cases of abuse of dominant position. It appears that this may be part of a broader legislative package regarding the regulation of telecommunications companies that is to be announced shortly.
Under the proposed amendments, the Tribunal would determine the magnitude of the AMP based on factors such as: gross revenues from sales affected by the practice; actual or anticipated profits from the practice; financial position of the dominant firm; and history of compliance with the Act – all areas open to significant legal and factual debate.
AMPs for abuse of dominance under the Act are currently only available for the airline industry, and no such order has ever been sought. In 2004, the Competition Bureau proposed amendments that would have given the Tribunal the general authority (i.e., not industry specific) to impose AMPs for abuse of dominance. This proposal was heavily criticized on a number of grounds, including that it was unconstitutional, and was never enacted.
The Government's announcement comes at a time when the Bureau has signalled that it expects the abuse of dominance provisions of the Act to take on increasing importance in the telecommunications field as the CRTC sheds its regulatory oversight. In particular, the Bureau is currently in the midst of a consultative process regarding its draft Information Bulletin on the Abuse of Dominance Provisions as Applied to the Telecommunications Industry (the "Telecom Bulletin").
Many question whether it is appropriate to target the telecommunications sector with specific provisions in the Act, which is considered to be generally applicable "framework" legislation. The "Backgrounder" accompanying the Minister's announcement states that "certain characteristics of the telecommunications industry warrant special consideration". Yet, it does not go beyond this statement to explain why the Government believes that telecommunications service providers are more deserving of fines under the Act than firms in other industries. The Bureau's draft Telecom Bulletin itself recognizes that distinguishing anti-competitive from pro-competitive conduct in the telecommunications industry may often be very difficult. For example, a particular concern noted both in the draft Telecom Bulletin and the Backgrounder is that some service providers must rely on access to a competitor's network to compete. However, competition law generally discourages agreements among competitors, which can give rise to conspiracy concerns. The proposed amendments now signal that a denial of access to a competitor's network could lead to an order for abuse of dominance. This conflicting liability is essentially uncharted legal territory, which would seem to make the prospect of ordering fines of up to $15 million all the more problematic.
The imposition of fines also appears at odds with the Bureau's previously stated position that the abuse of dominance provisions are intended to remedy market imperfections, not be punitive. In addition, questions remain about the constitutionality of imposing large fines for abuse of dominance, which is a civil, not criminal, matter.
The Minister's press release accompanying his announcement notes that the March 2006 final report of the Telecommunications Policy Review Panel "recognized the value of administrative monetary penalties". However, the Panel specifically recommended that the CRTC be the agency authorized to impose AMPs under the Telecommunications Act.
The Minister's press release and backgrounder are available at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/ICPagesEPrint/85256A5D006B97208525723D0050EEBD
The foregoing is a summary of a recent development in Canada's competition law. If you would like additional information about this topic or any aspect of Canadian competition or foreign investment review law, please contact George Addy, John Bodrug, Mark Katz, or Richard Elliott in the Toronto office at (416) 863-0900, or Hillel Rosen in the Montréal office at (514) 841-6400.

12-08-2006

---

Blank Rome LLP.

Franklin Institute Appoints Joan N. Stern as Trustee of Thomas Skelton Harrison Foundation
Blank Rome LLP is pleased to announce that Joan N. Stern has been appointed as a Trustee of the Thomas Skelton Harrison Foundation, a charitable foundation endowed by the Will of Thomas Skelton Harrison to support good government in the City of Philadelphia.

In this capacity, Ms. Stern will join a seven-member Board of Trustees appointed by various civic institutions, including the Franklin Institute.

“We at The Franklin Institute are pleased and proud to announce the appointment of Joan Stern, Esquire, to the Board of The Thomas Skelton Harrison Foundation, said Dennis Wint, President and CEO of The Franklin Institute. “Ms. Stern has been a tremendous asset as one of the Institute’s Trustees, and I have every expectation that she will serve the Foundation with the same skill and commitment that she brings to her work with us.”

At Blank Rome, Ms. Stern chairs the Public Finance group and practices exclusively in the area of public finance. She concentrates in the areas of general government and education, transportation and utilities, tax and revenue anticipation financing; health care and housing finance; refinancing and working capital finance, project finance and derivatives transactions. She is the author of a range of debt and finance statutes enacted in Pennsylvania, as well as other jurisdictions.

Ms. Stern is a member of Blank Rome’s Executive Committee and Partner Board, and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Diversity Committee. She is also actively involved in a number of community and charitable organizations. Ms. Stern serves on the boards of the Police Athletic League, the Urban Tree Connection, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, and the Franklin Institute. In addition, Ms. Stern is Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of Moore College of Art and Design.

Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, Ms. Stern received her law degree, cum laude, from Temple University Beasley School of Law and Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania.

12-08-2006

---

Blank Rome LLP.

Stephen M. Orlofsky Elected to American Law Institute (ALI)
Blank Rome LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Stephen M. Orlofsky has been elected to The American Law Institute (ALI). As an elected member, Mr. Orlofsky will actively participate in the efforts of the Institute and work to advance its objectives.

Mr. Orlofsky was selected as an ALI member on the basis of professional achievement and demonstrated interest in the improvement of law. ALI Membership consists of judges, practicing lawyers, and legal scholars from all areas of the United States as well as some foreign countries.

Established in 1923 and based in Philadelphia, The American Law Institute has the mandate to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scientific legal work.

At Blank Rome, Mr. Orlofsky concentrates his practice in the areas of complex litigation and alternative dispute resolution and counsels clients on trial and appellate litigation strategy. Mr. Orlofsky served as a United States District Judge for New Jersey from 1996 to 2003. Prior to that, Mr. Orlofsky also served as a United States Magistrate Judge for New Jersey from 1976 to 1980.

In 2003, Mr. Orlofsky traveled to Iraq as part of a 13-member team jointly commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of State to assess its judicial system. Mr. Orlofsky spent 6 weeks in Iraq conducting interviews and gathering information to assist the Coalition Provisional Authority in reconstructing the Iraqi court system.

Mr. Orlofsky frequently lectures on various topics including Federal Practice and Procedure, Professional Ethics and Professionalism, Evidence, Electronic Discovery, Commercial and Criminal Litigation, and Appellate Techniques.

12-08-2006

---

Blank Rome LLP.

Stephen M. Orlofsky Elected First Treasurer of Third Circuit Bar Association
Blank Rome LLP is pleased to announce that Stephen M. Orlofsky has been elected Treasurer of the newly formed Third Circuit Bar Association. Based in Blank Rome’s Cherry Hill office, Mr. Orlofsky serves as a Partner in the Firm’s commercial litigation group.

The Third Circuit Bar Association was created with the purpose of improving and facilitating the administration of justice in the federal courts within the Third Circuit, and will encompass Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands.

At Blank Rome, Mr. Orlofsky concentrates his practice in the areas of complex litigation and alternative dispute resolution and counsels clients on trial and appellate litigation strategy. Mr. Orlofsky served as a United States District Judge for New Jersey from 1996 to 2003. Prior to that, Mr. Orlofsky also served as a United States Magistrate Judge for New Jersey from 1976 to 1980.

In 2003, Mr. Orlofsky traveled to Iraq as part of a 13-member team jointly commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of State to assess its judicial system. Mr. Orlofsky spent 6 weeks in Iraq conducting interviews and gathering information to assist the Coalition Provisional Authority in reconstructing the Iraqi court system.

Mr. Orlofsky frequently lectures on various topics including Federal Practice and Procedure, Professional Ethics and Professionalism, Evidence, Electronic Discovery, Commercial and Criminal Litigation, and Appellate Techniques.

12-08-2006

---

Adams & Reese LLP

Adams and Reese Ranks Among “Best Places to Work” in New Orleans for Third Consecutive Year
For the third consecutive year, New Orleans CityBusiness has named Adams and Reese #2 among its “Best Places to Work” in New Orleans. Ochsner Health System ranked number one for the second year in a row.

Senior Partner in Charge Mark Surprenant, Partner in Charge Charlie Cerise, and Director of Human Resources Linda Soileau, accepted the award on behalf of the firm. “To be so honored for the third year in a row is fantastic, and something that we are all very proud of,” says Surprenant. “After being here for 30 years, I have often been asked what I consider to be the most significant strength of the firm. My answer is the quality of the people who work here. Our attorneys and staff are dedicated to doing their best day in and day out——whether serving our clients or our community. They are also genuinely concerned about the well-being of one another. This award demonstrates their commitment to making Adams and Reese a great place to work and making New Orleans a better place to live.”

Factors that also influenced the firm's ranking were such benefits as competitive salaries, maternity and day-care options, health, prescription and dental benefits, 401(k) and profit sharing plans, life and disability plans, employee recognition programs and a commitment to personal health by holding an annual Health Fair and providing discounts for health club memberships. Additionally, the opportunity for all employees to participate in HUGS, the firm’s award-winning corporate philanthropy program, weighed in heavily to make Adams and Reese one the top employer-friendly companies in the city. For attorneys, the opportunity to participate in CA&RE, the firm’s official pr bono program, is considered a unique and important part of belonging to the firm.

"At Adams and Reese, appreciation, understanding, and respect are what make the difference,” according to Soileau. “A simple smile and thank you goes a long way. Positive attitudes and strong work ethics are contagious. You see it not only throughout our New Orleans office, but in all of our other offices as well."

Adams and Reese employs more than 220 professionals in New Orleans, and more than 600 professionals firm-wide. The firm has offices in Baton Rouge, LA; Houston, TX; Jackson, MS; Mobile, AL; Birmingham, AL; Nashville, TN; Memphis, TN and Washington D.C. The New Orleans office is one of three offices that was recognized among Best Places to Work. In January 2006, the Jackson office was honored among the Best Places to work in Mississippi by the Mississippi Business Journal, and in August 2006, the Birmingham office was named recognized by the Birmingham Business Journal.

12-08-2006

---

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP

Weil Gotshal Partner Named Deal Lawyer of the Year
Weil, Gotshal & Manges' London head Michael Francies, was named “Deal Lawyer of the Year” at the Legal Week awards in London. Legal Week praised Mr. Francies as "the most successful UK corporate lawyer to join a US firm" and further stated that "he continu[es] to drive the New York firm’s private equity-heavy London offering with tireless energy." Legal Week selected Mr. Francies after conducting research that included independent interviews with corporate counsel and senior private practitioners.

12-08-2006

---

McGuireWoods LLP

IRS Releases Guidance on Use of Smartcards and Debit Cards to Provide Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits
In Revenue Ruling 2006-57, the Internal Revenue Service (the “Service”) released guidance to employers on the use of smartcards and debit cards to provide qualified transportation fringe benefits under Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). This revenue ruling analyzes three hypothetical situations to illustrate when a smartcard, debit card or other electronic media may be used to provide a qualified transportation fringe benefit.

The guidance in the ruling was prompted by a growing trend by employers to offer certain health and welfare reimbursement benefits, such as health savings and flexible spending accounts, through the use of debit cards.

Background

Section 132(f) of the Code allows employers to provide employees with qualified transportation fringe benefits on a pre-tax basis subject to certain limitations.

Qualified transportation fringe benefits may be provided directly by the employer or through a bona fide reimbursement arrangement and are subject to limitations on exclusion from gross income (see our bulletin dated November 29, 2006 for the 2007 dollar limits). Bona fide reimbursement arrangements include cash reimbursement for transportation in a commuter highway vehicle and qualified parking but exclude cash reimbursement for transit passes, tokens, fare cards or vouchers if such items are readily available for direct distribution from the employer to employees in lieu of reimbursement. Consequently, employers who offer qualified transportation benefits have been required either to stock transit passes or contract with a third party to provide the passes directly to employees. While use of reloadable smartcards and debit cards may simplify administration, the Service has raised the same concern it raised with debit card use to provide other health and welfare benefits: (1) potential misuse of the cards to pay for non-qualified expenses and (2) meeting the expense substantiation requirement.

Discussion

In analyzing the three examples, Rev. Rul. 2006-57 provides guidance to employers considering a qualified transportation fringe benefit smartcard or debit card program.

The ruling contemplates the use of three different types of cards to provide qualified transportation fringe benefits:

* Smartcards. Smartcards are plastic cards with a memory chip that store information including the value of the fare media and are not authorized to purchase anything other than fare media.
* Terminal-restricted debit cards. Terminal-restricted debit cards are restricted for use at merchant terminals at points of sale where only fare media are sold.
* Merchant-restricted debit cards. Merchant-restricted debit cards are restricted for use only at merchants that have been assigned a merchant category code indicating the merchant sells fare media. Merchants with such a code may also sell items other than fare media and it is not possible to restrict use of the card to only fare media.

The Service considered whether each card qualifies as a “transit system voucher” distributed to employees in-kind directly by an employer under Treasury Regulation Section 1.132-9(b), Q&A-16(b)(2). If not considered a transit system voucher, the rules applicable to bona fide reimbursement arrangements apply, including the requirement that an employer establish reasonable procedures to substantiate the expense.

Smartcards and terminal-restricted debit cards were viewed most favorably, with the Service finding that the cards qualify as transit system vouchers. As a qualified transit system voucher, no substantiation is required.

However, the Service did not hold a similarly favorable view of merchant-restricted debit cards. Because it is possible to use a merchant-restricted debit card to purchase items other than transit passes, the Service concluded that such a debit card does not qualify as a transit system voucher. The Service did, however, offer a glimmer of hope for employers wishing to use this type of card. Provided a voucher or similar item exchangeable for fare media is not readily available to the employer, it may be possible to establish reasonable substantiation procedures for use with merchant-restricted debit cards.

In general, reasonable substantiation procedures include collection of receipts from employees or obtaining a certification from the employee that only qualified expenses will be reimbursed. Treasury Regulation Section 1.132-9, Q&A-16(c). The Service clarified that with respect to a merchant-restricted debit card, certification by the employee alone is insufficient. The Service outlined the following substantiation procedure for use with merchant-restricted debit cards:

1. An initial certification is completed by the employee that the card will be used to purchase only fare media.
2. Monthly debit card statements are provided to the employer listing all purchases made. The employer reviews these statements to confirm the amounts and dates of transactions are similar to previous purchases of fare media and that no unusual charges appear.
3. An annual renewal certification is completed by the employee that only qualified transportation expenses will be reimbursed during the plan year.

It is doubtful that many employers would be prepared to devote the effort and expense which such a substantiation procedure would require. Moreover, most employees would not be comfortable with their employer reviewing the debit card statement.

Employers desiring to establish or update a qualified transportation fringe benefit program to include use of a smartcard or debit card should consult the revenue ruling prior to implementation.

12-08-2006

---

25383 matches |  13686-13692 displayed

1  1956 1957 1958 1959 1960  3627