President Trump’s Executive Order Prohibiting Entry of Certain Individuals to the United States

By David Rugendorf and Benjamin Lau

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order that provided the following:

  • Suspends nonimmigrants (persons coming temporarily to the United States) from designated countries from entry to the United States for a period of up to ninety (90) days from the date of the order (January 27, 2017). At this time, the designated countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.  Additional countries may be added.  This prohibition does not apply to foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, and United Nations visas.  It is unclear if the Executive Order applies only to (1) individuals who hold passports from the designated countries, or if it also applies to (2) foreign nationals who were born in the designated countries, but who are citizens of other, non-designated countries or who are dual nationals, or (3) whose parents were born or hold citizenship from the designated countries.  However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the State Department will announce that dual nationals are subject to the ban.  For example, a dual national of Iraq and the United Kingdom would be denied entry, even if the dual national travels on a UK passport.

(more…)

Data Breaches: An Employer’s Duty to Protect Employees’ Personal Information

By Aaron Wais

Recently, there has been much discussion about the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Dittman v. UPMC, which affirmed a lower court’s order dismissing an employee class action against their employer over a data breach.  While this was a significant victory for employers, non-Pennsylvania employers should temper their enthusiasm.  As one recent federal court decision in California makes clear, the reasoning of Dittman may not extend far beyond, if at all, the borders of Pennsylvania.  Moreover, regardless of their outcomes, both cases also reinforce the need for employers to maintain legally compliant, written policies for safeguarding private information and responding to data breaches.

In Dittman, a data breach resulted in the theft of the personal information (e.g., names, birth dates, social security numbers, banking information) of approximately 62,000 UMPC current and former employees.  The information was used to file fraudulent tax returns and steal tax refunds from certain employees.

(more…)

Data Breaches: An Employer’s Duty to Protect Employees’ Personal Information

Written by Aaron Wais

An appellate court in Pennsylvania recently dismissed an employee class action against their employer over a data breach, holding that the employer did not have a duty to protect its employees’ personal information (e.g., names, birth dates, social security numbers, bank information, etc.).  While this was a significant victory for employers, non-Pennsylvania employers should temper their enthusiasm because courts in other states, including California, have made clear that employers do have a legal duty to protect their employees’ personal information. These courts have also made clear that the liability for a data breach differs when an employer has legally compliant, written policies for safeguarding private information and responding to data breaches in a timely manner.

(more…)

Estate Planning – When the Only Certainty is Unpredictability

By Allan B. Cutrow and Jeffrey K. Eisen

 

Donald Trump is now the President, and both chambers of Congress are under Republican control. Thus, we appear to be poised for potentially substantial changes in the estate tax, gift tax, generation-skipping transfer tax, and income tax laws. However, as with all other aspects of political life in America today, it is impossible to predict at this time what ultimate changes will materialize. The only clear thing is the lack of clarity.

  1. Is the Estate Tax History? First, there is the perpetual Republican promise, supported by the President, of “repealing” the estate tax. Last time the estate tax was “repealed” (in 2001), it really meant eight years of gradually increased exemptions and gradually decreased rates, followed by one year of repeal (2010), followed by the return of the estate tax with even greater exemptions and lower rates, which is where we are today. Will this happen again? Will the estate tax just disappear retroactive to 1/1/17 or perhaps on 1/1/18? Will deficit hawks decide that even the relatively tiny revenue generated by the estate tax is worth keeping to avoid a political fight with Democrats? (more…)

New USCIS Forms And USCIS Filing Fee Adjustment

By Benjamin Lau and Frida Glucoft

On December 23, 2016, the USCIS posted a large number of new form versions with effective dates of December 23, 2016, to its website and indicated that no other versions of the forms would be accepted. Numerous stakeholders, companies, immigration attorneys, professional organizations and advocacy groups contacted the USCIS to demand a grace period where prior form versions could be submitted since no notice of the updates were given. On December 29, 2016, the USCIS announced that it would accept prior versions of the recently updated forms until February 21, 2017. The only exception to this grace period is the Form N-400, the application for naturalization, which the USCIS announced on December 13, 2016.

As part of the forms update, the USCIS issued a new Form I-129S. The new I-129S requires  employers who file an L-1 extension of stay or a change of status for an employee based on an approved blanket L petition to use both the individual L1 application Form I-129 and to also submit the I-129S blanket. Previously, all L-1 petition extensions or change of status only required the one individual form, I-129. The filing fees for both forms, when both forms are required, remain unclear at this time.

In addition to the new forms, the USCIS fee changes that were announced in October 2016 went into effect on December 23, 2016. The fee changes saw an increase in the filing fees for nearly all immigrant and nonimmigrant categories. Some of the new filing fees are: I-129: $460, I-539: $370, I-140: $700, I-130: $535, and I-485: $1,225.

Understanding UPMIFA: Important Endowment Concepts

By David Wheeler Newman

The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (“UPMIFA” or “the Act”) was adopted in 2006 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, as the successor to the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (UMIFA), and has (at 1/1/2017) been enacted in every state except Pennsylvania. UPMIFA provides guidance and authority to charitable organizations concerning the management and investment of charitable funds and for endowment spending.

UPMIFA contains rules and standards for their application across three broad areas of importance to charitable organizations, members of their fiduciary boards, and their advisers, if those organizations hold restricted funds including endowment. This post focuses on endowment, and future posts will address UPMIFA rules for the delegation of management and investment functions, and for the release or modification of restrictions contained in gift instruments. (more…)

iWill or iWon’t

By Allan Cutrow and Emily Evitt

digital safety concept padlock in electronic environment

Photo credit: iStock.com/the-lightwriter

Ever wondered what will happen to your Facebook page when you die? The California Legislature has recently weighed in. Effective as of January 1, 2017, California will have its first law to specifically address the handling of your “digital assets” after your death. The Revised Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act will determine who, if anyone, can access your digital assets, such as social media accounts, online gaming accounts and music accounts after your death. Under the new law, the custodian of digital assets – such as Facebook, Google, or Apple – must provide a fiduciary access to a deceased individual’s digital assets as the decedent previously directed. The Act sets up a three-tiered approach, which works as follows: (more…)

Importance of Maintaining Cybersecurity Measures – Assessing the Ashley Madison Data Breach Settlement

By Aaron Wais

Daily headlines of data breaches, resulting class actions, governmental investigations and enforcement actions, and the settlements of those actions serve as constant reminders of the need to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity measures. Yet another example can be found in the recent announcement by the Federal Trade Commission, which states that the operators of Ashley Madison have agreed to settle the charges brought against them by the FTC and over a dozen state attorneys generals arising out of the July 2015 data breach of Ashley Madison’s network. Analyzing the settlement also provides additional guidance on what regulators mean when they refer to reasonable safeguards.

(more…)

City of Los Angeles “Bans the Box”

December 15, 2016

Written by Erica Parks

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has signed into law the “Fair Chance Initiative,” which prohibits employers from asking applicants about their criminal histories “at any time or by any means,” including on job applications, “unless and until a conditional offer of employment has been made.” The new law, which can found here, goes into effect January 1, 2017 and will apply to employers with 10 or more employees working in the City of Los Angeles (individuals who work in the city at least two hours on average each week are counted) and city contractors. There are limited exceptions to the law, such as for positions that require employees to carry firearms and for positions working with minors. Once the new law goes into effect, Los Angeles will become the latest in a growing number of jurisdictions, including over 100 cities and counties and about 23 states, that have adopted similar “ban the box” laws, including New York City, as we alerted you last year.

Moving Startups Forward: Tips for Responding To A Patent Troll

By Alesha Dominique

Startups are increasingly vulnerable to demand letters and lawsuits from “patent trolls” looking for opportunities to extract quick settlements from small companies with limited resources to defend against claims of patent infringement.  To protect your business, developing a thoughtful approach for responding to such non-practicing entities is essential.  Here are 5 tips for moving forward:

1. Don’t Panic. When confronted with a patent demand letter or infringement lawsuit from a non-practicing entity, it is perfectly understandable to be upset.  You have likely invested substantial sums of money into your business and/or product, and now feel that the investment is under attack.  Maintaining your calm, however, will better enable you to think clearly and strategically about next steps.
(more…)