Search

As published by American Bankers Association Trust Letter in January 2013.

Settlement of collection disputes over amounts and payment terms for bond-related claims, including in bankruptcy cases, involves issues of binding minority bondholders and releasing the indenture trustee, as well as straightforward determinations of collectability economics.

On May 26, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act (also known as the Employer Sanctions law) against a challenge to the law’s constitutionality.

This month, Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, an initiative legalizing the use of medical marijuana. This Client Alert outlines some key provisions of what will be known as the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and highlights some implications for employers.

The Act does not authorize any or all employees to use or distribute marijuana at work. Only individuals with specific conditions, or who are participating in specific treatments, are eligible to use medical marijuana. Moreover, employers are not required to allow employees to use medical marijuana at work or during work hours, and may discipline an employee for doing so, as described in this Client Alert.

Lewis and Roca attorney Carla Consoli's interview regarding "Green Law" in the April 2010 edition of Phoenix Woman Magazine.

Click here to view the article.

Renewable Energy, Why Now? As it has in the past, renewable energy is again hailed as the future. In the 1970s, renewable energy was touted as one part of the solution for the energy crises. The movement lost momentum, however, when low oil prices reappeared in the 1980s.

Not long after the 111th Congress began its first legislative session, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (S.560,H.R. 1409) was introduced for consideration. During the 2008 campaign, this act received substantial support from organized labor, a significant majority of the Democratic members of Congress, and now-President Barack Obama. Thus, it is no surprise that the EFCA has become a top legislative priority for the new administration and the Democrat controlled Congress. Despite this support, the EFCA, at least in its current form, is no closer to passing now than it was when first introduced on March 10, 2009.

As currently drafted, the EFCA would represent the most fundamental change in American labor law since the original National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was passed in 1935. The EFCA would drastically alter more than half a century of labor law in three primary ways: (1) union recognition and certification; (2) government involvement in negotiation of contracts; and (3) an expansion of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) remedial powers. Taken as a whole, these changes would likely result in a significant increase in unionization.

Security has become integral to the safe and efficient operation of the modern casino. Casinos across the country and around the world employ thousands of private security officers to patrol their premises, monitor their gaming floor and ensure patron safety. While the importance of these tasks cannot be overstated, the mere fact that they are carried out by casino employees can potentially expose a casino to tort liability that traditionally only applied to state or local governments.

Under federal law,when a casino security officer investigates or detains a patron, the officer and the casino may be considered arms of the state or local police force. As an instrument of the state,a casino can be held liable for the constitutional torts of its employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,usually referred to as“Section 1983.”This exposure can be significant—compensatory and punitive damages,as well as attorneys’ fees can be awarded against a defendant that violates Section 1983.1

Technological innovation has drastically changed the way businesses communicate with their customers and prospective clients, supplementing, and in some cases replacing, traditional modes of communication with more-convenient, electronic means, like e-mail and instant messages. Recognizing this shift, FINRA now requires broker-dealers to monitor, review, and preserve electronic communications with the public, like e-mail correspondence. New software is making it more affordable for firms to electronically monitor e-mail correspondence and causing many firms to shift from manual review of printed e-mail. However, doing so without taking certain precautions may put your firm at risk of violating the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (“ECPA”). See 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., and 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.

Lewis and Roca is familiar with the ECPA and offers several tips to help your firm engage in or transition to electronic monitoring without violating the ECPA. We begin with a brief overview of the ECPA and why it could pose a threat to your business.

First-time visitors to Nevada often are amazed by the rows of slot machines adorning the entrances to supermarkets. Nevada is unique in that it allows business owners to supplement the income from their primary business with revenues from gaming devices. However, only certain businesses are eligible to have gaming devices. In order to place up to 15 slot machines at a business location, the business owner or the company that places the devices must first obtain a restricted gaming license.

The application procedure for a restricted gaming license appears complex and intimidating. Indeed, each application package begins with the ominous warning “an applicant for a state gaming license is seeking the granting of a privilege, and the burden of proving his/her qualifications to receive such a license is at all times on the applicant. An applicant must accept any risk of adverse public notice, embarrassment, criticism, or other action, or financial loss which may result from action with respect to an applicant, and expressly waives any claim for damages as a result thereof”.

The purpose of this booklet is to provide a guide to explain and demystify the restricted gaming license application process.

On April 1, the Nevada Labor Commissioner announced that on July 1, 2009, the Nevada minimum wage will increase to $6.55 per hour or $7.55 per hour (depending on whether the employer provides qualified health insurance benefits). On July 24, 2009, the federal minimum wage will increase to $7.25 per hour.

We have assembled this E-Mail Alert to assist you with the legal and practical issues that you as Nevada employers will face in light of the upcoming implementation of these increases – including whether you are paying the appropriate minimum wage and complying with Nevada’s daily overtime law.

Challenges and Benefits of Helping Clients Go Green

Many of our clients face increasing challenges regarding energy efficiency and energy production. We focus on two types of clients in this chapter—energy producers and energy consumers. In Arizona, for energy users, the most difficult thing is keeping your facility cool enough for the manufacturing process to take place, whether for your personnel or the general operation. What drives our clients’ challenges is the rising cost of energy use and greenhouse gases. The future for our clients in terms of how greenhouse gases will be regulated and the limits that will be placed on those emissions are of particular concern. Clients who are developing solar or other renewable energy generating facilities are challenged by the uncertainties of the law and the ever-rising costs. The ultimate nature of federal and state tax policies will have a major impact on the economics of these projects. Tax policy also will affect a utility’s decision to build its own facilities or sign long-term purchase power agreements with developers of renewable energy generating facilities.

The phone rings. You pick it up. It’s your most important and most solvent client. She wants you to file a lawsuit in federal court against – gasp – that company she has been dealing with in Venezuela, of all places. Your heart pounds. Your mouth dries up. Your muscles tense. You utter a knee-jerk “sure, no problem,” without even thinking about the myriad complexities that loom ahead. Chances are, if you’ve never sued a foreign defendant, words like société anonyme and aktiengesellschaft may sound like Greek to you. Take my word for it. They’re not.

Indirect fraud, or indirect deception, is a common law cause of action that is widely recognized in many states, including California. Defendant makes a fraudulent misrepresentation to a third party, with the knowledge or expectation that the misrepresentation will be communicated to plaintiff. The third party reasonably relies on the misrepresentation, and there is resulting harm to plaintiff. Under the indirect fraud cause of action, plaintiff has a claim against defendant for his injury, even though defendant may never have had any contacts with plaintiff at all. The application of this theory to alleged misrepresentations made by manufacturers of medical devices to the Food and Drug Administration which result in injury to patients, however, was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2001.

Anonymity -- or apparent anonymity -- is one of the hallmarks of the Internet. Such anonymity can be both a blessing and a curse. It allows political dissidents, for example, to express unpopular viewpoints. But it can also encourage irresponsible, malicious or fraudulent speech. Many companies have found themselves the subject of anonymous Internet criticism that - rightly or wrongly leads to precipitous stock declines. Companies have begun to fight back. This article discusses the phenomenon of “cybersmearing” and some of the steps companies and their on-line critics are taking to protect themselves.