Hogan Lovells has published a white paper discussing the aggregating sources for the purposes of Clean Air Act permitting in the oil and gas sector.

The clear judicial trend is to adopt physical adjacency as the aggregation test and to find that geographically dispersed upstream oil and gas wells, compressor stations, and other facilities are separate emissions sources, the paper’s authors conclude.  Nothing in PennFuture indicates that trend will change anytime soon.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit recently offered some regulatory relief to oil and gas operators under the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to aggregating sources for the purposes of CAA permitting,” they write. “On February 23, 2015, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion that, consistent with the Sixth Circuit and D.C. Circuit opinions, held certain oil and gas operations should not be aggregated, while indicating that the question of interrelatedness (a concept rejected by the Sixth Circuit) could be appropriate in determining the scope of a stationary source.”

Read the white paper.

Aruvio presents an on-demand webinar discussing the management fo spreadsheet risk and enforcement of spreadsheet polices at all enterprise levels.

Data and information captured on spreadsheets may be the most critical components for running any business, Aruvio says on its website. At the enterprise level, the overwhelming volume of existing spreadsheets and documented data creates incredible risk for displacement, loss or improper modification.

Managing this spreadsheet risk and enforcing spreadsheet policies at all enterprise levels is crucial for achieving successful Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC).

Watch the on-demand webinar.

The words “forced arbitration” might not appear in a contract and instead are referred to by the term “dispute-resolution mechanism.” But once you sign on the dotted line or click the “I agree” button online, the options for seeking justice are tossed out the window, says an article published by Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley.

“Forced arbitration lurks in the lengthy documents all of us sign at some point in our lives when we accept a job, buy tickets for travel, enter a cell-phone agreement or rent an apartment,” says the author of the article, Search Denney attorneyLaurie Briggs. “And those are just a few of the dozens of examples of us waiving our rights to sue should something go wrong. Radin describes the cunning contracts as boilerplates.”

Read the article.

Farrell Fritz has announced honors for two of its partners: Thomas J. Killeen and Patricia C. Marcin.

Killeen will receive the Community Champion, Friend and Advocate Award at the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America’s Laugh ‘til It Stops Hurting event to be held at Glen Oaks Club in Old Westbury on Saturday, April 18, 2015.

The Manhasset, NY resident concentrates his practice in corporate law. He earned his J.D. degree from St. John’s University School of Law and his B.A. degree from St. Francis College.

Patricia C. Marcin was recently appointed Vice Chair of the Long Island Community Foundation’s (LICF) board of advisors. She will serve a three year term.

The Lloyd Neck, NY resident concentrates her practice in estate and tax planning. She earned her J.D. degree from Touro Law Center and her B.A. degree from SUNY Stony Brook.

The Obama administration had the authority to make a 180-degree shift in labor policy and declare thousands of mortgage loan officers subject to wage-and-hour laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, according to a report by Forbes.

In concurrences, the court’s most conservative justices complains that such deference to regulatory agencies threatens the constitutional balance of powers.

“The high court, in Perez vs. Mortgage Bankers Association, unanimously upheld the Labor Department’s 2010 determination that mortgage loan officers were mere salespeople, not administrators, and therefore entitled to a 40-hour work week and overtime wages.” Forbes says. “That was a reversal of the same agency’s 2006 decision that loan officers weren’t entitled to overtime. But the court ruled the Administrative Procedure Act governing how agencies promulgate rules and regulations clearly allows them to issue “interpretive rules” without going through the lengthy notice-and-comment procedure required for regulations that have the effect of law.”

Read the story.

The Department of Justice’s U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) has entered into a national settlement agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. (Chase) requiring Chase to pay more than $50 million, including cash payments, mortgage loan credits and loan forgiveness, to over 25,000 homeowners who are or were in bankruptcy. Chase will also change internal operations and submit to oversight by an independent compliance reviewer.  The proposed settlement has been filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where it is subject to court approval.

In the proposed settlement, Chase acknowledges that it filed in bankruptcy courts around the country more than 50,000 payment change notices that were improperly signed, under penalty of perjury, by persons who had not reviewed the accuracy of the notices.  More than 25,000 notices were signed in the names of former employees or of employees who had nothing to do with reviewing the accuracy of the filings.  The rest of the notices were signed by individuals employed by a third party vendor on matters unrelated to checking the accuracy of the filings.

Chase also acknowledges that it failed to file timely, accurate notices of mortgage payment changes and failed to provide timely, accurate escrow statements.

“It is shocking that the conduct admitted to by Chase in this settlement, including the filing of tens of thousands of documents in court that never had been reviewed by the people who attested to their accuracy, continued as long as it did,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery.  “Such unlawful and abusive banking practices can deprive American homeowners of a fair chance in the bankruptcy system, and we will not tolerate them.”

“This settlement should signal once again to banks and mortgage servicers that they cannot continue to flout legal requirements, compromise the integrity of the bankruptcy system and abuse their customers in financial distress,” said Director Cliff White of the U.S. Trustee Program.  “It should be acknowledged that Chase responded to the U.S. Trustee’s court actions by conducting an internal investigation and taking steps to mitigate harm to homeowners.  But years after uncovering improper mortgage servicing practices and entering into court-ordered settlements to fix flawed systems, it is deeply disturbing that a major bank would still make improper court filings and fail to provide adequate and timely notices to homeowners about payments due.  Other servicers should take note that the U.S. Trustee Program will continue to police their practices and will work to ensure that those who do not comply with bankruptcy law protections for homeowners will pay a price, just as Chase has done in this matter.”

Payments, Credits and Contributions of More Than $50 Million:

In the proposed settlement, Chase agrees to provide payments, credits and contributions totaling more than $50 million:

• Chase will provide $22.4 million in credits and second lien forgiveness to about 400 homeowners who received inaccurate payment increase notices during their bankruptcy cases.
• Chase will pay $10.8 million to more than 12,000 homeowners in bankruptcy through credits or refunds for payment increases or decreases that were not timely filed in bankruptcy court and noticed to the homeowners.
• Chase will pay $4.8 million to more than 18,000 homeowners who did not receive accurate and timely escrow statements.  This includes credits for taxes and insurance owed by the homeowners and paid by Chase during periods covered by escrow statements that were not timely filed and transmitted to homeowners.
• Chase will pay $4.9 million, through payment of approximately $600 per loan, to more than 8,000 homeowners whose escrow payments Chase may have applied in a manner inconsistent with escrow statements it provided to the homeowners.
• Chase will contribute $7.5 million to the American Bankruptcy Institute’s endowment for financial education and support for the Credit Abuse Resistance Education Program.

Changes to Internal Operations: In the proposed settlement Chase also agrees to make necessary changes to its technology, policies, procedures, internal controls and other oversight systems to ensure that the problems identified in the settlement do not recur.

Oversight by Independent Reviewer: Amy Walsh, a partner with the law firm Morvillo LLP, has been selected to serve as independent reviewer to verify that Chase complies with the settlement order.  The independent reviewer will file public reports with the bankruptcy court.

No Effect on Additional Relief by Homeowners: This settlement does not affect the rights of any homeowners to seek any relief against Chase that they may deem appropriate.

Chase Contact Information: Homeowners with questions about the settlement may contact Chase at 866-451-2327.

The settlement is the culmination of actions taken by the U.S. Trustee Program in districts around the country concerning Chase’s improper practices in bankruptcy cases, including robo-signing.  Director White commended the U.S. Trustee Program team in the field and headquarters who expertly identified, investigated, litigated and settled this matter, including Deputy Director and General Counsel Ramona Elliott, National Creditor Enforcement Coordinator Gail Geiger and Trial Attorneys Diarmuid Gorham and Kelley Callard.

The U.S. Trustee Program is the component of the Justice Department that protects the integrity of the bankruptcy system by overseeing case administration and litigating to enforce the bankruptcy laws.  The U.S. Trustee Program has 21 regions and 93 field office locations.

Five attorneys from Dallas’ Sayles Werbner are being recognized among the top young lawyers in the state in the 2015 Texas Rising Stars list based on their courtroom work in Texas and across the United States.

Once a year, the publishers of Texas Rising Stars identify the state’s leading attorneys age 40 and younger, as well as those who have been in practice no more than 10 years. The annual guide is based on nominations from other lawyers and an exhaustive review by the publication’s editors. Only 2.5 percent of eligible Texas attorneys are selected for the honor each year.

The Sayles Werbner attorneys recognized in this year’s Texas Super Lawyers list have earned the same honor previously. The firm’s 2015 honorees and their areas of practice are:

• Joel Israel – Business Litigation
• Shawn C. Long – Business Litigation
• Sawyer Neely – General Litigation
• Darren Nicholson – Business Litigation
• Robert L. Sayles – Business Litigation

See details.

In a complaint Friday in Seattle federal court, Microsoft claims Kyocera infringes its patents with three of Kyocera’s lower-cost Android phones, reports ArsTechnica. The accused models include the Duraforce, Hydro, and Brigadier.

The three models use the Android operating system and are “ruggedized,” meaning they include features like waterproofing and thick rubbery exteriors.

“Microsoft has long maintained that Android device makers must pay royalties for use of its patents,” reports Ars Technica. “Most Android device-makers pay a royalty to Microsoft for each phone, and estimates of the Redmond company’s patent-licensing revenue ranges up to $2 billion per year.”

Read the story.

The U.S. Senate has confirmed former Google executive Michelle Lee to head the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a position that has been vacant for more than two years, reports Reuters.

She was confirmed by an unrecorded voice vote in the full Senate,more than a week after the Senate Judiciary Committee passed along her nomination.

Lee, a former deputy general counsel and head of patents and patent strategy at Google, had been the acting director of the office. She started with the agency in 2012 as the first director of the patent office’s Silicon Valley outpost, according to the report.

Read the story.

The International Risk Management Institute has posted a free on-demand webinar that provides an overview of the hydraulic fracturing process, including its relevant exposure to ranch and farm owners and the inherent risks as passive exposure or active participant. Graphics show the extent of exposure in the agribusiness U.S. geography.

On its website, the IRMI says a case study of a “fracking” claim is presented with a discussion of relevant coverage concerns. A hypothetical of risk management and transfer options based on a potential land lease by an agribusiness customer to a hydraulic fracturing driller is explored.

“Attendees can obtain a deeper understanding of how to better evaluate environmental exposures related to hydraulic fracturing operations in proximity to agricultural operations,” IRMI says. “After listening to this webinar, you will understand how to assist your clients or your company in identifying and managing the risks.”

Watch the on-demand webinar.

Advanced Energy Economy presents a free on-demand webinar discussing how advanced energy technologies can be utilized by grid operators to safeguard reliability as states modernize their electric power systems under the Clean Power Plan.

The North American Electricity Reliability Corporation (NERC) issued a report in November that raised questions about the potential impact of EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) on the reliability of the electric system, AEE says on its website.

In this technical review of the NERC report commissioned by the Advanced Energy Economy Institute (AEEI), the Brattle Group explores the technology, operational, and market options that will allow states and power system operators to meet CPP requirements without compromising reliability.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

Silanis Inc. presents a free seven-page white paper that discusses how to enforce e-signed contracts and minimize exposure to legal and compliance risk.

Today, closing business quickly and efficiently is about getting the signature – without using paper. Clearly, electronic signatures and transactions are the answer. But if you think all e-signature solutions provide the same level of enforceability in the event of a contract dispute, think again, the company says on its website.

The federal ESIGN and state UETA laws gave electronic signatures and records the same legal weight as their paper counterparts but these laws do not give e-signatures any special status. Essentially, it is the strength – or weakness – of your electronic evidence that determines your exposure to legal and compliance risk.

To help enforce your e-signed contracts, this complementary report presents the recommendations of three legal experts: Pat Hatfield and Greg Casamento, partners at Locke Lord LLP, and Frank Zacherl, litigator and partner at Shutts & Bowen LLP.

Download the white paper.

A white paper written by Howard Mavity of Fisher & Phillips give some advice on what managers need to note in order to challenge OSHA citations, especially when the citations arrive months after an inspection.

“Many articles on handling OSHA inspections provide the same basic guidelines and little explanation of why employers should take certain steps.” he writes. “You already know to take photos whenever the Compliance Officer (CO) takes shots and to take notes. But do you know why to take those photos and what to look for? What do you need to note in order to challenge citations when they are issued six months later?”

The article includes sections headed “Plan in Advance,” “Manage the Inspection,” “Take Your Time” and “Push Back.”

Read the white paper.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that, under the terms of a contract, Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production and its affiliates did not acquire a perpetual worldwide license to use patents to convert conventional films into 3D.

In a paper published at IPWatchdog, Paige H. Forster explains that the case is located at the intersection of bankruptcy and IP law.

“The story of In re DDMG Estate begins with the 2009 Disney film “G-Force,” which depicted the adventures of a band of highly-trained crime-fighting guinea pigs,” the IPWatchdog story says. “Of course, the only thing better than a rodent action-adventure flick is a 3D rodent action-adventure flick—which is why Disney and a company called In Three entered into the contract at the heart of this appeal. Under the contract, In Three was to deliver a ‘left eye and right eye digital 3D version of 17 minutes of the [G-Force] Picture’ to Disney.”

Read the story.

As a part of its Homebuilder Series, Bilzin Sumberg has posted a free on-demand webinar that discusses protecting your company from misrepresentation claims through contractual exculpatory clauses.

This seminar discusses the case of Duggan, LLC v. Peacock Point, LLC, which held that under an “as is” contract containing disclaimers of warranty, a sophisticated purchaser is not entitled to recovery when the seller unintentionally misrepresented entitlements on the property.

Bilzin Sumberg litigation attorneys Mitch Widom and Wendy Polit are presenters in the webinar.

On its website, the firm says the webinar discusses the application of the Duggan decision to: i) the 2013 trial in Lennar v. Olivia’s Savannah, where the Second District Court of Appeals upheld the enforcement of the written contract against a purchaser who sued Lennar for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations and ii) the potential benefits of the use of exculpatory clauses in purchase and sale contracts.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

For the first time, the Federal Circuit directly addressed whether the advertising or offering of a service, without the actual provision of the service, constitutes use in commerce for a service mark, reports McCarter & English in a paper written by Jonathan Short and Carissa L. Rodrigue.

The case is Couture v. Playdom, Inc., No. 2014-1480 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2015).

“In affirming the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) cancellation of the service mark PLAYDOM, the court held that the mark was void ab initio because the associated services were not rendered as of the use-based application’s filing date even though the mark owner had used the mark to advertise the services by launching a website, and that such advertising alone does not constitute use in commerce,” the report says.

Read the story.

Arthur R. Block, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Comcast Corporation (Photo: Business Wire)

Comcast Corporation has announced the promotion of Arthur R. Block to Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Comcast Corporation.

Block previously served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Comcast. He reports to David L. Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast Corporation.

Block is the company’s chief legal officer, overseeing Comcast’s legal, corporate governance, compliance, and strategic intellectual property functions. During his 26 years with the company, he has served as the lead in-house attorney for Comcast’s mergers, acquisitions and financings, including transformative acquisitions like AT&T Broadband and NBCUniversal, Comcast said in a new release.

“Art has been an outstanding leader of our legal affairs team and has earned great respect from his colleagues and peers throughout our company and industry,” said Cohen. “He is a trusted advisor who provides excellent judgment, strong leadership, and extensive industry experience, and has led the company through some of its most complex transactions.”

“Art is a distinguished legal expert with deep knowledge and understanding of complex matters and is one of the best lawyers in our industry and the profession as a whole,” said Brian L. Roberts, Chairman and CEO, Comcast Corporation. “He has been a key part of Comcast’s growth and over the years has provided invaluable advice as part of the senior management team. I look forward to his continued success at the company.”

Prior to joining Comcast, Art was a partner in the Corporate Department of the Philadelphia law firm Wolf Block where he began his legal career in 1978. During his tenure at Wolf Block, he served as a legal advisor to Comcast before joining the company as in-house counsel in 1989.

Art currently serves as Co-Chair of the Site Board of City Year Greater Philadelphia and as the Chair of the Board of Managers of Moore College of Art and Design. He was the recipient of the 2012 Idealist of the Year Award from City Year Greater Philadelphia. He received his B.S. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business and his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.

Atlanta-based First Advantage has posted a free on-demand webinar designed to teach employers the full fundamentals for how to build the best background checks.

The webinar is part of a series that was built around the notion that performing or commissioning background screening programs is fraught with massive confusion, despite the fact employees are usually regarded as a business’ most valuable asset.

“Gathering accurate information on a candidate’s qualifications is critical in protecting the bottom line, but with the extensive number of searches available, ranging from federal to county, as well as drug testing, credential verification and more to consider, the process can be daunting,” said Jason Rennie, First Advantage Vice President of Sales, who is leading the webinars along with his colleague, Tammie Moser, First Advantage Senior Director of Account Management.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

An NDA is generally one of the most straightforward contracts you manage. So, why is the process of getting the right agreement into the right hands at the right time so complex?

General Counsel News and Onit present a complimentary whitepaper that explains how the right technology can streamline the process and protect your company from potential liabilities, not to mention keep sales happy.

Onit’s NDA App:

• Ensures each NDA is executed with the correct liabilities
• Provides a dashboard or all requested, open and signed NDAs
• Closes the loop on NDAs by integrating with document repositories

This white paper can help you understand how to remove undue burdens on your legal department attorneys and staff.

Download the white paper.

The Dallas technology-focused law firm Munck Wilson Mandala announced a $58.7 million trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, patent infringement and tortious interference verdict for firm client Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. (TAOS) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Following the four-week trial, federal jurors on Friday found that Milpitas, Calif.-based Intersil Corp. used TAOS’ patented technology for dual-diode ambient light sensors without consent, according to a release from the law firm. The jury also found that Intersil misappropriated TAOS’ trade secrets in order to obtain a competitive advantage. TAOS prevailed in all the company’s claims against Intersil, including misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference and patent infringement.

The verdict includes $48.7 million in damages for trade secret misappropriation and $10 million in punitive damages for both trade secret misappropriation and for tortious interference.

Read the story.