Friday, December 19, 2014

IRA “Charitable Rollover” Retroactively Extended Through 2014

By Eric Gregory


As a part of the so-called “Cromnibus” bill, Congress has extended dozens of expired “temporary” tax breaks for 2014. Included in that group is a rule that allows for tax-free treatment of certain “qualified charitable distributions” from IRAs where the distributions are donated to charity. The bill only extends this tax break until December 31, 2014.

“Qualified Charitable Distribution”

Specifically, a taxpayer may exclude from gross income the aggregate amount of his or her “qualified charitable distributions” that do not exceed $100,000 in a tax year. A “qualified charitable distribution” is any otherwise taxable distribution from an IRA that is:

1. Made directly by the IRA trustee to a public charity (not a private foundation or donor advised fund at a public charity); and

2. Made on or after the date on which the IRA owner has attained age 70 1/2.

An IRA owner who makes an IRA qualified charitable distribution in an amount equal to his or her required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) is considered to have satisfied his or her minimum distribution requirement for that year, even though a charitable entity (and not the IRA owner) receives the distribution.

The rule may be applied to IRA distributions made after December 31, 2013 and until December 31, 2014.

Short Window of Opportunity

Taxpayers must contact IRA administrators as soon as possible if they intend to take advantage of the tax-free distribution by year-end. IRA administrators may require several weeks to process rollovers.

It is currently unclear whether Congress will extend this provision to 2015 or beyond. If recent history is a reliable indicator, however, it is likely that a decision on that may not come until well into the next year.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Health Insurer Antitrust Claim Against Drug Company Remanded to State Court

By James M. Burns

Over the last several years, several health insurers have brought antitrust claims against drug companies, contending that they were overcharged for drugs as a result of agreements reached by the drug companies in the settlement of patent infringement lawsuits between branded and generic drug makers. Specifically, the purchasers of these drugs (including but not limited to insurers), have claimed that the terms of these patent infringement lawsuits, which typically resulted in a payment by the patent holding manufacturer to the generic drug maker (which was the alleged infringer), in return for the generic agreeing not to continue making the generic drug for a period of years, were anticompetitive. Because it was the allegedly infringing generic manufacturer (the defendant in the patent infringement suit) that received the payment in the settlement, these settlements have been referred to as “reverse payment” settlements. The FTC has been quite concerned about “reverse payment” patent infringement settlements for several years, contending that a delay in the introduction of generic alternatives to branded drugs has slowed the reduction in price for the branded drug that increased competition typically brings. After a series of lawsuits by the FTC over this practice resulted in conflicting rulings on the issue of whether these settlements could constitute an antitrust violation, the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue in 2013, ruling in FTC v. Actavis that, in some circumstances, such settlements could be found to be anticompetitive.

In light of the Actavis decision, purchaser challenges to these settlements have continued all across the country, typically in federal court. However, in a bit of a departure from common practice, earlier this year Time Insurance (doing business as Assurant Health), commenced such an action in state court, not federal court, asserting claims under state antitrust laws. By filing its action – Time Insurance v. AstraZeneca – in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Time sought to avoid consolidation of its case with a series of similar federal cases that had already been consolidated before the District Court in Massachusetts (In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation).

AstraZeneca removed the case to federal court, arguing that the matter necessarily raised a federal issue under patent law, and thus was required to be heard in federal court (and then consolidated into the Massachusetts proceeding). However, Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court Judge Gerald McHugh Jr. disagreed. Instead, Judge McHugh held that Time’s antitrust claim would not necessarily require Time to litigate the validity of the patent, and thus the case did not raise a federal issue. Accordingly, Judge McHugh remanded the case to state court. The decision, if followed by other state courts across the country, has the potential to greatly increase the number of courts grappling with these “reverse payment” claims. And, given that even the small number of federal courts that have interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Actavis have been unable to reach agreement on the circumstances in which such conduct raises antitrust concerns, increasing the number of courts considering such issues will only add to the confusion. As such, it would not be surprising if the Supreme Court is forced before long to revisit its decision in Actavis, and if it does, insurers, being among the largest purchasers of prescription drugs, will be watching with interest.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

More Change to Canada’s Intellectual Property Laws on the Way

By Eric D. Lavers

On October 23, 2014, as part of the fall budget bill, the federal Government quietly tabled the second in a series of substantial reform packages to Canada’s existing intellectual property regime. Following the introduction of new trademark laws earlier this year, a similar update of Canada’s industrial design and patent laws will take effect when the bill is passed.

The patent reform appears designed to harmonize Canada’s existing framework with that of its key trading partners, while at the same time making the system friendlier and more accessible to applicants. For example, a number of new provisions will simplify the process of filing and maintaining applications in effect. Unintentional abandonments of rights will also now have no impact on the validity of otherwise properly issued patents.

While not as extensive as the patent law reforms, the bill also includes many significant updates to Canada’s industrial design laws. Industrial designs offer a relatively simple and inexpensive mechanism for protecting the ornamental appearance (as opposed to function) of a product or article. Most significantly, the new laws will pave the way for Canada’s adoption of the Hague Agreement on Industrial Designs, which allows for design protection around the world through a single application.

By addressing notable deficiencies in the current system, these legislative reforms are both a welcome development and long overdue.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Tennessee Legislature Passes Legislation Changing Requirements for Coverage of Sinkhole Losses

By John E. Anderson, Sr.

The Tennessee Legislature recently reformed the law of sinkhole coverage and sinkhole losses in the State of Tennessee with legislation which became effective July 1, 2014. Under the prior Tennessee law, every insurer offering homeowners’ property insurance in the State of Tennessee was required to make available coverage for insurable sinkhole losses on any dwelling, including contents of personal property contained in the dwelling, to the extent provided in the policy to which the sinkhole coverage attached. The interpretation of the term “make available” was subject to differing opinions. Some took the position that the insurers were required to offer sinkhole coverage to their insureds, while others took the position that the law required them to offer coverage if desired. The new legislation was intended to clarify any confusion.

The new legislation provides that every insurer offering homeowner property in the State of Tennessee shall make coverage available for insurable sinkhole losses, including contents of personal property contained in the dwelling. Julie Mix McPeak, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, issued a June 12, 2014 Bulletin to clarify any concerns – “The purpose of this Bulletin is to clarify that the Department interprets the ‘make available’ provision in 56-7-130 to mean that companies may limit the availability of coverage for insurable sinkhole losses to the inception of a policy…The Department interprets the statute to apply that availability to the initial purchase of a policy AND upon the request of a consumer thereafter.” (Emphasis added). Clearly, sinkhole coverage is not a mandatory requirement of insurers.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville) explained that the new legislation was designed to impose objective standards to verify the cause of the alleged loss due to the existence of fraudulent claims, the impact of this legislation on the ability of homeowners to find affordable insurance coverage, and the need for this new legislation.

The bill sets forth specific investigation requirements upon receipt of a sinkhole claim. The new law requires an inspection of the insured’s premises to determine if there has been structural damage to the covered structure. If the insurer concludes that the structural damage to a covered building is not consistent with sinkhole activity, prior to denying the claim, the insurer must obtain a written certification from a professional engineer, a professional geologist or other qualified individual stating that the sinkhole activity did not cause the alleged structural damage.

Also, the insurer may limit its total claims payout for damages to the covered building. Under the new law, the insurer may limit payment to the actual cash value of the sinkhole loss to the covered building, excluding costs associated with building stabilization or foundation repair, until the policyholder enters into a contract for the performance of building stabilization or foundation repairs in accordance with the recommendations of the engineer retained or approved for the insurer.

Additionally, to be eligible to receive payment for building stabilization or foundation repairs, or any other loss to the covered building in excess of the actual cash value of the sinkhole loss to the covered building, the insured must repair such damage or loss in accordance with the plan of repair approved by the insurer. The new statute provides a detailed procedure for payment of claims.

Finally, the new law provides that an insurer may cancel, decline to renew or decline to issue any homeowner policy insurance on a structure that has been subject to a sinkhole loss claim if the structure:

1. Has not been repaired in accordance with a plan of repair approved by the insurer and within their time constraints set forth therein; or

2. Is subject to the risk of future sinkhole damage because of unstable land.

The new legislation is designed to impose objective standards to assist in the reporting and processing of sinkhole claims. It is a positive step toward accomplishing these goals.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

European Antitrust “Block Exemption” For Insurance Under Review

By James M. Burns

In the United States, the McCarran Ferguson Act (15 USC 1011-1015), enacted by Congress in 1945, provides the insurance industry with a limited exemption from the federal antitrust laws. The Act applies to all conduct that constitutes “the business of insurance,” provided that the conduct is “regulated by state law” and is not an act of “boycott, coercion or intimidation.” While the Act has been the subject of controversy over the years, and calls for its repeal have been frequent, including most recently during the debate that ultimately led to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the Act remains in place and provides a significant defense to potential antitrust liability for a whole range of insurer activity.

In Europe, the insurance industry also enjoys a limited exemption from the E.U. competition laws (specifically Article 101), by virtue of the “Insurance Block Exemption.” This exemption currently shields insurers from liability when they engage in (1) an exchange of information considered reasonably necessary for calculating insurance risk, including the exchange of joint compilations, joint tables and studies; and (2) the creation of co-insurance and co-reinsurance pools, provided that the market share of the pool does not exceed a certain level.

However, unlike in the U.S., the Block Exemption must be renewed every seven years for it to remain in place. Last renewed in 2010, the European Commission is now beginning its review of the exemption to assess whether it should be renewed in 2017. And, as the process in 2010 confirms, renewal is not guaranteed, as the Commission, over insurer objections, chose at that time to eliminate a provision in an earlier version of the Block Exemption that permitted insurers to implement “standard policy conditions” in their policies, finding that an exemption for this activity was not necessary to the proper functioning of insurance markets.

In connection with its review of the Block Exemption, in early August the Commission issued a notice inviting insurers to offer their comments on the continuing need for the exemption. Submissions can be made until November 4, and the Commission will ultimately submit a report to the European Parliament with its recommendation concerning the exemption in early 2016. Stay tuned.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Auto Repair Shop Antitrust Actions May Be Consolidated into Multidistrict Litigation

By James M. Burns

Over the course of the last several months, auto body repair shops in five states (Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Utah and Tennessee) filed antitrust actions against a collection of auto insurers, alleging that the insurers’ direct repair programs violate the antitrust laws. In each case, the plaintiffs alleged that the manner in which the insurers set reimbursement rates for covered repairs artificially depressed the compensation plaintiffs received for their services, and that the insurers also “steered” insureds away from plaintiffs’ businesses to those shops that are participants in the insurers’ direct repair programs.

With all of the cases having been filed by the same Jackson, Mississippi attorney, it was not particularly surprising that, in late May, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to have the cases consolidated and transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi. In support of the request, the plaintiffs noted that the first filed case (Capitol Body Shop v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) was filed in Mississippi, that the actions all involve “common questions of fact,” and that transfer would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses.” Plaintiffs also noted in their motion that “all of the actions are at the same early stage of litigation.”

In June, the insurers filed oppositions to plaintiffs’ request, contending that “while the general theory of liability alleged in each case is the same, the factual allegations underlying each plaintiff’s claims are highly individualized.” The insurers also noted that plaintiffs’ assertion that the cases are all at the same, early stage of litigation was no longer correct, because, subsequent to plaintiffs’ filing of their motion, the court in the Florida action (A&E Auto Body v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Co.) dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, albeit with leave to amend, finding that plaintiffs’ complaint lacked the necessary factual detail required for plaintiffs’ claims. Perhaps not surprisingly, the insurers also maintained that if the Judicial Panel does consolidate the cases, they should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida, before the judge presiding in the A&E Auto Body case, because it is the “most procedurally advanced case.”

On June 16, the Judicial Panel set plaintiffs’ motion for oral argument on July 31. In the interim, however, the defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Mississippi case, arguing that the allegations in that complaint, like the allegations in the Florida case, are similarly insufficient as a matter of law. While that motion is unlikely to be decided prior to the Judicial Panel’s ruling on the motion for consolidation and transfer, it could have an impact on the Panel’s decision whether to consolidate the cases, and where. The matter is clearly one to watch going forward.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Heads Up: Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL) Takes Effect on July 1st

By Wendy G. Hulton

Once CASL takes effect, you will need express or implied consent before you (or your franchisees) can send a commercial electronic message (CEM). While franchisors are well aware of the pending impact of CASL and have been diligently ensuring that their organizations are ready, the bigger question that looms on the horizon is what are they doing to help their franchisees understand and comply with CASL’s requirements. Franchisors will typically be able to rely on implied consent under the B2B CASL provisions to communicate electronically with their franchisees. The bigger concern will be the B2C communications between franchisees and consumers. There is a lot of information on CASL available and while seemingly straightforward, the actual implementation for both franchisors and franchisees may prove to be more difficult. Ask yourself:

1. Do your franchisees send CEMs?

2. Do you know whether they are aware that they need to have consent to send CEMs?

3. Do you know whether they understand the difference between implied or express consent to send CEMs?

4. Do their CEMs satisfy the CASL content requirements?

5. Do they know that the consents need to be recorded, in case they have to prove they had consent to send a CEM?

6. Do you know if they have an unsubscribe mechanism for their CEMs?

Enforcement of CASL will be undertaken jointly by three regulators: the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, the Competition Bureau and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. These enforcing bodies will have authority to impose a wide variety of sanctions on individuals and businesses that contravene CASL. While the regulators will probably be lenient initially, individuals may be fined up to $1,000,000 per violation and corporations may be fined up to $10,000,000 per violation. CASL also creates a private right of action that takes effect in 2017 that permits an individual to take civil action against anyone who violates CASL. If your franchisees are not prepared for CASL, it is not the risk of significant fines that you should be worried about, but rather the potential backlash through social media.