On March 5, 2015, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) issued its “ Final Rule” establishing the procedures for handling retaliation complaints brought under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). Section 806, as amended by Dodd-Frank, protects employees of publicly traded companies, as well as employees of contractors, subcontractors, and agents of publicly traded companies, from being retaliated against for reporting fraudulent activity or other violations of SEC rules and regulations. The Final Rule addresses the comments that OSHA received in response to its interim rule, issued in 2011, and sets forth the final procedures for retaliation claims under SOX, including the procedures and timeframes applicable to employee complaints and OSHA investigations. While the Final Rule does not differ substantively from the interim rule, it crystalizes the SOX whistleblower complaint procedures and reflects an increasingly whistleblower-friendly landscape.
3 Key Points in OSHA’s Final Rule Governing Whistleblower Retaliation Complaints Under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
On the second day of the LMA conference, I kept the client-related momentum going by heading straight into “Client Expectations in Today’s Marketplace” after the GC Panel. Presenting in the session were Laura Meherg and Nat Slavin of Wicker Park Group, and thanks to LMA, I can tell you:
Wicker Park Group consultants interview hundreds of clients each year on behalf of law firms located around the world. The interviewees include business owners, company executives and in-house counsel representing a wide range of industries. Taken together, the interviews offer unique insights into the essential expectations that build strong client relationships regardless of location, industry or client history.”
On 14 April 2015, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal (“Tribunal”) rendered a ruling stating non-compliance of Article 96(1), Article 97 and Article 98 of the Polish Banking Act of 29 August 1997 (Journal of Laws of 2015, item 128, as amended) (“Banking Act”), i.e. the provisions on the Bank Enforcement Order (“BEO”), with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (“Constitution”), Case File No. P 45/12 (/s/p-4512). According to the Tribunal, the abovementioned provisions violate the principle of equality under Article 32(1) of the Constitution. However, the Tribunal did not immediately repeal the challenged provisions so as not to interfere with banking transactions, and set a deadline (1 August 2016) for the legislator to enact new legislation in this respect. More…
All businesses have valuable intellectual property, not just “tech” focused businesses such as software developers or pharmaceutical companies. However advisers may need to translate for their clients what they mean in practical terms when they use the words “intellectual property”, in order for clients to appreciate its value and take steps to protect it. For example, instead of talking in terms of trade marks and copyright, a business owner might more readily recognise the value in their trading or product names, logos, manuals, systems, standard operating procedures and process instructions. Ideally this type of a conversation would be followed with a recommendation that the business conduct an “IP audit”. This will help a business to identify and prioritise assets for protection.
Join us for the final session in a three-part series on Business Succession Planning where we will focus on the most significant issues when preparing to sell or transfer your business.
It feels good to be getting back into the routine after being away at LMA15! You’ll still be seeing a couple more recap posts from me (two, perhaps three), but today, we’re back to our regularly scheduled Two for Tuesdays, and yes, we’re still looking at content marketing.
As expected, content marketing was the buzz of the LMA too, and it’s not going away any time soon. Lest you start to panic, law firms have been producing content long before it was “cool” to do so – we’ve just now got a name for it.
At HIMSS15 in Chicago I had the pleasure of speaking with my colleague, Dave Schoolcraft, regarding the OIG Security Audits. These in depth security audits conducted not by the OCR or CMS, but rather the Office of Inspector General, delve into the security systems of Eligible Hospitals (and potentially Eligible Professionals) participating in the EHR […]
The post Ready for an OIG Security Audit? appeared first on OMW Health Law.
For more information please visit www.omwhealthlaw.com or click on the headline above.
Congressional scrutiny of tax-exempt hospital organizations arose as the distinction between tax-exempt and for-profit hospitals has been diminished by the federal government’s provision of Medicare and Medicaid to cover services that tax-exempt hospitals previously provided for free. The overhaul of the healthcare system has brought even more Congressional scrutiny, requiring hospital organizations to be very proactive in ensuring they continue to meet the original requirements for tax exemption, as well as new more rigorous requirements.
The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), enacted March 23, 2010, added new requirements for Section 501(c)(3) organizations that operate one or more hospital facilities (hospital organizations). On a facility by facility basis, each hospital facility is required to meet the following four general requirements: More…
On March 20, 2015 the B.C. Environmental Appeal Board in Shawinigan Residents Assn. v British Columbia (Directors Delegate, Environmental Management Act) (2015 CarswellBC 802) confirmed the validity of a waste permit, subject to an amendment requiring the monitoring of water quality immediately following a storm event greater than 1 in 200 years. The permit authorized refuse to be discharged to ground as well as effluent to an ephemeral stream from a contaminated soil treatment facility and a landfill. The contaminated soil would be processed through bioremediation and landfilling. The landfilling would involve soil encapsulation in engineered cells. More…
The Ontario government recently published a Discussion Paper on Renewing Ontario’s Mineral Development Strategy. The document is available on the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines website: http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/mineral-development-strategy.
The Discussion Paper is described as a “first step in the development of a renewed mineral development strategy for Ontario.” The Discussion Paper notes progress made since the launch of the government’s 2006 mineral development strategy, particularly the enactment of an amended Mining Act in 2009, which recognized and affirmed existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult with Aboriginal communities and to minimize the impact of mining activities on public health and safety and the environment. More…