On Monday, August 12, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a new addition to its regional Medicare Fraud Strike Forces: a Newark/Philadelphia Regional Medicare Strike Force that will target both healthcare fraud and opioid overprescription. The newly-formed Newark/Philadelphia Strike Force joins nine existing regional Medicare Strike Forces, all of which are focused in geographical areas of high healthcare fraud risk: Miami, Florida; Los Angeles, California; Detroit, Michigan; Southern Texas; Southern Louisiana; Brooklyn, New York; Tampa, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; and Dallas, Texas. The Newark/Philadelphia Strike Force will be supported by the resources of several federal agencies, including the Health Care Fraud Unit of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the FBI, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Monthly Archives: August 2018
DOJ Announces 11th Medicare Fraud Strike Force: the Newark/Philadelphia Regional Medicare Strike Force
You have no doubt heard the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 dropped the corporate tax rate to 21 percent.
You have probably also heard some (but not all) owners of businesses operating as S corporations, partnerships (including limited liability companies), or sole proprietorships will be able to deduct 20 percent of their business income starting in 2018.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) may challenge conduct when it has “reason to believe” that a violation of the laws that the FTC enforces has occurred. The agency does so by filing an administrative complaint, which is adjudicated before an administrative law judge, much like a trial proceeding, albeit utilizing the rules of practice adopted by the FTC.
With digital and cross border transactions growing at an exponential rate, protection of personal data has become a critical issue with multi-jurisdictional implications. The recent and most significant example of protection of personal data being that of the European Union’s (“EU”) regulation on protection of natural persons with regard to processing of personal data and free movement of such data (“General Data Protection Regulation” or “GDPR”) that came into force from May 25, 2018 onwards. GDPR on account of its extraterritorial applicability has given rise to certain significant questions on its implications on non-EU organizations, which I have attempted to address below.
The High Court in Thomas: franking credit “streaming” ineffective
On Wednesday 8 August 2018, the High Court of Australia unanimously allowed one appeal, partly allowed a second appeal and dismissed two appeals from the Full Federal Court decision in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Thomas  HCA 31 (Thomas).
A July 2018 decision of the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) appears to have put paid to Nike’s recent “Nothing beats a Londoner” ad campaign. The case highlights, with hindsight, a perhaps regrettable commercial/legal decision by the sports giant, whilst also demonstrating the usefulness of the IPEC as a means of speedy and effective redress in David vs Goliath disputes.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clarified specifics of employment by individuals and small and medium-sized businesses
On 29 May 2018, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued the Decree of the Plenum N 15 where clarified issues concerning regulation of labor relations with employers – individuals both with and without sole proprietors’ status, as well as with employers – small business entity. The Decree clarifies provisions of Chapter 48 and Chapter 48.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation dedicated to issues regarding regulation of labor between the above mentioned parties.
In our most recent post, we broke down the art of persuasion, and looked at the styles for change that you may be seeing within your firm. I should also add that there’s really a fourth style too, and that’s the belief that no change is necessary – I didn’t cover this in any depth, and won’t, because the group that believes no change is necessary is unlikely to change their minds any time soon, and it’s not worth the investment of your time to try to force them to. At some point, they’ll either retire, or self-select out, and you’ll be left with the remaining three categories, all of which you can successfully work with.
Effective as of October 1, 2018, Massachusetts will become the 49th state to adopt a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (leaving New York as the only holdout). Massachusetts did so as part of a large budget bill recently signed into law, which also resulted in the adoption of the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act. (The text of the Massachusetts version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act is set out on pages 47-52 of the bill, H. 4868, while the effective date is set out on page 117. Here is a link to the entire budget bill.)