On October 5, 2022, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued notices requesting comments on different aspects of the energy tax benefits in the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”). All comments are due by Friday, November 4, either electronically on www.regulations.gov or alternatively by mail to the IRS. Written comments submitted after that date will be considered as long as such consideration will not delay the issuance of guidance.

In each case, the Notices focus on a subset of the IRA expanded and enhanced existing consumer and business energy tax credits and the new credits, including tech-neutral production and investment tax credits, a clean hydrogen production credit, a nuclear power production tax credit, and credits for producing necessary components for clean energy production, among others. The Notices solicit general comments, but also focus on specific definitional and operational issues. The requests emanate from, among other things, the new domestic production and sourcing requirements in the IRA, including requirements for sourcing critical minerals for the manufacturing of electric vehicles and for constructing certain qualified facilities using materials produced in the United States. Requests also arise in reference to the new two-tiered credit structure, where, for many of these credits, taxpayers are eligible for a higher credit (typically five times the base amount) if they meet certain wage and apprenticeship requirements. And one Notice focuses on the new direct pay or transferability feature for some credits, which essentially results in a cash payment to the taxpayer regardless of whether they have any tax liability in the year in which the credit is claimed.Continue Reading IRS issues notices requesting comments on IRA clean energy tax credits

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021) on the following question presented:  “Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google, Marking First Time Court Will Review Section 230

May courts look beyond the face of a loan transaction to identify the “true lender”?  In a lawsuit filed by California’s financial regulator, a California state court recently answered yes, finding that a fact-intensive inquiry into the “substance” of a loan transaction was necessary to determine who the “true lender”…

Continue Reading California Court Applies “Substance Over Form,” Allows True Lender Claim to Proceed

On October 5, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced its plan to streamline the typical review process for Mixed Metal Oxides (“MMOs”), including certain cathode active materials, which are key components in electric vehicles’ lithium-ion batteries, as well as clean energy generation and storage technology, including wind turbines…

Continue Reading EPA to Streamline the Review Process for Certain EV and Clean Energy Chemicals

By Terrell McSweeny, Megan Crowley, Nicholas Xenakis, Alexandra Cooper-Ponte & Madeline Salinas on September 28, 2022

On September 16, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in NetChoice L.L.C. v. Paxton, upholding Texas HB 20, a law that limits the ability of large social media platforms to moderate…

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Law Restricting Online “Censorship”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) last week announced settlements with four investment advisory firms regarding alleged violations of the SEC’s pay-to-play rule, illustrating that federal regulators continue to aggressively pursue such cases.   The rule at issue, Rule 206(4)-5 (“the Rule”), prohibits investment advisors from, among other things, receiving compensation from certain government entities for two years after a person affiliated with the investment advisor makes a covered campaign contribution to an official of the government entity.  While the involved firms did not admit or deny the allegations in the settlement orders, an examination of the cases is instructive in assessing the current landscape of SEC pay-to-play rule enforcement.  Together, the four settlements are noteworthy in two major respects: (1) the circumstances of the underlying contributions that highlight the wide-reaching application of Rule 206(4)-5; and (2) the fact that one of the SEC Commissioners issued a sharp dissent that expressed deep concern about the breadth of the Rule.

The settlements involved covered associates at four different firms making contributions to four different recipients: an unsuccessful candidate for Mayor of New York City; the incumbent Governor of Hawaii ; an unsuccessful candidate for Governor of Massachusetts; and to a then-candidate for Governor of California.  In two cases, the firms managed public pension money and, in the other two, the firms managed state university endowments, an often overlooked category of government entity investors. 

While the SEC Rule is intended to prevent fraud, it seems highly unlikely that any of the contributions at issue in these four cases could have influenced state investment decisions: 

  • All four investment advisory firms had preexisting business relationships with the relevant government entities before the prohibited contributions were made and no new business was solicited after the contributions. 
  • One of the donors was not even a covered associate at the time of the contribution.
  • Only one of the four prohibited recipients was an incumbent officeholder at the time of the contribution. 
  • Two of the four recipients failed to win election to the offices they sought. 
  • Two of the cases involved situations where the donor either received a refund or requested a refund. 
  • The contribution amounts were a drop in the bucket in proportion to the tens of millions of dollars raised in these elections – three cases involved a single $1,000 contribution and the fourth involved a contribution of $1,000 and another $400. 

Continue Reading SEC Commissioner Says It’s “Past Time” To Reform Overly “Blunt” Pay-to-Play Rule

On September 8 and 9, top trade officials of the United States and the other Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (“IPEF” or “Framework”) partner countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam—launched formal negotiations in Los Angeles.

This marked the first in-person ministerial-level meeting since the IPEF launched on May 23, 2022 and follows three informal meetings since May 2022, the latest event being the virtual ministerial on July 26-27, discussed in detail in our previous post.

The Los Angeles ministerial involved intensive discussions on what to include in the scope of the Framework. Ultimately, the IPEF partners reached consensus on ministerial statements for each of the four IPEF framework pillars: Trade, Supply Chain, Clean Economy, and Fair Economy. All 14 IPEF partners have joined three of the pillars, and 13 joined the fourth—with just India opting out of the Trade pillar. While this near unanimous support for the four pillars is certainly a positive sign, the real work begins now.

This blog post summarizes how the ministerial statements characterize the four pillars and outlines next steps for the Framework and key remaining questions.

Takeaways from the Ministerial Statements

The ministerial statements confirmed the four pillars of negotiation and provided added clarity on the scope and content of each pillar. While the statements add little to the substance, they indicate a political commitment among the partners to the Framework.Continue Reading IPEF Partners Adopt Ministerial Statement and Negotiation Objectives

Last week, the FTC announced its release of a staff report discussing key topics from the April 29, 2021 workshop addressing dark patterns. The report states that the FTC will take action when companies employ dark patterns that violate existing laws, including the FTC Act, ROSCA, the TSR, TILA, CAN-SPAM…

Continue Reading New FTC Report on Dark Patterns

On September 15, 2022, the European Commission published a draft regulation that sets out cybersecurity requirements for “products with digital elements” (PDEs) placed on the EU market—the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). The Commission has identified that cyberattacks are increasing in the EU, with an estimated global annual cost of €5.5 trillion. The CRA aims to strengthen the security of PDEs and imposes obligations that cover:

  1. the planning, design, development, production, delivery and maintenance of PDEs;
  2. the prevention and handling of cyber vulnerabilities; and
  3. the provision of cybersecurity information to users of PDEs.

The CRA also imposes obligations to report any actively exploited vulnerability as well as any incident that impacts the security of a PDE to ENISA within 24 hours of becoming aware of it.

The obligations apply primarily to manufacturers of PDEs, which include entities that develop or manufacture PDEs as well as entities that outsource the design, development and manufacturing to a third party. Importers and distributors of PDEs also need to ensure that the products comply with CRA’s requirements.Continue Reading EU Publishes Draft Cyber Resilience Act

This half-yearly update on insurance coverage litigation summarises significant insurance coverage cases in the English courts and provides a detailed analysis of the Corbin & King v AXA Insurance UK Plc case, highlighting the key takeaways for policyholders. In the first half of 2022, the English courts have delivered important judgments on a number of critical issues for policyholders, including Covid-19 business interruption insurance, aggregation clauses, insurers’ implied obligation to pay claims within a “reasonable” time, and the effect of lenders’ mortgagee interest insurance policies; some of which are policyholder friendly, some less so.  

Significant cases 2022 H1

Corbin & King v AXA Insurance UK Plc [2022] EWHC 409 (Comm): In the most anticipated decision of the last half-year relating to Covid-19 business interruption losses, the English High Court determined in favour of a restaurant business, that a prevention of access clause in its policy was triggered by the Government-mandated lockdowns arising from Covid-19 in 2020 and 2021. Given the importance of this case for policyholders, we analyse the court’s findings in further detail below.

Spire Healthcare Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited [2022] EWCA Civ 17: This decision is the latest word on the interpretation of “aggregation clauses” in insurance policies that require a policyholder to aggregate similar or related losses into a single claim against the insurer, which is then subject to a liability cap on each claim. The Court of Appeal held that several claims against the policyholder could be aggregated into one claim against the insurer on the basis that there was “one source or original cause” of the policyholder’s loss. As a result, the policyholder’s recovery was limited to £10 million, the policy limit per claim.Continue Reading Half Year Review: Insurance Coverage Litigation (H1 2022)