Copyright Infringement Litigation

Ice Miller is proud to have joined so many others last week in Indianapolis to show support for the National FFA and its student leaders. Ice Miller's relationship with FFA began just four years ago, but our commitment to its mission and efforts is deep. We judged outstanding student competitions - including the Star in Ag Placement and the Diversified Livestock Entrepreneurship proficiency. We led workshops on the Farm Bill and how to pursue advanced studies and even a career in law. And, we hosted many of the other industry partners who share our commitment to these talented students.

It is the very positive impression made through National officer visits and other meetings with so many FFA members that has pushed us to do more for FFA. Consider just a few of the talented officers we have met:

• Paul Moya was an '08/'09 National President and is finishing his degree at Notre Dame and considering a career in law;

• Riley Branch is another '08/'09 National officer who is in his first year at Texas Tech Law School; and

• Alex Henry was a National officer last year who shared her career goal of someday becoming the Secretary of Agriculture.  

The efforts and aspirations of so many other FFA officers and members clearly deserve recognition as well. I mention these three because they have inspired Ice Miller to help FFA develop the next generation of talented leaders who will become lawyers, business executives, policy makers and government leaders. 

Today's food and agriculture industries continue to develop and refine complex strategies to address market, business and weather related risks. Increasingly, though, the industry is challenged with burdensome policy and regulations that pose a significant threat. As this trend is likely to continue, our future leaders need to develop the tools today to critically evaluate these issues and to learn how to deal with and, where possible, shape them.

At Ice Miller, we remain committed to helping open these young minds. We do this by relaying the importance of basic legal services, such as business or farm estate planning or intellectual property protection – many of their own successful start-up businesses could already use these services ... by debating the merits of today's farm subsidies with them and brainstorming new policy ideas for their future ... and by candidly sharing what it takes to get through law school and what to do with that degree once you have it!  

In a time when our overall jobs and employment outlook remains quite challenging, it is refreshing to think of the immense opportunities for young people in agriculture. The students of the FFA will be a part of an agriculture industry that will feed the 7 billion people on our planet, improve human health, create new sources of energy and help care for our planet's environment. Ice Miller is extremely proud to support this great organization and its talented young leaders. 

I had the distinct privilege of moderating a Farm Bill Listening Session hosted  recently by Senator Richard Lugar and Congressman Marlin Stutzman in Fort Wayne.  The event had over 125 attendees with a variety of personal and policy interests represented - there were farmers, conservationists, hunger and nutrition advocates, home builders, rural and agribusiness leaders, engaged citizens and lots of press!

Both Lugar and Stutzman come from farming, both serve on their respective chamber's Agriculture Committee, and well understand its importance, the challenges it faces and the complexity of a farm bill process.  Both remarked on the critical timing agriculture faces in relationship to the work of the House-Senate debt reduction committee.  While Congress typically takes many months to study, debate, argue, and ultimately renew a farm bill, it was Lugar who candidly told the audience that the Farm Bill could be done in a matter of weeks ahead of the debt committee's deadline this Fall for budget cut recommendations.  Because of the time crunch, the 12-member panel “might make decisions about agriculture that are not formulated by the ag committees in the House or the Senate, that are not informed by listening and speaking to groups such as this one,” said Lugar.

The two political leaders were largely in agreement on agriculture policy and related topics that were raised or questioned by audience members.  Both preferred federal “safety net” insurance over direct subsidies as a way to protect producers against drops in commodity prices.  Both supported an examination of nutrition and feeding programs to consider their reform rather than simply "tweaking" eligibility requirements.  Stutzman favored ending federal aid for ethanol production. Lugar endorsed the ethanol blender tax credit to encourage development of the fuel made from corn.  Both supported the passage of pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.

The session was notable in two important ways - first, it was well structured to allow every attendee to ask a question or offer an opinion.  Both members' staff deserve compliments for not turning the event into a "hearing" with select witnesses and testimony.  Second, both Lugar and Stutzman offered very genuine and straight-forward responses to all the questions and topics raised - an approach the attendees seemed to really appreciate.

My opening comments that provided some "Farm Bill 101" for the audience are provided below.

"We are here today to hear from both Senator Richard Lugar and Congressman Marlin Stutzman of this 3rd district on the status, priorities, and even political dynamics surrounding the development of our next Farm Bill. Both will be intimately involved in this process – serving respectively on the Senate and House Agriculture Committees.

And you are an important part of today’s time together – both are expecting to hear your comments and perspectives on the Farm Bill – I hope you have come ready with opinions (probably strongly held ones!), comments and questions.

Before I introduce these two gentlemen to you, I’d like to share a little background and history with you on the Farm Bill and the process we go through to put new ones in place…

• 16 farm bills have been enacted in our nation’s history – the first in 1933 and the most recent 2008;
• Each bill is comprised of titles (similar to "chapters") – in 1996 there were 9 titles, 2002 there were 10 and our current bill has 15;
• The 2008 Farm Bill on average costs or provides outlays EACH YEAR of approximately $60 billion. Nearly 80 percent of this Farm Bill spending goes toward nutrition and domestic feeding programs;
• Two primary committees are involved – the House and Senate Agriculture Committees – but so are a number of others today because of the breadth of programs encompassed in this bill – including Foreign Relations/Foreign Affairs, Environment, Food Safety, Ways and Means/Finance. And that doesn’t even include the all important budget and appropriation committees who are squarely focused on the spending aspects;
• The Senate Ag Committee has 21 members (11 Ds/10 Rs); the House Ag Committee has 46 members (26 Rs/20 Ds), but 23 are new members. Other influencers are the Executive Branch (the White House and USDA) as well as a GROWING number of advocacy groups – they range from farm to hunger to environmental to rural to trade to research to consumer groups.
  

Every Farm Bill’s outcome is influenced by several common factors such as the state of the farm economy, the politics of the day, the strength of the lobbies involved, the structure/demographics of US agriculture, and always the budget.

Today, the budget crisis, the fragile U.S. – and European – economies, and the tremendous acrimony and gridlock in Washington will be key drivers of this process.

And, all of these, unfortunately, come at a time when today’s agriculture is challenged by levels of market volatility never before experienced, is threatened by increasing regulations and lawsuits, is "misunderstood" by a growing segment of our non-farm or rural friends and neighbors, and is expected to remain competitive and productive in global markets so we can help meet the challenge of feeding the 9 billion people on this planet in the next 50 years.

Now is a time when agriculture – and every other interest – admittedly must rise to the occasion and contribute to a solution to this budget situation. However, as we all begin today’s conversation, let’s collectively not lose sight of the critical need for GOOD, SMART and FORWARD LOOKING PUBLIC POLICY – and that means farm, rural, environmental, nutrition, trade, infrastructure, energy, and food safety policy to name a few.

Senator Lugar, Cong. Stutzman and their colleagues have a Herculean task ahead of them – it is our responsibility to participate, engage and offer input to this process too. And, that is why we are here today – thank you again for coming."

Beth Bechdol and I participated in Farm Journal's Top Producer Summer Seminar in Moline, Ill on June 7-8, 2011. The audience of 130 was mostly commercial, full-time farmers from across the country (mostly from the Midwest).

I led a breakout session on agricultural legal "pitfalls" and focused primarily on critical environmental regulatory issues for agriculture. I also spent time describing more positive opportunities for producers with on-farm alternative energy projects, including wind, solar, biomass and others. The PowerPoint presentation from the session is available below for reference.  The discussion on enhanced regulatory scrutiny of the agriculture industry was timely, as news sources reported today that Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, has questioned the sincerity of the Environmental Protection Agency over a campaign the Senator is calling EPA's "Charm Offensive." According to Johanns, as reported by Hoosier Ag Today, "the problem is what the EPA is selling publicly to farmers and ranchers just doesn't match up with reality. They say one thing on the road while the regulatory train just continues to barrel forward in Washington."

The overall themes of the conference sessions centered on how farmers should plan for the future - whether it be in business management, risk management, commodity marketing, access to credit and financing, regulatory compliance, or estate and succession planning. It was clear from our conversations with producers that estate planning and corporate and tax restructuring are front of mind and can be seen as overwhelming efforts. This is something we hear frequently from our clients as well. For more details please visit the firm's farm restructuring and estate planning services web site.

We look forward to being a part of future Farm Journal events and conferences. After 135 years of providing quality information to farmers, they clearly know and appreciate the issues most critical to success in farming.

Post Tags:

Green Initiatives

Kristina Tridico, partner and member of the agricultural law team at Ice Miller LLP, authored this blog.

Beth Bechdol and I participated in Farm Journal's Top Producer Summer Seminar in Moline, Ill on June 7-8, 2011. The audience of 130 was mostly commercial, full-time farmers from across the country (mostly from the Midwest).

I led a breakout session on agricultural legal "pitfalls" and focused primarily on critical environmental regulatory issues for agriculture. I also spent time describing more positive opportunities for producers with on-farm alternative energy projects, including wind, solar, biomass and others. The PowerPoint presentation from the session is available below for reference.  The discussion on enhanced regulatory scrutiny of the agriculture industry was timely, as news sources reported today that Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, has questioned the sincerity of the Environmental Protection Agency over a campaign the Senator is calling EPA's "Charm Offensive." According to Johanns, as reported by Hoosier Ag Today, "the problem is what the EPA is selling publicly to farmers and ranchers just doesn't match up with reality. They say one thing on the road while the regulatory train just continues to barrel forward in Washington."

The overall themes of the conference sessions centered on how farmers should plan for the future - whether it be in business management, risk management, commodity marketing, access to credit and financing, regulatory compliance, or estate and succession planning. It was clear from our conversations with producers that estate planning and corporate and tax restructuring are front of mind and can be seen as overwhelming efforts. This is something we hear frequently from our clients as well. For more details please visit the firm's farm restructuring and estate planning services web site.

We look forward to being a part of future Farm Journal events and conferences. After 135 years of providing quality information to farmers, they clearly know and appreciate the issues most critical to success in farming.

Post Tags:

Agribusiness

Agricultural Law

Over the years, the interest in agritourism has grown. The popularity of farmers' markets is high. Families look for activities which are educational and entertaining, many of which include visits to farms and ranches. Further, with the continued focus on exercise, outdoor activities such as hiking and trail riding are popular. However, although the interest in these activities is generally viewed favorably, the increased number of participants, many of whom are inexperienced, means an increase in the potential liability to the providers of these agritourism activities. Starting this summer, agritourism providers can now take a few simple steps to limit the potential liability they may face from the inherent risks of agritourism activities. In Indiana Code Section 34-31-9, effective July 1, 2011, the Indiana General Assembly created a safe haven for agritourism providers who provide a statutory warning to participants and meet other specific requirements

The protections provided by this new statute apply not only to traditional activities at agricultural, horticultural, or agribusinesss operations where the general public is allowed or invited to participate in, view or enjoy the activities for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes and animal exhibitions at an agricultural fair, but also to a broader range of natural resource based activities and attractions. Ind. Code Section 34-31-9-2(1)(2)(3). Essentially, the statute limits liability which may arise from the "inherent risks of agritourism activities." In the statute, inherent risks are defined as "those conditions, dangers, or hazards that are an integral part of an agritourism activity." Ind. Code Section 34-31-9-4.

In order to fall within the safe haven created by the statute, a warning sign must be posted which includes specific language about the potential risks. The sign must be visible from the main entrance and contain lettering of a specific size. Alternatively, all participants can sign a release containing the same warning language. If all of the statutory requirements are met, then a participant or his/her representative cannot make a claim for injury, loss, damage or death, caused by the inherent risks of an agritourism activity. However, as with any statute, there are exceptions and exclusions. For instance, this statute does not limit liability for injuries caused by improperly trained employees or due to a known dangerous condition on the land which is unknown by the participant.

So if you operate a pumpkin patch, have land with hiking trails or may be otherwise involved with agrotourism, you will want to take the steps needed to meet the requirements of this statute so that your business can take advantage of all of the protections which it affords. Further, you should also be prepared to address the exceptions - through well documented training sessions of employees, discussions of potential risks with participants, and other steps.

Ice Miller's agricultural law group monitors this and other similar issues for clients in the food and agricultural industries. View our full list of services at our agribusiness website. If you would like to further discuss this new statute or how to implement these statutory protections, please contact Judy Okenfuss at judy.okenfuss@icemiller.com or (317) 236-2115.

Jennifer Johnson, associate in the business litigation group with a focus on product liability at Ice Miller LLP, authored this blog.

Last week I attended the Association of Equipment Manufacturer's Product Liability seminar in Bloomingdale, Ill. The seminar focused on how technical personnel and corporate representatives of equipment manufacturing companies and outside counsel can work together during litigation proceedings for effective litigation tactics and strategies. The topics ranged from coordinating litigation on a national scale to the important role corporate representatives can take in alternative dispute resolution. Some of the key themes which emerged are:

• The importance of a well-organized litigation program at the corporate level. One speaker highlighted the challenges emerging from cooperation and organization of the plaintiffs' bar. For example, many plaintiff's attorneys' associations maintain forums on specific products where the attorneys can share common claims involving a product, document libraries where attorneys can share successful pleadings, and deposition repositories that attorneys can use to research a corporate representative in a matter. In order to combat this cooperation by the plaintiffs' bar, manufacturers need to coordinate their litigation on a company level to ensure that the manufacturer's discovery responses and other pleadings do not contradict those filed in cases in other jurisdictions. The plaintiff's attorneys are sharing these documents and will use them to surprise a corporate representative at deposition or trial. Manufacturers typically accomplish such coordination by employing internal litigation managers or product specialists, or by employing national counsel.
• Recent changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may benefit manufacturers, specifically changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which governs expert witness discovery. The new version of Rule 26 will provide more protection to communications between counsel and a testifying expert witness. The most relevant changes include that draft expert reports and communications relating to an expert's opinions will no longer be discoverable by the other side.
• Deposition preparation should begin early in a matter. This perspective highlights the importance of, an incident reporting network. After an initial meeting with counsel, the corporate representative should learn why he or she was selected to serve as corporate representative, whether there are any deadlines he or she needs to be aware of, the time frame in which the deposition is likely to occur, and the number of documents that the attorney anticipates the corporate representative will need to review. After this meeting, the corporate representative should have a good sense of whether he is the right witness. If so, the representative should expect to meet with counsel at least one more time where the "nitty gritty" details of the case will be discussed. Corporate representatives should be proactive in preparing for depositions and should not hesitate to contact counsel with questions or concerns.
• One speaker noted that it should not be the objective of the corporate representative to "win" the deposition or trial. Rather, their demeanor should reflect that they are trying to be helpful by educating the jury and/or opposing counsel. Thus, it is important to use basic terms that anyone can understand and to maintain a calm presence in front of the jury or, in the case of a videotaped deposition, the videographer.

Ice Miller represents a number of clients on product liability matters, including those in the agricultural and construction equipment industries. For help or more information about how Ice Miller can assist your business with additional background on the litigation process and the important role corporate representatives and technical personnel play in it, please contact Jim Petersen, Judy Okenfuss, or Jen Johnson.

Post Tags: Agribusiness, Agriculture Law, Product Liability, AEM Conference 2011.

On March 18, 2011, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Technical Release 2011-01 (2011 Technical Release) to provide an extension of the non-enforcement period relating to certain interim procedures for internal claims and appeals under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Technical Release serves to extend and modify the original non-enforcement period that was provided under Technical Release 2010-02 (2010 Technical Release), issued by the DOL on Sept. 20, 2010. The 2011 Technical Release gives employers that sponsor non-grandfathered group health plans yet more time to comply with PPACA's requirement to have an effective internal claims and appeals process, which is generally effective for plan years beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

Read the entire article on the extended delay in enforcement of internal claims and appeals.

Checking job applicants' credit history, a common screening practice of many employers, has come under attack from state legislatures, private litigants and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  In August 2010, Illinois enacted the Employee Credit Privacy Act, making it the fourth state to ban employers from inquiring about the credit histories of job applicants or employees, or obtaining copies of their credit reports.  Three months later, Loudy Appolon, an applicant for employment at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, filed a class action lawsuit against the university after it informed her she would not be hired because of her credit history.  Just last month, the EEOC sued Kaplan Higher Education over its use of credit histories in the hiring process.

The common thread binding all of these challenges to the consideration of credit records in the hiring process is the claim that this practice discriminates against African Americans, Hispanics and perhaps other protected groups.

Read the entire article about using credit checks in the hiring process.

In a decision handed down Jan. 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court took another step toward the establishment of a national "just cause" standard by broadly interpreting the anti-retaliation provisions contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include roughly everybody and his brother – or in this case, everybody and her fiancé.

Read the entire article about anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law No. 111-203 (Dodd-Frank) was signed into law on July 21, 2010.  Among other changes to securities law, Dodd-Frank imposes registration and other obligations, including fiduciary duties, upon municipal advisors who engage in certain activities with respect to "municipal entities."  See Section 975 of Dodd-Frank.  These new obligations include the requirement, which became effective Oct. 1, 2010, to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  In addition, Dodd-Frank grants the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) regulatory authority over municipal advisors, so municipal advisors will be required to comply with the MSRB's registration and other requirements as well as those of the SEC.

Read the entire alert regarding municial advisor registration under Dodd-Frank Act.

The dynamic between defamation and legitimate workplace fact investigation remains vitally important for employers.  A recent Indiana Supreme Court decision provides important support for employees bold enough to report workplace misconduct.

Most people know that making false statements about someone may lead to a claim of defamation or slander.  Under Indiana law, accusing someone of criminal or occupational misconduct raises the specter of defamation "per se" under Indiana law.  Defamation "per se" constitutes an important weapon for wrongly accused employees, and a real danger for employees reporting workplace misconduct.

Read the full article about protection for workplace investigations.
 

A proposed rule has been introduced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to exempt advisers of venture capital funds and other funds with less than $150 million in private fund assets under management from the registration requirements of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 that were enacted in connection with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Without this exemption in place, as of July 21, 2011, all advisers of private fund assets regardless of size would be required to be registered under and comply with the Investor Advisers Act of 1940.

Read the entire alert on the proposed exemption rule.

On November 15, 2010, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) issued an Amendment to the interim final rule relating to a group health plan's status as a "grandfathered" plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  The interim final rule, which was published by the Departments on June 17, 2010, provides that if an employer or employee organization enters into a new policy, certificate or contract of insurance after March 23, 2010, the policy, certificate or contract of insurance would cease to be a grandfathered plan, and thereby, lose the plan's exemption from several coverage mandates under the PPACA (although an exception applied to collectively bargained insured plans).  The Amendment to the interim final rule reverses this position and permits an insured group health plan to change health insurance coverage without ceasing to be a grandfathered plan.  The change provides parity with self-insured group health plans, which are permitted under the interim final rule to change third-party administrators without losing grandfathered status.

Read the entire alert.

 

Saturday was a free day for the delegation in China.  We took a tour around West Lake, which is a large natural lake in Hangzhou.  It has a very traditional feel – there are beautiful bridges and other archways across the water and you travel in old-style wooden boats.  We also had a chance to tour a tea factory.  Tea is a very important commodity in China.  They showed us how it is grown and processed, explained the different types of teas, the significance of tea and how to drink it (how to hold the cup, etc.).  In the evening we had a large impromptu dinner where the delegates talked about the trip and the benefits of this job mission.  The delegation was very upbeat and very positive.  They felt like there are incredible business opportunities that resulted from this visit.  We hope there will be tangible results announced when we return to Indiana!

Sunday was primarily a travel day to Japan.  There are no direct flights out of Hangzhou, so we had to drive three hours to Shanghai and then fly to Japan.

The contrast between the two countries is interesting.  Of course, there is a long rivalry between the two – our Chinese hosts did not like the idea of us spending time in Japan and vice versa.  They are very competitive with each other, so this was a delicate balance for the delegation to maintain while visiting both countries.  Differences in the cultures are very strong.  China looks to end results and production, while Japan is detail-oriented and very focused on quality over quantity.  Japan is a very urban society, with only four percent of its labor force engaged in agriculture.  The labor force is very well-educated and industrious, with over 42 percent of the work force being female.  Japanese tend to have a high rate of savings and investment.  There is a strong promotion of trade – much more so than in China, obviously, with a communist government – and more open communications.  For example, Japan has embraced Twitter, Facebook and other social media, while under China's government these social mediums are heavily regulated or even not allowed.  There are also differences in how people dress.  Japanese people are very formal and style-conscious, big on designer clothes.  China is very casual and low-key.  There is also a huge difference in population.  China has the well-known one child per family rule, due to the explosive growth here, but Japan's population has recently started shrinking.  Japan is trying to develop social programs and incentives to encourage families to have more children.

Japan is very organized and very structured.  From the minute you land in the airport, there are signs indicating exactly how many minutes the wait will be.  They have individuals constantly monitoring and rushing you through in an orderly manner.  The environment is hurried, rushed and precise.  It's a very clean and neat society.  The streets and sidewalks are immaculate.  The terrible pollution problems I mentioned in an earlier blog about China are completely absent in Japan.  When you enter a building, there is a special machine that covers your umbrella up so that rain does not drip onto the floor.  When you walk by someone in an establishment, they bow to you and greet you.  If a task is done untimely or it takes a period of time to accomplish the task, they are incredibly apologetic, constantly indicating how sorry they were that you waited.  They are a society that very much wants to please you and is incredibly service oriented, polite, and courteous. 

Japan is slightly smaller than California, and about 73 percent of the land is mountainous.  Their economy is the third largest in the world and it is highly efficient and competitive, with areas linked to international trade, but has very low productivity in areas such as agriculture (because of all the mountains) and services.  What little agriculture they have is highly subsidized and protected by the government.  Japan has few natural resources, so trade helps foreign exchange.  Major industries include electronic equipment, food processing, machinery and metals.  Electronics are state-of-the-art and common.  Even curtains are opened and closed electronically.  Televisions and appliances are top-of-the-line.  Japan is very proud of its electronic achievements and they are a fairly successful society.  The GDP is about $5 trillion and the per capita GDP is about $32,700. 

Governor Daniels met today with the senior leadership of Honda, Toyota Motor Corporation and Subaru.   According to Ron Christian (fellow delegation member and executive vice president of Vectren), the governor expressed the appreciation of the people of the state of Indiana for these organizations' continued support of the Indiana economy through their presence of facilities in the state.  He also described the benefits the state provides relative to other locations for existing and expanded operations.  They had a very good exchange with the companies about their operations in the state and continuing opportunities that might exist.

Hangzhou is the wealthiest province in China, mostly due to their successful industries. Near where the delegation is staying are dealers for Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Mercedes – any luxury car you can imagine. It's also very global and Americanized. For instance, we went to dinner last night at an Italian restaurant (in part because we've had a lot of Chinese food already!) that had Mexican food and ESPN was on. As we walked back to our hotel, we heard a rock band playing what sounded like the kind of music you would hear in the U.S. (other than they were singing in Mandarin) and then they broke into "Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver.

Today, we visited a company owned by the Chint Group, which produces low-voltage electrical, power transmission and distribution equipment. They are listed as one of the top Chinese companies by Fortune and are the fourth largest private employer in China, with over $3 billion in revenue. Their subsidiary, Astro Energy, is a leading supplier of solar products in China, a brand-new enterprise only in existence since 2006 with approximately 8,000 employees. They make solar panels and solar cells that can be used for power stations, homes and commercial use on the top of roofs and on the ground. They export most of their products primarily to North America and Europe, with Germany and Spain as the two key purchasers of their products. They are selling in 90 countries worldwide. 

Astro Energy is very big on research and development. They spend about three percent of their revenue on R&D and have a special research and development center. They even have a location in Silicon Valley that focuses on R&D for sales, marketing and manufacturing.   We had a fascinating plant tour. Because of the sensitivity of the equipment, we had to go through an air-cleaning machine. We wore hair nets, jackets and covers over our shoes. Their machines are new, automated and expensive. The equipment was designed in Switzerland. They have a very big focus on quality control. They guarantee their product for 25 years, so it is very important that they create a quality product. Astro Energy is looking for innovation from its employees, and they talk a tremendous amount about safety and environmental protection, and taking care of their employees. It is a publicly-traded company, partially owned by the government, but they talked a lot about their private independence vs. government control.

Astro Energy is a very Americanized company. Their management team is comprised primarily of people that are either from the U.S. or have been educated in the U.S.  Every person we met with was from the U.S. They travel all over the world to various solar-powered trade shows, including the largest in the world which was recently held in Los Angeles. They have a real affinity for America. In the next year, they'd like to have a manufacturing facility in the U.S. This is the second energy-related company we have met with in less than 24 hours whose goal is to have a manufacturing facility in the U.S. Labor costs seem to be very low in China, because so much of the process is automated. 

We spent a lot of time talking about the pros of Indiana and why Indiana would be a great place to locate. It is going to be very important for them to find places in the U.S. with the sourcing and infrastructure resources they need. For instance, they need glass. In Indiana, Muncie has a great glass history and industry!

China is very interested in how government policy interfaces with renewables and renewable energy standards. I think, given the growth in the electric demand in China and the serious air quality issues that they have, out of necessity China is going to be the world leader in renewable energy technology. It is amazing how much growth there has been in such a short amount of time. Many companies that have been in existence for 10 years or less are already doing billions in revenues.

John F. Frank, Sr. Vice President & CIO, Brightpoint North America

I walked away from the roundtable with the following thoughts:

Everyone represented is highly aware of the possible security issues their respective companies face, and have implemented the best measures available with the resources, tools, and money that is available.  Everyone recognizes that a security issue is inevitable no matter how many safeguards you put in place, and there is a point where no amount of money can guarantee a breach will not occur, so each organization has to do their best to safeguard the highest impact areas within reason.

One of the best ways to predict a secure environment is to hire the right people into your company.  The most damaging and most difficult to identify security breaches are the ones that can be caused, usually inadvertently, by an employee.  We need to hire and employ people that use a bit of common sense, and are willing to periodically participate in company awareness training.  Data, stored and moved digitally or in small media, are the most vulnerable.  This is where the aware employee is essential to the protection of the company.

All agreed that the biggest outside threat comes from rogue countries that are bombarding our systems with SPAM, viruses, and other insidious attacks that could risk a broader or global Internet crisis.  This is the one risk that no single company can fight, and there is a big question mark as to whether state, federal, and international governments have this scenario planned and mitigated.

Preparing for the Future

Ice Miller is reissuing an updated summary of the provisions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that impact employers.  Ice Miller originally issued this summary on March 30, 2010.  Since that date, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury have issued several rounds of interim final rules and other guidance regarding the PPACA provisions that apply to Group Health Plans.  As of the date of this reissue, guidance has been published with respect to:

• a tax credit available to small employers that offer health coverage to their employees;
• the extension of dependent coverage mandate and related tax relief;
• the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program;
• rules for maintaining grandfathered plan status;
• application of the PPACA coverage reforms on retiree-only health plans and HIPAA excepted benefits;
• the prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits and procedures for a temporary waiver;
• the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions;
• the prohibition on rescissions in health plans;
• patient protections afforded under the PPACA;
• coverage for preventive health services with no cost-sharing requirements;
• requirements for internal claims and appeals processes and external reviews; and
• the HIPAA opt-out for self-funded nonfederal governmental health plans.

While there is still more expected, a critical mass of guidance has now been issued that allows employers sponsoring group health plans to move toward finalizing plan design changes for next plan year.  As employers begin preparing for open enrollment season in the coming weeks and months, the PPACA provisions discussed in this summary require a fresh look.  Ice Miller has, therefore, revised its original summary to include discussion of relevant guidance and the obligations such guidance places on employers sponsoring group health plans to timely amend plan materials, make required disclosures to employees, and offer special enrollment opportunities to their employees.

View and print the updated summary.

View and print Ice Miller's list of steps that plan sponsors should be taking now to comply.

Agencies Issue PPACA Implementation Guidance

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  Six months later, the PPACA's "first round" of coverage mandates are set to go into effect.  Group health plans must comply with the following coverage mandates beginning with their next plan year (Jan. 1, 2011, for calendar year plans):

• Extension of dependent coverage to age 26;
• Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions for enrollees under age 19;
• Prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits;
• Prohibition on rescissions;
• Provision of first dollar coverage for preventive health services (non-grandfathered plans only);
• Internal claims and appeals procedures and external review process (non-grandfathered plans only);
• Mandated patient protections (non-grandfathered plans only);
• Non-discrimination rules extended to insured plans (non-grandfathered plans only); and
• No discrimination based on health status (non-grandfathered plans only).

Since the enactment of the PPACA, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services, and the Treasury have jointly published several phases of interim final regulations, issued sub-regulatory guidance, and invited comments concerning many of the changes that will impact employers and retirement systems that sponsor group health plans.

Read the entire article.
 

Agencies Issue PPACA Implementation Guidance

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  Six months later, the PPACA's "first round" of coverage mandates are set to go into effect.  Group health plans must comply with the following coverage mandates beginning with their next plan year (Jan. 1, 2011, for calendar year plans):

• Extension of dependent coverage to age 26;
• Elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions for enrollees under age 19;
• Prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits;
• Prohibition on rescissions;
• Provision of first dollar coverage for preventive health services (non-grandfathered plans only);
• Internal claims and appeals procedures and external review process (non-grandfathered plans only);
• Mandated patient protections (non-grandfathered plans only);
• Non-discrimination rules extended to insured plans (non-grandfathered plans only); and
• No discrimination based on health status (non-grandfathered plans only).

Since the enactment of the PPACA, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services, and the Treasury have jointly published several phases of interim final regulations, issued sub-regulatory guidance, and invited comments concerning many of the changes that will impact employers and retirement systems that sponsor group health plans. 

Read the entire article.