30 April 2014
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. ET
The Communications Law Forum of the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia will hold the program “Lessons in Rainmaking” on April 30.
Attendees will learn practical strategies on how to develop business from rainmaking role models. Speakers will discuss what steps an attorney can take to develop strong client relationships, whether there are authentic techniques to build trust so a client will hire the attorney again, planning steps involved in marketing one’s legal knowledge and industry expertise, how a lawyer can identify a perfect potential client for oneself, and how to make time for business development and still get the required legal work done.
Hogan Lovells partner Michele Farquhar will serve as a panelist.
The event takes place from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW.
Read Full Details
Last week Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen issued a report detailing concerns regarding the recent trend in hospital-physician affiliations and acquisitions and the lack of consumer visibility into hospital-based facility fees that may be imposed following the affiliation of an independent physician group or outpatient facility with a hospital.
On April 10, 2014, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a joint policy statement on the antitrust implications of sharing cybersecurity information to help facilitate the flow of cyberintelligence throughout the private sector. The statement addresses the long-standing concern that sharing cyberintelligence may violate antitrust law under certain circumstances and explains the analytical framework for such arrangements to make it clear that legitimate cyberintelligence exchanges will not raise antitrust issues.
Last week the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced that its latest broadband focused healthcare project—the CONNECT2HEALTHFCC Task Force—was preparing to hold its first meetings to seek “broad and meaningful input” from stakeholders. What remains to be seen is how this latest approach to solving the problem of improving consumer access to medical care through technology will fit into the agency’s already full roster of health-related initiatives. Continue Reading
On Friday, 11 April 2014, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated an additional seven individuals in Ukraine as being subject to U.S. sanctions. The following persons were designated: Aleksei Mikhailovich Chaliy, Mikhail Grigorevich Malyshev, Valery Kirillovich Medvedev, Rustam Ilmirovich Temirgaliev, Sergey Pavlovich Tsekov, Yuriy Gennadievych Zherebtsov, and Pyotr Anatoliyovych Zima. These individuals were already targeted by EU sanctions, illustrating an increasing overlap between EU and U.S. lists of designated persons.
On 14 April 2014, a new Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (hereafter “Clinical Trials Regulation”) was adopted following a vote by the Council of the European Union (hereafter “Council”). The Council voted in favour of the text adopted by the European Parliament on 2 April 2014.
The new Clinical Trials Regulation, which will replace the existing Clinical Trials Directive, introduces a complete overhaul of the existing regulation of clinical trials for medicinal products in the European Union (hereafter “EU”). As a regulation, it will be directly binding in all EU Member States without the need for any national implementing legislation. Moreover, for harmonisation purposes this New Clinical Trials Regulation is expected to serve as a model for the on-going work by the European Parliament and the Council regarding the revisions of the EU medical devices regulatory framework.
The Clinical Trials Regulation is expected to enter into force six months following the full functionality of a new EU Database and single online EU Portal (hereafter “EU Portal”) created under the new Regulation. However, the Regulation states that, in any event, it will enter into force no later than two years following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
An outline of some of the most noteworthy changes concerning the conduct of clinical trials in the EU is provided below.
Coordinated authorization procedure
Under the existing Clinical Trials Directive, a clinical trial is approved by a competent national authority and an Ethics Committee in each EU Member State where the sponsor intended to conduct the clinical trial. This authorization procedure is conducted in parallel in all relevant EU Member States.
The new Clinical Trials Regulation replaces these parallel national procedures with a coordinated procedure initiated through an EU Portal managed by the European Medicines Agency (hereafter “EMA”) in cooperation with the European Commission and the EU Member States. All the competent authorities of the EU Member States involved in the assessment of the application for the authorisation of a clinical trial will be subject to strict deadlines for review. This will include a provision for automatic authorisation of the clinical trial if the concerned EU Member States do not notify the Sponsor of their decision within the specific deadlines.
The building blocks for what could eventually form the base of U.S. tax reform include dramatic proposals that will impact universities and colleges. The 979-page “Tax Reform Act of 2014” discussion draft introduced by House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI)in March 2014 is a comprehensive reform package that would reduce U.S. corporate and individual rates, reform U.S. international tax rules, and significantly alter the existing landscape of industry tax preferences.
As we noted in an earlier alert it is important to pay attention to these proposals as they will become possible offsets in any future tax bill, including a tax extenders bill.
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has released a Departmental report—including multiple “Near Term Policy Deliverables”—which responds to Secretarial Order No. 3330 (October 31, 2013). In her Order, the Secretary challenged the Department and its constituent agencies, acting through its Energy and Climate Change Task Force, to “develop a coordinated Department-wide strategy to strengthen mitigation practices”.
The Secretary’s Report, released on April 10, is more an aspirational policy framework than a definitive statement of new direction for mitigation practice across the Department’s several resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. Acknowledging that “the application and effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy (i.e., avoid, minimize and mitigate) to date has been uneven and difficult to evaluate”, the Report seeks “(t)o address these challenges and improve mitigation practices while accommodating both infrastructure development and the conservation needs of America’s rapidly changing landscapes”.
Considerable attention is paid, appropriately, to innovative mitigation strategies which have emerged as the result of leadership outside the Federal establishment, where states, stakeholder groups and the private sector have contributed to the development of important new tools. The Report identifies many of these, such as the Western Governors’ Association Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT), in a section titled “Signs of Progress”. Some stakeholders will object to the inclusion of the Range Wide Conservation Plan for the lesser prairie chicken as “proof of concept”, since this five-state collaboration with the private sector, based on CHAT, was largely ignored by the Department in its decision to list the bird as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.
The Report also includes a discussion of compensatory mitigation, including mitigation banking and in-lieu fee mitigation, which are being employed increasingly to account for the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects in sensitive areas. Perhaps because of its focus on public lands and resources, the Report does not account for recent growth in private sector mitigation initiatives, or the utility of markets for ecosystem services to meet mitigation objectives.
The Report is mostly useful as a guide to future actions by which now-diverse agency programs will be brought into conformity with the Secretary’s objectives, including a new Department Manual Mitigation Chapter (Q3, 2014) and long-awaited revisions of Fish and Wildlife Service (Q4) and BLM (Q3) mitigation policies.
The Department of Commerce’s move was announced on 25 March 2014 on the website of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which administers the export licensing process for items on the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Commerce Control List. The notice reads, “Since March 1, 2014, BIS has placed a hold on the issuance of licenses that would authorize the export or re-export of items to Russia. BIS will continue this practice until further notice.” No further details were provided in the notice, but a BIS official has confirmed that the policy applies to new license applications only; existing licenses remain valid and use of license exceptions is not impacted at this time. The official indicated that BIS anticipates issuing further guidance within a week, likely in the form of a website notice or an update to BIS’ FAQs. If necessary, a change to the EAR will be made.
Read full story
Read more on related sanctions
Read more on Ukraine and Russia Sanction Developments
On 20 March 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a proposed rulemaking and two related orders designed to better align scheduling of gas flows with dispatch of electric generation and to improve flexibility associated with transportation of natural gas. The Commission’s actions come at an interesting time. As winter comes to a close, electricity customers in New England are experiencing a significant increase in electricity prices — increases that were not expected when ISO-New England met with the Commission last fall. The Commission’s orders appear to respond to conditions in New England, without specifically addressing whether these conditions are due in part to extreme-cold, pipeline constraints, disincentives to obtaining firm transportation capacity, or some combination of these and other factors.