Category Archives: Legal

Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Oil and Politics: Brazil’s Petrobras Scandal

Posted on by

PetrobasLast month, we focused on Mexico and specifically the state-owned oil company Pemex as a risk for companies selling or investing into Latin America. We saw that Pemex represents a drag on Mexican fiscal accounts and is imposing losses on suppliers and investors. This month, we turn our gaze to Brazil: it is similar to Mexico in that it has a dominant, politically charged state-owned oil company, but different because the scale of the crisis is much more severe, as are the risks to suppliers and investors.

Brazil is undergoing a major economic and political crisis, and its state-owned oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), is right at the center of the trouble. Petrobras shares some of the same challenges as Pemex: It started as an entirely state-owned firm, was used as an instrument of government policy from inception and took on enormous quantities of debt in recent times, exemplified by its $11 billion debt issue in 2013—the largest on record for emerging markets.

Brazil, however, recognizing earlier than Mexico the necessity of foreign investment for a viable oil industry, opened up the sector in 1997 and eventually reduced the government shareholding to 64% (direct plus indirect). Petrobras expanded into deepwater areas in Angola and the Gulf of Mexico and became one of the few national oil companies able to equally compete with companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and Total.

In 2014, information about the extent of corruption between Petrobras board members, various politicians and business executives not only came to light, but also sparked official investigations and arrests. President Dilma Rouseff has been temporarily removed from office pending a trial by the Senate. The official charge against her is manipulating the federal budget by directing state banks to support spending programs. She was the chair of Petrobras when the corruption allegedly occurred, however, and she and her party (Partido dos Trabalhadores or PT) are perceived by many as at least partly responsible for the scandal.

It is likely that Rouseff will be permanently removed from office within six months, but the uncertainty does not end there: As of this writing, two cabinet ministers have been removed from office, and six more are under investigation. Dozens of politicians and executives have been convicted in connection with the scandal, and prosecutors have recovered $795 million in stolen money. The economy of Brazil shrank 3.8% in 2015 and is projected to shrink another 3.5% in 2016. Moody’s downgraded Petrobras to Ba2 in December 2015, and S&P cut the sovereign rating to BB with a negative outlook in February. With the Zika virus now causing a global health emergency and the Olympics beginning in August, one wonders how many more stresses Brazil can take before serious political unrest breaks out.

Like with Pemex, the Petrobras crisis is increasing risks to suppliers already: There are trade credit insurance claims stemming from suppliers to Petrobras, and the wider Brazilian economic downturn (combined with the commodity price trough) is giving rise to other credit losses. But the Brazilian crisis goes well beyond trade credit risk. Brazil is a $2.2 trillion economy and one of the largest bond issuers in the emerging markets. As a result, this crisis has global implications: Eurasia Group has Brazil as one of its top 10 global risks for 2016.

Mexico and Brazil are not the only countries dependent on state-owned oil (or other natural resource) companies that are facing major challenges: Venezuela, Ecuador, Nigeria, Angola, Russia—the list goes on and on. In Brazil, however, there are some mitigating circumstances that reveal a silver lining. First, 85% of Brazil’s sovereign debt is held domestically, meaning it is less affected by currency depreciation and is easier to reschedule. Provided Brazil takes on some painful fiscal reforms, the country can dig itself out of the economic crisis. Secondly, so far, officials have been able to investigate and prosecute some of the parties responsible, despite the defendants being some of the more powerful people in Brazil.

There is hope that Brazil’s institutions will emerge all the stronger for being able to correct wrongdoing, which may set the stage for a more just Brazil and a better investment and credit risk environment in the long run. In the meantime, we are likely to see severe market and political volatility. It is a good idea to closely monitor your exposure in Brazil and in other countries dependent on highly indebted state-owned natural resource companies.

The Dos, Don’ts and Maybes of Social Media

Posted on by

Social mediaIt takes one second to send a Tweet or Instagram post onto the internet for all to see. But for companies active on social media, the legal ramifications of those 140 characters or that one photo can last a whole lot longer.

At a recent seminar in New York, lawyers and communications professionals representing some of the world’s most famous brands learned a lot about the dos and don’ts of social media for companies, specifically companies interested in pushing boundaries but avoiding lawsuits. Perhaps more importantly, they learned a lot about the maybe dos and maybe don’ts through several real-world examples.

“When you get it wrong, it comes with a lot of implications,” said Maggie O’Neill, managing director and partner at strategic communications firm Peppercomm, which recently co-hosted the event with Davis & Gilbert LLP.

Sue Me, Maybe?

O’Neill and her counterpart, Davis & Gilbert marketing and promotions partner Allison Fitzpatrick, brought up one of the more famous “maybe don’ts” in recent memory: Peyton Manning’s proclamation after Super Bowl 50 that his first order of business was to “drink a lot of Budweiser,” setting off a social media firestorm.

“This had the potential to really blow up into something legal,” O’Neill said. After all, Manning isn’t a spokesman for Budweiser, but he does own several Budweiser distributors. The appearance of “free” advertising if, say, an implicit agreement between the two parties was in place, would have been a no-no, and the fact that it’s not common knowledge that Manning owns those distributors makes it a “maybe no-no.” Adeptly, a Budweiser communications pro tweeted that, while the brewer was “surprised and delighted” at Manning’s off-the-cuff endorsement, “Budweiser did not pay Peyton Manning” for it. While that tweet doesn’t guarantee Budweiser’s immunity from a government lawsuit, it certainly represents a skillful handling of the situation.

Know Your Subject

Not all companies have been as adept, O’Neill and Fitzpatrick pointed out. The Duane Reade chain famously got sued by Katherine Heigl after tweeting an unflattering photo of the actress coming out of one of its pharmacies carrying bags. Heigl sued for $6 million, claiming the company violated New York State and federal laws that protect the use of a person’s likeness for trade purposes. She eventually dropped the suit, but it made the kind of headlines Duane Reade – and most companies – never want.

Fast-food chain Arby’s, on the other hand, got universal kudos for its tweet about the hat worn by rapper Pharrell Williams at the 2014 Grammy’s, which looked similar to the one on the Arby’s logo. “Hey @Pharrell, can we have our hat back,” Arby’s tweeted, with the hashtag #GRAMMYs. Pharrell was a good sport about it, and when he eventually put the hat up for charity auction on eBay, Arby’s announced via Twitter that it was the party responsible for the $44,100 winning bid.

“The best part is, Pharrell did not sue,” Fitzpatrick said at the panel. But, she added, “it doesn’t mean there’s no risk.” One quick and easy first step, according to Fitzpatrick, is to do a quick Google search to “see if they’re litigious or not.”

Copyright Law in the 21st Century

For brands active on social media, copyright law is another consideration. Being mindful of trademarks like “Super Bowl” and “NCAA” while tweeting about events can save companies a lot of money from potential legal woes.

For instance, when TGI Friday’s pushed boundaries by petitioning the International Olympic Committee to make bartending an official sport, lawyers were kept in the loop to make sure the campaign garnered media and public interest on traditional and social media but didn’t cross any copyright law lines.

What’s next?

With technology constantly changing and regulators scrambling to adapt to those changes, Fitzpatrick said the next frontier could be regulatory action against celebrity spokespeople. It’s generally known around the world that Nike endorses Tiger Woods, but what if a celebrity whose endorsement deal is lesser-known doesn’t disclose the relationship in a tweet? This could be the next major question the Federal Trade Commission starts asking.

Key Guidelines

Fitzpatrick offered a few general guidelines that companies can follow.

  • When using hashtags, be careful not to suggest an endorsement or association between your brand and the event, unless there actually is one.
  • The more the merrier. See if other brands are tweeting about the event. If they are, chances are your legal risks are lower.
  • There are a lot of work-related reasons to follow, a brand, on social media, so most experts think a simple follow is probably okay. A “like” or a “share” could be a little dicier.
  • When in doubt, research, confirm, and speak to legal.

Hidden Exposure: Protecting Your Business with Third-Party EPLI

Posted on by

Coffee shop
In today’s increasingly litigious society, harassment and discrimination are trending upward. To protect your business from workers’ claims, including wrongful termination, breach of employment contract, wrongful discipline, failure to employ or promote, sexual harassment and discrimination, you likely have employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) in place.

But if your employees frequently deal directly with the public, there may be a glaring gap in your coverage. Your business and workers may also be at risk for harassment or discrimination claims from a customer, client, supplier, vendor or visitor. The bad news: these types of claims are not covered by commercial general liability insurance or standard first-party EPLI.

To protect your business from customer or client allegations, third-party EPLI is the answer.

buy actos online www.nicaweb.com/images/layout1/gif/actos.html no prescription pharmacy

The types of wrongful acts typically covered by third-party EPLI are discrimination and harassment. Discrimination can include claims based on nationality, sex, disability, age, race, religion, pregnancy or sexual orientation. Harassment can take on many forms, such as unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other types of verbal or physical abuse. Third-party EPLI reimburses your company for court and legal fees, as well as any settlements between the business and the accuser.

Third-party EPLI may be appropriate if you frequently meet with clients or deal with vendors. And it is absolutely essential for businesses that interact with the public. Examples include large customer service teams, cable television installers, contractors, restaurant, hotel and transportation workers, and real estate agents.

For example, a customer sued a New Jersey gas station after being sexually assaulted by an attendant who was filling up her car. The woman claimed the station attendant made inappropriate advances, performed a lewd act and touched her while she was buying gas, according to NJ.com. The woman also claimed that another employee at the gas station did nothing to prevent the incident or intervene during it.

In another example that made national headlines, thousands of African American patrons of Denny’s restaurants claimed they were refused service, were forced to wait longer, had to prepay for food, or pay more for food compared to white customers, the New York Times reported. These claims, which totaled 4,300 and spanned several years across multiple states, culminated in a class-action lawsuit against the national restaurant chain. Denny’s settled the suit in federal court, and members of the class-action suit were awarded $54 million for damages.

Starbucks was sued in federal court by a group of 12 deaf customers who said they were mocked and mistreated at a coffee shop in New York City. The group claimed being harassed multiple times because of their disability.

buy zetia online www.nicaweb.com/images/layout1/gif/zetia.html no prescription pharmacy

During one instance, a Starbucks employee called the police in response to a group of deaf patrons who met at a Starbucks to hold their monthly Deaf Chat Group, although the patrons were paying customers, according to USA Today. The police apologized to the patrons and reprimanded the employee for calling the police when there was no illegal conduct.

As you can see, the level of interaction a company has with those who might claim a wrongful act, and the industry in which you operate, can affect the cost of third-party EPLI. Other factors come into play as well, like whether you’ve been sued in the past over employment practices.

While third-party EPLI helps defray the cost of lawsuits and judgments brought against your business, one thing it doesn’t protect is your reputation. Therefore, forward-thinking employers are doing more than just purchasing a third-party EPLI policy; they’re also taking steps to make it less likely they will have to use that policy. Effective training and education, no matter your level of exposure, can help prevent claims of wrongful acts against your business or employees. Creating training programs to educate employees on what constitutes harassment and discrimination, as well as putting processes in place about what to do in the event of an allegation, are good starting points.

When screening and hiring new employees, it is essential to create programs that help your hiring team vet candidates solely on their qualification for the job. Documenting your process helps everyone understand the requirements and will provide backup should issues arise.

It’s also a good practice to display all corporate policies as they relate to hiring and worker conduct in employee handbooks so the policy is available to everyone and can be reviewed when necessary. Many companies also ask employees to sign a document affirming they have read the employee handbook.

buy proscar online www.nicaweb.com/images/layout1/gif/proscar.html no prescription pharmacy

Unfortunately, all of the education and training in the world can’t stop a customer or vendor from claiming harassment or discrimination by one of your employees. But a carefully developed third-party EPLI plan that assesses your exposure and helps you completely cover your business can minimize your risk.

Travelers Must Cover Inadvertent Data Disclosures, Court Rules

Posted on by

A recent Fourth Circuit case affirmed a Virginia district court ruling that insurer Travelers Indemnity Company of America had a duty to defend a class action brought against its insured, Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC, under a cyber liability insurance policy providing coverage for the electronic publication of certain materials. Portal Healthcare provided “electronic storage and maintenance of certain medical records” as a service to its healthcare provider clients.

buy rifadin online www.handrehab.us/images/patterns/jpg/rifadin.html no prescription pharmacy

The class action suit alleged that Portal Healthcare negligently failed to provide services when a wrong security setting on a web access portal was selected, allowing internet search engines to scoop up not only the login page as a search result, but also the underlying sub-pages containing medical records.

Travelers argued that it had neither a duty to defend nor indemnify under the 2012 and 2013 policies acquired by Portal Healthcare. The 2012 policy included a “Web Xtend Liability Endorsement” applicable to coverage for “Personal Injury, Advertising Injury and Web Site Injury Liability.” The 2013 Policy contained a Commercial General Liability Coverage Form applicable to “Personal and Advertising Injury Liability.” The applicable definitions included:

  • “Advertising injury” means injury, arising out of one or more of the following offenses: … electronic publication of material that … gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life
  • “Personal injury” means injury, other than “bodily injury,” arising out of one or more of the following offenses: … electronic publication of material that … gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life
  • “Web site injury” means injury, other than “personal injury” or “advertising injury” arising out of one or more of the following offenses: … electronic publication of material that … gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life …”

Travelers asserted that it owed a duty to defend Portal Healthcare only if the underlying class action complaint alleged “(1) injury arising out of the offense of “electronic publication of material that … gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life” (2012 Policy) or (2) injury caused by the offense of “electronic publication of material that … discloses information about a person’s private life” (2013 Policy).”

The Fourth Circuit, however, held that the Eastern District Court of Virginia correctly analyzed the matter under the “Eight Corners” rule, where the court must look first to the four corners of the contract (the insurance policy) and then the four corners of the complaint. The policy provided coverage for “publication” of electronic materials which either gave “unreasonable publicity” to or “disclosed” information about an individual’s private life.

Travelers argued that there could not be “publication” when the insured’s business was the protection of information and there was no evidence that a third party actually viewed the information.

buy lariam online www.handrehab.us/images/patterns/jpg/lariam.html no prescription pharmacy

The District Court determined in the first instance that “publication” does not refer to intent (whether intentionally or unintentionally disclosed) so that argument was rejected. As to the second element, the court noted that publication occurs when placed “before the public,” without reference to whether the public actually reads the information.

Under the second requirement for coverage, Travelers maintained that “publicity” required a proactive step to “attract” interest, and “disclosure” requires a third party to actually view. The District Court held that publicity was unreasonable due to the nature of the sensitive information contained in the medical records and there was no requirement that the insured take overt action to attract attention to the information.

buy minocin online www.handrehab.us/images/patterns/jpg/minocin.html no prescription pharmacy

As to the “disclosure” argument, the District Court held that disclosure occurred when the possibility of viewing by a third party happened, not when or if a third party actually viewed the information.

The District Court also addressed the fact that there was no express exclusion of the actual security failure involved and at a minimum the insurance carrier would have to defend (although it could still later argue it had no duty to indemnify) based on the law that such an ambiguity is decided in favor of the insured.

This makes it clear that it is critical to pay attention to the type of coverage purchased and to the fine print. It may also be helpful to have an insurance agent review the types of coverage you have, to look for gaps based on your business and possible risks, since each policy type includes those risks which are intentionally covered and others which are expressly excluded. Although the types of policies continue to expand to cover new technologies and new risks, depending on the carrier and the policy’s exclusion language, the coverage may not be what you think it is.