February 3, 2023

FTC Proposes National Non-Compete Ban

ACBA Young Lawyers’ Division newsletter Point of Law

(By Alexandra Farone)

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a national ban on noncompetition agreements. Noncompetition agreements, or “non-competes,” are contractual terms between employers and workers that prohibit the worker from working for a competing employer or starting a competing business, typically within a certain geographic area for a certain period of time. If a worker violates a non-compete clause, the employer can sue the worker for breach of contract and may be able to obtain a preliminary injunction enjoining the worker to stop the conduct that purportedly violates the non-compete clause. If successful in litigation, the employer may be able to obtain a permanent injunction and/or the payment of monetary damages. If the FTC’s proposed ban becomes final, this is all about to change.

As a basis for the proposed rule, the FTC made a preliminary finding that non-competes constitute an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “Act”). Section 5 of the Act provides that “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” are unlawful, and that the FTC is “empowered and directed” to prevent businesses from using unfair methods of competition.

Under the proposed rule, employers could not ask new employees, independent contractors, or even unpaid volunteers to sign non-competes. All existing non-competes would have to be rescinded, and employers would have to inform current and former workers on an individual basis that their noncompete is no longer in effect within 45 days of the rescission. The proposed rule would also prohibit employers from attempting to enter non-competes, or representing to a worker under certain circumstances that the worker is subject to an enforceable noncompete.

February 6, 2023

New rule requires a business’s beneficial ownership information to be reported

Smart Business

(By Sue Ostrowski featuring Susanna Bagdasarova)

A number of countries require businesses to identify individuals who have a beneficial ownership interest in a company, making it more difficult for illicit actors to hide behind a corporate entity and use it for potentially illegal purposes. Until now, the United States has not been one of them. That is changing thanks to the “Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements” final rule issued by the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The information, says Susanna Bagdasarova, an associate at Babst Calland, will be filed with FinCEN to create a national, non-public database for limited law enforcement and regulatory use.

“The intent is to curtail the deliberate misuse of business entities as shell companies for illegal purposes — to deter fraud, protect national security and prevent oligarchs or criminal actors from using entities to launder money or provide a cover for drug or human trafficking,” Bagdasarova says.

Smart Business spoke with Bagdasarova about which of the 32 million businesses estimated to be subject to the rule fall under that umbrella, when they need to file, and what it means for your business.

What does filing entail and who must do so?

‘Reporting companies’ (domestic and foreign business entities, including corporations, LLCs, and other entities formed or registered to do business in a state) will be required to file reports that identify themselves and provide identifying information regarding each beneficial owner and certain ‘company applicants.’ A ‘beneficial owner’ is an individual who directly or indirectly exercises substantial control over the reporting company, or holds at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company.

We Don’t Talk About Bruno (But We Should): Why Uncertainty Still Persists Regarding the “Gist of the Action” Doctrine in Pennsylvania

Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Alan Coyle and Emily Davis)

Sometimes life imitates art.  The Disney animated film “Encanto” centers around a family, the Madrigals.  They live in a magical house that bestows upon each child in the family a unique gift, except the protagonist, Mirabel.  Mirabel soon discovers that the magic surrounding the house is in danger and seeks out the assistance of her ostracized uncle, Bruno.  The Madrigal family avoided mention of Bruno for ten years.  Mirabel knew the basics: he could predict the future.  But the contours of his powers, the details of his disappearance, the mere mention of his name—all forbidden topics of discussion.  The family even wrote a Grammy-nominated song about it, “We Don’t Talk About Bruno.”

Likewise, for nearly a decade, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to further discuss its holding in Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), despite numerous calls for clarification.  As a result, uncertainty remains regarding the “gist of the action” doctrine in Pennsylvania.  Therefore, just like the Madrigal family, there is one question permeating the legal community: is it finally time to talk about Bruno?

Contract v. Tort Distinction

The contract-tort distinction is fundamental to civil litigation.  While actions for breach of contract compensate the plaintiff for damages foreseeable at the time of a contract, tort claims remedy injuries resulting from the defendant’s conduct.  Nonetheless, the contract-tort distinction is often unclear.  Charles Miller, Contortions over Contorts: A Distinct Damages Requirement?, 28 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 1257, 1257-58 (1997).  This blurred boundary is complicated by plaintiffs’ ability to recover additional forms of damages for actions sounding in tort that are not available for actions sounding in contract,

February 1, 2023

(Next) New definition of WOTUS finalized


(By Lisa Bruderly)

U. S. EPA and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Agencies) have issued a new definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which becomes effective on March 20, 2023. The definition of WOTUS determines federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). For example, projects involving oil or natural gas development or pipeline construction require Corps permitting for impacts from crossing, or otherwise disturbing, WOTUS. Typically, the more impacts to such federally regulated streams and wetlands, the more likely the permitting will cause project delays and increase expenses.

Although the Agencies have promoted this final rule as establishing a “durable definition” that will “reduce uncertainty” in identifying WOTUS, this definition does not appear to provide much-need-ed clarity. Rather, generally speaking, the new definition codifies the approach that the Agencies have already been informally utilizing to determine WOTUS, which entails relying on the definition of WOTUS from the late 1980s, as interpreted by subsequent U. S. Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)).

The Agencies’ current approach to interpreting WOTUS relies heavily on both of the frequently discussed tests identified in the Rapanos decision. In Rapanos, Justice Antonin Scalia issued the plurality opinion, holding that WOTUS would include only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” connected to traditional navigable waters, and to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such relatively permanent waters” (i.e., adjacent wetlands). Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, advanced a broader interpretation of WOTUS in his concurring opinion, which was based on the concept of a “significant nexus,” meaning that wetlands should be considered as WOTUS “if the wetlands,

January 18, 2023

SCOTUS to Weigh in on Privilege Standard for Dual-Purpose Communications

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(By Jessica Barnes)

The application and scope of the attorney-client privilege for communications containing both legal and nonlegal advice is a critical consideration to protect the privilege.

A “bedrock doctrine of the legal profession,” “hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence,” and “cornerstone of the American legal system”—these are just a few ways that the attorney-client privilege was described in briefing in a matter before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that has attracted attention from legal scholars across the country.

This closely watched SCOTUS case is In Re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, which involves a dispute over the withholding of documents in the form of communications containing both legal and non-legal advice (dual-purpose communications) in response to grand-jury subpoenas on the basis of privilege. Specifically, the petitioner-law firm provided legal advice to a client regarding the tax consequences of the client’s anticipated expatriation (i.e., renouncing citizenship). Thus, some of the communications from the law firm to the client were made for the dual purpose of providing legal advice about tax consequences and to facilitate preparation of the client’s tax returns.

For example, some of the documents that the law firm withheld on a privileged basis included communications related to unsettled statutory requirements, strategies for filing amended income-tax returns for purposes of expatriation, and the drafting of a submission to the IRS advocating for the abatement of a penalty assessment. The law firm withheld these dual-purpose communications on the ground that while relating to the client’s tax returns, they were sufficiently motivated by the additional purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice regarding the client’s taxes.

January 13, 2023

Pittsburgh ‘angel investment’ group delivers $300K to software company

Pittsburgh Trib

(By Stephanie Ritenbaugh)

An Oakland business incubator closed its initial investment — over $300,000 — in one of its first cohort of companies through its ‘angel investment’ program.

Idea Foundry’s program, IF Ventures, said the company that received the infusion was one of five presented to a group of investors in September.

Idea Foundry and its partner, law firm Babst Calland, declined to name the company because of confidentiality agreements. However, President and CEO Mike Matesic was able to say that it’s a company that develops software to help retailers and distributors.

The company is generating revenue, Matesic said.

“Part of our investment will be used for the company to expand into additional geographic models,” said Chris Farmakis, shareholder and board chairman of Pittsburgh-based Babst Calland.

Additional investments are still being considered for the group, Matesic said.

IF Ventures is an investment group managed by Idea Foundry Inc., a non-profit economic development organization. The goal of the program is to attract investors and funding for companies to boost economic development through entrepreneurship and business growth.

“The investor interest and attraction of new investors exceeded our expectations at this early stage,” Matesic said.

“One of the most promising actions that occurred was that our initial group of investors encouraged their peers to join and ultimately became part of this initial investment,” he said.

To view the full article, click here.

January 12, 2023

EPA Adopts Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard that Addresses PFAS and Other Emerging Contaminants


(By Matt Wood)

On December 15, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule amending its All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Rule to incorporate ASTM International’s E1527-21 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (Final Rule).1 The Final Rule – effective February 13, 2023 – allows parties conducting due diligence to utilize the E1527-21 standard to satisfy the AAI requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), for the purpose of obtaining liability protections when acquiring potentially contaminated properties. Specifically, “bona fide prospective purchasers,” “contiguous property owners,” and “innocent landowners” can potentially obtain CERCLA liability protection by complying with the AAI Rule. More broadly, however, other regulating bodies, such as states, often require or recommend using the E1527 standard for evaluating potentially contaminated properties prior to purchase.

The Final Rule’s publication ends months of speculation and confusion about when and how EPA would address E1527-21 and its prior version, E1527-13. After ASTM issued E1527-21 in November 2021, EPA published an applicable direct final rule (and accompanying proposed rule, requesting comments on the direct final rule) in March 2022 incorporating E1527-21 into the AAI Rule, but also allowing parties to continue to use E1527-13 to satisfy AAI requirements. Many commenters opposed this approach, predicting confusion about which standard to use and pointing out that ASTM would eventually do away with E1527-13. In response to these comments, EPA withdrew the direct final rule in May 2022. The Final Rule addresses these concerns by removing the AAI Rule’s reference to the E1527-13 standard one year from the Final Rule’s publication in the Federal Register, i.e., December 15, 2023. Until then, any Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted using E1527-13 will be considered compliant under the AAI Rule.

January 12, 2023

EPA and the Corps Finalize (the Next) New Definition of WOTUS


(By Lisa Bruderly)

Projects involving oil or natural gas development or pipeline construction require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) permitting for impacts from crossing, or otherwise disturbing, federally regulated streams and wetlands. The extent of required federal permitting is dependent on the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which determines federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Typically, the more impacts to federally regulated streams and wetlands, the more likely the permitting will cause project delays and increase expenses.

As one of their last actions for 2022, U. S. EPA and the Corps (the Agencies) released a prepublication notice of a new definition of WOTUS on December 30, 2022. The new definition will become final 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Although the Agencies have promoted this final rule as establishing a “durable definition” that will “reduce uncertainty” in identifying WOTUS, this definition does not appear to provide much-needed clarity. Rather, generally speaking, the new definition codifies the approach that the Agencies have already been informally utilizing to determine WOTUS, which entails relying on the definition of WOTUS from the late 1980s, as interpreted by subsequent U. S. Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)). The Agencies reverted back to this definition in August of 2021, when the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the definition of WOTUS promulgated by President Trump’s administration, referred to as the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR).

The Agencies’ current approach to interpreting WOTUS relies heavily on both of the frequently discussed tests identified in the Rapanos decision. In Rapanos,

January 10, 2023

Pittsburgh-based and angel-backed IF Ventures closes on investment in its first startup company

Pittsburgh Business Times- Pittsburgh INNO

(By Nate Doughty)

A new Pittsburgh-based investment program backed by local angel investors has marked the close of its first capital infusion into a startup company.

IF Ventures, a joint program from Pittsburgh-based nonprofit economic development organization Idea Foundry made in partnership with Pittsburgh-based law firm Babst Calland, announced it invested over $300,000 into one of the program’s inaugural cohort of companies.

Chris Farmakis, a shareholder and board chair at Babst Calland, declined to disclose the name of the startup that received the investment citing confidentiality agreements made between the parties but noted that this is just the first of several deals the program is looking to make in the coming months.

Farmakis said the program isn’t to be likened to a fund like those raised by venture capital firms. Instead, IF Ventures serves as the vetter of hundreds of companies looking to take on investment and only selects a few firms to be presented to its cadre of angel investors who are open to deploying capital in budding enterprises.

There is no requirement that individuals in this program invest in every company, Farmakis said, though periodic investments must be made if investors wish to remain participants in the program.

“This is more about taking successful entrepreneurs, successful business people and people that have the ability to invest in these companies, aggregate them together and give them access in a painless way to make discernible investment decisions,” Farmakis said. “And that’s what we’re doing with this program.”

IF Ventures is expecting to close on its second investment soon and a second cohort of companies will be brought before the investors in its program next month.

January 9, 2023

Commonwealth Court Strikes Down 2021 Accessibility Regulations as Unconstitutional

Breaking Ground

(By Max Junker and Anna Hosack)

Since the 1999 enactment of the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act (“PCCA”), Pennsylvania has sought to establish uniformity for construction standards throughout the Commonwealth.  In pursuit of uniformity the PCCA embraced the adoption of standards drafted by the International Code Council (“ICC”), a private non-profit entity, and directed the Department of Labor & Industry (“Department”) to promulgate certain ICC standards under the Uniform Construction Code (“UCC”).  The directive to adopt standards originating from a non-governmental entity such as the ICC implicates a legal concept known as the non-delegation doctrine.  The Commonwealth Court recently invoked the non-delegation doctrine to enjoin the enforcement of the 2021 accessibility regulations promulgated by the Department in Pennsylvania Builders Association v. Department of Labor & Industry, No. 479 M.D. 2021, 2022 WL 14668728 (Pa. Cmwlth. Oct. 26, 2022).

The non-delegation doctrine is embodied in Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution where it states: “The legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”  Together with Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution addressing the passage of laws, the non-delegation doctrine constrains the General Assembly so that it cannot delegate its lawmaking power to any other branch of government, another body, or some other authority.  Christ the King Manor v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 911 A.2d 624 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff’d 951 A.2d 255 (Pa. 2008).

The Commonwealth Court’s recent decision in Pennsylvania Builders Association is the culmination of litigation filed by the Pennsylvania Builders Association (“PBA”) against the Department alleging that the ICC accessibility provisions adopted pursuant to Section 304(a)(3) of the PCCA (“Accessibility Regulations”) constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.