Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Michael Korns and Anna Hosack)

In Crawford v. Commonwealth, No. 19-EAP-2022 (Pa. Nov. 20, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of state preemptive firearm laws that prohibit municipalities from passing local gun regulations.  Advocates for stricter gun laws filed a petition for review under the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction, asking the Court to declare as unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful two statutory provisions that prohibit the enactment of local legislation on the subject: (i) Section 6120 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, and (ii) Section 2962(g) of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g).  Generally, these provisions prohibit local governments from enacting or enforcing ordinances that regulate the ownership, transportation, possession, or transfer of firearms.

Crawford was heard en banc at the Commonwealth Court, and ultimately the Court sustained preliminary objections in a plurality decision and dismissed the petition for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted (demurrer).  Petitioners filed an appeal seeking review of the Commonwealth Court’s decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The City of Pittsburgh, the City of Scranton, and several other Pennsylvania local governments and officials submitted amici curiae briefs in support of the appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed not only the delineation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of the state government but also the interplay between state and municipal governance.  First, the decision emphasized the basic fact that municipalities in Pennsylvania are creatures of the state, created by state legislation and having no inherent powers of their own not granted or delegated by the Commonwealth.   …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Technology Council

(by Chris Farmakis, Susanna Bagdasarova, Kate Cooper, and Dane Fennell)

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). With less than a month to go before the January 1, 2025 compliance deadline for entities formed prior to 2024, this ruling blocks the U.S. Department of Treasury from enforcing the requirements of the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule (the “Rule”) issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

The Court’s opinion in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. raises significant questions about the constitutionality of the CTA and its potential negative impact on small businesses. The CTA, part of broader anti-money laundering efforts, requires companies to disclose personal information about their “beneficial owners” (individuals who ultimately own or control a company) to a federal database maintained by FinCEN. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States District Judge Amos L. Mazzant concluded that the CTA and Rule are likely unconstitutional as they exceed the scope of Congress’s power. The Court held that CTA does not regulate interstate commerce and that it is further not authorized by the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution.

The nationwide injunction affects most business entities in the U.S., as the CTA and Rule apply to approximately 32.6 million companies. Per the Court’s order, “reporting companies need not comply with the CTA’s January 1, 2025, BOI reporting deadline pending further order of the Court.”

While businesses are temporarily relieved of compliance obligations, the final resolution of the matter remains uncertain.   …

Harrisburg, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Alan Coyle and Michael Libuser)

Over 100,000 cases have been brought against Monsanto Corporation nationwide, claiming its Roundup™ weed-killer contains a carcinogenic active ingredient, namely, glyphosate.  Hundreds of such cases are pending in Pennsylvania alone.  But for over 30 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has found evidence of glyphosate’s non-carcinogenicity for humans, and in 2015, the EPA determined “that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”  EPA, “Glyphosate,” https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate.

This long-held conclusion regarding the non-carcinogenicity of glyphosate informed the EPA’s decision to approve a label for Roundup that omitted any cancer warning.  By approving (and reapproving, over decades) Roundup’s label—pursuant to its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq. (“FIFRA”)—the EPA effectively foreclosed litigants from asserting state-law product liability claims against Monsanto based on a purported duty to warn for failing to include a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.  This is so because, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in Schaffner v. Monsanto Corp., 113 F.4th 364 (3d Cir. 2024), FIFRA expressly preempts any such claims.

To many, Schaffner appeared to provide the last word on the subject.  But some Pennsylvania state courts have declined to adhere to FIFRA-preemption in the wake of the decision.  Last month, for example, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas concluded a trial—involving, in part, the same state-law failure-to-warn claim deemed preempted in Schaffner—resulting in a $78 million verdict for the plaintiffs.  Melissen v. Monsanto Co., No. 210602578 (Phila. Cnty. C.C.P. Oct. 10, 2024).  To borrow from Dickens, there appears to be a Tale of Two Courts within Pennsylvania—federal courts (where FIFRA-preemption applies), and state courts (where it does not)—resulting in, among other problems, discord, non-uniformity, confusion, and incentivization of forum-shopping. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Matt Wood and Alexandra Graf)

On October 10, 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) presented an update on and summary of OOOOc Rulemaking to the Bureau of Air Quality’s Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC). See PowerPoint Presentation, PADEP, “Emissions Guidelines (EGs) for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Existing Crude Oil & Natural Gas Facilities (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart OOOOc)” (Oct. 10, 2024). On March 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its rule targeting methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector (the Methane Rule), which established new source performance standards (NSPS) for facilities built, modified, or reconstructed after December 6, 2022 (OOOOb), as well as emissions guidelines (EG) for states to follow in designing and executing state plans for existing sources (OOOOc). See Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review, 89 Fed. Reg. 16,820 (Mar. 8, 2024) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60). The Methane Rule applies to oil and gas facilities involved in production and processing (including equipment and processes at well sites, storage tank batteries, gathering and boosting compressor stations, and natural gas processing plants) and natural gas transmission and storage (including compressor stations and storage tank batteries). The Rule requires frequent monitoring and repair of methane leaks at well sites, centralized production facilities, and compressor stations using established inspection technologies or, at an operator’s selection, novel advanced detection technologies. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(by Joe Reinhart, Sean McGovern, Christina Puhnaty and Alexandra Graf)

On August 16, 2024, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) approved Pennsylvania’s proposed modification of its Pennsylvania Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) by adding Reclamation Plan Amendment No. 3 to allow the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to administer a State Emergency Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program. See 89 Fed. Reg. 66,563 (Aug. 16, 2024). Pennsylvania submitted Reclamation Plan Amendment No. 3 for approval to OSMRE in 2016. Reclamation Plan Amendment No. 3 covers coordination of emergency reclamation work between Pennsylvania and OSMRE as well as procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and other Pennsylvania procedures. The Pennsylvania Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan, including its amendments, is available here.

Emergency response reclamation activities involve “enter[ing] upon any land where an eligible abandoned coal mine related emergency exists . . . to restore, reclaim, abate, control, or prevent the adverse effects of legacy coal mining practices and to do all things necessary or expedient to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare.” Reclamation Plan Amendment No. 3, pt. G(I) (citing SMCRA § 410(b), 30 U.S.C. § 1240(b)). Pennsylvania defines an “emergency” in Reclamation Plan Amendment No. 3 as “a sudden danger or impairment or previously unknown condition, related to legacy coal mining, which represents a high probability of substantial physical harm to health, safety or general welfare . . . .” Id.  …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Steve Antonelli and Alex Farone)

Just as many employers were finalizing their 2025 budgets, on November 15, 2024, a federal court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction six weeks before the second of two meaningful changes to the federal overtime law was set to take effect.

Unless specifically exempted, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires covered employees to be paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours during a week.  One group of employees that is exempted from the overtime requirements are those who qualify as executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) employees.  To qualify for this overtime exemption, workers must perform certain job duties and be paid on a salary basis.  Until earlier this year, to qualify for the exemption, workers had to be paid a minimum yearly salary of $35,568.  In other words, those employees who earned in excess of this amount did not have to be paid overtime if they worked more than 40 hours in a week.

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a final rule that qualified millions of additional employees for overtime pay because it increased the salary threshold required for the EAP exemption.  The rule was to be implemented in phases. The first phase took effect on July 1 and called for an immediate increase to the minimum salary.  Specifically, the first phase increased the salary threshold for the EAP exemption from $35,568 (which is $684/week) to $43,888 per year (which is $844/week).  To comply with the new rule, employers across the nation had to increase the minimum salary paid to EAP employees by July 1, 2024, to avoid paying overtime to those workers. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Technology Council

(by Kevin Douglass, Carla Castello and Stephen Antonelli)

Today’s businesses are subject to increasing workplace scrutiny concerning possible misconduct of their owners, officers, management, and personnel. When faced with an allegation that can potentially expose the company to legal, financial and reputational harm, it is critical that the company promptly investigate the facts and assess the business risk in order to make an informed decision on the best course of action.

Is an Internal Company Investigation Warranted?

Employee complaints, or even allegations from third parties, concerning improper workplace conduct should always be taken seriously. Whether the claims involve an entry level employee, a manager, a corporate officer, or anyone in between, the company should assess whether the allegations, if true, would constitute violations of law or company policies, or otherwise materially impact the company’s finances, culture, reputation, or workforce.

Workplace investigations are often sensitive. Employees may be reluctant to step forward and become the center of an investigation. They may also fear backlash from the individual(s) being investigated, particularly if they carry significant clout within the company. The company can assuage those concerns by reminding employees involved in the investigation of the company’s obligation to comply with applicable anti-retaliation laws and company policies. The company should also explain that it will perform the investigation with impartiality and (as much as possible) confidentiality, and that it will comply with the organization’s policies and procedures while minimizing business disruption.

Planning for and Conducting the Investigation

At the outset, the company must define the scope and purpose of the investigation (i.e. identify the allegations and the reasons for undertaking the investigation), select an investigation team, and determine a timeline for the investigation. …

Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV, Washington, DC

Babst Calland has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers®, nationally in 8 practice areas and regionally in 38 practice areas:

• National Tier 2
  • Environmental Law
  • Land Use and Zoning Law
  • Litigation – Construction
  • Litigation – Environmental
• National Tier 3
  • Energy Law
  • Mining Law
  • Natural Resources Law
  • Oil and Gas Law
• Regional Tier 1
  • Pittsburgh
    • Bet-the-Company Litigation
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Construction Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Energy Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Land Use and Zoning Law
    • Litigation – Construction
    • Litigation – Environmental
    • Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
    • Municipal Law
    • Natural Resources Law
    • Water Law
  • Charleston-WV
    • Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships)
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Energy Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Litigation – Environmental
    • Oil and Gas Law
• Regional Tier 2
  • Pittsburgh
    • Information Technology Law
    • Labor Law – Management
    • Real Estate Law
  • Charleston-WV
    • Arbitration
    • Banking and Finance Law
    • Commercial Transactions / UCC Law
    • Corporate Law
    • Mining Law
    • Natural Resources Law
  • Washington, D.C.
    • Energy Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Litigation – Environmental
    • Oil and Gas Law
• Regional Tier 3
  • Pittsburgh
    • Litigation –

…

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Janet Meub)

Clients come and go. There is no guarantee that you will keep the work. This is true for many reasons. You can win every trial and cost-effectively resolve every case for a client who will transfer the work to another firm or attorney willing to charge a lower billable rate. The claims examiner who directly assigns you cases leaves the insurance company or is replaced. The company’s new general counsel chooses to use her law school classmate for the transactional work you provided for years. Perhaps you do not reciprocate the inappropriate crush the assignor of work has on you (yes, this can happen to women in the law). The court rules in your client’s favor, eliminating 20 cases nationwide. A corporate client is sold or goes bankrupt. Or maybe the work stays (and stays…), and you want to leave! You will land new clients or land on your feet in a more supportive environment if you embrace the unfamiliar by saying “yes” to new work, experiences and opportunities.

******

I graduated from law school in 2001 and began working at a 15-attorney general practice firm in Youngstown, Ohio. My first “litigation” experience occurred the day after my swearing-in ceremony. A partner sent me to the Mahoning County Courthouse to take a debtor’s exam. I was nervous about my lack of experience, afraid to appear “green,” and uncomfortable asking the 60-some year-old debtor probing questions about his obviously precarious financial situation. Despite being asked out by the debtor and my pen leaking ink all over my face and new suit, I walked back to my office with confidence. However, my anxiety and discomfort in the face of new professional opportunities has never fully dissipated, and that’s okay. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Alexandra Graf)

Prior to the recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 216 L.Ed.2d 671 (2023), there was a circuit split as to whether an interlocutory appeal of a denied motion to compel arbitration forces the district court to stay the underlying proceedings. Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a), “when a district court denies a party’s motion to compel arbitration, that party may make an interlocutory appeal.” This is a statutory exception to the typical rule that parties may not appeal before a final judgment is rendered. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the district court must stay its pretrial and trial proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on arbitrability is ongoing. This ruling incentivizes parties to enforce their arbitration clauses because a motion to compel arbitration is not shielded from appeal as other pretrial orders are, and the underlying matter will now be stayed until resolution of the appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits previously held that whether the underlying district-court proceedings were stayed during an interlocutory appeal of this nature was a decision for the district court judge to make at their discretion. In the remaining circuits, the underlying case was automatically stayed upon an interlocutory appeal of a denied motion to compel arbitration. In resolving this circuit split, the Court relied on the Griggs rule, which is a longstanding concept of procedure that states that an appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, “divests the district courts of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. …

Pittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Press

(by Christian Farmakis, Susanna Bagdasarova, Kate Cooper, and Dane Fennell)

By now, you have likely heard about the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule (the “Rule”) from your accountant, attorney, or business colleagues. Promulgated under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), the Rule requires most business entities to disclose information to FinCEN about their ‘beneficial owners’: individuals who directly or indirectly own or control such entities.

Enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act in 2021, the CTA is intended to “prevent and combat money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, tax fraud, and other illicit activity.” The Rule aims to enhance transparency and support the mission of the CTA by requiring domestic and U.S. registered foreign entities to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Most entities in the U.S. will likely be required to comply with the Rule, and FinCEN estimates approximately 32 million business will be required to make a filing. The Rule exempts 23 types of entities from reporting requirements, primarily large or regulated entities already subject to various reporting requirements, such as banks, SEC-reporting companies, insurance companies, and ‘large operating companies’, as well as wholly owned subsidiaries of the foregoing. Entities formed before January 1, 2024, have until 2025 to comply, while entities formed in 2024 have a 90-day compliance period.

Under the Rule, reporting companies must provide detailed personal identifying information for each individual beneficial owner, including name, date of birth, residential street address, and unique identifying number (such as a passport or driver’s license number). A ‘beneficial owner’ is a natural person who directly or indirectly owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of a reporting company or who exercises ‘substantial control’ over the reporting company. …