Features

Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted on Oct. 22, 2004 in an effort to regulate executive pay practices through the federal tax system. Failure to account for ' 409A's impact can seriously and adversely affect the economics of employment agreements, severance agreements, and other similar plans or other arrangements providing for a deferral of compensation. Consequently, this article details how ' 409A applies to these arrangements.

Features

On June 14 of this year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published for comment in the Federal Register proposed rules outlining recommended procedures for employers to follow in response to receiving Social Security mismatch notices. In promulgating the proposed rules, DHS outlined a new enforcement position ' namely, that no-match letters are relevant evidence that can put employers on notice about the immigration status of employees.

The Baby-Boomer generation entered the practice of law in unprecedented numbers, carrying lofty expectations and the collective willpower to engender unprecedented billable hours. Now this tsunami of active lawyers is moving toward senior status, phase-down and retirement. Despite the complex emotions engendered by retirement, the Baby-Boomer generation of lawyers ' and the law firms in which they have participated or help build ' <i>must</i> plan their future.

Features

Last month, we discussed HIPAA, Security Breach Notification Laws, and Safeguarding Personal Information. We conclude with a brief analysis of electronic privacy issues.

In a recent decision written by Judge Richard Posner, The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) may be used to bring a private cause of action against a former employee who permanently erased confidential data from his company-issued laptop before returning it to the company. <i>International Airport Centers, L.L.C. v. Citrin</i>, (Slip Op.) No. 05-1522 (7th Cir. March 8, 2006). In so holding, the Seventh Circuit has joined the current tide of federal courts that have permitted companies to use the CFAA as a means with which to defend themselves against the malicious and competitive acts of departing employees.

According to a 2005 report of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, the agency that administers the federal insurance program for DB plans), more than 2700 DB plans ' nearly 10% of all PBGC-insured plans ' were frozen as of 2003, and more than 165,000 DB plans were terminated between 1975 and 2004. This same period has seen a rise in popularity of defined contribution (DC) and other individual account plans (IAPs), such as 401(k) plans. This article explores the thinking that has led many employers to freeze and/or terminate their DB plans as a means of managing the risk/reward attributes of their tax-qualified deferred compensation programs, as well as some special considerations for law firm financial managers.

With the business community eagerly anticipating more reports recommending SOX ' 404 relief for smaller companies, executive compensation issues seem far removed, except for the occasional (or not so occasional) headline. Don't be lulled, however, into a false sense of security. Executive compensation is about to take center stage as THE latest 'corporate governance' topic.

Through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Congress called on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations that would help ensure the privacy and security of health information. The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (the Privacy Rule) and the Security Standards (the Security Rule) promulgated pursuant to HIPAA apply to 'covered entities' and limit the ability of such entities to use or disclose protected health information (PHI). The Privacy Rule defines a 'covered entity' as a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form in connection with certain specified transactions. While the Privacy Rule and the Security Rule do not directly apply to employers, the requirements of these rules do apply to ERISA-covered 'group health plans' that are sponsored by many employers.