In her latest ACC Docket article, Outside GC's Lakshmi Sarma Ramani discusses the use of prize promotions, such as sweepstakes and contests, by nonprofit organizations, highlighting their obligation to comply with federal and state prize promotion laws despite being exempt from other tax laws.
This is the first post in a 3-part series.
When business negotiations are in full swing, clients are typically focused on bottom line business objectives, content to leave the lawyers to hash out standard legal provisions. However, certain legal provisions can also impact business risk, enough so that clients should understand how they work and what can be done to avoid unnecessary risk. One such provision that often receives little attention from clients is contract damages. However, the reality is that negotiating the scope of allowable damages requires a strategic examination of the risks inherent in the transaction and their possible impact on your position in the event of a breach of contract.
Our team negotiates a lot of contracts and works with many clients across a broad range of industries. Over the years, we've noticed a varied approach to the contract negotiation process. Some clients are highly involved, participating on every call and paying close attention to details, while others prefer to remain in the background and jump in only when directed by their lawyer. However, the vast majority of business people fall somewhere in the middle – leading the negotiation of core terms such as price and payment terms – then deferring to legal counsel to handle provisions such as indemnification, limitation on liability and other legal boilerplate.
Managing risk is an integral part of conducting day-to-day business operations. When business leaders seek legal support, the in-house team should resist the temptation to reflexively say “no” when a course of action appears, at first glance, to pose significant risk. On the flip side, they also should avoid being a “yes-man/woman” to the C-suite. Instead, internal counsel can add significant value by looking beyond legal risk alone to identify, evaluate and manage the company’s total risk profile in a way that helps management achieve legitimate business objectives.
On May 24, 2019, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) – the arm of the Department of Health and Human Services that enforces the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) – issued a new fact sheet clarifying the specific instances in which a business associate can be found directly liable for violations of the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification and Enforcement Rules (“HIPAA Rules”). As you may know, prior to the promulgation of the 2013 HIPAA Final Rule, liability of business associates could arise only under the terms of a business associate agreement.
U.S. State Department now requiring visa applicants to disclose social media information
Outside GC's Lakshmi Sarma Ramani regularly advises nonprofit organizations on a wide range of legal and business issues. In her latest ACC Docket article, Ramani reminds nonprofits to be mindful of their anticorruption responsibilities in the U.S and abroad, including those arising under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
Despite the global angst preceding the GDRP’s effective date, there’s been seemingly little news about enforcement efforts against noncompliant businesses. But, the reality is that EU regulators have been very busy working behind the scenes. As of February, 2019, nearly 100,000 claims under the GDPR have been lodged with EU national data protection authorities (“DPAs”), many relating to telemarketing and promotional e-mails. Similarly, just over 40,000 data breaches were reported to the DPAs; and 255 investigations into EU cross-border processing activities were initiated, mostly as a result of complaints filed by individuals.
