Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

One of the longest running sub-national greenhouse gas (GHG) control efforts in the U.S. has been the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program. RGGI provides a cap-and-trade program covering GHG emissions from targeted fossil fuel power plants in participating northeastern states. The program is preparing to add a new participating state in 2021 -- Virginia.

If you’re a corporate director or officer, you might find your company and/or yourself in need of relief from unmanageable debts. One way to seek relief is through the Companies’ Creditors Insolvency Act (CCAA). CCAA permits a corporation to propose a formal compromise to its creditors, including the compromise of certain claims against the company’s directors. CCAA also allows a corporation to apply to the court in the province with its head office, seeking protection from creditors to allow a compromise to be negotiated. The court has very broad powers to “make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances”; in May 2020 the Supreme Court of Canada has just reaffirmed the breadth of that discretion (9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp).¹

Forty years ago, the federal “Superfund” law -- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) – was enacted to provide legal requirements and procedural methodologies to speed identification and cleanup of contamination. Today, cleanups continue and the requirements and procedures continue to evolve. In April, the United States Supreme Court issued its latest decision interpreting a Superfund provision, this one defining clearer limitations on when the owners of contaminated land can force Responsible Parties for that contamination to pay for cleanup more extensive (and expensive) than cleanup ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The case is Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian.

In recent months, worker protection and public health agencies have issued increasingly stringent and detailed guidelines for employers to follow to reduce worker exposures to COVID-19. I’ve written about a number of these, including HERE and HERE. Over the same months, many workplaces have also been affected by state and local government mandates designed to protect public health in places the public (at least previously) frequent – these include temporary closures of many types of organizations, and restrictions such as masks at others.

If you’re a corporate director or officer, you might find your company and/or yourself in need of relief from unmanageable debts. The federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) governs bankruptcy in Canada for individuals and business entities. If your personal debts include items created because of your activities with the corporation, you may find that some opportunities for relief are expanded but others are eliminated. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently issued a decision refusing to discharge a former director’s responsibility for civil penalties for misdeeds under the provincial Securities Act (Alberta Securities Commission v Hennig).

Beginning July 1, 2020, California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (usually called “Cal/OSHA”) oversees requirements for workplace lighting to assist and protect employees who perform agricultural work outside at night. These include requirements for lighting to illuminate work activities and the workers themselves, including operation of front and rear lights on vehicles. Although these new requirements only apply directly if your organization employs agricultural workers in California, any other organization whose workers are active outside at night should compare its measures to these new standards.

On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued new guidance to assist businesses deemed “non-essential” during the COVID-19 pandemic as they reopen their workplaces. OSHA’s new “Guidance on Returning to Work” sets forth a number of basic principles that OSHA recommends guide employer actions, including specific examples. The document also reminds readers that responsibilities always apply under OSHA’s Employer’s General Duty Clause, references a number of existing OSHA standards that apply to re-opening activities and reopened workplaces, and identifies other sources of guidance and requirements.

President Trump has issued the latest in a series of executive orders (EOs) to reduce and repeal formal federal regulations. This month’s EO directs federal agencies to do so in order to “support the economic response to the COVID–19 outbreak” (EO 13924 “Regulatory Relief To Support Economic Recovery”).

The federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board – which usually refers to itself as the Chemical Safety Board or CSB – conducts independent investigations of major chemical accidents, issues accident-specific findings, and offers specific or general recommendations for improved chemical handling and regulation (I wrote about its first set of rules here). In May, CSB issued “Best Practice Guidance for Corporate Boards of Directors and Executives in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry for Major Accident Prevention.” This Guidance represents CSB’s latest attempt to enhance organizational attention to safety culture issues.

Employers considering how to protect their employees from coronavirus infections can look to a growing variety of general and specific guidance. I recently wrote about the latest coronavirus-specific guidance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (see HERE).