Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

International controls on shipments of plastic waste will increase effective January 1, 2021. Parties to the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention) have just adopted amendments to add “plastic waste” to the materials governed by the Convention. The European Union and 186 nations are parties to the Basel Convention; President George Bush signed it on behalf of the United States in 1989, but in the ensuing three decades the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified it. However, the U.S. is subject to requirements adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which reflect Basel Convention requirements. Besides, most countries that might receive exports are Basel Convention signatories and should enforce its terms.

Read More

Among its many workplace health and safety standards, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to protect employees during equipment servicing and maintenance, to prevent “unexpected” equipment energization, start up, or release of stored energy. OSHA’s Control of Hazardous Energy Standard—more often called the Lockout/Tagout or “LOTO” Standard after its primary compliance requirements—requires employers to establish and implement safety procedures to control such hazardous energy. The LOTO Standard has changed very little since OSHA adopted it in 1989, but the agency has just published a formal request for information – public comments – about two changes in workplace equipment over the past 30 years that might affect energy hazards and justify revisions to the LOTO Standard. The rest of this note summarizes existing requirements and discussed OSHA’s review of control circuits and workplace robotics.

Read More

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) assigns the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state hazardous waste agencies regulate “hazardous wastes,” including categories defined as “universal wastes” that are subject to reduced management requirements. EPA defines five categories, but also allows states to define additional categories (I wrote about this here). California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has just proposed to add a new category of state-regulated universal waste covering “photovoltaic [PV] modules” to its regulations under the state’s Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL). The remainder of today’s blog summarizes these proposed universal waste PV requirements.

Read More

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) assigns the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define and then regulate “hazardous wastes.” EPA applies its considerable discretion to separate hazardous wastes into categories subject to distinct waste management requirements. One basis for these categorizations is relative risk – the more hazardous the waste the greater the controls required, and the smaller the threshold quantities necessary to trigger regulation. Beginning in 1995, EPA has defined a limited set of very common lower-risk wastes as “universal wastes,” and made them subject to special rules intended to encourage recycling (40 CFR part 273). The rest of this note summarizes universal waste requirements.

Read More

On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) issued its first affirmation of a citation and penalty issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to punish a health care provider under the Employer’s General Duty Clause for failing to take adequate steps to prevent workplace violence. OSHA has issued citations under this Clause since 2012, but this is the first time that the Commission has confirmed one of these citations on appeal.

Read More

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is continuing its renewed reviews of asbestos products, and has just issued a requirement that “discontinued” uses receive new review and approval before they can re-enter commerce in the United States. Formally, EPA has issued a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) covering these products (I wrote about the SNUR proposal here).

Read More

The Trump Administration has taken another step to centralize its control over federal agencies’ rulemakings and policy-setting. Rulemaking has always reflected tensions between the politicians who adopt laws, and the agency staff who interpret and apply them through formal rules and information guidance and procedures. Depending how entrenched career staff are in their agencies, there may also be tensions between the elected executive (President, governor, etc.) and his or her agencies, even after his or her appointees are nominally in charge.

Read More

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a final rule (the 2018 rule) on September 28, 2018 (83 FR 49184) that revised, rescinded, or replaced requirements in its “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation” (the 2016 rule) (81 FR 83008). The 2016 rule, also known as the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, required operators of onshore federal and Indian (other than Osage Tribe) leases to take various actions to reduce the waste of gas. The rule established clear criteria for when flared gas qualified as waste and was, therefore, subject to royalties, and also clarified which on-site uses of gas were exempt from these royalties. Prior to the 2016 rule, provisions related to venting, flaring, and royalty-free use of gas were contained in the agency’s 1979 Notice to Lessees and Operators of Onshore Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases, Royalty or Compensation for Oil and Gas Lost [NTL–4A]).

Read More

Millions of people live and work in flood-prone areas, and rely on federal insurance to facilitate their activities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), under which FEMA defines which flood-prone areas qualify for insurance. In March, FEMA announced plans to change its definitions and underwriting; meanwhile legislation has been introduced in Congress to change NFIP. Depending how these changes turn out, thousands of locations will gain or lose eligibility, and the costs of NFIP insurance could change considerably. As climate change exacerbates the likelihood and severity of floods, the importance of these changing provisions grows – for participants and for the general tax-paying public who often end up subsidizing them.

Read More

Especially at public companies, many corporate boards are facing increased risk and liability exposure from a volatile past few years. Case in point: After Marriott announced its data breach on Nov. 30, it took plaintiff’s attorneys only one day to file a securities class action lawsuit against the corporation. In fact, cyber exposure and the subsequent reputation damage are the top concerns cited by corporate boards in a recent study by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

But there are many other potential risks that could result in lawsuits against corporate directors and officers (D&O). These include an ensuing drop in stock price after an incident, mishandling of personal information, effects of the opioid crisis, sexual harassment allegations, and pollution risk created by the use and disposal of dangerous chemicals used in manufacturing. Even liability suits for mass shootings in the workplace can find their way to directors and officers.

Insurance designed to protect corporate directors and officers has been on the market for almost a century, but it was not until the scandals of Enron and WorldCom in the early 2000s that many executives became more aware of the need for liability protection. While we all remember those two bankruptcies, many may not recall that directors of WorldCom had to contribute their personal assets to settle the D&O claims that ensued.

Today, the risk factors motivating the purchase of additional D&O insurance are compelling, but the type of coverage purchased has a material impact on the limits available to protect directors from liability. As corporate officers reevaluate their current D&O coverage, it is important to thoroughly understand the type of coverage purchased and to quantify a board’s potential risk or “claim severity.”

Understanding and Quantifying D&O Risk

In 2017, 9% of public companies in the United States faced securities class actions—an all-time high. These are highly correlated with ensuing D&O claims, and the risks facing every company continue to grow. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling late last year, for example, now enables litigants to pursue class action suits regarding initial public offerings in state courts, which are commonly perceived to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs. These suits are also generally more expensive to defend because they cannot be consolidated and must be negotiated or litigated case by case.

Despite this increase in risk and liability exposure, the market for D&O insurance continues to be soft, with low premiums relative to the potential exposure. There continues to be ample competition for this business, preventing any meaningful increase in pricing. As such, this is a good time for companies to purchase additional coverage as pricing may be at a low point, especially in the excess layers. That said, not all D&O coverages are alike. An understanding of the coverages and their differences is essential for decision-makers looking to evaluate risk mitigation options.

Differences In D&O Coverage

With the introduction of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995, there followed a change in D&O coverage available in the marketplace. PSLRA is a federal law enacted in response to the perceived increase in frivolous class action suits alleging securities fraud under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The key features of PSLRA are:

Read More