On July 19, 2021, the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) published a final rule (“Final Rule”) adding six Russian organizations to the Entity List.  These designations are related to Executive Order 14024, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian” (“EO 14024”) that was signed by President Biden in April 2021.  EO 14024 authorizes the imposition of sanctions in response to Russian efforts that threaten US national security, including against a wide range of parties involved in the technology and defense sectors of the Russian economy.  A license from BIS will be required to export, reexport, or transfer to or through these parties any items (i.e., goods, software, technology) subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), subject to a policy of denial. 

According to the Final Rule, these Russian parties were added to the Entity List for acting contrary to US national security.  The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) placed these six entities on its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List earlier this year.  See our prior blog post on these developments here.  The fact that BIS designated Russian parties to the Entity List that were recently designated as Specially Designated Nationals may indicate a return to the Obama-era policy of BIS routinely adding to the Entity List parties that have been designated as SDNs.

The Final Rule also updates the entry in the Entity List for the Federal Security Service (“FSS”) to reflect the carve-out for activities now authorized under Cyber General License 1B (“GL 1B”).  GL 1B was updated by OFAC in March 2021 when additional US sanctions were imposed on the Federal Security Service (“BIS).  A BIS license is required for all items subject to the EAR intended for the FSS, apart from transactions authorized by GL 1B. 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ryan Orange in the preparation of this blog post.

The post United States: BIS Designates Six Russian Organizations to the Entity List Already Designated as Specially Designated Nationals appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

Concern regarding IP theft and other forms of unfair trade practices have been of paramount importance in the past five years in the United States – and have indeed been the justification for imposing significant and long-lasting trade barriers.  The Biden Administration affirmed its commitment to using a wide range of remedies to address such trade practices through a set of reports on the 100-day interagency reviews conducted pursuant to Executive Order 14017 “America’s Supply Chains” (the “Reports”).  As we addressed in previous blog posts, the Reports, published on June 8, 2021, emphasize four key areas of focus: pharmaceuticals, semi-conductors, large capacity battery manufacturing and use, and critical minerals and materials. The Reports represent an interagency effort to shore up the US supply chain in these sectors.  

As part of this effort, the Administration announced that it will establish a “trade strike force” to address unfair foreign trade practices, such as subsidies, that may erode the resilience of critical supply chains.  This trade strike force will be led by the US Trade Representative (“USTR”) and will propose unilateral and multilateral enforcement actions against unfair foreign trade practices that negatively impact domestic production and US market access.  It appears that the strike force will target China.

Outstanding questions exist, including what form these new enforcement measures will take and whether there will been any attempt to dismantle the mounting trade barriers.  Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the US-China trade war and other US measures brought in decades-old trade tools to address perceived unfair foreign practices or protect US national interests.  During the pandemic, a plethora of new global measures were introduced on an emergency basis, including those affecting medical products or domestic subsidies provided to a range of industries.  In addition, supply chain bottlenecks arose in the absence of government intervention (e.g., shipping container shortages, port delays, production shortages due to effects of lockdowns). 

The trade strike force appears to have the authority to identify specific violations that have contributed to supply disruptions and to address those with trade remedies.  USTR has several powerful options, including import volume restrictions, increased tariffs, and other border measures.  Already the Commerce Department is evaluating whether to initiate a “Section 232” investigation into neodymium magnet imports through its authority to consider national security concerns and recommend action.  The Section 232 duties imposed on steel and aluminum in 2018 under the previous administration continue to have widespread effects on critical infrastructure projects, downstream domestic manufacturing, and exports.  Additional duties imposed for national security reasons can be wide-reaching and highly disruptive to supply chains.    

In addition to national security concerns (and resulting border measures), the Biden Administration has emphasized its commitment to safeguard American innovation and has urged China to do more to protect the IP rights of US companies.  US concerns of foreign IP practices formed a cornerstone of the US-China trade war and served as a bass for the imposition of tariffs ranging from 7.5 percent to 25 percent on nearly all imports from China.  Further, USTR maintains a “Priority Watchlist” with respect to countries’ IP protections and this list includes others besides China, namely, Argentina, Chile, India, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Venezuela.  These countries are key suppliers in the four sectors that are the focus of the Reports.  USTR will now consider whether to elevate its concerns through the trade strike force, where it appears to have broad discretion to propose action.   The Reports serve as a warning that the Administration intends to continue to use trade remedies tools to incentivize action from US trade partners and attempt to protect domestic production.  Such restrictions affect importers and consumers and do not always have the intended consequence.  Engagement with the interagency process is critical to ensuring that interests are taken into account and that remedies are properly tailored to achieve the stated goals.

Related Blog Posts

The post United States: Biden Administration Supply Chain Reports Deeper Dive #4: Unfair Trade Practices and the Trade Strike Force appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

Yesterday, as part of its annual Virtual Trade Week series, US Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued a list of Frequently Asked Questions on forced labor (“the FAQs”).  The FAQs consist of responses to ten questions focused on current issues and latest developments in forced labor enforcement.  As mentioned in the FAQs, in FY2020 (October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020), CBP set a record by issuing 13 Withhold Release Orders (“WROs”), detaining over $55 million worth of goods, and issuing its first finding in nearly 25 years.  According to the FAQs, CBP is also currently enforcing 50 active WROs and eight active forced labor findings. 

Below are some of the key takeaways from the FAQs:

  1. CBP has reiterated that it remains committed to ongoing forced labor enforcement efforts, which CBP says are designed to “persuade companies to modify their business practices.”  In addition, CBP has restated the joint commitment of the US, Canada and Mexico to addressing forced labor matters, and noted ongoing “discussions of forced labor enforcement” with partner countries in Europe and Asia.
  2. CBP encourages importers to implement “social compliance programs” that can identify, mitigate, and remediate forced labor. Remediating forced labor in supply chains is important; however, CBP will not allow the importation of goods suspected of being mined, produced, or manufactured with forced labor in the course of remediation.
  3. While companies are not required to make a voluntary disclosure (also known as “prior disclosure”) if forced labor is discovered in their supply chains, a valid prior disclosure will be taken into account by CBP, and any material false statements, acts, or omissions in connection with importations can result in penalties.
  4. Foreign companies seeking to be excluded from a WRO’s scope can submit to CBP specific information regarding their production process, including: (i) evidence refuting each identified indicator of forced labor (see, for example, the International Labour Organization’s indicators of forced labor here); (ii) evidence that policies, procedures, and controls are in place to ensure that forced labor conditions are remediated; (iii) evidence of implementation and subsequent verification by an unannounced and independent third-party auditor; and (iv) supply chain maps that specify locations of manufacturers, factories, farms, and processing centers.
  5. Currently, CBP is not seeking to petition Congress for an expansion of statutory authority for the enforcement of forced labor of goods imported into the United States.
  6. Although CBP has investigated and issued WROs against goods found on the US Department of Labor’s List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, its investigations are not limited to the goods on this list.  CBP also uses information from other sources, such as nongovernmental and civil society organizations, open-source information, witness testimony, trade data, and records of importers to validate allegations of forced labor.
  7. CBP encourages companies to “prioritize” suppliers that have negotiated a “collective agreement” with unions, noting that “freedom of association is considered fundamental to ending forced labor.”
  8. CBP will only modify a WRO or finding if all forced labor indicators identified by the agency are remediated and forced labor is no longer occurring.
  9. CBP emphasizes its belief that there is “ample evidence-based research” showing that social audits are “ineffective” as currently administered in identifying and reducing forced labor.  Instead, CBP recommends that companies focus on “worker-driven solutions,” citing as examples the Fair Food Program and Bangladesh Accord.

The FAQs make clear that CBP remains committed to combatting forced labor, expects companies to implement compliance programs that identify and remediate forced labor in supply chains, and is working with other U.S. agencies and countries around the world to beef up enforcement efforts.  Forced labor enforcement on the rise, and given the continued pressures from civil society, shareholders, and consumers, that trend is unlikely to change.  To avoid potential civil and criminal liability, as well as adverse press, companies should implement risk-based responsible sourcing programs that prohibit suppliers from utilizing forced labor and other related human rights abuses and implement practical mechanisms to verify their compliance.

The post United States: US Customs and Border Protection issues FAQs on Forced Labor Reiterating Commitment to Enforcement and Encouraging Companies to Implement Compliance Programs appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

On 1 July 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the consolidated case Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, No. 19-251 (US 1 July 2021). The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and struck down a California donor-disclosure law as facially unconstitutional by a six to three majority.


Contents

In More Detail

  1. Background on Schedule B

2. Other US Tax News and Developments


In More Detail

The California law required nonprofits operating or soliciting contributions in California to disclose information about all of its donors who contribute more than USD 5,000 in a particular tax year or more than 2% of the organizations total contributions to the state Attorney General’s Office (generally, through submission of their Schedule Bs from their Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990s). Failure to comply with the requirement could result in suspension of a nonprofit’s ability to solicit donations from Californians and corporate fines. The Americans for Prosperity ruling will have wider repercussions as similar donor disclosure laws in other jurisdictions are litigated, and may have a broader impact on reporting and disclosure requirements more generally as Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent.

Background on Schedule B

In May 2020, the IRS issued final regulations that nixed the requirement that organizations exempt under Code Section 501(c), except for section 501(c)(3) charities and section 547 political organizations, include names and addresses of donors who contributed USD 5,000 or more on Schedule B. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations still must file Schedule B with the IRS if their donors meet the disclosure thresholds, federal law prohibits the IRS from disclosing donor information to the public or to other federal agencies, except in limited circumstances.

Lower Court decisions

In 2010, the California Department of Justice increased its efforts to enforce charities’ Schedule B reporting obligations. The plaintiffs, two charities that were tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), were amongst the organizations who received deficiency letters. When both organizations resisted disclosing their donors’ identities to the California Attorney General’s Office, the Attorney General threatened to suspend their registrations and fine their officers and directors. Both organizations responded to such threats by filing suit in the Central District of California.

In both cases, the District Court granted preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting the California Attorney General (“Attorney General”) from collecting the organizations’ Schedule B information. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. On remand, the District Court permanently enjoined the Attorney General from collecting Schedule B and held that disclosure of Schedule B information was not narrowly tailored to California’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct citing testimony from California officials stating Schedule B information was rarely used to audit or investigate charities. The Ninth Circuit again vacated the District Court’s injunctions and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the California Attorney General. Americans for Prosperity Foundation appealed the Ninth Circuit ruling to the US Supreme Court, which granted their petition on 8 January 2021.

The Americans for Prosperity ruling

The US Supreme Court reviewed the law under (at a minimum) the “exacting scrutiny” standard, which requires a “substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest.” Chief Justice Roberts indicated that while there is no doubt California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by nonprofit organizations, there is an inherent mismatch between the interest the Attorney General seeks to promote and the implemented disclosure regime. Further, Roberts noted the fact that California did not begin rigorously enforcing the disclosure obligation until 2010 and stated that California’s interest in up-front collection is more a matter of administrative ease than investigating fraud.

Roberts also rejected the state’s argument that the disclosure requirement did not broadly discourage donations because California’s Schedule B requirement is confidential. Roberts stated that assurances of confidentiality may reduce the burden of disclosure but they do not eliminate it, and indicates in a footnote that “[h]ere the States’ assurances of confidentiality are not worth much.” Roberts points to the evidence introduced by both plaintiffs demonstrating that they and their supporters have been subject to threats. He indicates that such risks are heightened given the technology available today.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent cautions that the court’s “analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s eye.”

Take note

On 2 August 2021, about a month after the Supreme Court ruling, the New York Attorney General announced that, effective immediately, charities are no longer required to disclose donor information in their annual filings. Further, the Attorney General indicated that any outstanding notices of deficiency related to missing or incomplete Schedule Bs are no longer operative as to such deficiency.

At this time New Jersey has not changed its requirement to include Schedule B with its nonprofit filings; however, given the similarities between the New Jersey and California laws, challenges are expected.

Under the exacting scrutiny standard, a donor disclosure requirement could be upheld if the requirement is more tailored than the California law and shows substantial relation to combating charity or donor fraud. Nonprofit organizations and donors should keep an eye on changes to donor disclosure laws in other states.

Other US Tax News and Developments

United States: Treasury and the IRS extend continuity safe harbor for renewable energy projects

United States: A question of fact – Illinois tax tribunal denies summary judgment motion in unitary business case

United States: New QOZ amendments area mixed bag, giving both clarification and ambiguity

United States: Supreme Court denies review of New Hampshire’s lawsuit against Massachusetts

United States: To Trust or Not to Trust — Florida’s new statutes pave the way for expansion of individual’s succession planning opportunities

United States: Senators introduce bill aimed at radically altering the tax consequences of carried interest

The post United States: More privacy for nonprofit donors appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

As a result of COVID-19, construction on a number of renewable energy projects has been repeatedly delayed, potentially jeopardizing valuable tax benefits under the investment credit provisions. Such provisions require taxpayers to make continuous progress toward completion of the project once construction has begun (“Continuity Requirement”).


In depth

On 29 June 2021, Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2021-41, which extended a safe harbor for the Continuity Requirement (“Continuity Safe Harbor”) for renewable energy projects and clarified the methods that taxpayers may use to satisfy the Continuity Requirement under Code sections 45 and 48. In response to delays caused by COVID-19, the IRS previously issued Notice 2020-41, which originally extended the Continuity Safe Harbor to five years for projects beginning construction in 2016 or 2017. Given the ongoing effects of COVID-19, Treasury and the IRS further extended the Safe Harbor in Notice 2021-41, providing a six-year safe harbor for projects beginning construction in 2016 to 2019 and a five-year safe harbor for projects beginning construction in 2020.

Statutory background

Section 45 (the production tax credit or PTC) and Section 48 (the investment tax credit or ITC) allow taxpayers to claim tax credits on eligible projects that begin construction by specific dates. With respect to both the PTC and the ITC, taxpayers must satisfy a “beginning of construction requirement.” Under this requirement, taxpayers generally must begin construction on “qualified facilities” before 1 January 2022 to claim the PTC. Similarly, construction of “energy property” must begin before 1 January 2024 for a taxpayer to claim the ITC. These deadlines reflect the recent extension in the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Relief Act, which Congress enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. The PTC is available for a 10-year period beginning with the tax year the qualified facility is “placed in service.” The ITC is available for a specified percentage of the energy property’s cost basis, up to 30%.

Physical Work Test and the Five Percent Safe Harbor

Due to yearly phase downs of the PTC and ITC, the amount of credit that a taxpayer can obtain depends on the year construction of a qualified facility or energy property began. Under existing IRS guidance, taxpayers can show that construction began based on the date when: (1) physical work of a significant nature has begun (“Physical Work Test”), or (2) at least 5% of the project’s costs have been incurred (“Five Percent Safe Harbor Test”). For purposes of both tests, the taxpayer must satisfy the Continuity Requirement. The Continuity Requirement requires taxpayers to show either a “continuous program of construction,” for purposes of the Physical Work Test, or “continuous efforts to advance [the project] toward completion,” for purposes of the Five Percent Safe Harbor Test. See Notice 2021-41 at 3-4.

The Continuity Safe Harbor

In several notices, the IRS has provided a Continuity Safe Harbor, which deems a project to have satisfied the Continuity Requirement if the project is “placed in service” no later than four years after construction began. See Notice 2018-59; Notice 2017-04; Notice 2016-31; Notice 2015-25; Notice 2013-60.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRS extended the Continuity Safe Harbor on 27 May 2020 in Notice 2020-41. Notice 2020-41 stated that the Continuity Safe Harbor is satisfied if a taxpayer places the qualified facility or energy property in service within five years after the calendar year during which construction began for projects that began construction in 2016 or 2017.

Notice 2021-41 further extends the Continuity Safe Harbor as a result of the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. For qualified facilities or energy property on which the taxpayer began construction in 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019, the Continuity Safe Harbor is satisfied if the taxpayer places the qualified facility or energy property in service within six years after the calendar year during which construction began. For qualified facilities or energy property on which the taxpayer began construction in 2020, the taxpayer must place the qualified facility or energy property in service within five years after the calendar year during which construction began.

Finally, Notice 2021-41 clarifies the methods that taxpayers may use to satisfy the Continuity Requirement. In particular, the notice allows any qualified facility or energy property to which the Continuity Safe Harbor does not apply to satisfy the Continuity Requirement if the taxpayer meets either the “continuous program of construction” test that is applicable to the Physical Work Test or the “continuous efforts” test that is applicable to the Five Percent Safe Harbor Test. Use of either standard provides welcome relief to taxpayers who have been forced to delay construction due to the effects of COVID-19. Although both tests are inherently facts-and-circumstances analyses, taxpayers should have an easier time demonstrating that they have made sufficient progress on construction, particularly for taxpayers who would otherwise rely on the Physical Work Test, but can now show that they are making continuous efforts on the project.

Conclusion

Notice 2021-41 provides much-needed relief to taxpayers still experiencing disruptions due to COVID-19. Given the Biden Administration’s push for carbon neutrality and the Administration’s and Congress’s increased focus on incentivizing renewable energy projects, it is not surprising that the IRS has chosen to further protect taxpayers’ ability to claim valuable tax benefits for renewable energy projects.

Other US Tax News and Developments

United States: A question of fact – Illinois tax tribunal denies summary judgment motion in unitary business case

United States: New QOZ amendments area mixed bag, giving both clarification and ambiguity

United States: Supreme Court denies review of New Hampshire’s lawsuit against Massachusetts

United States: More privacy for nonprofit donors

United States: To Trust or Not to Trust — Florida’s new statutes pave the way for expansion of individual’s succession planning opportunities

United States: Senators introduce bill aimed at radically altering the tax consequences of carried interest

The post United States: Treasury and the IRS extend continuity safe harbor for renewable energy projects appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

Please join us for a new weekly video series, hosted by Baker McKenzie’s North America Government Enforcement partners Tom Firestone and Jerome Tomas.

This weekly briefing is available on demand and will cover hot topics and current enforcement actions related to white collar crime and criminal investigations in the US and abroad to arm you with the information you need to start your business week.

As one of the largest global law firms, we will call upon our exceptionally deep and broad bench of white collar experts throughout the world and particularly in the commercial hubs of Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America to join our weekly discussion series.

These briefings will cover:

  • High-profile DOJ case updates and implications
  • SEC enforcement developments 
  • CFTC enforcement developments
  • Other white collar defense industry developments 

Date: 30 August 2021

This week’s discussion will cover the following: 

  • Organized crime charges in new elder abuse case
  • Novel SEC Insider Trading Action — Shadow Trading — SEC v. Matthew Panuwa
  • Quick blurb on 18 year old and under crackdown on video game playing in China
  • SEC v. MANISH LACHWANI – The SEC’s Enforcement Focus on Unicorns

Video link

Podcast link

The post United States: This Week in Government Enforcement (Video Chat) appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

On August 10, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed the USD 1 trillion infrastructure bill, known formally as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Bill). The Infrastructure Bill includes provisions for approximately USD 550 billion in new federal spending over 10 years on various transportation, broadband, utilities and other infrastructure projects.

Various revenue raising provisions are earmarked to offset the additional spending. Among those revenue raising provisions, the Infrastructure Bill contemplates that USD 28 billion in income tax attributable to the disposition of digital assets will be collected over 10 years. The Infrastructure Bill anticipates generating this revenue by facilitating compliance with digital asset users’ tax payment obligations by imposing reporting requirements on ‘‘brokers’’ of ‘‘digital asset’’ transfers. Digital assets for purposes of these amendments is meant to include cryptocurrencies.

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE

* Article was first published in the Tax Management Memorandum

The post Cryptocurrency Industry, Bi-Partisan Group of Senators Criticize Provision of Senate-Passed Infrastructure Bill appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

Shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders have been prevalent throughout the United States since March 2020 as state and local governments have sought to protect their citizens from the spread of the COVID-19 virus while at the same time reopen their economies in accordance with phased reopening plans. Keeping abreast of the evolving nature of these orders and plans as the spread of the virus continues to evolve is critical to the functioning of all businesses throughout the country.


Baker McKenzie has a team in place that has been advising clients real-time on these most critical issues since the first orders were enacted. We are pleased to provide this Tracker, which identifies the relevant state-wide shelter-in-place orders and their related expiration dates, as well as the applicable state-wide reopening plans, in each of the 50 United States plus Washington, D.C. The “What’s Open” table on each page highlights the reopening status of four major sectors (office, manufacturing, retail and bars/restaurants).

In addition, the Tracker includes links to the relevant quarantine requirements or recommendations for incoming travelers in each state plus Washington, D.C.

Key developments reflected in this week’s update to the Tracker include the following:

  • The following jurisdictions extended their state-wide orders and/or the duration of the current phase of their reopening plans: Delaware, Illinois, Iowa and New Mexico. 
  • The following jurisdictions imposed new face covering requirements: Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia.

You can also view our brochure which highlights key areas of expertise where we can support your business’s tracking and reopening plans. Please call or email your regular Baker McKenzie contact if you require additional analysis regarding these matters.

Last updated 27 August 2021

Download US Shelter-In-Place / Reopening Tracker

The post United States: 50 State Shelter-In-Place / Reopening Tracker appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently published a request for information and comment on how broker-dealers and investment advisers use digital engagement practices (DEPs) — behavioral prompts, differential marketing, “gamification,” and other design elements and features that firms use to engage with retail investors through digital platforms and mobile applications.  

The SEC seeks input about the current use of DEPs, tools and methods such as predictive data analytics and artificial intelligence/machine learning models that firms may use to operate and customize DEPs based on investor behavior or characteristics, and how DEPs interact with existing regulatory requirements for broker-dealers and investment advisers. The SEC is also focused on how investment advisers use technology to develop and provide advice both through digital programs and more traditional advisory services.

Comments are due on 1 October 2021.


Click here to download the Full Alert.

The post United States: SEC requests comment on broker-dealer and investment adviser digital engagement practices appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source

In brief

Welcome to Baker McKenzie’s new Labor and Employment video chat series for US employers. Our lawyers will provide quick, practical tips on today’s most pressing issues for US employers navigating the new normal. The videos complement our blog, The Employer Report, which provides written legal updates and practical insights about the latest labor and employment issues affecting US multinationals, at both the domestic and global level.

Please click below to watch the video chats and be sure to let us know if there are additional topics you’d like us to address.


Speakers: Robin Samuel and Helena Engfeldt

Speakers: Michael BrewerSusan Eandi and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Paul EvansMichael LeggieriKaitlin Thompson

Speakers: JT CharronJeff MartinoKatelyn Sprague and Billie Wenter

Speakers: Susan EandiElizabeth EbersoleMelissa Allchin and Erik Christenson

Speakers: Susan EandiRobin Samuel and Brian Hengesbaugh

Speakers: William DuganKrissy Katzenstein and Aleesha Fowler

Speakers: Susan Eandi, Emily Harbison and Robin Samuel

Speakers:  Robin SamuelJeffrey Sturgeon and Stephanie Priel

Speaker: Susan Eandi

Speakers: Melissa AllchinRobin Samuel, and Harry Valetk

Speakers:  Susan Eandi, Emily Harbison and Krissy Katzenstein

Speakers: William DuganRobin Samuel and Goli Rahimi

Speakers: Michael Brewer and Teresa Michaud

Speakers: Paul EvansBlair Robinson and Autumn Sharp

Speakers: Elizabeth EbersoleCaroline Pham and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Susan Eandi, Emily Harbison and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Anna Brown, Susan Eandi and Emily Harbison

Speakers: Caroline BurnettBlair RobinsonAutumn Sharp and Jeff Sturgeon

Speakers: Caroline BurnettBlair RobinsonAutumn Sharp and Jeff Sturgeon

Speakers: Caroline Burnett, Lara Grines and Jeff Sturgeon

If you’re looking for guidance related to the pandemic, please check out the below Reopening Playbook video chat series. It covers practical topics like masks in the workplace, expense reimbursement requirements, employee testing and screening and much more.

Reopening Playbook Video Chat Series

Speakers: Elizabeth EbersolePaul Evans and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Susan EandiPaul Evans and Emily Harbison

Speakers: Emily Harbison, Michael Brewer and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Susan Eandi, Emily Harbison and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Emily Harbison, Paul Evans and William Dugan

Speakers: Michael Brewer and Billie Wenter

Speakers: Michael BrewerSusan Eandi and Emily Harbison

Speakers: Bradford NewmanJoseph DengBillie Wenter and Robin Samuel

Speakers: Susan EandiChristopher GuldbergBetsy Morgan and Grant Uhler

Speakers: Paul EvansRobin Samuel and Billie Wenter

Speakers: Michael Brewer, Emily Harbison and Michael Leggieri

Speakers: Michael BrewerPaul EvansJeffrey Sturgeon and Billie Wenter

Speakers: Anne Batter, Emily Harbison and Benjamin Ho

Speakers: Michael BrewerJoe Deng and Susan Eandi

Speakers: Michael LeggieriTeresa Michaud and Billie Wenter

Speakers: Paul Evans, Emily Harbison and Jeffrey Sturgeon

Speakers: William Dugan, Emily Harbison and Brian Hengesbaugh

Speakers: Susan EandiBenjamin HoChristopher Guldberg and Arthur Rooney

Speakers: Melissa AllchinWilliam Dugan and Betsy Morgan

Speakers: Joseph DengRobin Samuel and Amy de La Lama

Speakers: Michael BrewerMark Goodman and Teresa Michaud

Speakers: Susan EandiPaul Evans and Emily Harbison

Speakers: Christopher Guldberg and Benjamin Ho

Speakers: Michael Brewer and Teresa Michaud

The post United States: The Employer Rapport – Quick chats for the US workplace (Video Chat) appeared first on Global Compliance News.

Source