Driven by strategic, economic, and geopolitical factors, multinational companies are increasingly viewing expansion opportunities in the Middle East.
As one of the world’s most open and rapidly expanding economies, the region is a vital hub for global business, trade, and finance. Diversifying beyond oil and gas exports, the Middle East is now thriving across sectors
The regulatory landscape for immigration compliance is constantly evolving. To protect and keep top talent and to avoid tangles with the law, US multinational employers must stay on top of the latest legal decisions and guidance.
In this blog series, our team of Global Immigration and Mobility experts will share significant legal updates and practical strategies for maintaining compliance. In our first post, we highlight the possible implications of the SEC v. Jarkesy case for immigration courts, and highlight the DOJ’s recently-released Fact Sheet addressing I-9 compliance when using electronic platforms.
A case currently pending in the US Supreme Court could have high stakes for administrative law judges in the immigration context–and, depending on the outcome, could theoretically open the door for challenging the ability of the DOJ to investigate employers for immigration-based discrimination.
On November 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court held oral argument in SEC v. Jarkesy. Jarkesy, an investment advisor, had been found guilty by an ALJ of securities law violations. As a result, he was fined, barred from securities industry activities, and his firm was required to repay investors. Jarkesy challenged the SEC’s enforcement action at the 5th Circuit, which agreed with Jarkesy, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Notably, a core question before the Court is whether Congress’ decision to allow ALJs to be removed only for “good cause” violates Article II of the Constitution (requiring the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”)
During oral arguments, conservative justices expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the SEC’s current process, where ALJs handle violations and defendants are not entitled to a jury trial.
The arguments that could potentially weaken the authority of ALJs in the Jarkesy case–i.e., that defendants are unconstitutionally deprived of a jury trial when administrative judges address infractions–could also be extended to ALJs sitting within the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), potentially depriving them of their ability to adjudicate cases. Defendants are already using this argument in ongoing cases in an effort to invalidate the DOJ’s immigration-related proceedings against them.
If the Supreme Court’s decision leads to the removal of ALJs at the SEC, it is likely that the authority of ALJs at other agencies will face subsequent legal challenges, including enforcement actions brought against employers by the DOJ for allegations of: (i) citizenship-based discrimination; (ii) national-origin-based discrimination; (iii) document abuse (relating to I-9s); and (iv) retaliation.Continue Reading Beyond Borders: How US Multinational Employers Can Master Immigration Compliance
Tracking and complying with federal, state, and local wage and hour requirements has long been top of mind for employer as wage and hour liability continues to be one of the most expense employment law risks. Indeed, in 2022, the 10 largest reported settlements for wage and hour actions totaled $574 million.
Currently, in
Special thanks to Geoff Martin and Maria Piontkovska.
On March 3, 2023, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published details of a three year Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks (the “Compensation Pilot Program”). The Compensation Pilot Program is effective March 15, 2023 and from that date it will be applicable to all corporate criminal matters handled by the DOJ Criminal Division. At the same time, DOJ also updated its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance document to reflect the criteria introduced by the Compensation Pilot Program, among other updates.
Background and Objectives of the Compensation Pilot Program
The concept of incentivizing corporate compliance by structuring compensation programs to reward compliant behaviors and punish non-compliant ones, is nothing new. For example, prior editions of the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs addressed appropriate incentives for company management and executives to promote good governance and compliance, and expectations about the consistent application of discipline against employees found to be involved in misconduct.
However, in a September 2022 memo to DOJ prosecutors titled: “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group“, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco indicated that DOJ intended to go further on this particular topic. In the memo, Monaco indicated that DOJ would expect companies to design compensation structures not only to incentivize and reward good compliance practices, but also to financially penalize individual employees found to have been engaged in misconduct, including by clawing back compensation after the fact.
DOJ’s objective in this initiative is to encourage companies to redistribute some of the cost and penalties associated with individuals’ criminal conduct away from the company (and its shareholders) and onto the individuals themselves. Because misconduct is often discovered after the fact, measures that enable retroactive discipline and clawback of compensation already paid, are of particular importance to DOJ. These measures also reinforce DOJ’s continued focus on individual accountability which has been another of DOJ’s recent areas of focus in addressing corporate criminal matters.
Six months after Monaco’s memo, the Compensation Pilot Program now puts concrete DOJ policy in place to implement those objectives. At the end of the three year pilot period, DOJ will determine whether the Compensation Pilot Program will be extended or modified. If it is deemed a success, we can expect the Compensation Pilot Program to be fully adopted by DOJ. Continue Reading Practical Considerations When Addressing New DOJ Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Program
Implementation status and background to the directive
The European Whistleblowing Directive (WBD) was supposed to be implemented by the European Union’s 27 member states by no later than December 17, 2021, impacting employers with operations in those jurisdictions.
One year on from this deadline, despite the European Commission (EC) commencing infringement procedures against those countries
Though the COVID-19 pandemic put in-person classes, business operations, and vacation plans on hold, there has been no pause of the duties of boards of directors to their respective companies. Board members should keep their fiduciary duties and the practical steps they can take to meet those duties top-of-mind as they guide their companies through the COVID-19 pandemic. We have highlighted board members’ duties and some practical tips boards of directors can take to meet their obligations to their companies during the pandemic.
Under Delaware law-which most jurisdictions widely follow when it comes to directors’ duties-directors have a duty of care and duty of loyalty.
In the wake of the #HeForShe movement, California recently became the first US state to require companies to put female directors on their corporate boards.
Supporters of the law make a convincing business case for gender diversity, citing rigorous research findings showing companies where women are represented at board or top-management levels are also the
Today, an estimated 40 million people are living in modern day slavery—including an estimated 16 million individuals in forced labor across global supply chains.
Given the importance of this issue, we are proud to introduce a new publication, Eradicating Slavery: A Guide for CEOs. Prepared by the B Team in partnership with Baker McKenzie, this
On July 24, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) – the investigative agency within the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement responsible for Form I-9 Compliance – announced that it served I-9 audit notices to more than 5,200 employer since January as part of a two-phase nationwide worksite enforcement operation.
While immigration debates, policies and rules make the news seemingly every day, very few new laws or regulations have actually been implemented for employment-based immigration. Behind the scenes, however, strict new interpretations of existing laws and under-the-radar changes in enforcement have significantly impacted the ability of companies to transfer, hire and keep foreign employees in
