News (All)

CMM Spotlight: Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe

Posted: April 26th, 2018

The Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe may not yet be open to the public, but innovation is already on full display on these hallowed grounds in Shoreham where famed inventor Nikola Tesla conducted research.

Known for his groundbreaking contributions to alternating current (A/C) electricity, fluorescent lighting, radio, and the technology behind the x-ray, wi-fi, and more, the Serbian-American inventor and engineer has been enjoying a posthumous resurgence in popularity after dying impoverished in 1943. (The 187-foot-tall broadcast tower Tesla built at the Shoreham site was torn down in 1917 for scrap to help pay Tesla’s bills at the Waldorf Astoria.)  But now, decades after Tesla’s death, Elon Musk’s celebrated electric car bears Tesla’s name in recognition of the inventor’s creation of the induction motor and A/C transmission, and Tesla is finally achieving the recognition his scientific contributions deserve.

CMM’s Marc Alessi serves as Executive Director of the Tesla Science Center, which is being developed on the Shoreham site as a technology center housing a business incubator for fledgling companies engaged in scientific research, as well as a museum dedicated to educating the public about Long Island’s rich scientific opportunities past, present, and future. The Center’s vision is to educate visitors about the magnitude of Tesla’s accomplishments right here on Long Island and their impact on modern-day life, as well as foster curiosity, experimentation, and lifelong learning.

“This isn’t just another science museum. The fact that Tesla conducted his research on these grounds sets it apart,” said Joe Campolo, CMM Managing Partner and National Advisory Board Chairman for the Tesla Science Center, who recently had the opportunity to venture behind the locked gates for a tour. Once the restoration of the complex is complete, Campolo said, “this Long Island site will be a destination for innovators and science enthusiasts around the world.”

Campolo recently worked to secure an unprecedented donation of one million dollars from CMM client Softheon, Inc. to the Tesla Science Center to help solidify Long Island’s spot in scientific history, and Peter Klein of Klein Wealth Management – HighTower Advisors is exploring partnerships with entrepreneurs and science advocacy groups to bring in additional funding. Programs planned for the site include presentations, lectures, and visiting experts; science teacher association conferences; student field trips; and science competition workshops, mentoring, and awards, as well as a permanent Tesla exhibit and a host of other rotating science exhibits.

Learn more about the story of the Tesla Science Center in these photos, and visit teslasciencecenter.org to contribute to this one-of-a-kind effort.

 

Marc Alessi, Joe Campolo, and Peter Klein in front of Nikola Tesla’s lab during a recent visit. The lab was designed by noted architect Stanford White.

A look at the lab from another angle. Peerless Photo also operated at this site. Next photo: Alessi, Campolo, and Klein have all taken leadership roles to make the Tesla Science Center a reality and promote Long Island’s rich scientific history.

A statue of Nikola Tesla from the Government of the Republic of Serbia peers out over the site.

 

A famous multiple-exposure photograph of Tesla in his Colorado Springs lab in 1899 with a “magnifying transmitter” high voltage generator. Credit: Wellcome Collection https://wellcomecollection.org/works/zncts6ch. Next photo: The broadcast tower, 1904 (photographer: unknown). The tower is long gone, but the lab still stands today.

 

Marc Alessi, Peter Klein, and Joe Campolo examine site plans.

Tesla is now a household name. Next photo: Planning is well underway for the restoration of the site.

Commemorative bricks surround the Tesla statue at the Shoreham site. “TO THE GREATEST MAN WHO EVER LIVED. THIS IS OUR LEGACY.”  “Master of Electricity, Man Out of Time.” “In the Space Between Intellect & Insanity Lies Genius.” Next photo: “ENCOURAGE LEARNING AND INNOVATION AT ALL AGES.”

“Tesla: Better Than the Other Guy.” Next photo: “Tesla, still getting walked on after all these years.”

  

CMM’s Marc Alessi has been instrumental in developing the Tesla Science Center since his service in the New York State Assembly. Next photo: “Here’s to humble scientists.”

 

“Never forget the underdog.” “For the love of science.” Next photo: “Tesla lives on in the hearts & minds of inventors!”

The future site of classrooms and exhibits at the Center. Next photo: This house will be reconfigured for office space.

    

Tesla was born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and had both Serbian and Croatian ancestry. He emigrated to the U.S. in 1884 and ultimately became a U.S. citizen. Next photo: A closeup of part of the former site of the Wardenclyffe Tower.

 

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – How Are You Going to React? Part 2 – International Provisions

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Tags: ,

Alan R. Sasserath, CPA, MS
Partner, Sasserath & Zoraian, LLP

As discussed in a previous article, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) is here to stay and our challenge is to understand how to react to it to minimize our taxes.  This article will focus on the international provisions of the TCJA and how US companies with foreign operations and foreign companies with US operations should react.  It’s a worthwhile read if you own all or part of a foreign company or are thinking about expanding your business beyond the US.

Below is a discussion of some of the international provisions that affect controlled foreign corporations (“CFCs”).  CFCs are generally foreign entities owned more than 50% by a US “person” (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.) or persons.  Of course, we will also discuss what the US owners of CFCs should think about to minimize the effect of such provisions.  (Please keep in mind that this is a high-level discussion of the Federal tax provisions and you should consult your tax advisor regarding such planning.)

1. Transition Rules to the Modified Territorial System: The new international tax system under the TCJA is known as the Modified Territorial System (“MTS”).  The TCJA was signed into law on December 22, 2017 and went into effect on January 1, 2018.  At the time the law was signed, there were large amounts of previously untaxed income that were retained in foreign countries under the pre-TCJA international tax system.  Accordingly, there wasn’t a lot of time to plan for this provision of the TCJA for calendar year entities.  Under the transitional rules, such previously untaxed income will be taxed to the U.S. owners at either 15.5% or 8%.  This provision applies to US C corporations that own more than 10% of a foreign entity and other US owners, other than S corporations, of a CFC.  S corporations are permitted continued deferral.  Again, calendar year taxpayers had nine days to plan to try to do what they could to get to the 8% tax rate or avoid the tax in its entirety.

However, fiscal year taxpayers do have time to plan since the tax relates to the last fiscal year beginning before January 1, 2018.  Accordingly, if your fiscal year end is September 30 and you have $250 billion in previously untaxed, overseas profits (think Apple), then you have until September 30, 2018 to plan a way to decrease the tax rate from 15.5% to 8%.   The main driver of the difference in tax rates is whether the untaxed overseas profits are sitting in cash and similarly viewed assets (15.5%) or harder assets like inventory or fixed assets (8%).  Again, if you have a fiscal year, whether you have $250 billion or $1 million in overseas profits, you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the tax rate from 15.5% to 8%.  One last item to note is that this tax can be paid over eight years with a timely election.

2. Global Intangible Low Taxed Income (“GILTI”): If you ever wondered what our elected officials thought of U.S. companies with foreign operations, please see this acronym: GILTI (pronounced “guilty”), and you will learn everything you need to know.  GILTI relates to the global minimum tax that the US now charges on US CFCs.  It is possible that majority owned foreign entities/minority owned US entities get dragged into these rules as ell.  Under the pre-TCJA rules, if a CFC owned an active foreign entity, then that foreign entity’s earnings were not taxed in the US until such funds were repatriated to the US.  Now, under TCJA, practically speaking, if a US person owns an active CFC, then they are required to calculate the amount of tax on such foreign income (known as GILTI) after certain adjustments are made to the foreign income.

The calculations of the tax on GILTI for a US C corporation and an individual, either directly or via a pass-through entity, are very different.  For a C corporation, the effective tax rate is 10.5% of GILTI before foreign tax credit.  Also, if the foreign corporation paid 13.125% or more of tax to the foreign country, then the tax on GILTI  would be zero for that year due to the allowance of the foreign tax credit.  For an individual, the effective tax rate is 37% of GILTI.  That’s right: there is a 26.5% difference in tax rate and potentially 37% difference with the inclusion of the foreign tax credit in tax rate between owning a CFC via a C corporation and an individual since individuals are not permitted to utilize the corporate foreign tax as a credit against US individual tax in this situation.  However, there is an election that an individual can make to be treated as a C corporation for the purpose of this tax effectively lowering their rate to that of a C corporation.  Since the election has been in the law for many years and GILTI is a new concept, we don’t know if an individual will be entitled to all the benefits afforded to a C corporation.  We are waiting for further guidance on this.

If you own a foreign entity that will be subject to GILTI either directly or through a pass-through entity, then you may want to contribute such ownership into an LLC ASAP.  With an LLC, you are permitted to make an election to be treated as an S corporation, C corporation, partnership or disregarded entity.  While such election is generally required to be made within 75 days of formation, that period can be extended if there is reasonable cause.  I would hope that the IRS would accept “ambiguity of the tax law” as reasonable cause to file a late election.

3. Foreign Derived Intangible Income (“FDII”): FDII generally relates to property sold or services provided by a US C corporation to a non-US person. The tax calculations are similar to the GILTI tax calculations; however, the effective tax rate on this income is 13.125% as opposed to the 10.5% tax rate on GILTI.  One of the strategies to get the benefit of the 13.125% FDII tax rate would be for a company that is a pass-through entity to drop their non-US sales into a separate C corporation to take advantage of the low tax rates on such income.  However, this planning strategy would more likely apply to entities that were not eligible for the pass-through entity 20% deduction under the TCJA.  Also, foreign corporations that set up a US C corporation would be eligible for this benefit as well for sales via the US C corporation.  Could the US become a tax haven for foreign companies in high tax jurisdictions?  Finally, DISCs are still available as well to be used in conjunction with this planning opportunity.

In addition to the provisions above, there are many others.  Also, there is a fair amount of confusion surrounding several provisions, some of which were mentioned above.  In addition to the suggestions above, here are a few others, in general, as they relate to the international provisions under the TCJA:

  • Revisit any “check the box” elections that you made or decided not to make in the past. Based on the changes resulting from the TCJA, you may come up with a different answer.
  • As you can see with GILTI and FDII, C corporations are favored under the TCJA. As mentioned above, there is an election available to individuals to, potentially, get the same benefits as a C corporation with regards to GILTI.  Don’t be so quick to convert your pass-through entities to C corporations.  Once you convert to a C corporation, there is a five-year waiting period to be able to elect S corporation status again without IRS consent.  Also, once S status is elected again, there is an additional five-year waiting period to get all of the benefits of S corporation ownership back.  That five-year waiting period is measured from the time you decide to revert to an S corporation.  It is not unheard of that the TCJA will be “reversed” depending on the results of future elections, but such a reversal would be unlikely, especially in the near term.
  • If you plan and are successful to avoid the CFC rules, then you must be wary of the Passive Foreign Investment Company (“PFIC”) rules. As onerous as the CFC rules above are, the PFIC rules can be even worse.
  • If you are going to go the C corporation route, try to restructure to get a potential future benefit in the way of section 1202 stock. The benefit of section 1202 stock is that shareholders can avoid all Federal and potentially State income tax on up to $10 million of gain in the event of a future stock sale.
  • The discussion above relates to Federal income tax changes. Please note that state taxes will apply as well and can be equally or more complicated.
  • Some of the provisions discussed above sunset at pre-determined dates. For example, the effective tax rate related to FDII increases from 13.125% to 16.41% for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025.

The bottom line: if you own a foreign entity, then you should consult with your tax advisor immediately if you have not already done so.  Once the technical corrections to the TCJA are deployed as we hope/expect later in 2018, we should have more clarity on the provisions that are unclear at the moment.  At that point, you should re-confirm that you are maximizing your opportunities from the tax perspective.

This article does not necessarily reflect the views of CMM and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Please consult with your accountant about your particular tax situation.

 

How to Negotiate with North Korea

Posted: April 20th, 2018

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Tags:

When handling an important negotiation, the parties must take it seriously and be prepared. This approach is a must whether you’re negotiating a small business deal or about to engage in diplomatic negotiations. As I’ve previously discussed on LI News Radio 103.9 with Jay Oliver, the United States needs to carefully handle its sit-down with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and determine a roadmap for the negotiation beforehand. Here’s a great preparation checklist from the Wall Street Journal.

10 Tips for Negotiating with Kim Jong Un
By Robert B. Zoellick
The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2018
https://www.wsj.com/articles/10-tips-for-negotiating-with-kim-jong-un-1522189919

The news that President Trump plans to sit down with Kim Jong Un offers a perfect example of his style: Mr. Trump surprised his world-wide audience, put himself at the center of attention, and took a big risk, probably impulsively. Now the drama has shifted to whether Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim will actually meet. And if so, when and where?

Haphazard diplomacy with North Korea presents a real danger, so someone around Mr. Trump had better be preparing for a complex negotiation. Here are 10 steps to get started:

  1. Identify the outcome Mr. Trump wants to achieve.That may seem simple, but consider the range of possibilities. The U.S. could seek progress toward the peaceful unification of a free Korea. Or it could accept the North Korean regime’s existence if Pyongyang gives up nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, plus long-range missiles, while promising not to sell its technology. Mr. Trump could focus on North Korea’s threats or behavior—whether toward the U.S., South Korea, the region or the North Korean people. The U.S. could demand that North Korea return people it has abducted from other countries, especially Japan. The bargaining will take sharp twists and turns. Mr. Trump needs to know how he will frame America’s initial demands and what he wants to achieve over different time frames.
  1. Assess, coldly and rationally, America’s actual leverage.What pressures and inducements can be brought to bear by the U.S., its allies, China and Russia? Mr. Trump will have to coordinate this leverage, which means the White House must be prepared for varying scenarios. Given the experience of past talks with North Korea, expect extraordinary demands, breakdowns, walkouts and reversals of positions. Getting China and Russia to go along will require Mr. Trump to consider trade-offs.
  1. Bolster U.S. relations with South Korea and Japan.These two allies can help the White House achieve a successful negotiation—or deal with failure. (They are also the cornerstone of future U.S. policy toward China.) That means America must win and hold public support in both countries. Threatening to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea and diminish American trade can hardly help.
  1. Decide on the negotiating process.The U.S. could negotiate directly with North Korea. Or it could add South Korea, which would give America’s ally standing and reduce the risk of a split in the alliance. Or the U.S. could revive the six-party talks—including Japan, China and Russia—from previous negotiations. Mr. Trump must decide whether his secretary of state should lead or whether he wants to rely principally on officials a step below. The White House should know whether it wants to use a step-by-step process to turn paper negotiations into realities on the ground. The U.S. should look for ways to make North Korean reversals impossible, or at least difficult and costly.
  1. Engage Congress.At a minimum, Mr. Trump needs lawmakers’ support as he embarks on this negotiation. He may even need their votes to approve a treaty or allocate funding.
  1. Consider what Mr. Kim may want. The North Korean ruler will get an early bonus just by meeting as an equal with Mr. Trump, which legitimates Mr. Kim’s rule. North Korea will claim it is negotiating in good faith and therefore the U.S. and its allies should ease sanctions, offer piecemeal concessions, and hold off stronger measures. It will present itself as standing for Korean nationalism and South Korea’s leaders as Yankee lackeys. Mr. Kim could reach for unification on Pyongyang’s terms. He could demand a peace treaty to conclude the Korean War and an end to America’s alliance with Seoul. The U.S. should expect, at a minimum, that Mr. Kim will want to keep his nuclear weapons and missiles to deter any threat to his regime.
  1. Decide what the U.S. is—and isn’t—willing to trade.Demands are just the start. Pyongyang may press Mr. Trump to concede security guarantees, economic openings, or even assistance from Seoul or others. On the other hand, the U.S. needs to decide whether its alliance with South Korea and the U.S. forces stationed there are nonnegotiable.
  1. Decide the minimum the U.S. will be willing to accept from North Korea. Trump attacks the Iran deal for failing to roll back Tehran’s nuclear program, ignoring its missiles, lifting limits over time, and turning a blind eye toward its other aggressive behavior in the region. If he wants to avoid making a similar deal, the U.S. and its allies should agree on what will prompt them to walk away from North Korea.
  1. Be prepared for no agreement.The U.S., South Korea and Japan should have a plan in case the talks fail. Should South Korea maintain its outreach to the North as a way to build confidence and ease tensions? Mr. Trump may prefer to isolate Pyongyang. The U.S. could press for tighter sanctions to choke North Korea or even threaten military action if Mr. Kim crosses “red lines.” If Mr. Kim can divide the U.S. from its partners, he will have achieved a great success.
  1. Get Mr. Trump to agree that he won’t wing it. Attending a summit and making news are not the same as getting results. The president’s advisers need to run through this preparatory list—or a better one—with him.

Mr. Zoellick is a former World Bank president, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state.

Hiding and Seeking Information During Litigation: Disclosure of Information Contained in Private Social Media Accounts

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Hide and seek. It’s a cute game when kids play, but what about in the context of a contentious litigation? The cute game transforms into a cutthroat endeavor to seek any information to sabotage the opposition’s case. Given the prevalence of social media (even Grandma has a Facebook account nowadays), the first point of attack to collect necessary intelligence tends to be the opposition’s social media accounts. The instantaneous nature of social media provides a window into the opposition’s everyday life. They share where they are, what they are doing, and who they are with. Some social media users try to ensure the privacy of their information by taking advantage of certain privacy settings, which raises the question: is hiding certain information (by making the contents of a social media account private) enough to avoid disclosure during litigation?

The Court of Appeals recently answered this question in Forman v. Henkin, No. 1, 2018 WL 828101, at *4 (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018), where the Court held that information contained in a Facebook account, whether public or private, must be disclosed so long as it is relevant to the claims at issue. Eager for the instant gratification we receive with each like or comment on a post, we sometimes lack the foresight to consider how the information we post on social media may ultimately be used to verify facts, or, even worse, to impeach credibility. Say a salesperson is accused of soliciting customers in violation of a non-compete agreement, or an employee claims entitlement to overtime wages, or, most commonly, an individual sustains personal injuries—you can be sure that the defendants are scrubbing the plaintiffs’ social media accounts for evidence disputing the credibility of the plaintiffs’ claims. Especially considering the recent decision in Forman, even if the plaintiffs try to hide such information by making their accounts private, the defendants will now be entitled to seek it.

In Forman, the plaintiff fell from a horse and alleged that she suffered severe spinal cord and brain injuries. The plaintiff claimed that her injuries resulted in cognitive deficits, memory loss, difficulties with written and oral communication, and social isolation. During her deposition, she testified that she had a Facebook account that she deactivated approximately six months after the accident and that before the accident she posted “lots” of photos of her “active” lifestyle.

Unsurprisingly, based on the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant requested an authorization to obtain the contents of her Facebook account. The plaintiff refused to provide an authorization, arguing that the defendant failed to establish a basis for access to the plaintiff’s private portion of her account because the public information contained on her profile included only one picture, and that picture did not contradict her claims. In opposition, the defendant contended that just because the public information viewable on plaintiff’s Facebook profile did not contradict her claims did not mean that the postings on the private portion of the account might contain something relevant to the defense.

Prior to Forman, parties avoided disclosing private information on social media accounts by relying on precedent that required the party seeking disclosure to identify relevant information contained in the social media account before seeking disclosure. However, the Court in Forman keenly noted that requiring a party to identify relevant information before seeking disclosure effectively permits the disclosing party to manipulate privacy settings to avoid disclosure. This is not to say that parties are now entitled to unfettered access to social media accounts simply by virtue of commencing a lawsuit. Disclosure still must be narrowly tailored to the claims at issue in the case. Nonetheless, the most important takeaway from this case is that parties can no longer hide behind the veil of privacy to avoid disclosing information that may be detrimental to their case.

We all get the urge to share information on social media, but once litigation commences, plaintiffs are well advised to consider the potential ramifications of each post and how it could be used against you. When all is said and done, litigation involves people, which means it necessarily entails emotions and the impulse to make your story heard. However, during litigation, social media is not the proper forum to share your personal thoughts, feelings, and photographs. Let your attorney advocate on your behalf to avoid having your case debilitated by contradictory posts on social media that impugn your claims and credibility. Remember—even if you try to hide them, your adversary will be permitted to seek them.

Residential Landlords: Beware of New Certificate of Occupancy Rules

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Tags:

New York residential landlords, beware. As of November 29, 2017, the Real Property Law section 235-bb came into effect. The statute requires that a valid certificate of occupancy be in place before entering into a residential lease agreement with a tenant for real property of three or fewer units. More specifically, the law provides:

  • Prior to executing a residential lease or rental agreement with a tenant, the owner of real property consisting of three or fewer rental units shall provide conspicuous notice in bold face type as to whether a certificate of occupancy, if such certificate is required by law, is currently valid for the dwelling unit subject to the lease or rental agreement. Owners who provide the tenant with an actual copy of the valid certificate of occupancy shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of this subdivision.

If the residential unit being rented does not have a valid and current certificate of occupancy, the landlord will be unable to recover any unpaid rent in court or evict a tenant based upon the tenant’s failure to pay rent. Additionally, any lease that, by its terms, waives the tenant’s rights under Section 235-bb is void as contrary to public policy.

As noted in Senate Bill No. 6636, which introduced the proposed law, the purpose of the statute is to address illegally converted apartments that are unsafe and not up to building code standards. Lawmakers reasoned that some tenants might wrongly assume that housing accommodations were safe to live in by virtue of the fact that they were being offered for rent.  Lawmakers concluded that the illegal conversions presented not only the obvious safety concerns, but also caused neighborhoods and schools to become overcrowded. Municipal planners assumed that a single-family house had just one family in residence, not two or more. Single family dwellings with converted basement apartments and detached cottages/garages being rented by landlords for additional profit could be a burden on public schools, roads, and other amenities in the community.

Two of the East End towns on Long Island have already addressed the problem of illegal apartments by enacting rental permit and rental registry laws.  In 2008 Southampton Town passed Section 270-3 which provided that there could be no rental of real property without a rental permit. Part of the permit application to Southampton Town requires having a valid certificate of occupancy in place. In 2015, the Town of East Hampton enacted Section 199-1-2 in their Town Code, which is a rental registry law. That law also requires a valid certificate of occupancy for rental properties.

Head over to our Real Estate page to learn more about our services. Please reach out to us for guidance or to answer any questions you may have about compliance.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

CMM Brings Leading Authorities in Business, Law, and Sociology Together to Collaborate on Next Steps for Business in the #MeToo Era

Posted: April 20th, 2018

By Lauren Kanter-Lawrence
Director of Communications, Campolo, Middleton & McCormick

Reflecting on this watershed movement toward gender equality, Hon. A. Gail Prudenti told the crowd at CMM’s April 17 Beyond #MeToo panel, “I’ve lived through the transition.”

Over 150 guests joined moderator Joe Campolo at Crest Hollow Country Club for an engaging, solution-focused discussion featuring Judge Prudenti (Dean of Hofstra Law School and former Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York), Professor Michael Kimmel (Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Stony Brook University and Director of its Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities), and Carol Allen (CEO of People’s Alliance Federal Credit Union). The wide-ranging conversation focused on generational issues and practical, actionable strategies to engage men and women in fostering supportive and respectful workplaces.

Prudenti noted that the issues are generational, recalling that early in her career it was common for female lawyers to hear comments in the courtroom such as, “You look gorgeous.” Indeed, some of her female colleagues would question themselves and their clothing choices when they didn’t hear such comments. She said that those same male colleagues who made the comments, however, were still fair, excellent lawyers and judges; “the world has just changed.” Kimmel also spoke of generational challenges, saying that those in the workforce who were socialized in the “old system” depicted in Mad Men – for example, a secretarial pool in the center of the office, to which some men viewed sexual access as a perk of the job – need to change.

Carol Allen, who has risen through the ranks in a male-dominated industry, reported hearing “but she’s so young,” or “she’s a woman” along the way, and emphasized that confidence is key for women to advance in the workplace. Confidence must also play a role in engaging men in the conversation. Kimmel challenged men who hear other men making harassing comments to not leave it to the women in the room to handle (calling it a no-win situation for a woman, who has the choice of saying something and being a “buzzkill” or not saying anything and swallowing her anger). Instead, Kimmel said, men should seek out like-minded men who are also offended by the comments to join forces to speak up next time. Campolo suggested #MeNeither would be an appropriate hashtag to symbolize the solidarity of men who won’t stand for sexual harassment in the workplace and are instead actively working to change attitudes.

Prudenti made a point to focus on the many male mentors along her own professional journey, all of whom have treated her with dignity and respect. “The #MeToo movement really says to women: you deserve to be yourself.”

“The panel and the moderator were all excellent,” said Laura Morea, Business Development Consultant of Alcott HR. “They kept the attention of the audience by making the panel presentation interactive and somewhat spontaneous. The guests that I was able to meet and network with were delightful.”

Brian Burke, COO/CFO of Young Equipment Solutions, said, “This was the finest presentation among a broad spectrum of meetings CMM has sponsored or Joe has moderated.” Patty Sullivan, Market Development Director at Marcum Search, echoed, “Great topic looked at from different perspectives. Joe as always was a great moderator.”

Check out additional coverage of the event in Newsday and follow us on Facebook and LinkedIn to see event photos. Thank you to our event sponsors Klein Wealth Management at HighTower Advisors, St. George’s Golf & Country Club, LI News Radio, and our nonprofit partner Island Harvest.

To Disclose or Not to Disclose: The DOJ’s New Anti-Corruption Corporate Enforcement Policy

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Tags: , ,

In April 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an experimental Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement policy known as the “Pilot Program.”  For those unfamiliar, the FCPA is a U.S. law that prohibits business from bribing foreign officials and requires certain accounting transparency among public companies.  The FCPA is enforced both criminally and civilly, has broad jurisdiction, and resulted in nearly $2 billion in settlements in 2017 alone.

The Pilot Program is, in effect, a mechanism for increasing self-reporting and cooperation by companies that may have violated the FCPA in exchange for penalty reductions and the possibility of a declination.  If a company (1) voluntarily discloses, (2) cooperates fully with investigators, (3) timely remediates by instituting an effective compliance program, and (4) disgorges all ill-gotten profits, then the company will receive a 50% reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and even the possibility that the DOJ will not bring an action against the company.

The Pilot Program has been largely hailed as a success by the DOJ.  In the year and a half that the program was in effect, the DOJ FCPA unit received 30 voluntary disclosures, compared to 18 during the previous 18-month period.  On November 29, 2017, the Deputy Attorney General announced that DOJ would make permanent the Pilot Program and added its enforcement guidelines to the U.S. Attorneys Manual as Section 9-47.120, the “FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy.”  As the voluntary disclosure guidelines become institutionalized, more companies should consider bringing credible allegations of foreign corruption to the attention of U.S. authorities.  But, self-reporting potential criminal liability is a delicate and daunting question that must be carefully considered.

To qualify as voluntary, a company’s disclosure must meet the definition set forth in U.S.S.G. § 8C2.5(g)(1) as occurring “prior to an imminent threat of disclosure or government investigation.”  In other words, knowing that the FBI is likely to execute a search warrant on your office the next day doesn’t give a company a window to disclose and expect a reduction in the sentencing guidelines.  Disclosure must also be timely—meaning within a reasonably prompt time after becoming aware of the offense—and fulsome—meaning that the company must disclose all relevant facts and disclose the individuals involved.

A company can meet the second requirement, full cooperation, by timely and continuously disclosing to the DOJ all facts discovered during the company’s internal investigation, including individual employees and third parties who may have engaged in criminal conduct.  The company must be proactive and facilitate access to third-party or foreign documents and witnesses, as well as make available to the DOJ officers and employees who possess relevant information.  Most challenging, perhaps, is the DOJ’s cooperation requirement that the company “deconflict” witness interviews and other investigatory steps with the DOJ.  In many cases, this means that the company may not interview its own employees regarding a potential FCPA violation until the DOJ has had an opportunity to do so.  Companies must conduct thorough and professional internal investigations of all alleged FCPA violations, but until a company interviews its employees it is difficult to decide whether voluntary disclosure is warranted in the first place.

Third, companies must be prepared to timely and adequately remediate the underlying problems that led to the FCPA violation.  This typically includes implementing or strengthening a compliance and ethics program, improving the company’s compliance culture, dedicating additional financial and personnel resources to anti-corruption compliance, and conducting compliance audits.  The DOJ also considers whether a company adequately disciplines employees involved in the misconduct or those with supervisory authority when assessing remediation.

When the DOJ decides that a company has cooperated fully, the company will receive a 50% reduction off the minimum sentencing guidelines and the DOJ generally will not require that the company appoint a monitor if the company has implemented an effective compliance remediation program.  However, companies can also receive so-called “limited credit” for full cooperation and timely and appropriate remediation even if the company did not voluntarily self-disclose.  Even though declination is no longer an option, the company will receive a 25% reduction off the low end of the sentencing guidelines range.  The largest carrot, however, in the DOJ’s new enforcement policy is the strong presumption in favor of resolving cases through a declination for companies that fully satisfy the requirements above.

The consequences of a FCPA criminal action can be severe.  In 2017, Telia, a Swedish company, paid $965 million in total penalties for FCPA offenses.  Companies with potential FCPA liability should consult with counsel and seriously consider voluntary disclosure before it is too late.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

CMM Spotlight: Cerini & Associates Presents the Imagine Awards

Posted: April 20th, 2018

Tax season may be behind them, but the team at Bohemia-based Cerini & Associates isn’t coming up for air just yet: after tax season comes Imagine season.

Six years ago, this full-service accounting firm, under the leadership of Managing Partner Ken Cerini, introduced the Imagine Awards to the Long Island nonprofit and business community. The program has quickly gained momentum. This year, the program received 177 applications and on May 1 will bestow awards on five nonprofits, recognize an additional 15 finalists, and bring over 400 Long Island business leaders together for an evening to celebrate and elevate the Island’s vibrant nonprofit sector.

Considering that servicing nonprofit organizations is a marquee component of Cerini & Associates’ DNA, it’s fitting that its visionary founder, Ken Cerini, first had an epiphany for the Imagine Awards about 15 years ago. “Things weren’t in the right place then, but six years ago, the pieces fell into place. The sector needed it,” Cerini recently told Campolo, Middleton & McCormick Managing Partner Joe Campolo, who stopped by to catch up in the hectic weeks before the event. “The NFP world can find itself in a tough spot with a storm happening due to changing government regulations, cutbacks in funding, and an increase in the demand for services – so we were looking to create a silver lining. We want to make sure the business community sees the work these organizations are doing.”

The Awards are a way of giving back to a sector that exists to give back, recognizing nonprofits in the categories of Social Impact, Innovation, Rising Star, Leadership, and, for the second year, Arts & Culture. “Collaboration is key to keep the not-for-profit sector vibrant,” Cerini explained. “The Awards encourage organizations to work together by educating them and the business community about what other organizations are doing.” Winning organizations (initially vetted by the Awards Committee and ultimately selected by a panel of high-profile judges whose identities are revealed at the event) receive a monetary prize, exposure, a professional promotional video, and opportunities to collaborate after the Awards on panels and other events.

This year, News 12’s Doug Geed will emcee the program, which raises funds through sponsorships and ticket sales. “The money we raise is then reinvested into the event and the community,” Cerini said. “Imagine, coming from the John Lennon song, is symbolic … Imagine is what nonprofits do every day; Imagining how to make a difference, change lives, and make Long Island a better place.”

Cerini & Associates’ mission to shine a much-needed spotlight on the nonprofit sector mirrors their relentless pursuit of value for their clients, which include not only major nonprofit organizations (C&A is one of the top 10 accounting firms in the New York metro area serving the nonprofit sector) but also the education sector (public school districts as well as private, special education, and charter schools) and for-profit businesses in the healthcare, technology, real estate, and construction industries. The firm, with four partners and about 50 employees, is known for its efforts to educate and provide training for their clients through seminars and publications. Not surprisingly, their clients become their ambassadors, accounting for the firm’s organic growth over the past 25 years.

CMM Live host Joe Campolo will welcome Ken Cerini to the show on May 15 for a special episode focusing on the nonprofit sector. We’re excited to hear more from this innovative leader who saw a void in the nonprofit world and filled it with an extraordinary event that empowers organizations to maximize their impact.

 

Joe Campolo of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick and Ken Cerini of Cerini & Associates compete in Ken’s dungeon-themed office. Next photo: Intricate designs adorn the door, chairs, and walls of Ken Cerini’s office. Who said accountants are boring?

A look at Ken’s sword collection. Next photo: Joe Campolo will welcome Ken Cerini to a nonprofit-themed episode of CMM Live on May 15.

 

 

Kim Roffi, a partner at Cerini & Associates, smiles in anticipation of the end of tax season! Next photo: At Cerini & Associates, employees are encouraged to personalize their workspaces.

 

Fun and games: jerseys and sports memorabilia line the walls of the office.

Imagine Awards materials past and present. In only six years, the Imagine Awards program has become a must-attend event woven into the fabric of Long Island. Next photo: Registration closes soon for the Imagine Awards! Don’t miss out – head over to http://ceriniandassociates.com/long-island-imagine-awards/ for tickets.