Corporate Transparency Act

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri The creation of anonymous corporations for illicit purposes such as money laundering, the sale of pirated and counterfeit goods, human trafficking, and the drug trade has been a source of great concern for the U.S. government.[1] These corporations are used to hide stolen assets and are without clearly identified owners, making it difficult to hold anyone to account.[2] A range of groups have called for legislation demanding transparency from newly formed reporting corporations to hinder the creation of these anonymous shell corporate structures used to

California Voters Approve Ridesharing Drivers from Labor Protections

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri In an earlier post, we talked about how the First District Court of Appeal in California ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers were employees and were entitled to full protections under California’s Assembly Bill 5 law (AB5) such as paid sick leave, overtime, and fair wages.[1] Around the same time, however, Uber and Lyft were sponsoring a state ballot-initiative for Election Day known as Proposition 22 that would have exempted their drivers from the protections of AB5 and identified them as “independent contractors” rather than “employees.”

State Appellate Court Classifies Uber and Lyft Drivers as Employees

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri The rise of the gig economy has to new forms of work which face tremendous obstacles when it comes up against worker legislation like the NLRA. No job has become more symbolic of the gig economy than the ride share services known as Uber and Lyft. There has long been a debate about whether Uber and Lyft drivers were either employees or independent contractors. Being the latter would exempt Uber and Lyft from giving their drives their necessary protections and benefits under the National Labor Relations Act and other

SEC vs CFTC: two different reporting systems that require the reporting of similar data.

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri Over the past several years, experts have called for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to harmonize their regulatory standards in order to minimize duplicative or contradictory regulatory reporting requirements.[1] Not doing so has led to market participants creating “two different reporting systems and/or processes – one for the CFTC and one for the SEC” despite both require the reporting of similar data.[2] The obstacles posed to cross-jurisdictional transparency in following the regulatory rules and the convoluted nature

Trump’s New Final Rule for the H-1B Visa and How It Helps Stifle Work-Based Immigration

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri   A recurring talking point from the Trump Administration has been that “illegal immigrants” allegedly steal jobs from American workers.[1] He has consistently tried to link illegal immigration (however tenuously) to detrimental changes in the U.S. by pointing to the performance of the U.S. economy and the job market.[2] In the early days of his campaign, he was very clear that, in his view as well as that of his supporters, immigrants were “taking our jobs…our manufacturing jobs…[and] our money.”[3] Since taking office in

SEC Codifies New Disclosure Requirements for Banking Registrants

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri For the past 30 years, the rules and requirements for banks and savings & loan registrants for making disclosures to investors have been a mess as they simply duplicated other rules and requirements of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and the U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).[1] This failed to take into account major changes in financial reporting since 1986 when the last substantive update to Industry Guide 3, Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies, the guide published by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance

EB-5 To The Rescue

EB5 To The Rescue

Written by Taher Kameli America needs help, here comes EB5? The “EB-5 Program” refers to employment-based immigration under section 203(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)).  The EB-5 Program has been in existence since the 1980’s, and until recently, long-term stakeholders in the community thought that they had seen it all. But with the pandemic continuing to impact every sector of the U.S. and global economy, industry experts are now required to speculate as to how the EB-5 Program will be impacted. Based on this introduction, one would expect the next couple paragraphs to outline

How The Department of Labor’s New Definition of “Independent Contractors” Can Wrongfully Exclude Workers From Federal Labor Protections

Independent Contractors

  Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri In what could be seen as a boon to employers, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation setting out a new definition of who was or was not an “independent contractor.”[1] This regulation, if approved and finalized, would make it easier for employers to classify much of their workforce as “independent contractors” and be excused from providing them labor protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[2] On the other hand, however, it may affect the security of workers as they could lose considerable protections and benefits if

Illegal Profits From False Claims About COVID-19 Vaccines

Illegal Profits From False Claims About COVID-19 Vaccines

Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri Due to the need for a vaccine in light of the devastating COVID-19 pandemic, biotechnology companies developing vaccine candidates have become the source of immense profit to stock holders investing in these companies.[1] Investors are betting on companies with promising candidates for successful vaccines, hoping to make millions, if not billions, off of the sale of these drugs. Already insiders from 11 small companies dependent on drug success or failure have sold over $1 billion in shares since March, in response to announcements of positive test results from heads of pharmaceutical

Supreme Court Conditionally Recognizes the SEC’s Right to Disgorgement

  Written by Taher Kameli & Chathan Vemuri The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long argued that as part of penalties sought from parties accused of unlawful activities in violation of securities laws, the SEC had a right to disgorge from the profits of the liable party as part of the remedies it could seek.[1] Disgorgement refers to a remedy by which parties who profited from illegal or wrongful conduct (“ill-gotten gains” so to speak) must return those profits that they made from that conduct to those they harmed in order to make them whole.[2] There