Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

Charleston, WV

The Wildcatter

(by Nikolas Tysiak)

July 2024 Legislative and Regulatory Article for MLBC

There are not a lot of relevant cases to report this period. Here are what the courts have been up to this month:

The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals handled another important case regarding tax sales of oil and gas interests recently. In Northeast Natural Energy, LLC v. LT Realty Unlimited, LLC (— S.E.2d —; 2024 WL 338948 (July 12, 2024). The case arises from competing claims of title to oil and gas rights under approximately 119 acres of land in Clay District, Monongalia County. George Tennant owned interests in the Surface, Sewickley Coal, and the oil and gas associated with the 119 acres when he died in 1938. Two assessments were entered from 1938 through 1941 – the first covering 3/8 of the surface oil and gas under the land, and the second covering the Sewickley Coal interests under the land. In 1940, the lands of George Tennant were partitioned, as part of which all oil and gas and coal rights were reserved to the estate. The assessments for the surface dropped the oil and gas label, and only described “SUR” or surface as being the interest being assessed, entered in the name of the surface purchaser. George Tennant and his heirs continued to be assessed for the Sewickley Coal interests.

The Sewickley Coal rights and Oil and Gas rights descended to various heirs of George Tennant, but only the Sewickley Coal rights were separately assessed. Eventually, the successors to George Tennant executed deeds and leases with Northeast Natural Energy LLC and other parties, in 2015. However, in 1992, Shuman Inc. acquired a tax deed for the Sewickley Coal assessment for non-payment of taxes. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Business Times

(by Kevin Douglass, Carla Castello, Stephen Antonelli)

Today’s businesses are subject to increasing workplace scrutiny concerning possible misconduct of their owners, officers, management, and personnel. When faced with an allegation that can potentially expose the company to legal, financial and reputational harm, it is critical that the company promptly investigate the facts and assess the business risk in order to make an informed decision on the best course of action.

Is an Internal Company Investigation Warranted?

Employee complaints, or even allegations from third parties, concerning improper workplace conduct should always be taken seriously. Whether the claims involve an entry level employee, a manager, a corporate officer, or anyone in between, the company should assess whether the allegations, if true, would constitute violations of law or company policies, or otherwise materially impact the company’s finances, culture, reputation, or workforce.

Workplace investigations are often sensitive. Employees may be reluctant to step forward and become the center of an investigation. They may also fear backlash from the individual(s) being investigated, particularly if they carry significant clout within the company. The company can assuage those concerns by reminding employees involved in the investigation of the company’s obligation to comply with applicable anti-retaliation laws and company policies. The company should also explain that it will perform the investigation with impartiality and (as much as possible) confidentiality, and that it will comply with the organization’s policies and procedures while minimizing business disruption.

Planning for and Conducting the Investigation

At the outset, the company must define the scope and purpose of the investigation (i.e. identify the allegations and the reasons for undertaking the investigation), select an investigation team, and determine a timeline for the investigation. …

Harrisburg, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Michael Libuser)

“Discovery sanctions serve the objectives of discovery by correcting for the adverse effects of discovery violations and deterring future discovery violations from occurring.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 425 (1988) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Serving these objectives is important given the common refrain that “practitioners, judges, and academics . . . perceive discovery abuse . . . as a major, if not the major contributor to the growing cost and delay of litigation and to the dissatisfaction with our court systems in resolving civil disputes.” Earl C. Dudley, Jr., “Discovery Abuse Revisited: Some Specific Proposals to Amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” 26 U.S.F. L. Rev. 189, 190 (1992). Still, many litigators write off motions for sanctions as noncredible threats that rarely gain traction. See, e.g., William T. Gallagher, “IP Legal Ethics in the Everyday Practice of Law: An Empirical Perspective on Patent Litigators,” 10 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 309, 341 (2011). And some judges have outspokenly decried them. A federal judge recently commented, “There are few things that I truly despise. The short list includes meatloaf, the Ohio State Buckeyes, and hangovers. It also includes motions for sanctions. It is no exaggeration to say that I hate, hate, hate motions for sanctions.” Boshears v. Polaris Eng’g, Inc., 2023 WL 2572204, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2023) (per Edison, J.). One form of discovery sanction—awards of expenses—is rarely imposed. Why that is so, and, more specifically, the extent to which state procedural rules authorize those awards, is the impetus for this practice point.Majority Rule

A majority of states follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5). …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pittsburgh Technology Council

Firm Announces Strategic Partnership with Former PIT General Counsel Jeff Immel

Law firm Babst Calland announced today its plan to expand the firm’s capabilities in its Aerospace, Aviation and Airports practice through a strategic partnership with Jeff Immel, former general counsel of the Allegheny County Airport Authority (ACAA), the operator of Pittsburgh International Airport and Allegheny County Airport, and experienced aviation and aerospace attorney.

Prior to joining ACAA, Immel served as the head of U.S. aviation regulatory and legal affairs for Zipline International Inc. where he provided legal counsel in obtaining and maintaining all federal approvals necessary to begin unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) commercial package delivery operations in the U.S. He also served as the primary legal and regulatory counsel to Amazon Prime Air and Amazon Air and was an associate attorney for Jenner & Block and Jones Day where he advised clients on various aspects of aviation regulation and emerging technologies law. Prior to attending to law school, Immel served in the United States Navy as a combat fighter pilot, where he achieved the rank of Lieutenant Commander.

Led by Justine Kasznica, Babst Calland currently actively supports the mission and vision of the growing space industry in the region, and currently serves as general counsel for various aerospace contractors and suppliers and non-profit space organizations. Babst Calland is also in partnership with the Department of Defense and U.S. Space Force’s AFWERX/SpaceWERX hub in Pittsburgh, and is a founding member of the Pittsburgh-based Keystone Space Collaborative and the Moonshot Museum,

“We look forward to partnering with Jeff on many new endeavors as we forge new pathways in the aerospace, aviation and airport industries and helping our existing clients in these sectors to grow and expand,” said Justine Kasznica, shareholder, and chair of Babst Calland’s Emerging Technologies practice. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Current (PA Chamber Business Blog)

(by Christina Manfredi McKinley)

On July 31, 2024, the Pennsylvania Chamber will offer a free webinar addressing the effect on the business community of three significant administrative law cases from the Supreme Court’s recently concluded term: Loper Bright, Corner Post, and Ohio v. EPA.

Moderated by the Chamber’s General Counsel and Vice President of Government Affairs Megan Martin, this experienced panel will discuss and debate some of the likely consequences for Pennsylvania’s business community in this new frontier of administrative law. Whether individually or collectively, the import of these cases on the existing administrative state cannot be understated. Particularly for businesses, which nearly always are subject to federal regulations in some capacity, these cases create both significant opportunities and corresponding risks.

The United States is, in part, governed federally by what has come to be known as “the administrative state.” That term refers to the network of administrative agencies—operating under the direction of the Executive Branch—that frequently write, interpret, and enforce their own rules, which, in turn, apply to the communities they regulate. The administrative state is expansive and includes agencies touching on nearly every facet of American life, from tax to immigration, the environment to government land, and labor to finance.

This past term, the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) handed down a number of decisions, which, individually and collectively, have the potential to reshape the administrative state as we know it:

• In Loper Bright v. Raimondo, SCOTUS overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That decision was the seminal case creating what had long been known as Chevron.

…

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Jean Mosites, Sloane Wildman and Amanda Brosy)

Per- and poly-fluoralkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment, have been manufactured and used in a variety of industries for nearly 80 years.  Following decades of concerns with human health effects and environmental contamination, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laid out its PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitments to Action 2021-2024 (PFAS Roadmap) and emphasized the need to ensure science-based decision making.  PFAS Strategic Roadmap:  EPA’s Commitments to Action, 2021-2024, at 7 (October 2021) https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_final-508.pdf.  As EPA notes: “Regulatory development, either at the state or federal level, would greatly benefit from a deeper scientific understanding of the exposure pathways, toxicities, and potential health impact of less-studied PFAS.”  The most researched of the tens of thousands of PFAS are PFOA and PFOS, so EPA’s initial regulatory efforts focused on those two compounds.  But, as described below, the regulations developed under EPA’s PFAS Roadmap go beyond PFOA and PFOS, inviting scrutiny by the public, regulated entities, and various stakeholders.

PFAS are a group of manmade chemicals identified by chains of extremely durable fluorine and carbon bonds that have been manufactured and used in the U.S. since the 1940s.  While the PFAS family of chemicals includes the more commonly known and used PFOA, PFOS, and GenX, thousands of additional compounds are also classified as PFAS.  Because of their useful properties, including their resistance to heat, water, oil, and stains, PFAS have been utilized in many different industries and incorporated into numerous consumer products over the years.  Examples include firefighting foam (known as “AFFF”), roofing materials, coatings, stain-resistant carpets, water-resistant outdoor clothing and gear, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and personal care products, among others.  …

Harrisburg, PA

Morgan M. Madden recently joined Babst Calland as an associate in the Energy and Natural Resources, Public Sector and Employment and Labor groups. Ms. Madden represents traditional and renewable energy industry clients in land use and other local regulatory matters.  She also has served as a solicitor for several Pennsylvania municipalities and municipal authorities.  Ms. Madden provides a wide range of services to clients in both the public and private sectors, with an emphasis on land use, zoning, planning, labor and employment advice, and litigation.

Prior to joining Babst Calland, Ms. Madden served as an associate with Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. She is a 2017 graduate of Widener University Delaware Law School.

Pittsburgh, PA

TEQ Hub

(by Chris Farmakis, Susanna Bagdasarova, Kate Cooper, and Dane Fennell)

By now, you have likely heard about the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule (the “Rule”) from your accountant, attorney, or business colleagues. Promulgated under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), the Rule requires most business entities to disclose information to FinCEN about their “beneficial owners”:  individuals who directly or indirectly own or control such entities.

Enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act in 2021, the CTA is intended to “prevent and combat money laundering, terrorist financing, corruption, tax fraud, and other illicit activity.” The Rule aims to enhance transparency and support the mission of the CTA by requiring domestic and U.S. registered foreign entities to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Most entities in the U.S. will likely be required to comply with the Rule, and FinCEN estimates approximately 32 million business will be required to make a filing. The Rule exempts 23 types of entities from reporting requirements, primarily large or regulated entities already subject to various reporting requirements, such as banks, SEC-reporting companies, insurance companies, and ‘large operating companies’, as well as wholly owned subsidiaries of the foregoing.  Entities formed before January 1, 2024, have until 2025 to comply, while entities formed in 2024 have a 90-day compliance period.

Under the Rule, reporting companies must provide detailed personal identifying information for each individual beneficial owner, including name, date of birth, residential street address, and unique identifying number (such as a passport or driver’s license number). A ‘beneficial owner’ is a natural person who directly or indirectly owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of a reporting company or who exercises ‘substantial control’ over the reporting company. …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Law360

(by Joseph Schaeffer and Jessica Deyoe)

On June 28, 2024, the modern administrative state died with the United States Supreme Court’s overruling of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Born in obscurity as a six-justice plurality opinion on the meaning of “stationary source” under the Clean Air Act, its two-step framework for resolving ambiguities in agency-administered statutes soon catapulted Chevron into the most-cited opinion in the Supreme Court’s canon. That framework required courts reviewing agency’s statutory interpretations to ask, first, whether Congress had clearly spoken to the precise question at issue. If so, the Congressional intent controlled over any contrary agency interpretation. But, if not, the Court was to defer to the agency as long as it offered a permissible construction of the statute, even if that construction was not the one the Court would have reached on its own.

Chevron and its two-step framework enjoyed a charmed childhood as a perceived means to achieving uniformity in interpretation of agency-administered statutes. But as Chevron entered its teenage years, and particularly once it entered adulthood, its original luster began to tarnish. Members of the bench and bar began to question how the deference owed to agency interpretations under Chevron could be squared with Congress’s directive in the Administrative Procedure Act that “the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”[1] And some members of Congress and the broader public bemoaned Chevron as transferring power away from the legislative to the executive branch, enabling each new administration to offer a new gloss on statutory enactments that the prior administration had thought settled. …

Pittsburgh, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Lucy Wiesner)

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to either party’s claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. While irrelevant information falls outside the scope of the express language of the rule, courts are generally reluctant to allow parties to redact irrelevant information contained within an otherwise responsive document.

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York provides helpful guidance on when relevancy redactions may be appropriate and how parties can avoid motions practice to resolve disputes over their scope.

The case Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. U.S. Magnesium, LLC, No. 22-cv-3105 (JGK) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023) concerned the defendant’s failure to fulfill its contract to supply magnesium to the plaintiff. The defendant relied on a force majeure defense, citing unexpected equipment failures. During discovery, the defendant produced several otherwise responsive documents with relevance redactions, to which the plaintiff objected. The plaintiff moved the court to require the defendant to produce the challenged documents in full “arguing that redactions for relevance are disfavored when there is a protective order in place, as one is here.” Id. at *1. The defendant responded that the redacted information was “irrelevant and competitively sensitive, and therefore, it should not be required to be produced in unredacted form.” Id.

The court held that where relevancy redactions “are consistent with Rule 1 and Rule 26 and do not deprive the other party of context, they may be appropriate” but advised that “a party should request permission to make such redactions in advance of production.” Id.  …

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

PIOGA Press

(by Jean Mosites and Gina Buchman)

On May 30, 2024, Vermont Governor Philip Scott allowed S.259, An act relating to climate change cost recovery, to become law without his signature.  S. 259, entitled the Climate Superfund Act, will require the development of claims to shift the cost of alleged climate-related impacts in Vermont onto the companies that produced fossil fuels responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This bill is the first of its kind to become law in the United States, and similar legislation is pending in Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland.  Borrowing some concepts from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or Superfund, which imposes strict liability for cleanup of contaminated sites on potentially responsible parties, this Act seeks to assign financial liability for climate-related impacts on the companies that extracted and refined petroleum products and other fossil fuels.  Like CERCLA, the Act imposes retroactive liability on entities having conducted lawful business activities in the past.

Vermont’s Act establishes a Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program to be administered by the Climate Action Office of the Agency of Natural Resources.  The Vermont Treasurer will be required to assess the cost of GHG emissions to the state and its residents during the period January 1, 1995 through December 31, 2024.  The Agency of Natural Resources will apportion liability and make cost recovery demands to “Responsible Parties,” those entities engaged in the trade or business of extracting fossil fuel or refining crude oil responsible for more than one billion metric tons of covered greenhouse gas emissions during the covered period. …

Pittsburgh, PA

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Max Junker and Anna Jewart)

Noted wordsmith Justice Michael Musmanno articulated the rationale for the “deemed approval” concept in Pennsylvania land use law noting: “Without this kind of coercive determination, a Board could effectively prevent the erection of needed structures through the simple process of luxurious lolling while spiders of inattention spin webs of indifference over pending public problems.”  To avoid luxurious lolling by local governments, the Legislature included mandatory deadlines in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10101 et seq. (“MPC”), which governs municipal regulation of zoning, subdivision and land development within the Commonwealth.  The MPC sets forth strict requirements for when and how municipalities make decisions on land use applications, in addition to how they communicate those decisions to the applicant.  A failure to comply with these requirements may result in a deemed approval of the underlying application.

Within days of each other, the Commonwealth Court issued two reported opinions which affirmed the deemed approvals of land use applications. CRG Services Management, LLC v. Lowhill Township, No. 1091 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 3, 2024) (deemed approval of a land development plan for a warehouse because the township’s denial letter was inadequate) and Folk v. Mifflin Township Zoning Hearing Board, 969 C.D. 2023 (Pa. Cmwlth. June 5, 2024) (deemed approval for a variance to operate a wedding venue on a farm because the zoning hearing board did not commence the public hearing within 60 days of application’s submission).  In light of these cases, this article provides a brief overview of key MPC provisions which could result in a deemed approval of a land use application. …