Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

WASHINGTON, DC, April 15, 2019 – Babst Calland announced that Arija Flowers has joined the Firm as an attorney in the Mobility, Transport and Safety Group in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office.
Ms. Flowers, a former NHTSA attorney well-known in the industry, served as a Senior Trial Attorney with the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel.  There, she was the lead U.S. federal enforcement attorney for a number of matters addressing some of the most significant issues in the industry. Ms. Flowers’ joining the Firm continues to enhance its best-in-class capabilities to meet the developing needs of mobility and transport clients and other companies with emerging technologies. The practice provides strategic leadership with business and legal advice for manufacturers, suppliers, start-ups, technology companies and government entities in the full-spectrum of transportation regulatory, safety, product quality, and automation matters, including automated/autonomous driving systems.
“Arija Flowers’ joining our team represents a consolidation at Babst Calland of several recent former NHTSA and DOT senior staff and leadership with the freshest and deepest understanding of NHTSA/DOT’s current decision-makers and technical analysis approach,” said Babst Calland’s Managing Shareholder Donald C. Bluedorn II.  “The continued outreach to us for services from companies – even those who are well represented at present – has really spoken to the success of our vision,” he added.
Ms. Flowers will join Will Godfrey, Babst Calland’s Director, Mobility, Automation and Safety, and a former General Motors engineer and senior NHTSA regulatory chief, and Tim Goodman, the leader of Babst Calland’s Mobility, Transport and Safety Group, and former NHTSA chief legal officer for enforcement and U.S. federal senior executive.
Ms. Flowers will help companies navigate the full-spectrum of mobility, vehicle safety and related regulatory matters, including self-certification of standards, homologation, regulatory compliance, automated/autonomous driving systems, innovative mobility and safety approaches, best practices and emerging trends, standards enforcement, defects investigations, government inquiries and enforcement proceedings, and recall implementation. …

The Legal Intelligencer
(by Alana Fortna)
The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into “waters of the United States” pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or an authorized state agency. This is not a new concept. However, what has come to be known as “the groundwater conduit theory” is disrupting the long-standing understanding of what is and what isn’t covered by the Clean Water Act. This new theory also creates questions for companies and attorneys dealing with Superfund sites and waste management units regulated under RCRA. This article discusses the circuit split on this theory and what I view as potential implications for Superfund sites and waste management units depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules.
Several federal cases have addressed the issue of the indirect discharge of pollutants into jurisdictional waters via groundwater transport, and the Supreme Court may weigh in on this question soon. This is an important issue with far-reaching ramifications because it is generally understood that all groundwater that is not otherwise removed (i.e., pumped for drinking water supply) will eventually discharge to a surface water. The Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of pollutants from a “point source” without a NPDES permit, 33 U.S.C. Section 1342. A “point source” is defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” Based on this definition, discharges into and through groundwater have not been considered point source discharges because they are not the typical “end of the pipe” discharges. Recent case law out of the U.S. …

Law360

(by Cara Salvatore)

Babst Calland has hired a former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lawyer who played a lead role in the agency’s work on the Takata air bag probe and other high-profile matters, the firm said Wednesday, the third former NHTSA staffer to join the firm’s transportation practice in recent years.

For the full article, click here.

The PIOGA Press
(by Kevin Garber and Jean Mosites)
The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will consider a petition for a cap-and-trade regulation at its April 16 meeting. The Clean Air Council, Widener Commonwealth Law School Environmental Law and Sustain-ability Center, and others submitted the petition on February 28, asking EQB to promulgate a regulation that would create a multi-sector cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to achieve carbon neutrality in Pennsylvania by 2052.
The petitioners initially submitted the petition to EQB on November 27, 2018. Under EQB’s Petition Policy (25 Pa. Code Chapter 23), the Department of Environmental Protection is to notify EQB and the petitioner within 30 days of DEP’s receipt of the petition whether the petition meets the policy’s eligibility criteria. DEP advised the petitioners on December 26 that the petition met the criteria and would be submitted to EQB for consideration at the first meeting of 2019.
However, DEP did not notify EQB members until, apparently, early February. Upon learning of the petition, Representative Daryl Metcalfe, chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, requested DEP on February 19 to have the petitioners resubmit their petition. The petitioners resubmitted the petition on February 28 with minor changes and additional signatories. DEP notified petitioners and the EQB on March 1 that DEP would review the petition to ensure it still meets the eligibility criteria. DEP has now done that and EQB scheduled the matter for consideration at its April 16 meeting.
The petition
The petition includes a fully drafted regulation that establishes a cap on covered GHG emissions, based on a 2016 base year, and reduces GHG emissions to carbon neutrality by 2052. The regulation borrows heavily from California’s cap-and-trade regulation, which is a multi-sector program that includes Ontario and Quebec. …

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Lindsay Howard and Matthew Wood)

In a press conference on Feb. 14, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its multifaceted “action plan” outlining steps the agency is taking to protect public health and the environment from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals that have been in use since around the 1940s and have numerous commercial and consumer applications. They have been used in nonstick coatings for cookware and food containers, waterproofing for fabrics and textiles, the manufacture of plastics and resins, and the formulation of firefighting foams. Their widespread use and the discovery of PFAS chemicals in various environmental media across the United States has raised interest and concerns about their potential effects on human health and the environment.

PFAS in the Environment 

PFAS chemicals have been found in, among other things, groundwater (which may be used for drinking water), surface water and sediments, as well as in wildlife and human blood. Human exposure may occur through ingestion of contaminated drinking water and consumption of animals and plants in which PFAS have bioaccumulated (or that have been exposed to PFAS in the course of preparing or cooking food for consumption). Studies have shown that exposure to PFAS chemicals may have negative health consequences, which has driven the EPA and other stakeholders to better understand the chemicals, the extent of their presence in the environment, their potential health effects and the best methods for containment and cleanup.

EPA’s Action Plan

To develop its action plan, the EPA requested comments, visited with leadership and citizens of PFAS-affected communities, and hosted a PFAS National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. …

Smart Business

(by Jayne Gest with Christian Farmakis)

It’s not always easy for business owners to find financing. Most business owners will, at some point, turn to conventional bank lending to help finance their business or fund growth, like acquisitions. There are, however, many different types of financing products available in the commercial lending market. But whatever type of financing you settle on, it’s critical to know exactly what you’re risking.

“Business owners often focus more on ‘getting the loan’ than on the specific terms and covenants of the loan, which in many instances can hinder the ongoing operations of the business,” says Christian A. Farmakis, shareholder and chairman of the board at Babst Calland.

Smart Business spoke with Farmakis about the lending environment and legal risks to keep an eye on.

What are loan options for small and mid-sized business owners?

Since the Great Recession, traditional bank lending has competed with other forms of lending. For instance, business owners are increasingly turning to private equity funding and family office lending rather than traditional, asset-based lending. These options may require sacrificing significant ownership and control over the business.

Other loan types include U.S. Small Business Administration loans backed by the federal government but underwritten by banks, small business loans for real estate financing and equipment loans.

Credit unions and regional and community banks sometimes offer different and more flexible terms and do smaller loans because they service the loan in their portfolio, where a larger bank might have stricter underwriting requirements.

What legal issues could crop up in the term sheet and loan documents?

Loans can include affirmative and negative covenants, but it’s usually the negative ones that trip people up. …

Institute for Energy Law Oil & Gas E-Report

(by Adam Speer)

Anyone dealing with land and title issues in West Virginia quickly learns the importance of real property assessments. The relative ease in which an interest in land, including mineral rights, can be lost in a tax sale means that landmen and title practitioners who fail to examine a property’s tax assessment history do so at their peril. Those histories are found in the volumes of “landbooks” maintained by each county assessor’s office. A relatively common and beguiling problem arises when the title examiner discovers that a property has been double assessed. Such duplicate assessments are rarely obvious, as assessed interests are often described by brief and vague notations and sometimes assessed in the name of a long-gone predecessor in title.

Recently, in Haynes v. Antero Resources Corporation, Hill v. Lone Pine Operating Company and L&D Investments Inc. v. Mike Ross, Inc., the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia considered the validity of several tax deeds that stemmed from the duplicate assessment of certain oil and gas interests created by the Harrison County Assessor’s Office. In each of the cases, the court reaffirmed its long-standing precedent that holds that in the case of two assessments of the same land under the same claim of title, the state can only require one payment of taxes under either assessment. The cases highlight the potential consequences of duplicate tax assessments of severed mineral interests in West Virginia and the need to have interests properly assessed. The Haynes, Lone Pine and L&D Investment decisions should be maintained in any title practitioner’s toolkit for analyzing interests conveyed by a tax sale and determining the likelihood of a successful challenge to set aside a tax deed. …

The Legal Intelligencer

(by John McCreary)

The February 2017, issue of Pennsylvania Law Weekly published this author’s comments on the employment law issues created by the then-recently enacted Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). I identified some of the practical and legal problems presented by the continued illegality of marijuana under federal law, the conflict between statutory employment protections for medical marijuana patients and common employer policies prohibiting illegal drug use. I predicted that the “imprecision of the MMA’s statutory language” would “inject needless uncertainty into the employer-employee relationship” that “likely would not be resolved absent litigation.” Although to date there have been no cases reported under Pennsylvania’s MMA, several courts in other jurisdictions have considered employment issues arising under similar medical marijuana statutes. The uncertainty is lessening; the smoke is beginning to clear.

The 2017 article conjectured that the federal Drug Free Workplace Act (DFWA), which requires recipients of federal funds to maintain a drug-free workplace as described, see 41 U.S.C. Section 8102, might serve as a defense to a claim brought by a medical marijuana patient. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic, 338 F.Supp.3d 78 (D.Ct. 2018), a case arising under Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA), Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 21a-408 et seq.says otherwise. There, medical marijuana patient Noffsinger accepted a position as activities manager at the defendant’s health and rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff informed her prospective employer about her medical marijuana prescription. PUMA Section 21a-408p(b)(3) provides that “no employer may refuse to hire a person or may discharge, penalize or threaten an employee solely on the basis of such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient” under PUMA. When Noffsinger’s pre-employment drug screen returned positive for marijuana the job offer was rescinded. …

PA Law Weekly

(by Jean M. Mosites and Varun Shekhar)

On Feb. 28, Clean Air Council and Widener Commonwealth Law School Environmental Law and Sustainability Center, among others, resubmitted a petition to the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board, asking it to promulgate a regulation that would create a multi-sector cap-and-trade system in Pennsylvania to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to achieve carbon neutrality by 2052.

The Petition

The petition includes a fully drafted regulation that establishes a cap on all reported GHG emissions, based on a 2016 base year. The cap would decline by 3 percent each year.

The petitioners acknowledge: “The proposed regulation will have an impact on all sectors of Pennsylvania’s economy, although the impact will vary among businesses and individuals, with some benefiting and some suffering adverse impacts.”

Capping GHG emissions means that the covered entities meeting certain thresholds—including producers of cement, glass, steel, lead and paper, any facility producing or importing electricity, and fossil fuel producers—all must obtain allowances, by auction or allocation, for each metric ton of reportable GHG emissions per year attributable to their operations in Pennsylvania. According to the EPA’s envirofacts database, close to 400 facilities in Pennsylvania report GHG emissions to the EPA.

The petition proposes that emissions from covered sources would be capped, with the cap declining each year by an amount equal to 3 percent of 2016 emissions. If the regulation becomes effective for 2020, the cap would be equal to 91 percent of 2016 emissions. Limited by the ever-declining cap and availability of allowances, each covered entity must reduce its GHG emissions over time to achieve carbon neutrality by 2052. Allowances under the proposed trading system would be priced at a minimum of $10 each in 2020, with the price increasing by 10 percent plus the rate of inflation each year. …

Smart Business 

(by Jayne Gest with Christian Farmakis and Justine Kasznica)

Convertible debt is a common investment vehicle by which early-stage companies raise capital, where an investor grants to a company a short-term, often interest-bearing loan that converts into equity of the company at a future date. The convertible debt investors agree to push the question of what the company is worth — the valuation — down the road until the company’s next priced funding round. In return, the investors receive certain advantageous terms at the time that the debt converts to equity.

Smart Business spoke with Christian A. Farmakis, shareholder and chairman of the board, and Justine M. Kasznica, shareholder, at Babst Calland, about this investment vehicle.

What are the benefits for these investors?

As with any loan, the convertible debt note accrues interest until a defined maturity date. Unlike a standard promissory note, the convertible note often includes a conversion discount, valuation cap and other terms designed to mitigate the investor’s risk.

With the conversion discount, these investors receive a discount on the price per share at which their note converts to equity at a future priced round. Although discounts vary, it’s commonly set around 20 percent. Thus, if the price per share is set at $1, an investor’s convertible debt note would convert at a price of 80 cents per share.

With a valuation cap, (a) a maximum value of the company is established, solely for the purpose of calculating conversion of debt to equity; and (b) the investor’s price per share will be capped at the agreed upon number.

How can convertible debt negatively impact the startup? …

The Legal Intelligencer
(by Krista-Ann M. Staley and Jenn L. Malik)
In 2016, Pennsylvania joined several other states in enacting legislation legalizing the use or possession of medical marijuana within its borders. Inherent in adopting this legislation is the regulation of the various retailers and manufacturers charged with supplying legal green to licensed users of medical marijuana. Now that the commonwealth has legislated the “how” of medical marijuana use, local governing bodies are taxed with legislating the “where.” The following addresses state and local regulation concerning the zoning of the medical marijuana industry.
State Regulation of Medical Marijuana Organizations
 The Medical Marijuana Act (the act), 35 P.S. Section 10231.101 et seq., authorizes the Pennsylvania Department of Health (the department) to issue permits to “medical marijuana organizations” (MMOs), bifurcated by the act into two categories—namely dispensaries and grower/processors. As the terms suggest, dispensaries are authorized by the department to dispense medical marijuana and grower/processors are permitted by the department to grow and process medical marijuana. The act required the department to divide the commonwealth into regions and to regulate the number of permits issued per region. As a result, the department essentially regulates the amount of medical marijuana grown, manufactured and sold in each region. (The act required the department to establish at least three regions and the department actually established six regions). The department is initially only permitted to issue 25 permits to growers/processors and 50 permits to dispensaries statewide. In addition to the limited number of permits available, stringent state-mandated application requirements and hefty fees (i.e, an initial application fee of $10,000 for grower/processors and $5,000 for dispensaries; a first-year permitting fee of $200,000 for grower/processors and $30,000 for dispensaries; and additional renewal permitting fees) further limit MMO locations in the commonwealth. …