SAN FRANCISCO, May 16, 2016 - Baker Botts L.L.P., a leading international law firm, today announced the admission of Stuart Plunkett and Jonathan Shapiro as partners in the firm’s recently opened San Francisco office.
“Both Stuart and Jon are outstanding litigators and we are delighted that they have chosen to join us,” said Andrew M. Baker, Managing Partner of Baker Botts. “Baker Botts has a strong presence in California, and the addition of both Jon and Stuart in San Francisco speaks to the interest and momentum that we have seen, since we opened our office earlier this year,” added Mr. Baker.
Mr. Plunkett has 19 years of national experience representing clients in complex antitrust and commercial litigation matters. His clients include companies and individuals in a broad range of industries, including high tech, financial services, energy and healthcare.
Mr. Plunkett regularly speaks and writes on antitrust litigation topics. He served as Chair of the Antitrust Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco and currently serves on the Bar Association’s Executive Committee. Mr. Plunkett previously served on the Executive Committee of the Antitrust Section of the State Bar of California.
Mr. Shapiro’s practice focuses on the defense of business and securities litigation and government enforcement actions. He has litigated class actions, challenges to corporate transactions and governance, and other matters regarding allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, including jury and bench trials.
Mr. Shapiro’s clients include public and financial services companies, officers and directors, and investment bankers. He also serves as counsel defending and conducting internal investigations to those subject to enforcement action under the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, FINRA, and other government agencies and self-regulatory organizations.
Mr. Plunkett joins the firm from Morrison Foerster, while Mr. Shapiro joins from Mintz Levin.
“Adding Stuart and Jon in San Francisco is another step in the execution of our strategic plan to help us meet growing client demand in California, while ensuring we maintain our high level of professional excellence and client service. We expect to add other high quality legal talent to our Bay Area offices in the near term,” said Pat Stanton, Partner-in-Charge of the firm’s San Francisco office.
Over the last several years, the patent landscape has changed dramatically, due to changes introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA). One of the most significant changes is the establishment of new post-grant patent proceedings, including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method Review (CBMR).
“The introduction of these proceedings has dramatically changed how the validity of patents are challenged and evaluated, and has had a wide-ranging impact on the patent litigation landscape,” said Luke Pedersen, Chair of Baker Botts' PTAB Trials practice.
“Every week brings new decisions and rulings that offer insight into how the PTAB is handling these proceedings and interpreting statutes and regulations associated with the AIA. As leaders in the patent prosecution and litigation arena, the Baker Botts PTAB Trials Blog will provide a unique perspective on news, trends and analysis of PTAB proceedings as they evolve,” added Mr. Pedersen.
“With over 160 IP lawyers, holding over 180 advanced degrees, Baker Botts has an incredibly deep bench of practitioners with a wealth of experience in patent litigation, patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings. Lawyers in our PTAB Trials practice have already participated in over 135 IPRs and 10 CBMRs on behalf of our clients,” said Bart Showalter, Chair of Baker Botts' Intellectual Property practice.
To subscribe to our new blog, click here.
The outcome of the 23 June 2016 UK referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the European Union ("EU") caught many unprepared, including those who advocated for the so-called 'Brexit'. There is no precedent for a Member State leaving the EU. If the UK does leave the EU, business could experience months – perhaps years – of legal uncertainty: those who led the Brexit campaign do not appear yet to have articulated clear proposals for what future relationship they want between the UK and the EU; and there is a risk that any forthcoming proposals may be rejected by the remaining EU Member States.
The UK is unlikely to be permitted to enjoy the benefits of EU membership, such as full access to the single market, without having to share at least some of the burdens of membership: for example, by making contributions to the EU budget and/or permitting free movement of persons. Were it to be otherwise, an incentive may be created for other countries also to break away, gradually eroding the very foundations of the European project. However, any kind of quid pro quo may be difficult to accept for those who voted last Thursday to leave the EU, on the basis of a leave campaign that promised to release the UK from the obligations associated with EU membership while at the same time assuring voters that access to the single market would not be affected.
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT?
The outcome of the referendum has no immediate legal implications. The referendum was advisory only and has no legal effect. The UK Government and UK Parliament could, in principle, ignore its outcome.
Thus, for the time being, all EU regulations remain directly effective in the UK, and UK domestic legislation, based on EU legislation (e.g., EU directives), remain in force.
There continues to be some debate in the UK over what is required as a matter of English law in order for the UK formally to withdraw from the EU. The withdrawal process will only be triggered once the UK notifies the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union ("EU Treaty"). However, any decision to withdraw, which according to the outgoing UK prime minister, David Cameron, is unlikely to be taken before October 2016, must be in accordance with the UK's "constitutional requirements". Because the UK is a parliamentary democracy, this is likely to mean that the Prime Minister is unable to issue a declaration under Article 50 - triggering withdrawal from the EU - without having been first authorized to do so by an Act of the UK Parliament. Were he or she to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration may be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it may also fail to comply with the requirements of Article 50 itself.
Once the UK has formally given notification of its intention to leave the EU, work will have to start on four different fronts:
negotiations between the UK and the EU (consisting of the remaining 27 Member States - the "EU 27") on the terms of the withdrawal;
negotiations between the UK and the EU 27 on the future relationship between the UK and the EU 27;
internal UK legislation and regulation on, among other things, areas currently governed by EU law; and
negotiations between the UK and the rest of the world, in particular the approximately 50 countries with which the EU currently has free trade agreements.
This will be a monumental task, in particular for the UK, and it is doubtful whether it can be completed within the two-year time period contemplated by Article 50 EU Treaty.
Withdrawal agreement with the EU 27. According to Article 50 EU Treaty, once the UK has given formal notification to the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU, the UK will remain a member of the EU, and EU law will remain applicable in the UK, until the EU 27 and the UK have reached an agreement setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal, or two years have lapsed, whichever is earlier. On the EU side, any withdrawal agreement requires approval by a qualified majority of the EU 27 Member States after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. If no such agreement can be reached within two years following the formal notification, the UK's membership will automatically terminate and EU law will cease to apply to and in the UK, unless all 27 Member States agree to extend the deadline.
It is unclear what exactly would have to be included in the withdrawal agreement. Financial issues, such as the UK's contribution to pension rights of EU officials or projects in the UK that are co-financed by the EU, will be a key subject matter.
Agreement on the future relationship between the UK and the EU 27. While the terms of the withdrawal and the future relationship between the UK and the EU 27 are likely to be closely linked, legally these are two separate issues.
At present, it is completely unclear what the post-Brexit relationship between the UK and the EU 27 will look like. The stated objectives of the pro-Brexit camp - take back control, escape from EU legislation and the rulings of the European Court of Justice ("ECJ"), cease contributions to the EU budget and restrict immigration on the one hand, and to have full access to the internal market on the other hand - seem to be irreconcilable in practice and unlikely to be accepted by the EU 27 as the basis for any deal. This becomes obvious considering the types of agreements that the EU has concluded with other third countries.
Norway rejected EU membership and instead became a member of the European Economic Area ("EEA") and the European Free Trade Area ("EFTA"). It has full access to the EU internal market, but must accept all EU laws without having any power to influence them. It must also allow free movement of persons, contribute to the EU budget, and accept the supervision and control of the EFTA Court.
Switzerland rejected EU and EEA membership but is a member of the EFTA. It has access to the internal market only in selected sectors for which it has concluded some 100 bilateral agreements with the EU and in which it must accept EU laws without having any role in their drafting. Switzerland also makes contributions to the EU budget and must allow free movement of persons.
Turkey has a customs union with the EU. It enjoys only limited access to the internal market for some industrial and agricultural goods, but not in services. Also, Turkey's external customs regime is in line with the one of the EU.
Canada is one of the numerous countries with which the EU has concluded a free trade agreement. Typically, these agreements remove tariffs in trade of goods as well as certain non-tariff barriers in trade of goods and services. Exports to the EU must comply with EU regulations.
As these examples show, there is a direct correlation between the breadth of access to the EU internal market, on the one hand, and the stringency of obligation of the non-member country to accept, without any say, the EU laws and regulations, allow free movement of persons, and contribute to the EU budget, on the other. It seems unlikely that the 27 remaining Member States would agree to deviate from this principle, as it would set a dangerous precedent and incentivize other Member States to break away from the EU or cause Norway or Switzerland to renegotiate their status. Indeed, senior Member State diplomats have already confirmed this.
It seems to us extremely ambitious to expect all required negotiations to be concluded within the two-year period set by Article 50 EU Treaty. If, however, no solution is agreed within that timeframe, and if just one Member State of the EU 27 refuses to agree to extend the time limit for concluding the withdrawal agreement, the UK would automatically become a third country with no special access to the internal market. Its relationship with the EU would then be governed by the rules of the Word Trade Organization. This Sword of Damocles is likely to play a crucial role in the negotiations.
Finally, the EU could not simply grant the UK preferential access in limited areas, since any agreement between the EU and the UK would have to be WTO-compliant.
Internal UK legislation and regulation. There are large areas of the law that are currently regulated by EU regulations, such as Passenger Rights, Data Protection, Customs Laws and Trade Defence. For the vast majority of them, the UK would have to adopt equivalent national legislation. The UK may also have to adopt national legislation on various transitional issues, such as whether EU decisions adopted prior to the UK leaving the EU continue to be legally binding. Finally, the UK has in the past adopted or amended national laws in order to implement numerous EU directives. Just determining where national legislation is required is likely to be a hugely time-consuming exercise.
Negotiations between the UK and the rest of the world. The EU currently has trade and other agreements in place with some 50 countries. Once the UK has left the EU, these agreements will cease to apply to the UK. Until the UK has its own trade agreements in place, its relationships with third countries post-Brexit will be governed only by the rules of the WTO, which are likely to have a negative impact on trade. It seems very unlikely that the UK will be able to conclude a meaningful number of trade agreements while at the same time negotiating its withdrawal from the EU. Trade negotiations are notoriously difficult and time-consuming. The recently concluded agreement between the EU and Canada, for example, took seven years to complete.
IMPACT IN SELECTED AREAS
As discussed above, it is currently wholly uncertain what future relationship the EU 27 and the UK may have. The impact of Brexit on areas such as competition, state aid, trade, and financial markets is, to a large extent, based on speculation and no clear answers can be provided at this time. Much will depend on what internal legislation the UK may adopt, and whether and to what extent it will declare void past legislation implementing EU law.
Brexit will affect the application of competition law both in the EU 27 and the UK. Some of the impact of Brexit on competition law - particularly in respect of merger control - could be mitigated if, for example, the UK were to end up in an EEA-type relationship with the EU, as is the case for Norway.
In the UK. Competition law in the UK is based heavily on EU law. The Competition Act 1998 and subsequent UK statutes effectively enshrine EU competition rules into domestic legislation, accompanied by a high degree of enforcement cooperation between the UK regulator (the Competition & Markets Authority ("CMA")), the European Commission ("EC"), and national competition authorities in other EU Member States.
It seems unlikely post-Brexit that the UK would opt to change substantially the basic parameters for competition law in the UK. What may change, however, is the way in which the basic laws on anticompetitive behavior and dominance are interpreted and implemented and that the CMA and UK courts would arrive at divergent interpretations from those of the European Commission and the EU Court. It is entirely possible that differences in interpretation between the UK and EU could lead to an increase in uncertainty for businesses operating across the two jurisdictions, as well as a simple increase in administrative burden where, for example, a company is subject to an investigation both in the UK and the EU in respect of the same alleged antitrust violation.
Brexit is also likely to affect London as the preferred forum for cartel damages litigation in Europe. It seems unlikely that a post-Brexit London could still be a forum for damages litigation covering damages in the EU 27, particularly as EC decisions finding an infringement of EU competition law will no longer be binding on UK courts. Thus, this type of litigation may move to other Member States, notably Germany or the Netherlands.
In the EU. While Brexit will not affect EU competition law as such, it does raise issues with respect to the application of EU competition law. Some of these issues are immediately relevant.
Merger control. In the absence of any adjustment to the EU Merger Regulation revenues thresholds, the number of national merger filings in various EU Member States may increase since merging parties' UK revenues - often substantial in large, cross-border mergers - would no longer count towards the EU thresholds. Also, transactions involving parties with significant revenues and activities in both the EU 27 and the UK could be subject to notification requirements in both jurisdictions, leaving open the possibility of divergent outcomes in parallel merger reviews (and an inevitable increase in time and cost for business).
Cartels. After the UK has left the EU, investigations by the EC would be limited to the effect cartels have in the EU 27. The CMA could start its own investigations, in so far as the cartel affects the UK, including for cartels for which EC cartel investigations are pending at the time of Brexit. Leniency applicants may wish to consider lodging, even prior to Brexit, as a matter of precaution, an application both with the EC and the CMA, as it is uncertain whether the CMA will recognize leniency applications lodged with the EC.
Other investigations and settlements. The territorial scope of other competition investigations concerning both Article 101 and 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU") will be limited to the EU 27 as soon as the UK leaves the EU. If the EC finds an infringement, the addressees of the decision would have to comply with the decision in respect of their activities in the EU 27 but not in the UK. The same applies if the alleged infringer entered into a settlement with the EC. Any commitments given in that regard would apply only within the EU 27 but not within the UK.
Post-Brexit the EU state aid rules would no longer apply in the UK. The UK would, in principle, be free to hand out state aid to undertakings operating in the UK. State aid investigations by the EC that are pending against the UK may have to be terminated and recovery orders may no longer have to be complied with. However, it must be assumed that the EU 27 will insist that any arrangement allowing the UK access to the internal market of the EU 27 will require the UK to comply with EU state aid rules and contain provisions as regards pending investigations and recovery orders.
Brexit will have only a limited effect on trade law in the EU 27. Specifically, it does not affect the application of EU customs law or trade agreements that the EU has concluded with third countries. It may, however, affect pending EU anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigations which would then be limited to assessing imports into the EU 27.
Brexit is likely, however, to have far-reaching effects on UK trade policy and law. The UK would have to adopt its own customs code and schedule of tariffs. As mentioned, the preferential trade agreements concluded by the EU with numerous third countries would no longer apply to the UK. Until the UK has concluded with those countries its own trade agreements, which must meet the requirements of the WTO, the UK could not grant preferential treatment to imports from those countries without violating its most favoured nation obligation under the WTO. In these circumstances, many imports of goods into the UK, and exports from the UK that currently are duty-free, would become subject to customs duties.
Any anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties imposed by the EU, including duties on steel imports from China, would cease to apply post-Brexit to imports into the UK. The UK would have to adopt its own anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws.
Economic sanctions and export controls
Economic sanctions. In recent years, the EU has imposed sanctions and embargoes in relation to several countries and individuals to further its Common Foreign and Security Policy ("CFSP") objectives. Currently, EU sanctions legislation is directly effective in the UK, although it is commonly enforced through local UK secondary legislation. Once the UK leaves the EU, EU sanctions legislation will no longer apply in the UK. However, it is likely that the UK will want to mirror the existing EU sanctions regime, which it will do by passing fresh legislation or, where possible, by amending existing legislation. The practical position should remain the same in terms of the scope of the sanctions regime. The UK will, however, be free to pass sanctions legislation that differs from the EU regime if it so wishes. After leaving the EU, the UK would implement United Nations Security Council ("UNSC") sanctions through UK secondary legislation (currently these are implemented by EU legislation which is then enforced through UK secondary legislation).
Export controls. Dual-use items listed under Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) 428/2009 (commonly known as the 'Dual-Use Regulation') may be exported without a license to the UK from another EU Member State, and from the UK to another EU Member State; but a license is required where the same dual-use items are exported outside the territory of the EU. Post-Brexit, exports of dual-use items from the EU 27 to the UK could require a license, although it is likely that the EU would decide that exports of certain dual-use items would be covered by one of its global licenses.
Post-Brexit, the Dual-Use Regulation would no longer apply in the UK. The UK would need to amend some of its existing secondary legislation on export control, and may need to pass fresh legislation to plug any gaps in current legislation, including to regulate exports of dual-use items to the EU 27.
Brexit will affect the European Intellectual Property landscape. The impact will be in two main areas: European Union trade marks and registered designs, and the proposed Unitary Patent and Unified Patents Court.
European Union trade marks and registered designs. These are EU-based rights. Post-Brexit, they will no longer receive protection in the UK. It is likely that there will be transitional provisions which allow existing EU trade marks and registered designs to be registered as UK national trade marks and registered designs without a loss of filing or priority date. For new applications, it is advisable to file for protection in both the EU (as an EU trade mark or registered design) and in the UK. Allied to this, reviews of licensing arrangements need to be conducted, for example where the territory definition refers to the EU, as post-Brexit, the UK may not be covered.
Unitary Patent and Unified Patents Court. Post-Brexit, the UK will not have the right to participate in either the Unitary Patent or the Unified Patents Court. The likely course at present is that the launch of the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patents Court will be put on hold until Brexit, as there will be little desire to commence the system with the UK included, and then have to reform on Brexit. The life sciences division of the Central Division, which was to be sited in London, is likely to move to Paris, Munich or The Hague. In enforcement terms, this means that, post-Brexit, infringements in the UK will continue to be enforced through the UK domestic courts, and not through the Unified Patents Court.
Existing European Patent System. The UK is an independent signatory of the European Patent Convention. This is an international treaty, not an EU-only initiative. Therefore, Brexit will not affect the ability of patentees to obtain patent protection in the UK as an EP (GB) through the European Patent Office and the procedure will be unchanged.
There is no change to the existing data privacy regime, with its basis being national implementation of the directive. There will be change post-Brexit because the new regulation with its increased scope and penalties will no longer apply to the UK. The UK, therefore, will be faced with a choice. It can implement the new regulation, in full, into its domestic legislation in place of the 1998 Data Protection Act; it can reject the new regulation and maintain the 1998 Data Protection Act in force; or it can formulate its own new data privacy legislation, which would likely be based on the existing 1998 Data Protection Act with a cherry pick of pieces of the new regulation. The key for the UK would be to ensure an adequate level of protection consistent with the new regulation and thus to protect the movement of personal data between the UK and the EU 27.
Commercial litigation and arbitration
Commercial litigation. Brexit may impact pan-European cross-border commercial litigation as the Brussels I Regulation, governing the allocation of civil and commercial jurisdiction among EU member state courts and the recognition and enforcement of their judgments, will no longer apply in the UK. The UK has various options to replace it. The UK could (i) conclude an agreement with the EU 27 providing for the continued application of the Brussels I Regulation; (ii) sign and ratify the Lugano Convention (which extends the application of the old Brussels regime to EFTA states); (iii) sign and ratify another treaty (such as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005); or (iv) return to the Brussels Convention regime. Although outdated in many respects, the Brussels Convention might be the most likely fall-back position and seems clearly to be preferable to a return to applying the common law in disputes with a pan-European element.
Arbitration. Most leading practitioners in the international arbitration market in the UK appear to take the view that Brexit will not diminish London's status as one the world's preeminent arbitration centers. They argue that the reasons for its success - its highly respected arbitration bar, the outstanding facilities, the arbitration-friendly judiciary - will not be affected by Brexit. Arbitration in London might even benefit from Brexit as certain restrictions under EU law (e.g., the restrictions on anti-suit injunctions) might no longer be applicable to London arbitrations post-Brexit.
Please contact one of the authors below or your Baker Botts relationship attorney with any questions.
Transactions involving the electric power industry have been a core competence of Baker Botts for over 100 years. During that time, much of the worldwide power industry has been deregulated and privatized. Today, growing concerns about global warming promise even greater changes – more renewable generation, carbon abatement transactions and projects, and implementation of smart grid technologies. We understand the commercial and regulatory implications of these trends, and assist our clients in all aspects of this dynamic industry.
Our clients cover the spectrum of participants in the power industry in virtually all types of relevant transactions, projects, and regulatory proceedings, including project development, project finance, permit and rate cases, and acquisitions and divestitures.
Our clients include:
Baker Botts L.L.P., a leading international law firm, announced today that the firm represented three industry petitioners in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit State of Texas et al. v. EPA case.
Houston Volunteer Lawyers (“HVL”), which is a non-profit service of the Houston Bar Association, has recognized the firm’s Houston Pro Bono Program as an Equal Access to Justice Grand Champion for 2015-2016.
The firm represents Ralph S. Janvey, a court-appointed receiver tasked with recovering assets in connection with R. Allen Stanford’s multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme. The Janvey v. Maldonado case has also been recognized by The National Law Journal on its list of Top 100 Verdicts of 2015.
On July 14, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a U.S. court cannot issue a warrant under § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq.(the “SCA”), against a United States-based service provider for the contents of customer’s electronic communications stored on servers located outside the United States. While the immediate impact of this decision is limited to SCA warrants, it suggests continued judicial scrutiny over the extraterritorial application of United States law.
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., announced today that Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc., a subsidiary of Jackson, Mississippi-based Ergon, Inc. ("Ergon"), has agreed to purchase 100% of the membership interests of Blueknight GP Holding, L.L.C. Baker Botts L.L.P. represented Ergon in the transaction.
The latest Baker Botts PTAB Trials Blog post discusses The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Mag Aerospace Industries Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. and how it has reaffirmed the continued vitality of assignor estoppel and highlighted an often-overlooked aspect of the doctrine. Click here to read more.
On July 14, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Department of Treasury issued proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) under section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), that provide new rules on the so-called device test (the “Proposed Device Rules”) and the active trade or business (“ATB”) requirement (the “Proposed ATB Rules”), both relating to the ability of a spin-off to qualify as a tax-free transaction for the distributing corporation and its shareholders.
Baker Botts today provided comments on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) vote on July 13, 2013, to adopt amendments to the rules governing enforcement cases brought before the SEC’s in-house administrative law judges (ALJ). Securities attorneys at Baker Botts analyze the commissioner’s vote and the impact the amendments have on the current enforcement actions of the SEC in administrative proceedings.
On July 13, 2016, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) detailing its proposed revisions to the Hazardous Materials regulations (“HMRs”).
American Securities LLC, a leading U.S. private equity firm, today announced its acquisition of Ulterra Drilling Technologies, L.P. ("Ulterra") in partnership with Ulterra's management team. Ulterra is a leading manufacturer of polycrystalline diamond compact drill bits for the oil and gas industry. Ulterra was owned by ESCO Corporation. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
In the Baker Botts IP Report, lawyers share their insight on the latest Intellectual Property topics.
On May 4, 2016 the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) issued final and temporary regulations, Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-2T (the “Regulation”), to clarify the employment tax treatment of partners in a partnership that owns a disregarded entity.
Baker Botts today released the audio from the recent webinar led by Intellectual Property attorneys discussing the U.S. Supreme Court's Intellectual Property decisions from the 2015 Term and cases the Court has decided to hear during the 2016 Term.
There has been a dramatic rise in the number of lawsuits involving billing disputes between plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and out-of-network healthcare providers. Certain third-party claims administrators for the ERISA plans are proactively suing out-of-network healthcare providers for alleged fraudulent billing practices.