Benefits Bryan Cave

Benefits BCLP

Other Posts

Main Content

Employer CCPA FAQs #2: What is “personal information” under the CCPA? 

In the coming weeks we will be releasing a series of FAQs examining the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”)  of particular importance to employers.  These FAQs should help employers determine if they are required to comply with the CCPA and if so, what steps their HR professionals and IT departments should take to be in compliance.

By way of background, employers with operations in California should be aware of the CCPA, a new privacy law that applies to data collected about California-based employees.   Because the CCPA refers to “consumers” many HR professionals don’t realize that the Act, as currently drafted, applies to data collected about California-based employees. Please see our recent blog post summarizing the CCPA for employers.

The CCPA will go into effect in early 2020, and employers who must comply should be addressing compliance obligations now.  For U.S. employers who have not had to comply

Employer CCPA FAQs #1: Does the CCPA apply to employee data?

In the coming weeks we will be releasing a series of FAQs examining the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”)  of particular importance to employers.  These FAQs should help employers determine if they are required to comply with the CCPA and if so, what steps their HR professionals and IT departments should take to be in compliance.

By way of background, employers with operations in California should be aware of the CCPA, a new privacy law that applies to data collected about California-based employees.   Because the CCPA refers to “consumers” many HR professionals don’t realize that the Act, as currently drafted, applies to data collected about California-based employees. Please see our recent blog post summarizing the CCPA for employers.

The CCPA will go into effect in early 2020, and employers who must comply should be addressing compliance obligations now.  For U.S. employers who have not had to

Meet the CCPA: New Privacy Rules for California Employees

Employers with operations in California should be aware of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), a new privacy law that applies to data collected about California-based employees.   HR professionals should be aware that, although the CCPA refers to “consumers,” as currently drafted the CCPA’s definition of a “consumer” will apply to California-based employees.

Which employers will have to comply with the CCPA?

Employers with employees in California will need to comply with the CCPA if their business falls into one of the following three categories:

1. Their business buys, sells, or shares the “personal information” of 50,000 “consumers” or “devices”;

2. Their business has gross revenue greater than $25 million; or

3. Their business derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from sharing personal information.

What are the key implications of having to comply with the CCPA?

The Employers who

2019 Qualified Plan Limits Released

The Internal Revenue Service released the 2019 dollar limits for retirement plans, as adjusted under Code Section 415(d). We have summarized the new limits (along with the limits from the last few years) in the chart below.

Type of Limitation

2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Elective Deferrals (401(k), 403(b), 457(b)(2) and 457(c)(1)) $19,000 $18,500 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Section 414(v) Catch-Up Deferrals to 401(k), 403(b), 457(b), or SARSEP Plans (457(b)(3) and 402(g) provide separate catch-up rules to be considered as appropriate) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 SIMPLE Salary Deferral $13,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 SIMPLE 401(k) or regular SIMPLE plans, Catch-Up Deferrals $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 415 limit for Defined Benefit Plans $225,000 $220,000 $215,000 $210,000 $210,000 415 limit for Defined Contribution Plans $56,000 $55,000 $54,000 $53,000 $53,000 Annual Compensation Limit $280,000 $275,000 $270,000 $265,000 $265,000 Annual Compensation Limit for Grandfathered Participants in Governmental Plans Which

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 7: Business and Operational Issues Associated with Forming an AHP: Engaging an Insurance Carrier

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018 and its final rule on June 19, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we

Benefit Plan Disclosure affected by SEC Staff Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations of Proxy Rules and Schedules 14A/C

The SEC staff regularly publishes “Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations” (C&DIs) on various securities matters. Recently, the staff issued new C&DIs related to the SEC’s proxy rules. Previously, the interpretations relating to proxy rules were contained in a “Manual of Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations” which had not been updated since 1999. Included in the new C&DIs are interpretations that affect compensation and benefit plan disclosure in proxy statements filed on Schedule 14A. Most of the new compensation and benefit plan related C&DIs continue the prior Telephone Interpretations, but the following C&DI includes a new substantive interpretation:

  • C&DI Question 161.03: If a registrant is required to disclose the New Plan Benefits Table called for under Item 10(a)(2) of Schedule 14A, the table should list all of the individuals and groups for which award and benefit information is required, even if the amount to be reported is “0”. Alternatively, the

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 1

First in a Series

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across State Lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American People.” One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”). In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018.

With the renewed focus on AHPs, we will be examining the history of AHPs and

Changes to Executive Compensation: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s Impact on Section 162(m)

On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed the bill popularly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (the “Act”) into law.  The Act contains significant changes to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code that are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. In this article, we provide a summary of the changes to Section 162(m) and suggest planning considerations for publicly held corporations.

Summary of Changes to Section 162(m)

Among other changes to Section 162(m), the Act eliminated the performance-based compensation exception to the $1 million deduction limitation under Section 162(m).  The Act amended the scope of the covered employees, corporations, and compensation for purposes of the $1 million limitation on the deduction for compensation paid to certain employees under Section 162(m). The changes to Section 162(m) include the following:

  • Eliminating the performance-based compensation and commission exceptions from compensation subject

Equity Incentive Plans targeted by Plaintiffs’ New Theory on Section 16 Short-Swing Profit Liability

Securities and executive benefits attorneys and public companies that maintain equity incentive plans should be aware of a new theory of recovery under the “short-swing profit rule.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys have recently asserted a new form of claim alleging liability under the short-swing profit rule when shares are withheld to satisfy applicable taxes upon the vesting of awards.

Overview of the Short-Swing Profit Rule

The short-swing profit rule generally provides for strict liability of Section 16 insiders (i.e. an executive officer, director or 10% or more shareholder) if they engage in purchases and sales, or sales and purchases, of issuer equity securities within a six-month period that are not exempt under Section 16. Pursuant to Section 16 of the Exchange Act, a suit to recover short-swing profits may be instituted by the issuer or a shareholder in the name and on behalf of the issuer if the issuer fails or

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.