Virgin Islands Law Blog

FDIC and SBA Offer Support for New and Aspiring Entrepreneurs

Tom Bolt — Wed, 09 May 2012 08:30:35 -0400

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) recently announced new resources to support small businesses across the nation and the U.S. Virgin Islands. FDIC Director for Depositor and Consumer Protection Mark Pearce and SBA’s Deputy Associate Administrator for Entrepreneurial Development Michael Chodos released Money Smart for Small Business, a training curriculum for new and aspiring business owners. Developed in partnership between both agencies, this curriculum is the latest offering in the FDIC’s 10 year old award-winning Money Smart program.

Money Smart for Small Business provides an introduction to day-to-day business organization and planning and is written for entrepreneurs with limited or no prior formal business training. It offers practical information that can be applied immediately, while also preparing participants for more advanced training. The curriculum is designed to be delivered to new and aspiring business owners by financial institutions, small business development centers (SBDCs), among others.

“We are proud to launch Money Smart for Small Business,”said Acting Chairman Gruenberg. “Since 2001, Money Smart has helped individuals build a secure financial future for themselves. I am very pleased that small businesses, which play a vital role in supporting our national economy, will now have access to this resource. The FDIC looks forward to working with the SBA and the Money Smart Alliance, to promote financial literacy among small business owners.”

“We are excited to join the FDIC in its expansion of the Money Smart curriculum for small business,” said SBA Administrator Karen Mills. “The FDIC is a vital ally in our efforts to help small business owners start, grow and create jobs. Money Smart for Small Business will help to put more information on the business basics of financial management at entrepreneurs’ fingertips and make it easier for them to build their knowledge and skill set.”

Each of the ten instructor-led modules in Money Smart for Small Business provides financial and business management for business owners and includes a scripted instructor guide, participant guide and overhead slides. Organizations that use the curriculum to support small businesses through training, technical assistance or mentoring are invited to join the FDIC and SBA’s Training Alliance. The FDIC will host an online “town hall” for potential Training Alliance partners in the months ahead.

More than ten years after the original release of the award-winning Money Smart adult curriculum, Money Smart for Small Business builds on the proven results in financial management for those who complete the curriculum.

The curriculum is free of charge and available by visiting http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/consumer/moneysmart/index.html.

Governor Promotes Urban Renewal with Tax Benefits

Daniel J. Gravel — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:34:38 -0400

U.S. Virgin Islands Governor John P. de Jongh De Jongh has executed an executive order this past week laying the groundwork for new economic and cosmetic renewal projects in historic towns on St Croix and St Thomas.

“The United States Virgin Islands recognizes the importance of revitalizing these once-vibrant towns with an infusion of new business and economic opportunities, to renew their physical appearance, and to rejuvenate and diversify the local economy by providing incentives for business relocation and job creation,” de Jongh said in the order.

Accordingly, Government House will establish Enterprise Zones within those towns “in order to attract new businesses and provide incentives for investment in order to sustain the future preservation of these towns for the People of the Virgin Islands.”

The purpose of the locally funded enterprise zone program - which was created in 1997 by Executive Order and signed into law in 1999 - is to encourage the use of tax incentives to breathe new life into Virgin Islands historic neighborhoods that have declined from once being socially and economically vibrant communities. Through the program, businesses and homeowners can make improvements that will benefit their own properties and the entire neighborhood.

Under the original legislation, the enterprise zones in the Territory included Savan on St. Thomas; Christiansted; and the historic town area of Frederiksted on St. Croix. While Governor de Jongh's new executive order expands the zones in Frederiksted and Charlotte Amalie, the enterprise zone in Christiansted remains the same.

Now, the zone in Frederiksted will include the whole area to the south of the historic town - all the way to Queen Mary Highway."In Frederiksted, it's really a corridor to the main historic district," Enterprise Zone Commission Director Nadine Marchena Kean said. "So, we look at it that way. You don't want to go through something not so great to get to something beautiful."

On St. Thomas, the enterprise zone was small, encompassing only a portion of Savan in downtown Charlotte Amalie. Under the new designation, the areas known as "Up Street" and "Down Street" will be included in the program. The new areas include a portion of Back Street, Garden Street and Long Path and part of the Hospital Ground area.

The Enterprise Zone Commission works directly with community groups in the areas included in the zones, Kean said. Now that the zones have been expanded, the Commission will begin a "door to door" survey. Kean said her staff literally will go to each property in the enterprise zone and assess who lives there; who owns the property; what it is used for; how old it is; and the condition of the building or property. "You need to understand what's there first," she said.

The Commission then will work with community organizations to educate the owners and potential investors on the benefits available to them through the enterprise zone program.

The enterprise zone's one-time credits on either income or gross receipts taxes include:

25 percent of the total spent on new construction;
25 percent of the total spent on rehabilitation; and
10 percent of the total spent on new machinery and equipment for a business.

Hiring U.S. Virgin Islands also is encouraged under the program. Beneficiaries are allowed a one-time $500 income tax credit for every job created for residents. Program participants also pay reduced Gross Receipts Taxes for up to 10 years. The benefits allow a property tax credit that is equal to the amount the improvements caused the property value to increase. The credit also is good for a period of up to 10 years.

"With the expansion of the zones, it opens up the ability for more people to be eligible for those benefits," Kean said. During the last 5 years, enterprise zone beneficiaries annually spent an average of $1.1 million, which is money that circulates in the local economy, she noted.

Director Kean remarked that "35 new and expanded businesses - which is a 77 percent expansion in participation - were created as a result of the enterprise zone programs in Fiscal Year 2011. Enterprise zone programs were directly responsible for 93 jobs in 2011.".

While the program offers tax breaks - which mean less tax revenues going into the Territory's coffers - the program provides a major return on that investment, Kean said. "For every $1 not collected in taxes because of the program, $7.19 of direct investment has been expended in the local community."

Last week, Governor de Jongh completed a meeting with United States Department of Interior officials in Washington, D.C. having secured two capital improvement grants including $1.02 million for the Main Street Enhancement Project inthe capital city of Charlotte Amalie and $1 million for the restoration of the boardwalk in Christiansted, St. Croix.

Territory Offers Foreclosure Prevention Programs

Ronald R. Pennington — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:52:52 -0400

In the current down economy, as government and private sector employees continue to lose their jobs, many are worried about losing their homes too. To help, U.S. Virgin Islands Delegate to Congress Donna Christensen has aggregated multiple federal programs to help people stay in their homes.

"Several homeowners have called or emailed my office asking about federal programs that can assist them, as they will be out of income and unable to maintain their mortgages," Christensen said in a written statement. "There are programs in the departments of Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture (Rural Development) and the Small Business Administration that can be helpful."

One program, the Hardest Hit Fund, is not available to residents of the United States Virgin Islands because it was created specifically for 18 states and Washington, D.C. But a number of other programs can help homeowners prevent foreclosure.

United StatesTreasury Department

The Treasury Department has three options under the Making Home Affordable program:

Unemployment Program - Mortgage payments are reduced to 31 percent of income or suspended altogether for 12 months.
Home Affordable Modification Program - Permanent modifications to a mortgage are possible.
Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives - Short sales and deed in lieu of foreclosure options can be arranged.

Homeowners can call the HOPE Hotline at 1-888-995-4673 and talk to mortgage experts at any time. Additional information about the federal programs is at www.MakingHomeAffordable.gov. Before calling the hotline, homeowners should gather the following information:

Full name;
Phone number and email address;
Property address;
Loan servicer name; and
Loan number.

Small Business Administration

If a homeowner has a Small Business Administration Disaster Loan, they can work with a disaster loan official to reduce their monthly payment by stretching it out or putting a temporary hold on payments. There will be no loan forgiveness on the disaster loans. Homeowners can contact Disaster Loan Assistance Customer Service at disastercustomerservice@sba.gov. or 1-800-659-2955. Contact the Virgin Islands Small Business Administration Office at 718-5381 on St. Croix.

United States Housing and Urban Development

If a homeowner has a Federal Housing Administration loan through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, they can contact the Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority at 777-4432 or 773-4681 to speak to a housing counselor.

United States Department of Agriculture

If a person's income has been reduced - and will be for the foreseeable future - a payment assistance package can be requested. The USDA will review and determine eligibility for payment assistance to lower monthly payments.

If a homeowner temporarily is unable to make a scheduled monthly payment because of their income has decreased by 20 percent or more, the homeowner may be allowed to defer payments for a period of time.

For information, call 1-800-414-1226 or 1-800-438-1832 for the hearing impaired. Callers should have their account number and Social Security number available.

Other assistance

Delegate Christensen said that because of the large volume of people accessing these programs from around the country, those seeking help need to be patient, have their records organized, and keep track of their calls and other communications.

"If there are problems, homeowners should contact our office," Christensen said.

Christensen said she is planning a Foreclosure Prevention Workshop with the various federal agencies to help homeowners.

For more information, call Christensen's offices at 774-4408 on St. Thomas; 778-5900 on St. Croix; or 776-1212 on St. John.

USVI Delegate Appeals to President Obama for Declaration

Tom Bolt — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:28:28 -0400

In response to the closure of the HOVENSA oil refinery, the United States Virgin Islands single largest private employer, the Territory's Delagate to Congresss, Donna Christensen, is pursuing an Economic Disaster Declaration by President Obama.

“I know that is what the car industry got, and while this is on a smaller scale, for our territory, with its 110,000 population to lose over 2,000 jobs and its main supplier of energy, it is an economic disaster,” she said in a meeting with Department of Commerce officials this past week.

John Fernandez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Economic Development Administration, said that access to the Obama Administration’s programming would be tantamount to a declaration, but Christensen said she would pursue the idea further.

The discussions came at the annual meeting of the Interagency Group on Insular Affairs in Washington, where territorial represenatives in the United States Congress and Governor from the four United States territories congregate.

“The territories are extremely important to the United States and to the President,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. “They are of strategic importance and we have a major stake in making sure that they are strong.”

The Department of the Interior also announced several grants for the United States Virgin Islands at the meeting this past week, led by a $1.02 million technical assistance grant for the Main Street Enhancement Project for Downtown Charlotte Amalie.

NLRB Decision Impacts Unionized and Non-unionized Employers

Ravi S. Nagi — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:00:12 -0400

The National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB" or the “Board”) has ruled that a mandatory arbitration agreement preventing employees from pursuing class or collective claims against their employer is unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

In D. R. Horton, Inc., the Board held that merely maintaining such agreements with nonsupervisory employees constitutes an unfair labor practice by interfering with nonsupervisory employees’ right, under Section 7 of the Act, to engage in “concerted activities” to affect wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Board further ruled that an arbitration agreement requiring nonsupervisory employees to submit all employment-related claims to arbitration violates the NLRA by leading employees to believe that they may not file unfair labor practice charges with the Board. While the Board sought to downplay the scope of its ruling, the decision not only may increase the number of class and collective actions filed, but also means that both unionized and non-unionized employers throughout most of the private sector should review, and potentially rewrite, the arbitration provisions contained in their employment agreements, handbooks, and policies.

The NLRB's Decision in D. R. Horton, Inc.

In D. R. Horton, Inc., the Board considered an unfair labor practice charge filed by an employee who had been required to execute a Mutual Arbitration Agreement (“MAA”) as a condition of his continued employment with his employer. Under the MAA, the employer and the employee agreed that all employment-related disputes would be resolved through arbitration and that the employee waived the right to file a lawsuit or other civil proceeding relating to employment. Moreover, the MAA provided that the arbitrator deciding employment-related claims could hear only the employee’s “individual claims” and had no authority to consolidate the claims of other employees or conduct the arbitration as a class or collective action. When the employee sought to arbitrate a collective claim that he and other employees had been misclassified as exempt from the wage and hour protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the employer objected, citing the language in the MAA prohibiting class or collective claims. The employee then filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the MAA’s arbitration provision violated his right under the NLRA to engage in concerted activity.

At the outset, the Board held that an arbitration agreement requiring employees to submit all employment-related claims to arbitration would mislead employees into believing that they could not file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. On this basis alone, the Board concluded that the agreement violated the NLRA by interfering with employees’ access to the Act’s protections. Moreover, noting that the collective pursuit of workplace grievances through litigation has long been considered protected concerted activity under the Act, the Board agreed that the arbitration provision unlawfully restricted the employee’s exercise of his rights under the NLRA. The Board ruled that the requirement that the employee waive his right to join his claim with the claims of other employees violated the substantive rights of nonsupervisory employees, created by Section 7 of the Act, to band together for “mutual aid and protection” with respect to the terms and conditions of employment. Citing Supreme Court cases indicating that employees could not be required to enter into agreements that restricted their Section 7 rights, the Board held that these rights were ones that employees could not be required, as a condition of their employment, to contract away. Seeking to clarify the scope of its decision, the Board emphasized that its ruling on collective claims was limited to those agreements that required employees to waive their rights to pursue employment-related claims collectively in any forum. The Board suggested that employers might still require employees to agree to arbitrate their individual claims, so long as the agreements did not prohibit employees from instituting or joining a collective or class action in court.

Practical Implications

The Horton decision did not involve a unionized employee or an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement. It is important, therefore, that employers understand that the Horton decision has significance for them whether their workforce is unionized or not. Most private companies, other than air carriers and railroads, are subject to the NLRA, and that Act's right to engage in concerted activity therefore applies broadly to nonsupervisory private-sector employees, regardless of whether those employees are represented by a union. Furthermore, given the widespread use of arbitration provisions in employment agreements and handbooks, the scope of this decision cannot be understated. Arbitration agreements and policies typically establish arbitration as the exclusive means of resolving "all employment-related claims" or "all claims between the employer and the employee," and carve-outs expressly preserving an employee’s right to file a charge with the NLRB or other governmental agency are relatively rare. As such, this decision may render most arbitration agreements with employees unlawful on the basis that such expansive language about their scope will necessarily mislead employees into believing that they are prohibited from filing an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. In addition, the Horton decision renders arbitration agreements unlawful under the NLRA if they do not permit any means of asserting class, collective, or joint claims relating to employment matters. It is worth noting that merely maintaining such an arbitration agreement with nonsupervisory employees is unlawful, even if no employee has ever attempted to assert a class or collective claim or been dissuaded from filing a charge with the NLRB.

To avoid the risks and costs associated with defending potential unfair labor practice charges based on the provisions of an arbitration agreement, employers should revise any arbitration agreements with nonsupervisory employees that include broad, unqualified language requiring that all employment-related disputes be resolved by arbitration or that completely restrict employees’ ability to pursue class or collective actions. In the wake of the Horton decision, employers should anticipate increased scrutiny of arbitration agreements by the NLRB, and, as these agreements must now leave open the possibility of collective relief in employment disputes, employers can expect to see an increase in the number of class and collective actions filed. Although the Horton decision is likely to be appealed and may be overturned by the courts, it is currently binding law applicable to all NLRA-covered employers.

New Year Provides Opportunity to Review and Update Employment Policies

Ravi S. Nagi — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:30:22 -0400

As we begin the new year - 2012, it is especially important for U.S. Virgin Islands employers to review their employee handbooks to ensure that they are both legally compliant and up to date with current practices. A number of changes in federal and territorial employment laws have taken place over the past year and are slated to become effective in 2012, requiring employers to act now.

The most significant changes and our corresponding recommendations are as follows:

Cell Phone Policies. Employers should review and update their cell phone policies, for employees who operate vehicles in the course of their work, to address U.S. Virgin Islands laws prohibiting the use of cellular phones while driving. The National Transportation Safety Board recently called for a nationwide ban on all non-emergency use of such devices while driving.
EEO And Anti-Discrimination Policies. Employers should provide anti-discrimination training to all supervisors, and review and revise their anti-discrimination and related policies as appropriate, to help shield the organization from the “cat’s paw” claims recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, a groundbreaking 2011 decision. In Staub, the Court held that an employer can be liable for taking adverse action against an employee based on information provided by a biased supervisor, even where the manager who actually implements the adverse action has no discriminatory animus and is unaware of the supervisor’s bias. This new “cat’s paw” theory provides the plaintiffs’ bar with a powerful new tool to wield against unwary employers.
EEO And Anti-Retaliation Policies. Employers should update their anti-retaliation policies and provide comprehensive training to ensure that managers understand that retaliation against any employee in response to a complaint of discrimination is impermissible. In another groundbreaking 2011 decision, Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, the Supreme Court held that a third party who did not engage in protected conduct can nevertheless bring a retaliation claim if he or she is subjected to an adverse employment action as a result of a discrimination complaint made by another employee with whom the third party has a close relationship. Thompson significantly broadens the circumstances in which Title VII retaliation claims can be brought, raising the stakes even more for employers in this ever-expanding area of the law.
Electronic Communications And Social Media Policies. Employers should review their electronic communications and social media policies and practices to ensure that they do not violate employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities. In a number of recent “Facebook firing” cases, the NLRB has issued complaints against employers that have terminated employees for posting online complaints about workplace issues.
Reasonable Accommodation Policies. Employers should update their reasonable accommodation (disability) policies and provide manager training to ensure compliance with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations under the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act, which became effective on May 24, 2011.
Severance Policies And Separation Agreements. Employers should review their severance policies and standard separation agreements for individuals who are 40 years of age or older for compliance with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), in order to ensure that employers receive enforceable releases in exchange for any severance offered. Under the OWBPA, an employee may not waive any right or claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) unless the waiver is “knowing and voluntary” and is part of an agreement “that is written in a manner calculated to be understood by such individual, or by the average individual eligible to participate.”
Social Security No-Match Letter Policies. Employers should review their policies for responding to “no-match” letters issued by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). In April 2011, the SSA resumed sending employers no-match letters, which notify employers of discrepancies between identifying information provided by employees and information in the SSA’s records. The Department of Justice has provided general guidelines for responding to no-match letters, and employers should carefully review the guidelines when crafting their corresponding policies.
Union Avoidance Policies. Employers should carefully review and, if necessary, update their union avoidance policies (i.e., workplace policies intended to help preserve a non-union environment, such as no-solicitation and no-distribution policies, email and social media policies, and union-free workplace policies), in preparation for complying with their obligation to display the new National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) poster informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB’s regulation requiring employers – both unionized and non-unionized – to display this poster is slated to become effective on April 30, 2012. Additionally, non-unionized employers should train supervisors and human resources personnel on how to recognize and respond appropriately to possible union organizing activities.
Wage & HourSafeHarbor (Complaint) Policies. Employers should ensure that their wage and hour safe harbor policies, and related training procedures, clearly convey that employers must respond appropriately to all complaints of alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), whether such complaints are oral or written. This recommendation is prompted by the Supreme Court’s holding, in a 2011 decision entitled Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, that even purely oral complaints of alleged violations of the FLSA are sufficient to trigger the statute’s protections against retaliation.

Given the many changes in labor and employment laws over the past year, it is important for U.S. Virgin Islands employers to review and update their policies to ensure legal compliance. A properly updated U.S. Virgin Islands-specific employee handbook will help each employer to ensure compliance with all applicable laws.

If you have any questions regarding these issues, our recommended annual employee-handbook audit, or any other labor or employment issue, please do not hesitate to contact Ravinder S. Nagi, Chair of the BoltNagi PC Labor & Employment Practice Group (rnagi@vilaw.com).

U.S. Virgin Islands Corporations Allowed Fewer Directors

Tom Bolt — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:56:18 -0400

As of the first day of 2012, U.S. Virgin Islands domestic corporations can have fewer than three directors, making it easier for smaller companies to establish themselves, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor announced Monday. V.I. law's previous requirement of a minimum of three directors has historically placed a burden on some smaller companies, especially where there is a single owner who must coordinate management decisions with directors who have no financial stake in the enterprise.

"The new law will greatly assist small businesses in the Territory, which previously were restricted to employing limited liability companies as the only corporate entity available for a sole owner," said Dan Gravel, Chair of the Corporate, Tax & Estate Planning Practice Group at BoltNagi PC.

Bill No. 29-0039 proposed by Sen. Patrick Sprauve in March of 2011 was signed into law as Act No. 7265 in July of last year, and took effect January 1, 2012. Under the new law, companies generally still must have at least three directors, but there is now an exemption, so that no company will be required to have more directors than shareholders.

Revised annual reports for domestic and foreign corporations, which reflect the new changes, are available at Division of Corporation and Trademarks offices and online at www.ltg.gov.vi.

Additionally, the Division has recently implemented a separate annual report form for non-profit corporations, domestic or foreign, which is also available at the division’s offices and online.

For more information, contact the Division of Corporation and Trademarks at (340)773-6449 on St. Croix, or 776-8515 for the St. Thomas/St. John District.

U.S. Virgin Islands Discusses Joint Insurance Exchange with West Virginia

Tom Bolt — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:38:39 -0400

One place, known for its Appalachian Mountains and rich coal supply, was immortalized in John Denver’s 1970s hit, “Take Me Home, Country Roads.” The other has white sandy beaches, rum distilling and an average January high temperature of 86 degrees that attracts millions of tourists each year. From economy to climate, West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands are as different as any two places in the United States. But that hasn’t stopped them from discussing whether to work together to form a health insurance exchange under the federal health care law, say officials in West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

While no commitments have been made, the potential partnership is notable because it’s a rare example of states and U.S. territories working together to establish an exchange. The U.S. Virgin Islands has also had discussions with Puerto Rico.

The 2010 federal health law requires states to establish an insurance exchange by 2014 or the federal government will do it for them. U.S. Territories, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, have the option of forming an exchange or using the money to expand Medicaid. Under the law, states have the option to work together on an exchange or with the federal government.

Taetia Dorsett, coordinator of the Virgin Islands Healthcare Reform Implementation Reform Taskforce, said West Virginia is a logical potential partner because they are already working together on Medicaid. Later this year, West Virginia will begin processing Medicaid claims for the U.S. Virgin Islands.

She said the Virgin Islands initially considered partnering with Florida or Georgia on an exchange because those states have large individual health insurance markets, but decided against that because of concerns about what efforts those states would make on an exchange. Both states are part of a lawsuit opposing the health law.

The partnership between West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands first came up after top officials met at a National Governors Association Meeting. The U.S. Virgin Islands invited West Virginia officials for a two day visit last spring to discuss Medicaid which was fuding through a $850,000 federal grant. West Virginia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico each received $1 million federal planning grants to study whether to develop an exchange.

Martha Salazar, an analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said states’ early discussions about teaming up on an exchange have largely gone nowhere. That’s because most states have different insurance laws and carriers. “It makes is a bit more complicated than they hoped for,” she said.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioner (NAIC) in November said it will be difficult for states to share an exchange. A consortium of New England states are working on helping each other, although each plans its own exchange.

Jeremiah Samples, insurance program manager with the West Virginia Offices of the Insurance Commissioner, said that state is studying whether to develop an exchange.

“As part of that research, we are looking at the potential of partnering with states and territories,” he said. “Collaboration between jurisdictions can take two concrete form — sharing of risk pools, which is less feasible for West Virginia and the U.S. Virgin Islands to do at this juncture for a multitude of reasons, and the possibility of sharing information technology and administrative functions in the pursuit of lowering cost through economies of scale.”

New Years Tips for Business Owners

Daniel J. Gravel — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:43:14 -0400

With the holidays over and a new year upon us, it is a natural time for business owners to map out strategies and goals for the next twelve months. Doing so allows businesses a chance to focus their energies on having a successful 2012 and gives them a metric by which to measure their successes and locate opportunities for improvement at the end of the year. Here are three suggestions that will assist businesses in planning for the year ahead

Review your business plan. A business plan helps businesses create goals, track progress, and ensure accountability. This is a living document that is the roadmap for your company’s performance. It should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis as circumstances change and built-in assumptions prove correct or incorrect.

Review contracts. The beginning of the year is a good time to review your businesses relationships with vendors and other third parties. One way to do this is to review the contracts your company has with these parties. Are you receiving satisfactory performance under your contracts? Are the prices and other terms acceptable in light of your experience operating under the contract last year?

Review corporate compliance. Owners of corporations, limited liability companies and other limited liability entities should make sure that they are operating in compliance with their governing documents to ensure that they retain limited liability. The regular observance of corporate formalities is an important aspect of maintaining the protections and advantages of being incorporated, not the least of which is the protection of shareholders against personal liability for the financial obligations of the corporation. In addition, owners should make sure they have filed their most recent tax returns, annual reports and similar filings so that the company is in good standing and qualified to do business.

Confrontation Clause Bars Surrogate Testimony

Nycole A. Thompson — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:54:46 -0400

Attorney Nycole A. Thompson with BoltNagi PC appealed her client’s conviction for aiding and abetting the unauthorized possession of a firearm. Thompson argued that the trial court’s admission, over her objections, of a certificate of non-existence of record (“CNR”) stating that her client did not have a gun license in District of St. Croix violated her client’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him because the person who prepared the certificate did not testify at trial and her client did not have the previous opportunity to cross-examine the person who prepared the exhibit.

Ms. Thompson successfully made this argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”) in two unrelated cases where the trial court admitted into evidence a CNR and a medical report even though the people who prepared those documents did not appear at trial and the appellants did not have a previous opportunity to cross-examine them.
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gives the accused in all criminal prosecutions the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited Shakespeare’s Richard II and the Acts of the Apostles to denote this right’s very long history. It has even been argued that the right to confrontation was recognized in England long before the right to a jury trial. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause applied to any individual who “bears testimony” against the accused and described a core class of testimonial statements-which includes affidavits-to which the Confrontation Clause applies. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that this rule includes the admission of certificates of analysis utilized by prosecutors to prove the weight and type of seized drugs and the certificates of analysis to CNRs. Subsequently, in Gumbs v. Government of the Virgin Islands, the Third Circuit agreed with the Second, Firth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits, which held that the Confrontation Clause applies to CNRs because the certificates are offered as substantive evidence against a defendant whose guilt depends on the document's accuracy.
This issue of a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him/her has been the subject of recent U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. In Bullcoming v.New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made for the purpose of proving a particular fact, through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification.

Virgin Islands Bar Elects BoltNagi Attorney Nycole Thompson Secretary

Tom Bolt — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:00:25 -0400

Nycole A. Thompson, an associate in the Litigation and Real Estate & Financial Services Practice Groups of BoltNagi PC, one of the largest firms in the Territory, was elected to the position of Secretary of the Virgin Islands Bar Association at the Annual Meeting of the Bar at the Divi Carina Bay Resort on St. Croix, Virgin Islands on December 9, 2011.

“I am honored to have been elected by my peers for this important responsibilty,” said Thompson. “I am eager to support my fellow Virgin Islands attorneys in their professional development and hope to work closely with Bar President Karin Bentz and the members of the Board of Governors to continue to advance the mission of the Bar Association and the administration of justice in the United States Virgin Islands.”

Thompson received her undergraduate degree in Spanish at Williams College in 1995 and served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Gabon. She earned her Juris Doctorate in 2005 from Fordham University School of Law. During her legal studies, she mediated cases in the Small Claims Court in the New York City and participated in a fact-finding mission to Bolivia with the Joseph R. Crowley Program in International Human Rights. She also served as a Research Teaching Assistant and a member of the Editorial Board of the Fordham University School of Law Environmental Law Review.

In addition to her work with the Virgin Islands Bar Association , Attorney Thompson is active in community volunteer efforts, including serving as a judge of the Annual Model United Nations Competition at the University of the Virgin Islands. She has also taught the Junior Achievement's Economics for Success and Be Enterepreneurial programs at the Addelita Cancryn Junior Hight School and the the Charlotte Amalie High School, respectively, and has trained over 55 Junior Achievement on St. Croix, St. John and St. Thomas. Another pro bono program that she has participated is the Alternatives to Violence Project, where she served as a volunteer and fo-facilitated community based AVP workshops on St. Thomas and a prison workshop on St. Kitts.

At BoltNagi, Thompson is a member of the Litigation Practice Group where she concentrates her practice in foreclosure and criminal defense and in the Real Estate and Financial Services Practice Group where she concentrates in environmental regulation.

The Virgin Islands Bar Association is the integrated bar association of the United States Virgin Islands with approximately 1,000 members practicing within the Territory. The Virgin Islands Bar Association along with The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands governs the practice of law in the United States Virgin Islands. VIBA's mission of is to promote improvements in the administration of justice, and to monitor and advocate public policy issues affecting the judicial system. VIBA also works to improve the community through public education and public service. These twin goals are reflected in their motto “Striving for Justice… Serving our community”.

BoltNagi PC is one of the largest law firms in the United States Virgin Islands and is a diverse full service business law firm with practice concentration in banking, real estate, corporate and commercial law, litigation, government relations, immigration, tax and estate planning and family law. More information is available at http://www.vilaw.com.

Covering Your Assets

Daniel J. Gravel — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:54:02 -0400

The regular observance of corporate formalities is an important aspect of maintaining the protections and advantages of being incorporated, not the least of which is the protection of shareholders against personal liability for the financial obligations of the corporation.

Three of the most important areas of corporate formalities are shareholder decision making, director decision making, and separation of corporate assets from personal assets. Territorial tax returns, employment tax returns, and Annual Reports, and similar filings are also required, depending on where the corporation is incorporated and qualified to do business.
Shareholders should take action to elect the board of directors of the corporation annually or otherwise, in accordance with the corporation’s bylaws. In addition, certain specified fundamental changes in the corporation require the consent or approval of the shareholders, including, but not limited to:
1. Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation;
2. Sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the corporation;
3. Merger or consolidation of the corporation with or into any other corporation; and
4. Winding up and dissolution of the corporation.
Matters of more general operating policy should be considered and authorized by the company’s board of directors. Although there is no statutory requirement with respect to how frequently the board of directors should act, it is typical that the board meets quarterly and calls special meetings in which action is required before the next regular meeting. Matters that are generally appropriate for director action include the following:
1. Annual appointment of officers, setting of salaries, and declaration of bonuses;
2. Appointment of board committees, if any;
3. Corporate borrowing and the giving of security in connection therewith;
4. Contracts for the acquisition or lease of significant assets or services or the disposition of assets, or for the rendition of services outside the ordinary course of the business of the corporation;
5. Policy decisions with respect to the corporation’s operating budget;
6. The adoption of pension, profit-sharing, bonus, and other employee benefit plans;
7. The declaration of dividends or the redemption of shares;
8. Amendment of the bylaws;
9. Review of financial statements of the corporation;
10. Appointment of auditors, if any; and
11. Any action that requires a shareholder vote.
The danger in not adhering to corporate formalities is that creditors may be able to “pierce the corporate veil”, exposing shareholders to liability beyond their capital contributions to the corporation. Following corporate formalities will ensure that shareholders are well protected and maintain their limited liability.

Attorney Daniel J. Gravel is Chair of the Corporate and Tax Practice Group at BoltNagi PC. BoltNagi PC is a full service business law firm in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.

"Brave New Lawyerless World"

A. Jennings Stone, III — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:52:38 -0400

Lawyer deregulation appears to be the current zeitgeist in the legal reform movement. Great Britain is experimenting with lawyer deregulation, which would make some basic legal services available at supermarkets. The Brookings Institution--somewhat surprisingly, to me--recently published a study recommending the deregulation of the legal industry in the United States as well. (Hat tip Futurelawyer.)

Deregulation appears to mean retiring the traditional gatekeepers to the practice of law. By "gatekeepers," reformers appear to be targeting certain licensing requirements, like lawyers must attend ABA-accredited law schools. It also means allowing non-lawyer to have ownership in and managerial control over law firms, which is currently forbidden by the rules of ethics. The point of deregulation appears to be twofold: First, it will permit law firms to grow and adapt in a changing global market; and second, increased competition will incentivize law firms to be more responsive to consumer pricing.

Those who stand athwart the ramparts of the current licensing system yelling "Stop!" are accused of supporting a dysfunctional status quo. Less charitably, they are accused of trying to protect their own jobs and their high salaries, to the detriment of legal consumers.

In a previous post, I talked about the entrance of Google into the legal marketplace, and I opined that there will still be a place for traditional legal practice. I am generally onboard with innovation in the legal profession, and I understand the arguments of the reformers. Deregulation might well mean savings for consumers who just need basic legal services. It might mean that some activities that are sometimes reserved for lawyers (say, real estate closings) can be performed more cheaply by non-lawyer professionals (like title agents, as in Florida and Virginia). It might also mean that the billable hour gets replaced by something leaner and meaner as the result of greater competition in the legal marketplace.

But I worry about what else a deregulated legal profession might also mean. If just anyone can offer legal services, who will ensure that those legal providers are minimally competent? Can someone provide legal services simply because they have a sharp mind and good debate skills, but have no formal legal training? How do you protect unsophisticated legal consumers from predatory, fly-by-night outfits that prey on desperation/financial hardship/emotional vulnerability?

Along these lines, we lawyers have an overriding ethical obligation to protect the interests of our clients. (Indeed, if you want to talk about incentives, there is a huge financial incentive for lawyers to protect and deal fairly with their clients because our ability to earn a living is inextricably tied to our ethical obligation to do so.) Will non-lawyers have the same obligations?

Likewise, will permitting non-lawyers to manage law firms undermine the ethical responsibility of those firms to protect their clients? Will non-lawyers be held to those same standards? And what will prevent non-lawyer managed legal providers from maximizing profits at the expense of providing solid legal services? If cheaper and more efficient modes of delivering legal services become the norm, who can be blamed if legal providers need to skimp on competency to ensure lower costs?

If the answers to these questions is to say that some ethical obligations will remain in place for all legal service providers, then how is that different from the system that we have now? Where can the line be drawn? And is the winner-takes-all arena of free market capitalism the place where society wants the legal security of its citizens to play out?

There is a dark side to the efficiencies that deregulation and competition sometimes beget. Law is hard, and it has far reaching consequences for those folks who are on the wrong side of a poorly-drawn contract or a mishandled criminal matter. Although innovation in the legal profession must be welcomed and embraced, it cannot be hitched to a fashionable concept such as "deregulation" without examining what those regulations are intended to protect. More important, innovation--no matter how well-meaning--cannot come at the expense of our clients.

Attorney Komives Elected to Humane Society Board of Directors

Lisa Kömives — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:45:58 -0400

Lisa Michelle Kömives, an attorney with the Litigation Practice Group at BoltNagi PC, was elected to serve on the Humane Society of St. Thomas Board of Directors.
“I’m honored to be elected to the board, and am looking forward to contributing to the continued efforts of the Humane Society to improve our community”. Attorney Kömives is a longtime advocate for animals and community awareness is dedicated to the safety and welfare of our island animals.
“Community education and awareness of effective programs to control the animal overpopulation are in place, however, funding continues to inhibit the process” notes Kömives. “The work the Humane Society of St. Thomas does to help the animals in this community, and thereby the community at large, is extraordinary and, notably, is only limited by available resources, not by a lack of will to do more”.
The Humane Society operates largely through revenues produced by Annual Membership in the Humane Society of St. Thomas, animal adoptions, flea market, sponsor of a kennel, and special events such as Barktoberfest, Valentines Ball and the Red, White and Blue Golf Tournament. Learn about other ways of contributing to the work of the Humane Society of St. Thomas by visiting www.hsstt.com.
BoltNagi encourages its attorneys to participate actively in non-profit organizations that benefit the community at large.

St. John Grand Bay Investor Seeks Damages in Florida Court

Ravi S. Nagi — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:36:25 -0400

A Florida circuit court judge has ruled that attorney and real estate investor, David S. Band, will stand trial a second time to decide if damages are owed to a fellow investor in the St. John Grande Bay condominium complex. Judge Charles E. Roberts' order means that Band -- who was exonerated in early May of defrauding investors in the soured Grande Bay deal -- will face another jury as early as the end of the year. If that jury decides that Band does owe investor Harold Libby money, the award could top $1 million.

Band's attorney, Steven Hutton, plans to appeal the judge's decision to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, which could take a year or more. But the damages hearing could take place in the interim, according to court procedures. The new trial could take place this year. The court has ordered the hearing be expedited because Libby is 85.

The ruling marks a setback for Band, 74, who has been battling for several years now on a number of legal fronts. For Libby, the reversal in the Grande Bay case was a welcome surprise.

"Obviously Mr. Libby is thrilled with the court's ruling, because while we weren't displeased with the verdict in May, we felt their defense was misplaced and the court has recognized that," said Michael Keane, Libby's attorney.

Both Hutton and Keane said that in more than three decades of practicing law, it was only the first and second time, respectively, that a judge has overturned a jury's finding after trial. In making his ruling, Roberts determined that Band, was not entitled to use as a defense a series of "conflict waiver" letters Libby signed after investing in Grande Bay, which is at least $45 million over budget and remains unfinished. The judge had earlier ruled the defense was admissable.

The jury this spring found that while Band violated his fiduciary duty to his client, Libby, he did not have to pay any damages for that breach. That conclusion came, in part, because Libby invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the St. John condominium complex over several years, visited Grande Bay which is located in Cruz Bay, St. John while the project was under construction, and failed to read documents explaining project risk and other critical matters.

Roberts' order sets aside the damages finding and that Libby waived his ability to bring a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. "The Court is persuaded that as a matter of law, there can be no waiver of a breach of fiduciary duty," Roberts wrote in his early September order. The judge also denied, in a hearing last week, Hutton's effort to quash a new damages hearing.

Libby claimed in a lawsuit filed in August 2008 that Band failed to properly represent him or inform him of pertinent facts in the 48-unit Grande Bay project. Keane argued at trial that Libby relied exclusively on Band's counsel regarding Grande Bay and other investments. Hutton countered that Band was entitled to use the waiver letters as a defense, and that sufficient evidence supported that claim.

The court determined before the late April trial that Band did not represent Libby in the Grande Bay investment specifically. Hutton also argued that Libby, who has extensive real estate experience buying shopping malls and retail centers in several states, sought outside advice when needed. "Libby was well aware of how to seek independent advice when he deemed necessary," Hutton wrote in a brief to the court.

Because of that, Hutton claimed that Libby's contention that he was taken advantage of by Band was "unfounded," according to court documents related to Roberts' order. Hutton said he believes Band will prevail. He has until early October to file an appeal with the district court, he said. We feel like the court was looking behind the jury verdict, and you just can't do that," Hutton said. "As such, I really do think we'll win on appeal."

The Tipping Point: How to Pay Your USVI Employees $2.13/ hr.

Ravi S. Nagi — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:45:45 -0400

What if I told you that you could pay your U.S. Virgin Islands employees $2.13/hr, legally? You would probably say, “Sign me up!” As many employers in the Territory already know, if you are in the tourist service or restaurant industry, you can pay your employees that traditionally receive tips, no less than $2.13/hr in direct wages.

The Virgin Islands Department of Labor, Division of Labor Relations, has promulgated regulations that put strict guidelines on what is allowed in paying tipped employees and how such tips are distributed. It is essential, however, for employers who are in the tourist service and restaurant industries to abide by these regulations, or risk facing an exhaustive investigation and audit by the Virgin Islands Department of Labor with risk of fines and penalties.

Here are some of the main regulations that many employers in the U.S. Virgin Islands must be aware of and adhere to:

1. A tip is the sole property of the tipped employee;

2. Tipped employees should regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips;

3. The employer must pay not less than $2.13/hr in direct wages;

4. An employee must receive at least $7.25/hr when wages and tips are combined;

5. If an employee’s tips combined with the wages do not equal the minimum hourly wage ($7.25), the employer must make up the difference;

6. When an employee is employed concurrently in both a tipped and a non-tipped occupation, the tip credit is only available for the hours spent in the tipped occupation; and

7. Where service charges are imposed and the employee receives no tips, the employer must pay the entire minimum wage and overtime.

There are many other regulations concerning tipped and non-tipped employees, including how to implement tip pooling and sharing arrangements and how tips charged on credit cards are to be distributed. We invite you to contact BoltNagi's Labor & Employment Practice Group, to speak with one of our attorneys if you need further assistance with applying these best practices to your U.S. Virgin Islands business.

Should You Be Concerned About I-9 Audits?

Ashley D. Dworsky — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:04:13 -0400

The Obama administration has intensified a crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants, notifying over 1,000 companies recently that the government plans to inspect their hiring records. Employers of all sizes were notified they must hand over I-9 employment-eligibility forms, which contain Social Security numbers, dates of birth and statements by employees of their citizenship status.

The U.S. is home to about 11 million illegal immigrants; reportedly two-thirds participate in the labor force, typically use a made-up Social Security Number or the identity of a legal U.S. resident or citizen. The audits, affecting such businesses as food production, construction, produce growers, cargo handlers and fast-food chains, result in the firing of every illegal immigrant found on a company's payroll.
For employers, the audits can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. The possibilities range from fines and being barred from competing for government contracts to criminal charges of knowingly employing illegal workers, evading taxes and engaging in identity theft.
All companies should do "proactive I-9 inspections" to ensure their work force is legal. Legislation was passed to make mandatory the use of E-Verify, an electronic database run by the government, which checks the work-eligibility of hires. However, the fact that you participate in E-Verify doesn't mean you won't be audited.
Why should employers conduct regular I-9 internal audits?
Employers who fail to fully comply with IRCA employment eligibility verification (EEV) and Form I-9 compliance face significant legal, financial and public relations risks. Non-compliance, whether intentional or simply caused by oversight, has severe consequences imposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its enforcement agency Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE). But DHS enforcement is only the tip of the liability iceberg.
An employer's executives, managers and supervisors can face individual criminal liability for certain of the company's I-9 and EEV violations. These same employer personnel incur similar liability for certain of the company's independent contractor's or subcontractor's I-9 violations. Criminal liability means risk of imprisonment.
Every employer should develop and implement an I-9 internal audit program. We can help you design an I-9 program for your company. Basic internal audit considerations include reviewing a meaningful sample, or all, of the employer's I-9 Forms. This review should key on some particular problems that often arise with regard to proper completion of the I-9 forms.
BoltNagi immigration attorneys help employers with completing I-9s, training company staff with properly completing I-9s, reviewing I-9 practices, internal I-9 audits and compliance practice reviews, and writing company policies and manuals for instituting uniform I-9 practices. Avoid I-9 liability, civil fines, criminal arrests, prosecution and convictions, asset forfeiture, and potential treble damages from competitors.
Unfortunately, most employers are unaware that they have a problem with Form I-9 employment eligibility verification (EEV) requirements until they are audited by governmental authorities. By that time, it is generally too late to undo the damage in order to avoid civil penalties and potentially criminal penalties for management should contact BoltNagi.
Ashley D. Dworsky , Esq. is Of Counsel with BoltNagi PC and handles all areas of immigration law, with an emphasis on business and family immigration and visa law. BoltNagi PC is a full service business law firm located on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

The Real Information Regarding H-1B Visas

Ashley D. Dworsky — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:24:48 -0400

I have found that there is a great deal of bad information floating around the web and people’s work places about H-1 visas. Hopefully this will help. What are the requirements for H-1B?

There are four criteria that must be met to qualify for H-1B status:
A. Employer must show that he has a legitimate need, in the context of his business, to fill a given position;
B. Position must be professional (require at least a bachelor’s degree at entry level). USCIS uses the Occupational Outlook Handbook to determine if a position is professional, it is online at http://www.bls.gov/search/ooh.htm, it is updated annually;
C. Employee must prove that, by virtue of formal education and/or related and extensive experience, he/she currently possesses the qualifications for the job;
D. Employer must certify that he is paying the prevailing wage for the position in the geographic area where the work is to be performed. Wage information is provided by a published salary survey, which I will supply.
The requirements are pretty straight forward and set up to encourage highly qualified foreign workers to contribute to US business growth, to prevent employers from shutting out US workers by importing cheap foreign labor to fill professional positions and to prevent foreign workers from being exploited by unscrupulous US employers.
It doesn’t always work so perfectly though which is why you should contact a qualified attorney to help you navigate the complex immigration arena.
Ashley D. Dworsky , Esq. is Of Counsel with BoltNagi PC and handles all areas of immigration law, with an emphasis on business and family immigration and visa law. BoltNagi PC is a full service business law firm located on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Google Overlords.

A. Jennings Stone, III — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:20:15 -0400

It appears that Google is bringing its fearsome powers of information organization to the legal world:

Traditional lawyers may not like it, but venture capitalists are pouring money into one of the last industries to resist commoditization on the Web. Google Ventures today announced it is part of a group that infused $18.5 million into Rocket Lawyer, which bills itself as the “fastest growing online legal service.”

. . . . Rocket Lawyer provides online legal forms, from wills to Delaware certificates of incorporation, that non-lawyers can fill out and store and share on the Web. For $19.95 a month, consumers can also have their documents reviewed by a real lawyer and even get legal advice at no additional cost.

There is not much to say about this, other than the landscape is littered with predictions about how the internet will bring about the end of the practice of law as we know it. I doubt that "traditional lawyers" will have much of an objection to this "Google Maps-ization" of the legal world, as an article in the ABA Journal puts it. I know lawyers (myself included) who begin a general legal search using Google, simply because it is faster than logging into Westlaw or Lexis. And, as I am sure that my colleague Daniel Gravel would agree, you don't necessarily need an attorney to prepare a simple will.

However, if you need something more complicated than that, you might need to consult someone who is trained in a particular discipline. Indeed, even Rocket Lawyer provides access to its attorneys for a monthly fee. Just as a savvy internet consumer will consult medical websites to self-treat heartburn but not heart disease, so too will legal consumers use services like Rocket Lawyer to address their basic needs. There will always be a place for solid, client-oriented legal practitioners to help with the rest.

L-1 Visa: Do You Qualify?

Ashley D. Dworsky — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:10:18 -0400

The L-1 visa is a nonimmigrant visa available to qualifying intra-company transferees (employees) coming to the U.S. to continue to work for the same, related or affiliated company (employer). Three types of employees may be sponsored for L-1 visas, Managers, Executives and those possessing Specialized Knowledge.

Executives are classified by those individuals who are involved in the strategic planning and development of the business, Managers are individuals involved in the day to day direction and administration of people, and specialized knowledge applies to someone with unique knowledge of the employer’s products, research, proprietary techniques, operational procedures or industry standards.
Do You Qualify?
A qualifying company in the U.S. can sponsor an employee for an L-1 visa, provided that the employee qualifies in either the above cited managerial, executive or specialized knowledge categories and the employee has worked at least one year during the last three at the non-U.S. office. The sponsoring company must continue to do business outside the U.S. for the duration of the employee’s L-1 status. There is no requirement that the sponsoring company be U.S. owned or incorporated. However, it is required that there exist an equity or control relationship between the foreign company and the U.S. company; which is best reviewed by competent legal counsel.
Fast-Track to a "Green Card." A Unique opportunity to the beneficiaries of the L visas based on executive or managerial positions is that a petition for lawful permanent residence can be made after one year of employment in the U.S, without the need of a labor certification. This is a direct and faster method to permanent residency.
Ashley D. Dworsky , Esq. is Of Counsel with BoltNagi PC and handles all areas of immigration law, with an emphasis on business and family immigration and visa law. BoltNagi PC is a full service business law firm located on St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.