Update on Pending Nevada Legislation to Redefine a Gaming Device Manufacturer

Posted in Gaming, Nevada, Nevada Gaming Commission

As previously reported, Assembly Bill 75 would amend what is considered “manufactur[ing]” under the Nevada Gaming Control Act. The proposed amendment would narrow the scope of developers involved in the gaming device manufacturing process that would need to be licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission as “manufacturers.” Assembly Bill 75 has passed the Nevada Assembly and has been referred to the Nevada Senate Committee of the Judiciary for consideration.

To receive updates on this bill and other related information, please subscribe to our blog.

The Senate Narrows Employers’ Obligation to Accurately Record Work-Related Injury and Illness Records

Posted in Government, GT Alert

On March 22, 2017, the Senate passed H.J. Resolution 83, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution (Resolution) that cuts the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) ability to cite an employer for failing to accurately record work-related injuries and illnesses from five years to six months.1 The resolution blocks and eliminates OSHA’s “Volks” final rule, also known as “Clarification of an Employer’s Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness” (Final Rule). The Final Rule, which went into effect Jan. 19, 2017, gave OSHA the authority to fine and cite employers that failed to accurately track and record work-related injuries and illnesses for up to five years after they occur.

If President Trump signs the resolution (which he is expected to do), OSHA will only be permitted to cite employers for failing to keep accurate records of workplace incidents up to six months after the recordkeeping violation occurred. OSHA will also be barred from passing a substantially similar measure; Congress must pass a law instead, which is usually a more difficult process.

Continue Reading.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board Recommences Testing Gaming Technology

Posted in Gaming

In 2013, the Nevada Legislature authorized independent test labs (ITL) registered with the Nevada Gaming Commission to test gambling games and gaming technology that would be used in Nevada for compliance with the Nevada regulatory requirements.

Effective April 1, 2017, manufacturers may request either the Nevada Gaming Control Board (Board) Technology Division or a registered ITL to test new associated equipment, cashless wagering systems, mobile gaming systems, interactive gaming systems, or gaming devices. Manufacturers continue to be required to obtain ITL inspection and certification for any new gambling games and/or routine modifications to any of the foregoing types of gaming technology or to gambling games.

The industry notice is available at http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=11963.

If there are any questions, please contact Mark A. Clayton, Co-Chair of the Greenberg Traurig Global Gaming Practice Group, (702) 599-8006, claytonm@gtlaw.com or Erica L. Okerberg, Associate, (702) 599-8073, okerberge@gtlaw.com.

Proposed Nevada Legislation to Redefine a Gaming Device Manufacturer

Posted in Gaming, Nevada, Nevada Gaming Commission

On April 3, 2017, the Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee passed Assembly Bill 75 (2017), which would, among other amendments, amend the current definition of who is a “manufacturer” of a gaming device, cashless wagering system, mobile gaming system, or interactive gaming system for use or play in Nevada.

Currently, as defined, an entity that manufactures at least two elements of a gaming device is considered a manufacturer and must be licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission.

A.B. 75 would amend the existing law and provide that if a manufacturer licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission “assumes responsibility” for the work of a third party manufacturer, such third party manufacturer would not need to be licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission. Also, A.B. 75 would provide that an independent contractor who designs, develops, programs, produces, or composes a control program for use in a gaming device is not required to be licensed as a manufacturer under the Nevada Gaming Control Act if a manufacturer licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission “assumes responsibility” of the control program.

“Assumes responsibility” would be defined as (i) “acquires complete control over, or ownership of, the applicable gaming device, associated equipment, cashless wagering system, mobile gaming system or interactive gaming system” and (ii) “accepts continuing legal responsibility for the gaming device, associated equipment, cashless wagering system, mobile gaming system or interactive gaming system, including, without limitation, any form of manufacture performed by an affiliate or independent contractor.”

As A.B. 75 progresses through the Nevada Legislature, we will provide periodic updates as warranted.

In the interim, if there are any questions, please contact Mark A. Clayton, Co-Chair of the Greenberg Traurig Global Gaming Practice Group, (702) 599-8006, claytonm@gtlaw.com or Erica L. Okerberg, Associate, (702) 599-8073, okerberge@gtlaw.com.

Effective April 3, 2017, USCIS Will Temporarily Suspend Premium Processing for All H-1B Petitions

Posted in Immigration

Late Friday evening on March 3, 2017, The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced that it will temporarily suspend its premium processing service for all H-1B petitions, including CAP-subject H-1B petitions.  The temporary suspension will begin on Monday, April 3, 2017, and may continue for up to 6 months.  This procedural change is intended to help USCIS clear the backlog of long-pending H-1B petitions that USCIS has not yet reviewed. USCIS will give priority review to H-1B extension petitions that are nearing the end of the automatic 240-day work authorization extension period.  USCIS has made other efforts to alleviate the long-pending backlog of pending H-1B petitions with the Vermont and California Service Centers by directing petitioners to submit H-1B extension requests with the Nebraska Service Center, regardless of the H-1B worksite location.

USCIS will process all H-1B petitions filed with a premium processing request that are received before April 3, 2017.  Because April 3 marks the first business day of April, when the H-1B CAP opens, CAP-subject H-1B petitions will not be eligible for premium processing.

Continue Reading.

The Senate Narrows Employers’ Obligation to Accurately Record Work-Related Injury and Illness Records

Posted in GT Alert, Labor & Employment

On March 22, 2017, the Senate passed H.J. Resolution 83, a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution (Resolution) that cuts the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) ability to cite an employer for failing to accurately record work-related injuries and illnesses from five years to six months.1 The resolution blocks and eliminates OSHA’s “Volks” final rule, also known as “Clarification of an Employer’s Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness” (Final Rule). The Final Rule, which went into effect Jan. 19, 2017, gave OSHA the authority to fine and cite employers that failed to accurately track and record work-related injuries and illnesses for up to five years after they occur.

If President Trump signs the resolution (which he is expected to do), OSHA will only be permitted to cite employers for failing to keep accurate records of workplace incidents up to six months after the recordkeeping violation occurred. OSHA will also be barred from passing a substantially similar measure; Congress must pass a law instead, which is usually a more difficult process.

Continue Reading.

IRS Provides More Flexibility for Management Contracts

Posted in GT Alert, Internal Revenue Service

On Jan. 17, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Revenue Procedure 2017-13, which sets forth safe harbors for when a management contract between a qualified user and service provider will not give rise to private business use under the private business use test in section 141(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for property financed with governmental tax-exempt bonds under Code section 141(b), or under the modified private business use test of Code section 145(a)(2)(B) for property financed with qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. This revenue procedure modifies, amplifies, and supersedes Rev. Proc. 2016-44, which modified and superseded Rev. Proc. 97-13 (as supplemented by Rev. Proc. 2001-39 and section 3.02 of Notice 2014-67). The progression of revenue procedures and the Notice reflect IRS attempts to address changes in how management contracts have been structured since Rev. Proc. 97-13 and provide greater flexibility in permitted management contracts. This GT Alert summarizes changes made by Revenue Procedures 2016-44 and 2017-13.

Prior Management Contract Safe Harbors

Rev. Proc. 97-13 used a formulaic approach to its management contract safe harbors. Specific types of compensation arrangements were allowed depending on the length of the management contract. These arrangements were: 1) capitation fees, 2) periodic fixed fees, and 3) per-unit fees. Generally, longer contracts were permitted when the arrangement provided for a greater percentage of fixed compensation. Notice 2014-67 expanded the 1997 safe harbors to address changes in management contracts needed for affordable care organizations acting under the Affordable Care Act and to allow a broader range of compensation arrangements for contracts with terms of up to five years.

Continue Reading.

EU Market Abuse Regulation – Implications for Non-European Debt Issuers

Posted in Corporate & Securities

The Market Abuse Regulation (596/2014/EU) (MAR) came into force July 3, 2016 and is directly applicable in all EU Member States. MAR replaced the market abuse directive previously implemented (with many variations) in the national laws of each EU Member State.

MAR, amongst other changes, extends the prohibition on insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information and market manipulation, and the procedural requirements for controlling inside information, to issuers whose securities have been admitted to trading on multilateral trading facilities (MTF), such as the Luxembourg Stock Exchange’s Euro MTF, the London Stock Exchange’s Professional Securities Market and the Irish Stock Exchange’s Global Exchange Market (GEM); EU organised trading facilities (OTF); as well as to financial instruments whose price or value depends on or has an effect on securities traded on an EU regulated market, an EU MTF or an EU OTF (financial instruments traded on OTFs will only be covered once MiFID II, the new EU Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, comes into effect, currently expected to be 3 January 2018).

Continue Reading.

The Building Blocks of an Effective AML Compliance Program

Posted in AML, Casinos

A Q&A with Mark Clayton and Carl A. Fornaris, gaming attorneys, Greenberg Traurig LLP

GGB: What are the basics of an effective AML compliance program?

Fornaris: It consists of four key “pillars:” internal controls, such as policies and procedures; a compliance officer; employee training; and an annual independent audit that tests the effectiveness of the AML compliance program. At the heart of the compliance program is the ability to monitor for suspicious transactions and, as appropriate, to report suspicious transactions to regulatory authorities. Enforcement actions against casinos typically result because of the existence of systemic breakdowns in one or more of these pillars.

Clayton: It’s a comprehensive program that is risk-based, meaning the requirements of the program are designed to reasonably detect potential money laundering based on the risk the particular casino could be used for money laundering. A small regional casino with slot machines and a few low-dollar table games is much different than a high-end casino on Las Vegas Boulevard. The two programs would be vastly different, as the risks of money laundering are vastly different.

To access the full article, please click here: “Casinos & Money Laundering: An Industry Scorecard” (Global Gaming Business Magazine, February 2017)

Greenberg Traurig Attorneys Spoke at the FIBA Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Conference

Posted in Cybersecurity, Events, Gaming

Greenberg Traurig was a proud sponsor and participant at the FIBA (Florida International Bankers Association) Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Conference on March 6 – 8 at the InterContinental Miami. Rudolph W. Giuliani, chair of the firm’s Cybersecurity, Privacy and Crisis Management Practice and former New York City Mayor, delivered the keynote address on how the 2016 elections impact regulatory reform. Greenberg Traurig’s Mark Clayton and Carl Fornaris  also spoke at the conference.

Mark Clayton, co-chair of the firm’s Global Gaming Practice spoke on the panel, “Compliance Standards for Casinos and Money Service Businesses” on March 7 from 11:25 a.m. – 12:40 p.m. Carl Fornaris, co-chair of the firm’s Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice moderated the panel, “Lessons Learned from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Recent Enforcement Actions Against Financial Institutions in the Region” on March 8 from 4:15 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

CTS2

Rudolph W. Giuliani speaking at the conference.

CTS1

Rudolph W. Giuliani and Carl Fornaris.

CTS4

Rudolph W. Giuliani and Carl Fornaris with the President and CEO of FIBA, David Schwartz.

LexBlog