arrow-double-right arrow-noline-right arrow-lrg-left arrow-lrg-right arrow-med-down arrow-med-left arrow-med-right arrow-med-up arrow-sml-right checkmark close close-sml contact-card event-clock linkedin menu minus outbound-link phone plus print search-lrg search-sml twitter Winthrop-mark

The Five Biggest Work From Home Cybersecurity Weaknesses Hiding Right Under your Nose

As “work from home” continues months into the COVID-19 pandemic, for most businesses, the big logistical issues in the transition have largely been resolved. Home offices are fully stocked and remote access is configured. However, these remote work environments present new cybersecurity and legal risks which must be addressed now, before they become a problem.

Not knowing where your data is stored

A business can’t effectively protect its data if it does not know where that data is stored.  With more employees working from home, electronic data formerly confined to company servers may be finding its way onto personal devices. In addition, confidential physical documents may be left unsecured in living rooms or thrown out in residential trash cans. Understanding and controlling where remote employees are keeping sensitive data is essential for businesses to implement the measures necessary to protect that data.

Using insufficient security measures

Businesses should also consider making efforts to protect their data with additional technical security measures. For example, multi-factor authentication adds another layer of security, and it has been increasingly implemented by businesses whose employees are working from home during the pandemic.

Overlooking cloud security

When employees first started working from home during the pandemic, many businesses rapidly migrated their data processing activities to the cloud. Some may presume that their data in the cloud is secure. But, cloud-based platforms vary, and businesses themselves also play a role in securing cloud data. Taking another look at any agreements with cloud service providers, as well as those providers’ security practices, will help businesses better understand risks and gaps relating to cloud data storage and processing.

Granting broad access to sensitive data

Businesses can further protect sensitive data and reduce the likelihood of a breach by limiting access to only those employees who need it. For example, marketing teams generally don’t need access to social security numbers. If, during the transition to work from home, permissions were broadly granted, now is a good time to reevaluate and ensure that the right people have the right access to the right data.

Focusing only on the technical

Although businesses can implement a wide range of technical solutions to improve cybersecurity, it is important to remember the critical role of the employee. As employees work remotely in much greater numbers, they are prime targets for cyberattacks and data breaches. Businesses should continue to educate and remind employees about common cybersecurity risks, particularly social engineering attacks such as phishing.

While cybersecurity risks continue to grow with the increase of remote working, businesses of all sizes can take additional steps to mitigate those risks and help safeguard their organizations into 2021 and beyond.

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors in Minnesota

In August 2012, Minnesota enacted a new, more user-friendly statute governing the once seldom-used tool of Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”). [Disclaimer: Jeffrey Ansel served on the committee that was tasked with re-writing Minnesota’s receivership laws]. Since then, ABC’s have become more common. Unlike receiverships,[1] ABC’s are typically initiated by debtors, giving the debtor control over when an ABC is commenced, the assets included in the ABC, and selection of the “administrator” or assignee. Creditors, including (and especially) lenders are rightly concerned about the debtor having control over these options. Understanding how an ABC works, however, is essential to a creditor re-establishing control of the debt collection process.

GENERAL PURPOSE OF AN ABC

An ABC is commenced by the filing of a written assignment agreement in a form substantially similar to the form included in the statute. Minn. Stat. §577.12 and .13. The Assignment must be filed with the court administrator of the district court in the county where the assignor, or any of them if there is more than one, resides or has its principal of business. Minn. Stat. §577.12.  An ABC provides a debtor with an opportunity to use neutral party and a court‑supervised process to liquidate some or all of its assets in an orderly fashion to satisfy creditor claims. This process can insulate the debtor from having to deal directly with creditors and avoid any claims that the debtor preferred one creditor over another. As a court-supervised process, an ABC can help to narrow disputes and give all parties closure.

CAST OF CHARACTERS IN AN ABC

The cast of characters in an ABC includes the assignor, the assignee, the creditors of the assignor, the Court, and potentially holders of equity interests in the assignor.[2] Unlike a receivership, where a party, typically a creditor or shareholder, recommends and the Court selects and appoints a receiver, in an ABC the assignor is authorized to select the assignee. However, the assignee must be eligible to serve as receiver and therefore must meet the same criteria required of a receiver. See Minn. Stat. §577.12[3]  To determine whether a proposed assignee is eligible to serve, the Court will evaluate the proposed assignee’s qualifications and independence. See Minn. Stat. §576.26.[4] The assignor may assign assets to one or more assignees. Minn. Stat. §577.12.  For example, an assignor can assign real property to an assignee with particular experience in liquidating real estate while assigning other assets to a different assignee.

The assignee takes possession and control of the assigned assets (the “Assignment Property”); gives notice to those statutorily entitled to the same pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 576.34,   and liquidates the Assignment Property for purposes of paying the assignor’s creditors. The assignee serves the same purpose as a general receiver under Minnesota’s receivership laws, Minn. Stat. § 576.[5]

Creditors of the assignor, both secured and unsecured, may receive distributions from the liquidation process. Creditors may be required to file claims forms detailing what is owed to them and why. See Minn. Stat. §576.49 and .50. Certain creditors are stayed from pursuing certain claims against the assignor, the assignee, or the Assignment Property outside of the ABC process. See, Minn. Stat. §576.45.

The Court in which the ABC is filed has jurisdiction over the Assignment Property, the assignee, and the ABC proceedings.

THE ASSIGNMENT PROPERTY

The language of the assignment form as set forth in Minn. Stat. §577.13,[6] and the statute provides that the assignor can assign all or some of its assets to the assignee.[7] The assets so assigned are the Assignment Property pursuant to Minn. Stat. §577.11(c).  The Court then has jurisdiction over the Assignment Property, and the assignee is given control over the assets, but not the entity which owns the assets (i.e., the assignor).

INITIAL ORDER

The Assignment agreement does not contain all of the usual terms and provisions of a typical receivership order. Accordingly, best practice suggests that the assignee upon appointment, or as soon thereafter as practical, should seek a court order approving and validating the assignment and otherwise delineating the powers, duties, and process for the ABC.  This order could also include the provisions typical in a receivership appointment order (e.g., duties of and restrictions on the other parties involved in the ABC, a periodic reporting protocol for the assignee with an objection process and statement that failure to timely object is a waiver of the objection as to matters described in the report, as set forth in Minn. Stat. §576.36, lay out the claims process, including claim form exemplars, claim administration, objections to allowance of claims, extend the limited stay if appropriate, and other matters relevant to the case), as well as other provisions specific to the particular situation.

SALES OF ASSIGNMENT PROPERTY

Typically the assignee is required to sell real and personal property as part of the ABC process. If the sale of such property is in the ordinary course of the assignor’s business, the assignee can sell such property without Court authorization. Minn. Stat. § 576.29, Subd. 1(b)(4). If, however, the sale of such property is not in the ordinary course of business (such as an auction, for example), the assignee is required to obtain prior Court approval. Minn. Stat. § 576.29, Subd. 1(b)(5). Depending on the nature and value of the property, the assignee may want to seek such approval before having a buyer identified or may want to wait until it has received a purchase offer.

The assignee may sell Assignment Property[8] subject to liens or free and clear of liens, except liens for unpaid real estate taxes or assessments or liens airing under federal law. Minn. Stat. § 576.46, Subd. 1. Any owner of property or lien holder may object to a proposed sale. If the Court determines that the amount likely to be realized from the sale is less than the objecting party would realize in the absence of the sale, the Court will not permit the sale to go forward. Upon the sale of property free and clear of liens, all liens encumbering the property shall transfer and attach to the proceeds of the sale, less reasonable expenses incurred in the disposition of the property. Minn. Stat. § 576.46, Subd. 1(c). The Court may then authorize the assignee to pay secured creditors out of the sale proceeds.

The Court may not authorize the sale free and clear of a co‑owner’s interest in property. Minn. Stat. § 576.46, Subd. 2. Rather, the assignee shall have the assignor’s rights and powers afforded by state and federal law, including any rights of partition.

A secured creditor may credit bid at a sale provided that the creditor tenders cash sufficient to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in the disposition of the property and all senior liens. Minn. Stat. § 576.46, Subd. 3.

CLAIM PROCESS

Not surprisingly, the claims process is usually the most time-consuming portion of the ABC. Unlike the more formal claims process in federal bankruptcy proceedings, the ABC/receiver statute provides the assignee and the Court with a great deal of latitude with respect to the claims process. Minn. Stat. § 576.49. The assignee is to “submit to the Court a recommendation concerning a claims process appropriate to the particular” ABC proceeding. The Court is then required to establish a claims process addressing specific topics in the statute.[9]

In some ABC proceedings, it makes sense for the assignee to immediately submit a claims process recommendation to the Court. Sometimes, however, it makes more sense for the assignee to wait until the assignee has a better understanding of the value of the Assigned Property and the claims the assignee anticipates will be filed. For example, if the value of the Assigned Property is unlikely to result in a distribution to general unsecured creditors, it does not make sense to immediately recommend a claims process that requires unsecured creditors to file claims and requires the assignee to evaluate, and potentially object to, those claims. See Minn. Stat. § 576.51 (establishing a priority schedule for allowed claims to receive distributions). Rather in such a circumstance, it might make sense to require secured creditors to file claims immediately and wait to determine whether to require unsecured creditors to file claims until more is known about whether a distribution to unsecured creditors is likely.

Likewise, in some proceedings it may make sense to have creditors file claims with the Court, whereas in other proceedings it may make sense to have creditors file claims with the assignee or claims processing agent retained by the assignee, depending on: (1) the anticipated number of claims; (2) the sophistication of the creditor, will creditors have the ability to electronically file claims with the Court; and (3) whether sensitive or confidential information is likely to be included along with claim forms.

The assignee should also evaluate the information it received from the assignor to determine whether claims should be allowed without requiring the specific creditor to file a proof of claim. For example, the assignor may have kept detailed books and records that show the assignor owed specific creditors specific amounts. The assignee should determine whether it is necessary for those creditors to file a proof of claim.

Once claims have been filed, the assignee and “any party in interest” may object to specific claims. Minn. Stat. § 576.50. The objection must state the grounds for the objection and comply with any other Court imposed requirements. Generally, objections must be filed with the Court and served on certain identified parties at least 30 days before a hearing on the objection. The Court is allowed to estimate claims if fixing or liquidating such claims would unduly delay the administration of the ABC process. Minn. Stat. § 576.50, Subd. 3.

Finally, unlike the claims process in bankruptcy proceedings, the ABC claims process does not include a cap on landlord claims associated with commercial leases. In bankruptcy proceedings, a debtor can reject a lease and a landlord’s resulting bankruptcy claim is capped by 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6) up to the rent reserved by the lease for the greater of one year or 15%, not to exceed three years, of the remaining term. In certain circumstances, the difference between lease rejection claims under the bankruptcy code and the Minnesota ABC process may be of sufficient size that it impacts the decision of whether to file bankruptcy or an ABC proceeding.

DISTRIBUTION

The ABC/Receiver statute provides the assignee and the Court with a great deal of flexibility in  the distribution to creditors of Assignment Property. Minn. Stat. §576.53. The assignee is permitted to make interim and final distributions after filing a proposed distribution schedule. The assignee is required to give notice of filing the proposed distribution schedule on all persons on the master service list and all persons that filed proofs of claims. Provided that no objections to the proposed distribution schedule are filed within 21 days of notices, the Court may enter an order authorizing the proposed distribution. If there are objections to the proposed distribution schedule, the Court will rule on those objections and then a distribution can be made.

The assignee’s proposed distribution schedule must comport with the statutory order of priority: (1) secured claims, subject to reimbursing the assignee for the reasonable and necessary expenses of preserving, protecting or disposing of the collateral, including allowed fees and expenses of the assignee and its professionals; (2) other expenses incurred during the ABC process; (3) wages incurred within 90 days of the filing of the ABC, capped at $13,650 (see 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4)); (4) security deposits for the purchase, lease or rental of non‑commercial property, capped at $3,025 (see 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)); (5) past due domestic support obligations; (6) unsecured claims of governmental units for taxes that accrued before the commencement of the ABC; (7) all other unsecured claims; and (8) interest on unsecured claims. Minn. Stat. § 576.51.

Notwithstanding this priority schedule, the United States government claims the right to be paid first. See 31 U.S.C. § 3713. This can include tax claims, contract claims, and even claims where the United States is recovering funds on behalf of others. Moreover, the United States claims the right to recover, personally, from any party that makes distributions to others, including paying ABC expenses (including the assignee’s fee) before paying the United States.

Since the ABC/receivership statute was re‑written in 2012, there have not been any reported decisions in Minnesota addressing the conflict between these two statutes. Assignees as well as recipients of distributions should be careful and proactive in evaluating United States government claims before making or taking any distributions. Under the correct circumstances, the United States government may chose not to demand payment first. The United States government may permit secured creditors and/or the assignee to be paid before the United States government. It may also permit certain other creditor classes to be paid.

EFFECT OF AN ABC PROCEEDING-STAYS, PREFERENCES, AND DISCHARGE

The filing of the ABC triggers two separate stays. The first stay acts as a stay against acts to obtain possession of or exercise control over Assignment Property or to create or perfect a lien against Assignment Property. Minn. Stat. § 576.42, Subd. 3. This first stay is permanent. The second stay acts as a stay of commencement or continuation of legal actions against the assignor or the receiver/assignee that were or could have been commenced before the ABC filing and commencement or continuation of a legal action to enforce a lien having priority over the assignee. Minn. Stat. §576.42, Subd. 4. This second stay expires 30 days after the filing unless extended by the Court. In order to extend the stay, the assignee or other party in interest must file a motion seeking extension of the stay within the initial 30 day period. The filing of such a motion extends the stay for an additional 30 days. In order to extend the stay, the Court must do so within 60 days of the filing of the ABC proceeding.[10]

Unlike bankruptcy proceedings, the commencement of an ABC proceeding does not give the assignee the right to recover “preference payments” ‑ payments made within 90 days of the filing to satisfy a pre‑existing debt. Depending on the circumstances, the assignor and other parties in interest will want to evaluate whether the pursuit of preference claims will benefit the process.

Significantly, an ABC proceeding does not conclude with the assignor receiving a discharge from its obligations (as a debtor can obtain by filing for bankruptcy). Rather, creditors continue to have claims against the assignor to the extent such clams are not paid through the distribution process. This may not be a particularly relevant concern for an entity filing an ABC proceeding as part of a liquidation of all its assets, but is certainly relevant for an individual or an entity that hopes to continue operating.

TERMINATION AND REMOVAL OF THE ASSIGNEE

At the conclusion of the ABC, the assignee will file a final report and seek approval of the final report and a discharge. Minn. Stat. § 576.38. The final report shall include a description of the activities of the assignee, a schedule of all Assignment Property as of the commencement of the ABC proceeding, a list of expenditures, a list of unpaid expenses incurred during the ABC proceeding, a list of all dispositions of Assignment Property, a list of all distributions, and, if not done separately, a request for payment of fees and expenses of the assignee. Minn. Stat. § 576.38, Subd. 3. The final report may incorporate the prior interim reports by reference. A discharge of the assignee excuses the assignee from further performance of any duties and discharges any lis pendens recorded by the assignee.

An assignee can also be removed if: the assignee fails to execute and file the bond required by the Court; the assignee resigns, refuses or fails to serve for any reason; or for other good cause. Minn. Stat. § 576.37. Upon removing the assignee, the Court shall determine whether a successor assignee should be appointed. A removed assignee is required to file a final report within 14 days of removal for matters up to the date of the removal.

CONCLUSION

Since the ABC statute was amended in 2012, there has been a significant increase in the number of ABC proceedings in Minnesota. In the right circumstances, ABC proceedings can be more advantageous than a bankruptcy or a lender exercising its rights under its loan documents. There are, however, limitations and disadvantages that all parties should be aware of prior to proceeding with an ABC. As a relatively new method of handling the assets of an insolvent entity, there is much uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of these proceedings. The authors hope that this article has helped clarify those considerations.

[1] ABC’s are governed by Minnesota Statute § 577.11‑.18 and once commenced are conducted similar to general receiverships as described in Minnesota Statute §576.21‑.53.

[2] Some of these terms are defined in Minn. Stat. §577.11, which provides as follows:
(a) The definitions in this section and in section 576.21 apply throughout this chapter unless the context requires otherwise.
(b) “Assignee” means the person to whom the assignment property is assigned.
(c) “Assignment property” means the property assigned pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(d) “Assignor” means the person who assigns the assignment property.
(e) “Time of assignment” means the date and time endorsed by the court administrator pursuant to section 577.14

[3] See Minn. Stat. §577.12[3] (“Every assignment for the benefit of creditors subject to this chapter made by an assignor of the whole or any part of the assignor’s property, real or personal, for the benefit of creditors, shall be: (1) to a person eligible to be a receiver under section 576.26, . . .).

[4] The Court will consider, among other things, whether the proposed assignee has: sufficient knowledge and experience; the financial ability to post the necessary bond; been previously disqualified from serving as a receiver or assignee; been convicted of a felony or other crime involving moral turpitude; and been found liable in civil court for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft or similar conduct. In evaluating the proposed assignee’s independence, the Court will consider, among other things: the relationship the proposed assignee has to the parties and the property proposed in the ABC; whether the proposed assignee has a material financial interest in the outcome of the underlying dispute; and whether the proposed assignee is a creditor or holder of any equity interest in any of the parties to the ABC.

[5] Minn. Stat. §577.18 provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, an assignee shall be treated as a general receiver, the assignment property shall be treated as receivership property, and all proceedings following the filing of the assignment shall be governed by sections 576.21 to 576.53.”

[6] The statute says in pertinent part:: “. . . the assignor, . . . hereby assigns to the assignee, . . . the assignor’s property, . . . which property is set forth on Schedule A attached hereto

[7] Minn. Stat. §577.12 states that the assignor can assign “the whole or any part of the assignor’s property, real or personal, for the benefit of creditors,. . .”

[8] The receivership statute provides that a receiver cannot sell agricultural land or homesteaded property unless the owner of the property has consented to the sale following the time of appointment. Minn. Stat. § 576.46, Subd. 1. Because an ABC proceeding is commenced by the assignor transferring to the assignee title to the Assignment Property, this provision should not prevent the sale of such property. That said, some title companies have been reluctant to insure title to real property being sold out of an ABC proceeding without having the assignor consent to the specific sale at issue.

[9]  The statutory requirements to be included in the claims process are: (1) whether proofs of claims must be submitted; (2) the deadline or deadlines for submitting proofs of claims; (3) where the claims are filed ‑ with the Court or the assignee; (4) whether to permit claims based on the amounts established in the books and records of the assignor without requiring the filing of formal claims; and (5) other matters bearing on the claims process.

[10] The Court is empowered to modify both stays upon the motion of a party in interest. Minn. Stat. §576.42, Subd. 5. Moreover, the stay is inapplicable to certain types of proceedings, including, criminal proceedings against the assignor, actions by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power or to establish tax liability, actions related to establishing paternity, actions to establish or modify an order for alimony, maintenance or support, setoff, acts to maintain or continue the perfection of a lien, or commencement of bankruptcy case. Minn. Stat. § 576.42, Subd. 6.

2020 Minnesota Primary Results

What follows is an overview of the results of the August 11, 2020, primary in Minnesota.  Not every race is included; instead those races that involved incumbents, or were otherwise notable are discussed.

US Senate

Incumbent Democrat Tina Smith handily prevailed in her primary with 87% of the vote. She will face the former one-term southeast Minnesota Republican congressman Jason Lewis, who also easily won his primary with 78% of the vote.

Congressional

Fifth District – Incumbent Ilhan Omar (DFL) – Minneapolis / West Metro Suburbs

This race pitted first-term Congresswoman Ilhan Omar against a number of challengers, the most well-funded of them being Antone Melton-Meaux. This congressional district is considered the safest Democratic seat in the entire Congress. Thus, the winner of this primary will be the congressperson for the district.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar prevailed with current vote totals at:

57.44%           Ilhan Omar
39.18%           Antone Melton-Meaux

Seventh District – Incumbent Collin Peterson (DFL) – Northwestern / Western MN

Sixteen-term incumbent Democrat Collin Peterson is one of the last remaining rural Democrats in Congress. He currently chairs the House Agriculture Committee, and is one of the top targets for congressional Republicans as his district voted overwhelmingly for President Trump, with 61% of the vote.

In light of the perceived weakness of Congressman Peterson, a number of Republicans ran in the primary. The endorsed candidate is former state senator, and Tim Pawlenty’s most recent running mate for Lieutenant Governor, Michelle Fischbach. President Trump has also endorsed her candidacy. The current voting percentages are:

59.3%             Michelle Fischbach
22.16%           David Hughes
14.9%             Noel Collis

Other Congressional Candidates

Every other congressional race was largely uncontested in the primary.

State Senate

In the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, several African American women decided to run, in some cases against incumbent Democratic senators; notably Senate Minority Leader Susan Kent and senior St. Paul Senator Sandy Pappas.  In both cases, the incumbents handily won.

Duluth Senate Seat – Incumbent DFL Senator Erik Simonson v. Jen McEwen

Challenger Jen McEwen launched her campaign in April and won the DFL endorsement in May on the first ballot. She is running as a strong progressive and environmentalist. Current Senator Erik Simonson has a moderate voting record on environmental issues and has supported copper nickel mining. He had strong support from trade unions and police and fire organizations.

Simonson was endorsed by Governor Tim Walz, former Congressman Rick Nolan, former Lieutenant Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon (who previously held the Senate seat from 2002 through the end of 2010), AFSCME Council 5, the Duluth Building and Construction Trades Council, and the State Building Trades Council. McEwen has been endorsed by the DFL Party, Women Winning, Education Minnesota, Take Action Minnesota, and the Duluth News Tribune.

This is a strong Democratic district that gave Hillary Clinton 60% of the vote in 2016.

Current voting totals indicate that Jen McEwen convincingly defeated Senator Simonson. The totals currently are:

73%    Jen McEwen
26%    Erik Simonson

South Minneapolis Seat – Incumbent DFL Senator Jeff Hayden v. Omar Fateh

This district encompasses the site where George Floyd was killed and protests and rioting occurred. It has a very high percentage of renters and a large Somali population. In May, in a virtual endorsement convention, Omar Fateh won the DFL endorsement over Hayden with 72% of delegate support on the first ballot. Following the convention, Hayden questioned how delegates were seated and said his campaign conducted a sample of delegates who voted online and could not determine whether they lived in the district or not.

Fateh has the DFL Party endorsement. Senator Hayden had been endorsed by Minnesota AFL-CIO, AFSCME Council 5, Teamsters Local 32, SEIU, Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, and Attorney General Keith Ellison. This district is solidly Democrat and gave Hillary Clinton 84% of the vote to President Trump’s 8.4% of the vote in 2016.

Currently, the voting percentages are:

54.53%           Omar Fateh
45.47%           Jeff Hayden

Chaska/Chanhassen Seat Republican Primary Julia Coleman v. Thomas Funk

When Senator Scott Jensen announced he would not seek re-election, Chanhassen City Councilmember Julia Coleman, the daughter-in-law of former US Senator Norm Coleman, jumped into the race, followed by Victoria Mayor Thomas Funk.

Mayor Funk made opposing school equity programs a major issue in his campaign, claiming that the Eastern Carver School district was attempting to indoctrinate students to a liberal radical agenda that degrades all white students and forces them to apologize for their skin color and their race. Councilmember Coleman did not make this a part of her platform and argued that her profile as a millennial mom has broader appeal.

Currently, the voting percentages are:

62.95%           Julia Coleman
37.05%           Thomas Funk

State House

North Minneapolis Seat – Incumbent DFL Representative Ray Dehn v. Esther Agbaje

Last October, Esther Agbaje announced that she would challenge Representative Dehn for the DFL endorsement for House District 59B and prevailed on the third ballot during the May endorsement convention. Representative Dehn has represented the district for six years, and counted on the long-time friendship and support of Attorney General Keith Ellison to help him in this district that Ellison once represented. Agbaje is an attorney with the well regarded Ciresi Law Firm, a litigation boutique firm that is generally on the plaintiff’s side.

Following the convention, Dehn questioned the outcome and raised concerns about how some alternate delegates were seated and announced that he would run in the primary.  This district is solidly Democratic and voted for Hillary Clinton with 79% of the vote to Donald Trump’s 13%.

Currently, the voting percentages are:

41.86%           Ray Dehn
42.38%           Esther Agbaje

North End St. Paul Seat – Incumbent DFL Representative John Lesch v. Athena Hollins

Sixteen-term incumbent Representative John Lesch has faced an increasing chorus that has questioned his incumbency. In May, despite concerns that many had raised, he nevertheless won the DFL online endorsement on the first ballot.

Athena Hollins is an attorney who has been involved in neighborhood organizations.

The current voting percentages are:

39.7%             John Lesch
60.3%             Athena Hollins

Eagan Seat / Laurie Halverson seat — Mike Maguire / Liz Reyer

With the announcement in April that four-term Representative Laurie Halverson (DFL-Eagan), the chair of the House Commerce Committee, would not seek re-election, four candidates sought the DFL endorsement to succeed her. Liz Reyer prevailed in that contest while Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire announced he would campaign for the DFL primary. This district is tilts Democratic and was carried by Hillary Clinton with 53% of the vote to Donald Trump’s 37%.

Reyer is running on endorsements from Halverson, the DFL Party, AFL-CIO, and Women Winning, while Maguire is running on his name recognition and long-time record of service in Eagan.

The current voting percentages are:

63.01%           Liz Reyer
36.99%           Mike Maguire

Shakopee Seat – Republican Primary Bob Loonan v. Erik Mortensen

This race is a rematch of 2018, where both candidates faced off in the Republican primary. At the time, Loonan was the incumbent and Mortensen was the Republican-endorsed candidate. Mortensen prevailed in 2018 with 58% to Loonan’s 42%.

For this primary, neither candidate has the Republican endorsement. During the March endorsement convention, Loonan and Mortensen were tied on the sixth ballot and delegates subsequently chose not to endorse in the race.

Mortensen has portrayed Loonan as insufficiently conservative while Loonan has criticized Mortensen for losing to current-Representative Brad Tabke (DFL-Shakopee) in 2018. Loonan cites the fact that Mortensen is the first Republican in 20 years to lose the district to a Democrat.

The current voting percentages are:

44.92%           Bob Loonan
55.08%           Erik Mortenson

It appears that the 2020 general election will be a redux of the 2016 race, with Mortenson running against Representative Tabke. Donald Trump won the district with 47% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 43% in 2016.

Legal Issues in Times of COVID19 and Civil Unrest

Winthrop & Weinstine attorneys Jim Dierking and Tami Diehm authored an article in SIGMA’s igm   magazine titled “Legal Issues in Times of COVID19 and Civil Unrest.” In the article, Jim and Tami discuss some of the multitude of issues that the gas and convenience store owners are facing, including insurance issues, employment issues, “force majeure” under real estate leases and supply agreements, and more.

 

Schrems II: Privacy Shield Invalidated, Standard Contractual Clauses Upheld, With Caveats

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a surprise blow to trans-Atlantic economic relations by invaliding the EU-US Privacy Shield arrangement, again putting data transfers from the EU to the US on shaky footing. In its ruling, the CJEU held that Privacy Shield fails to meet required data protection standards as an adequacy mechanism under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and is therefore not a valid means for transferring personal data from the EU to the US.[1] The CJEU ruling also upheld the general use of the standard contractual clauses (SCCs) as an approved transfer mechanism, but cautioned that use of the SCCs must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure their use remains valid in view of the court’s ruling. The immediate impact of this decision is that the more than 5,000 US companies relying on Privacy Shield for data transfers from the European Economic Area (EEA) must find a new legal mechanism to make these transfers, or face potential sanction. As the world awaits official guidance on the practical implications of the Schrems II decision, businesses that transfer data out of, or receive data from the EEA must carefully examine their transfer mechanisms in view of the ruling.

The CJEU’s Ruling

The lawsuit (known as Schrems II) and subsequent invalidation of Privacy Shield is just the latest milestone in the lengthy battle over the compatibility of United States’ surveillance laws with the European Union’s expansive privacy rights legislation. In Schrems I, Privacy Shield’s predecessor, Safe Harbor, was similarly struck down for lacking adequate protections for the privacy rights of EU citizens in view of US government surveillance laws.[2] While privacy advocates have accused Privacy Shield of suffering from the same deficiencies, the European Commission’s third annual review of Privacy Shield in October 2019 confirmed that the US program was working well overall, and provided an adequate level of protection for personal data.[3] Obviously, the CJEU did not agree, and the Commission will presumably assess the consequences of the decision in due time.

The heart of the issue before the court in Schrems II was whether companies exporting EU personal data from the EEA to the United States can ensure the minimum level of protection for individual rights as required by the EU privacy laws. Of particular concern was the alleged lack of actionable rights under Section 702 of the US’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order 12,333.[4] FISA provides, among other things, that the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence may direct an electronic communication service provider to provide the government with available information about foreign citizens.[5] Likewise, Executive Order 12,333 allows the US to access trans-Atlantic data transfers by tapping the underwater cables that connect Europe to North America. In light of these surveillance programs, the CJEU found that Privacy Shield failed to guarantee the broad privacy rights Europeans enjoy under the GDPR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[6] The court also held that use of the SCCs should be suspended in certain cases where the laws of a third country (for example, the laws of the US) do not guarantee that the SCC’s personal data protections will be enforced. This ruling—which has immediate effect as of July 16, 2020—therefore affects not only all businesses relying on Privacy Shield, but may impact businesses using the SCCs as well.

Looking Ahead: Important Takeaways

What are the important takeaways for businesses relying on Privacy Shield and the SCCs for data transfers?

  • Privacy Shield Lives On (For Now): According to the Department of Commerce, Privacy Shield participants must continue to comply with any obligations they have under the Privacy Shield Framework.[7]
  • SCCs Still Valid: Because the SCCs were held valid, at least for the time being, businesses relying on Privacy Shield should consider implementing the SCCs as an alternative to Privacy Shield, at least in the short term and absent further guidance. However, the CJEU ruling leaves several open questions about whether a business can possibly comply with the SCCs if the substantive laws of a country are incompatible with the SCCs. Any use of the SCCs should be done on a case-by-case basis and be carefully evaluated in view of the CJEU decision. For example, businesses that may not be subject to the US government surveillance programs in question may be more free to continue to use the SCCs (e.g., FISA only allows warrantless surveillance for “electronic communication service providers”).[8]
  • Article 49 Derogations: Although not intended for regularly occurring data transfers, the Article 49 of the GDPR provides derogations for international data transfers that may be another short-term solution for businesses seeking an alternative transfer mechanism. For example, under Art. 49(1)(a), a business may legalize a transfer from the EEA with the explicit consent of a data subject. Similarly, Art. 49(1)(b) enables legal data transfers that are necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject. Each of these alternatives should be carefully reviewed depending on the laws of the importing country, content of the transfer, and safeguards for the personal data.
  • Review Data Processors: Businesses must evaluate all data flows that may be impacted by the Schrems II decision, not just data transfers where a business is a data exporter or importer. For example, if a business engages a processor that relies upon Privacy Shield, the business should reach out to the processor to ensure it has implemented a viable alternative transfer mechanism.
  • More Guidance to Come: Be vigilant as further guidance is sure to be released by regulatory authorities in the coming days and weeks. Changes may come sooner rather than later. For an IAPP roundup of DPA and government guidance released to date in view of Schrems II, visit https://iapp.org/resources/article/dpa-and-government-guidance-on-schrems-ii-2/.

Businesses, governments, and data privacy experts around the world are scrambling to understand the full impact of this ruling, and to chart a course for how best to proceed. In the meantime, businesses should begin contemplating alternative methods of data processing in the absence of legislative change to the United States’ surveillance laws.

 

 

[1] Case C-311/18, Data Protection Comm’r v. Facebook Ir., http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=B54649075388509099AD7991A75D20DF?text=&docid=228677&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10056740 (Jul. 16, 2020).

[2] See https://iapp.org/resources/article/schrems-i/.

[3] See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_6134.

[4] Exec. Order No. 12,333, 46 Fed. Reg. 59,941 (Dec. 4, 1981).

[5] 50 U.S.C. § 1881(a)(i)(1).

[6] Case C-311/18, Data Protection Comm’r v. Facebook Ir., available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=B54649075388509099AD7991A75D20DF?text=&docid=228677&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=10056740 (Jul. 16, 2020).

[7] https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/07/us-secretary-commerce-wilbur-ross-statement-schrems-ii-ruling-and .

[8] See 50 U.S.C. § 1881(b) (defining “electronic communications service provider).

Necessity is the Mother of Invention—and Teledentistry

Winthrop & Weinstine’s Dental and Healthcare Group published an article for Northwest Dentistry about dentists and specialists who saw their patient flow dry up, or their offices close entirely, as a result of a variety of Executive Orders and government restrictions that prohibited all but emergency care in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Group notes that practices that adapt and evolve with respect to the manner in which they deliver care may emerge from COVID-19 restrictions stronger than ever.

If you have questions please feel free to contact any member of our team.

Real estate background spurs affordable housing focus

Shareholder Erin Mathern was profiled for Minnesota Lawyer‘s “Breaking the Ice” series. The Q&A format of the article, published July 1, 2020, explores how Erin came to the practice of law, and her work expanding affordable housing capacity and advocating for public policies for the industry.

When asked about her favorite aspects of being an attorney, Erin responds: “My partners in our real estate finance group are some of the smartest, kindest, most thoughtful people. I like the work I do because I get to learn something new every day and get to work in construction, finance and policy and politics.”

Click here to read more.

COVID-19 Shutdown Underscores Need for Greater Focus on Affordable Housing

While the Eighth Annual Affordable Housing Summit could not go on as scheduled this week, the need for innovative thinking and conversation on this topic has never been more important.

Like most industries, affordable housing faces harsh new realities and unprecedented challenges in a COVID-19 world. In a span of just six weeks—from early March to mid-April—nearly 20% of Minnesota workers filed for unemployment. Across the country, millions more Americans are now unemployed. For many of them, this stretch of unemployment will make their current housing options virtually unaffordable.

These once unimaginable circumstances offer a valuable reminder of the delicate balance in which many renters find themselves—and the growing gap between supply and demand for affordable housing.

“If anyone didn’t already believe that access to affordable housing is critical, unprecedented circumstances over the last month have made it exceedingly clear,” said Winthrop & Weinstine shareholder Erin Mathern. “This is a key inflection point for us, and it will require a renewed focus across the entire affordable housing ecosystem—from the legislature, on down to developers, investors and landlords—to solve it.”

While the full impact of the pandemic may not be known for months, some areas for policy and procedural reform are becoming clearer. Here are three takeaways based on early indicators:

  1. Project construction has slowed—but the finances remain sound. For occupied rehabilitation projects, shelter-in-place exemptions have largely halted construction work. However, many new construction affordable housing developments have continued as scheduled. The good news is that the market for tax credits has remained strong despite economic fluctuations. The bad news? Construction delays and looming deadlines tied to existing tax credits are creating significant financial uncertainty as some projects move forward. Exceptions that protect investors and developers by adjusting credit delivery or providing deadline extensions will be needed to bridge this uncertainty and promote new development—especially as housing needs grow.
  2. Legislative changes are necessary to expand affordable housing access. Government tax and assistance programs, such as LIHTC, represent the key to securing more affordable housing for the communities that need it most. Without comprehensive support and access to realistic funding packages, building new affordable housing would be an impossible task. As more families face housing hardships in the aftermath of the pandemic, increasing access to affordable housing will be a top priority. Challenging local and federal legislators to work with the private market in the coming weeks and months will be necessary to respond quickly to this threat and improve the long-term outlook for affordable housing. Measures like fixing the 4% low income housing tax credit percentage, reducing the 50% bond test, increasing state volume cap and widening access to state and local bonding opportunities, including Housing Infrastructure Bonds, are all tangible measures that could be adopted now to ensure a strong pipeline of affordable housing in the future. By example, many will remember that the 9% low income housing tax credit was fixed at a federal level in the wake of the last financial crisis.  A decade later, the industry has seen, real, tangible benefit from that measure.
  3. In the short term, industry-wide collaboration will be key. The pandemic has placed new strains on all aspects of the affordable housing industry. Active communication—between tenants, property managers, lenders, investors, developers, and government—is one way stakeholders can navigate considerable uncertainty and prepare for fluctuating financial risk due to missed rent and loan repayments. Additionally, sharing emerging best practices with peers can help the industry get as close to “business as usual” as possible by solving many of the practical challenges associated with affordable housing transactions—from coordinating closings and recording, arranging for inspections and governmental sign-off on project occupancy, to restructuring deals to account for anticipated construction delays. Together, the industry will need to draw from its collective experience to weather these challenges and protect the populations most affected by this crisis.