Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance Reverses Course!
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.08
The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House overhauled Section 7 of The Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance regarding required contribution disclosures (due July 30). Several examples in the most recent Guidance represent a complete reversal from those posted in the May 29, 2008 iteration.
For example, the prior Guidance stated that the mere recognition of a covered official as an "honorary co-host" was sufficient to trigger reporting requirements. Example 7 now provides the opposite.
The prior Guidance also suggested that one must disclose mere payment for a ticket to a luncheon at which a covered official is honored. Example 9 now states that buying a ticket or table to another entity's dinner event is not in itself a reportable circumstance.
In addition, the prior Guidance stated that lobbying registrants must disclose their financial sponsorship of an event when a covered official is merely a speaker or disclosed invitee. Examples 6 and 8 of the Guidance now state that unless the covered official receives a special award, honor, or recognition in connection with such an event, the cost of the event need not be disclosed.
Other minor amendments include a clarification that events must be disclosed where a covered official is bestowed an award, even if the primary purpose of the event is other than to honor the official (e.g., to raise money for the sponsoring organization).
For a copy of the new Guidance, click here:
http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
