California cemented its status as the nation’s leader of cosmetics legislation when it passed the Cosmetic, Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act of 2020 (“CFFIRKA”). Effective January 1, 2022, California’s newest cosmetic reporting law requires cosmetic companies to publicly disclose all fragrance and flavor ingredients in their products that are found on one of 22 “designated lists”. CFFIRKA supplements the state’s Safe Cosmetics Act (SCA), which for more than a decade has required companies to report to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Safe Cosmetics Program whether any of their cosmetic products contain chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Now, the reporting requirements extend to fragrances and flavor ingredients that may pose health hazards.
Many cosmetic products contain fragrances or ingredients that give products flavor. In enacting CFFIRKA – a first-of-its-kind consumer “right-to-know law”, the state was concerned that some fragrance and flavor ingredients may have negative health effects, especially to those who are frequently exposed, such as salon workers. Thus, the new law is intended to provide the public with knowledge about the use of such fragrances and flavor ingredients in both retail and professional-use cosmetics, so consumers and workers can determine whether and how to mitigate their exposure.
Each entity whose name appears on the label of a cosmetic product must comply with CFFIRKA, which means companies such as distributors and importers may also have reporting obligations. CFFIRKA requires disclosure if a cosmetic product sold in California contains fragrance and/or flavor ingredients included on one or more of the 22 designated lists identified in California Health and Safety Code Section 111792.6. Among others, the lists include those chemicals on California’s Proposition 65 list as well as chemicals classified by other federal and state agencies and international bodies. The ingredients on the 22 designated lists are subject to change as each list is revised, requiring companies to pay special attention to such changes. All cosmetic products with reportable ingredients sold in California after January 1, 2022, regardless of date of manufacture, must be reported under this mandate. However, there is no requirement under CFFIRKA to make changes to product labels.
Additionally, cosmetic companies must disclose specific “fragrance allergens” if the allergens are present at or above 0.01 percent (100 parts per million) in rinse-off cosmetic products, or at or above 0.001 percent (10 parts per million) in leave-on cosmetics products. The subset of CFFIRKA reportable ingredients called “fragrance allergens” have distinct reporting requirements, and must be reported regardless of their intended purpose in the product (i.e. they must be reported even if they are not used to impart scent or counteract odor). In addition to disclosing the reportable fragrance, flavor, or allergen ingredients, businesses must also disclose each ingredient’s Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) number, the Universal Product Code (UPC) of the cosmetic product that includes the ingredient, and whether the cosmetic product is intended for professional or retail cosmetic use.
Information reported by companies under CFFIRKA (as well as under the SCA) is made publicly available through the CDPH’s Safe Cosmetics Database, which is available at https://cscpsearch.cdph.ca.gov/search/publicsearch. To date, more than 90,000 cosmetic products have been reported to the CDPH.
Conkle Kremer & Engel attorneys stay current on regulatory and legal developments that affect the cosmetics business.
We previously posted about the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (“PPPFA”), which updated the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) to provide loan recipients with more flexibility. When we posted, we noted that questions remained about how the important loan forgiveness aspect of the PPP would work under the new flexibility rules. The Small Business Association, in connection with the Treasury, has now issued further guidance that provides some greater clarity.
The PPPFA expanded the covered period, for all borrowers who received their PPP loans on or after June 5, 2020, from the original 8 weeks to 24 weeks (or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier). Loan recipients who obtained PPP loans before June 5, 2020 could elect either the 8 or the 24 week covered period. The “covered period” refers to the time during which the borrower must use the loan for PPP’s allowed costs, notably payroll, rent and utilities.
The text of the U.S. Treasury Department’s earlier Interim Final Rule stated that a loan recipient must wait until the covered period ended before applying for loan forgiveness. The updated Interim Final Rule states that a loan recipient may apply for loan forgiveness anytime during its covered period as long as it has already expended the entirety of its PPP loan. For example, if a loan recipient elects the 24 week covered period and expends all of its PPP loan funds by week 10, it may apply for loan forgiveness immediately rather than wait until week 25. Remember, though, that the last day to file for loan forgiveness remains 10 months after the end of the loan recipient’s covered period.
While loan recipients have the ability to apply for loan forgiveness immediately after expending its PPP loan, the 10 month window provides flexibility to apply for loan forgiveness at the most opportune moment. The loan forgiveness application requires loan recipients to provide information about any decreases in workforce and reductions in wages/salary. Those changes in workforce will result in a corresponding decrease in the amount of loan forgiveness for which the loan recipient is eligible.
If a loan recipient believes that, within a few months, it will be able to hire or re-hire employees and return wages/salary to “pre-COVID-19” levels, then waiting to fill out the loan forgiveness application may be prudent. On the other hand, if the loan recipient anticipates future layoffs and compensation cuts, then applying sooner would be advantageous to avoid loan forgiveness reductions. But keep in mind that December 31, 2020 is the last day for a loan recipient to return its workforce to the requisite levels in order to receive full loan forgiveness.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys will continue to monitor the COVID-19 relief program landscape for updates to guide clients.
CK&E attorneys stay current on developments in the coronavirus pandemic, while being watchful for the kinds of issues that can undermine clients, to help clients adapt and thrive in challenging business environments.
Over the last several years, the California Attorney General’s Office (OAG) has released annual reports of Proposition 65 settlements through 2017. These reports make one thing clear – Proposition 65 continues to be a lucrative source for private Proposition 65 claimants and their lawyers, as the total settlement payments continues to rise through the years.
In the past, we noted that private Proposition 65 claimants and their lawyers collected at total of $17 million in settlement payments (comprised of civil penalties, “PILPs” or “Payments in Lieu of Penalties” [also known as “Additional Settlement Payments”] and attorneys’ fees and costs) in 2013, and $20 million in 2012. The trend since then has been upward on all fronts, with one notable recent qualification regarding PILPs.
Proposition 65 contemplates that private claimants will share any civil penalties collected, with 75 percent going to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and 25% being kept by the private claimants. However, Prop 65 claimants are allowed an alternative remedy of PILPs, in which the claimants can pocket 100% of the PILPs and share nothing with OEHHA. All private claimants needed to do is establish that the PILP payments will go to fund some kind of activities with a nexus to the basis for the litigation, and show how those funds would be spent. Until recently, this was not a big obstacle for Prop 65 claimants. As can be seen from the OAG reports, many Prop 65 claimants are special-purpose entities that contend their own business of pursuing Prop 65 claims serves the environmental interests they are trying to protect through pursuit of more Prop 65 claims. As a result, these entities could pocket the PILP money to self-fund their own activities to make more Prop 65 claims. Being able to keep all of the PILP money, rather than the alternative of having to give 75% of civil penalties to OEHHA, undoubtedly made PILPs very attractive to Prop 65 claimants. Perhaps the only bright spot in the chart below is the significant reduction (by more than 50%) in PILP recoveries, which followed an amended regulation that went into effect on October 1, 2016 to tighten requirements for PILP settlements. We’ll develop more on this amendment and its effects in a future blog post.
Finally, but clearly most significantly in terms of dollars spent on settlements of Prop 65 claims, private claimants’ lawyers are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. As seen in OAG reports, and displayed graphically below, this attorney fee recovery constitutes by far the largest portion of Prop 65 settlements.
2014-2017 Summary of Proposition 65 Resolutions (Updated from OAG Data as of 3/25/2019)
Since 2012, total settlement payments have increased substantially, reaching their high-water mark in 2016 but not declining very much in 2017 (2018 figures have not yet been fully released by OAG). Between 2014 and 2017, Prop 65 settlement payments totaled well over $25 million per year. Overall, the settlement payments are comprised of attorney fee recoveries to claimants’ lawyers, PILP recoveries to claimants, and a smaller number of civil penalties that are shared 25% with claimants and 75% with OEHHA. In sum, every dollar shown in the chart below, other than the OEHHA portion shown in red, has gone to either the Prop 65 claimants or the claimants’ lawyers:
When viewed graphically, it becomes all the more evident that the vast majority of Prop 65 settlements benefit claimants and their lawyers, not OEHHA or any other government agency charged with protecting the public. Questions must arise whether this was really the intent of Proposition 65, however beneficent was its purpose.
2016 was the biggest year for Prop 65 private claimants, according to data released by the California Attorney General’s Office. In 2016, private claimants settled 760 cases, suing smaller businesses and larger entities like K-Mart, Michaels, Williams-Sonoma, and Twinings. The settlements for that year totaled over $30 million.
Of the $30 million collected in settlement payments in 2016, attorneys’ fees made up more than $21.5 million, or 71.5% of all private settlements. In addition, while civil penalties amounted to just over $5 million, or 18% of all private settlements, private claimants can take 25% of any civil penalty assessed as a “bounty.” In 2016, the civil penalties retained by claimants represented a sum of $1,361,500, or 4.51% of all private settlements. PILP money made up 10.42% of all private settlements. That means approximately $3.1 million landed in the hands of private claimants and their attorneys, in addition to the attorneys’ fees and civil penalty bounties they received.
A few firms did particularly well that year. In 2016, The Chanler Group brought in 242 settlements for over $7.4 million. 83% of this figure, or over $6 million, was paid out in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs. Brodsky & Smith brought in 99 settlements for nearly $2.5 million. 90% of the nearly $2.5 million, or $2.2 million, in settlement payments went to the lawyers as attorneys fees and costs.
Some claimant representatives obtained settlements that were not quite as disproportionately in favor of attorneys’ fees and costs. For example, the Center for Environmental Health brought in 93 settlements in 2016, for a total of $4 million, broken down as follows: 11% as non-contingent civil penalties, 16% as PILP payments, and 74% as attorneys’ fees and costs. Similarly, the Consumer Advocacy Group brought in approximately $4 million across 71 settlements, recovering 11% as non-contingent civil penalties, 14% as PILP payments, and 75% as attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Environmental Research Center brought in 55 settlements for nearly $5 million, and the breakdown of payments was split more evenly: 36% as civil penalties, 31% as PILP payments, and 33% as attorneys’ fees and costs.
In 2017, private claimants continued to pursue Prop 65 claims, settling or obtaining judgments in 693 cases. The recoveries totaled more than $26 million. As can be readily seen in the chart above, although the total claimants’ recoveries were somewhat lower, they were on par with 2015 recoveries. Further, attorneys fees were proportionately even higher in 2017 than in preceding years, and the reduction was primarily in the PILP recoveries. Attorneys’ fees made up more than $20 million, or 76% of all private settlements, and civil penalties retained by claimants represented an additional $1,431,496 or 5.4% of all Prop 65 recoveries.
If these trends continue, total Prop 65 settlement payouts will continue to rise, imposing the “unnecessary burdens for businesses” that “are cause for public concern,” as the OAG noted in 2014. Conkle, Kremer & Engel routinely represents businesses against Prop 65 claims and lawsuits brought by private claimants, and works with businesses to develop compliance strategies to minimize the risk that they will be future targets of Prop 65 claimants.
Sure, we’re serious lawyers but we like to have a little fun too, especially during the summer with our law clerks. This summer, our law student clerks joined us for a lot of hands-on, real world experience in commercial litigation, intellectual property and transactional practice. And they still had time for some fun, including an outing to a Dodgers vs. Angels game in the Freeway Series. We started with a limo stop for dinner at Wurstkuche in DTLA, and ended the evening with fireworks after the game.
We also attended a special evening at the Hollywood Bowl – Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, with a live orchestra and even more lively lightsabers. The evening began with a special private dinner served at the Hollywood Bowl Volunteers Cottage, and ended with a limo ride home for our stormtroopers.
Back in the office, our lawyers and summer law clerks joined in a lark of a project that one of our attorneys, Evan Pitchford, dreamed up as an homage to the movie “Inception”. Rather than dreams within dreams, Evan decided he wanted to create “Shirtception” – T-shirts within T-shirts. Evan photographed himself wearing successive generations of T-shirts to organically create an infinite mirror effect of image within image of himself in his T-shirt. When Evan was done, attorneys and our summer law clerks wanted to join in. This photo of our attorneys and summer law clerks wearing successive generations of the T-shirts followed:
One of our clients imports kites and other toys and games, and gave our attorney Desiree Ho a couple of kites as a gift of appreciation. As summer wound down and fall breezes picked up, a few of our attorneys decided to hold a kite-flying contest – from the roof of our building.
We can’t say exactly what next summer will bring, but we can say that we expect to have more fun.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel is pleased to announce the relaunch of its website, with improved speed and access.
A new feature in our Conklelaw Blog is industry-specific filtering so visitors can quickly focus on the blog posts most of interest to them.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel began in 1982 as Conkle & Olesten, Professional Law Corporation. After 25 years, in 2007 the firm changed its name from Conkle & Olesten to Conkle, Kremer & Engel, Professional Law Corporation. Since 1982, the firm has operated continuously without change to its practice, and with complete commitment to service of its clients.
When we created our first website in the mid-1990’s, the Conkle & Olesten homepage featured “The Gavel” to announce recent case developments. It seems appropriate to bring The Gavel back to announce the relaunch of the CK&E website. We hope you enjoy the website and find the blog posts and articles interesting. We welcome your feedback – just use the Contact page.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel lawyers John Conkle and H. Kim Sim recently volunteered their time and expertise to the Santa Monica Superior Court, serving as attorney volunteers in the Court’s Civil Referee Assisted Settlement Hearing (CRASH) mediation program. Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process in which a neutral person (usually an experienced lawyer or retired judge) meets with the opposing parties to discuss the merits and risks of their claims and defenses, to try to reach a negotiated settlement.
The services of John and Kim were in high demand due to severe budget cuts affecting California courts. In an effort to deal with a significant budget shortfall for the 2013-14 fiscal year, the Los Angeles Superior Court announced in March the implementation of a countywide consolidation plan that will create regional hubs for certain types of cases. Personal injury civil cases filed in local courthouses are slated for transfer to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, and when they come up for trial they can be transferred to be tried anywhere in Los Angeles County. The CRASH mediation program took on increased importance as parties in those personal injury cases – in danger of being transferred out of Santa Monica – were sent to participate in mediation conducted by attorney volunteers in a final attempt to settle and avoid a transfer.
CK&E attorneys seldom handle personal injury matters, but they are well practiced in the ways that insurance can be used to help resolve claims. John and Kim also brought to the table their extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practice, including the mixture of law and psychology that is mediation. But it was a different experience for them to sit at the center as a neutral, rather than as one of the advocates. The Court and litigants were not the only beneficiaries of their work. Volunteering for this program enhanced their insight into the mediation process and will enhance their effectiveness as client advocates.
Conkle, Kremer & Engel started in 1982 as Conkle & Olesten, Professional Law Corporation. After 25 years, in 2007 the firm changed its name from Conkle & Olesten to Conkle, Kremer & Engel, Professional Law Corporation. Since 1982, the firm has operated continuously without change to its practice, and with complete commitment to service of its clients.
When we created our first website in the mid-1990’s, the Conkle & Olesten homepage featured “The Gavel” to announce our entries about recent case developments. It apparently was a memorable image because some of our visitors still ask about The Gavel. It seems appropriate to bring The Gavel back to announce the launch of the revamped CK&E website.
Conkle & Olesten Gavel
We hope you enjoy the website and find the articles and posts helpful. Please let us know if there are any topics that you suggest we address in future posts, or if there are any questions about previous articles and posts.
