Ninth Circuit Upholds Validity of Cost-Sharing Regulations that Stray from Arm's-Length Standard

by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Contact

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

On July 24, 2018, in the Altera Corp v. Commissioner[1] decision, the Ninth Circuit overturned a 2015 U.S. Tax Court opinion and upheld the validity of regulations requiring taxpayers to treat stock-based compensation as a cost for purposes of cost-sharing arrangements between related parties.

Altera, a subsidiary of Intel Inc., a U.S.-based microprocessor producer, had devised a cost-sharing arrangement with its Cayman Islands subsidiary that the IRS challenged as in direct contravention of applicable Treasury Regulations. Altera contended that promulgation of the Treasury Regulations violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that the regulations were therefore invalid. In 2015, the Tax Court held in favor of Altera in a 15-0 decision, invalidating the regulations. On July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed by a count of 2-1, upholding the validity of the regulations.

The Altera decision is a startling departure from the arm's-length standard because uncontrolled taxpayers generally do not treat stock-based compensation as costs that parties share. If it withstands further review, the Altera decision will have both a substantive and procedural impact on the large number of corporate taxpayers who possess valuable or potentially valuable intellectual property ("IP") and who also pay significant stock-based compensation to their employees. Specifically:

  • Stock-based compensation costs will now have to be shifted into low-tax jurisdictions in order to match similarly shifted profit—an issue which disproportionately impacts the tech industry. The Wall Street Journal has estimated that this issue is worth more than $3.5 billion to Google alone.
  • Transfer pricing regulations that adopt a "commensurate-with-income" standard in the context of qualified cost-sharing arrangements in lieu of the more usual "arm's-length" standard will not be rendered invalid (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) merely for failure to adhere to the arm's-length standard.
  • Taxpayers will be more restricted in how they choose to allocate such costs as between affiliates in foreign jurisdictions, making it in turn more difficult to allocate income out of the U.S. and into lower-taxed jurisdictions.
  • Taxpayers may be required to amend returns to reflect the additional cost-sharing payments if they have previously filed returns in reliance on the Tax Court's ruling.
  • Taxpayers in general (i.e., not just tech companies) may find it more difficult in the future to challenge the validity of Treasury regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Background

Because multinational corporations often operate outside the United States through related affiliates, there is an ever-present possibility for such enterprises to manipulate prices and expenses in controlled transactions in order to maximize income in low-taxed jurisdictions while maximizing expenses in the United States, resulting in a lower overall U.S. tax cost to the company. To combat this practice, Congress enacted section 482, which allows the U.S. Treasury ("Treasury") to promulgate transfer pricing regulations which, if not followed, permit the IRS to reallocate income and expenses between such related parties.

Section 482, as amended in 1986, provides that allocation of income resulting from a transfer of intangible property shall be "commensurate with the income" generated by the intangible property. Nevertheless, the transfer pricing regulations under section 482 have largely followed what is known as the "arm's-length standard," which demands that pricing as between controlled entities should conform to pricing charged by unrelated parties in similar transactions. This arm's-length standard has become the bedrock of U.S. transfer pricing principles and has become the standard upon which multinational companies have relied to transfer economic ownership of IP outside the United States.

Qualified cost-sharing agreements ("QCSAs"), such as the one employed by Altera, have traditionally been one of the primary means to transfer economic ownership of IP from a U.S. entity to an offshore affiliate without running afoul of either U.S. transfer pricing standards or other anti-deferral rules applicable to foreign corporations controlled by U.S. multinationals. In a QCSA, under the standards provided in the transfer pricing regulations, a U.S. entity holding IP will agree to share costs to further develop and market the IP with a foreign affiliate in exchange for the foreign affiliate making a platform contribution to the U.S. entity. Having transferred the effective economic ownership (but not the legal or tax ownership) of the IP out of the United States, a portion of the income attributable to the IP in the future can be allocated to affiliates in lower-tax jurisdictions, reducing the overall tax burden. While the transfer pricing regulations generally allow the IRS to reallocate income from foreign jurisdictions back to the United States, a cost-sharing arrangement that meets the standards for a QCSA under the regulations will be insulated from such reallocation under a potential IRS challenge.

With this in mind, many companies in the tech industry—the majority of which pay significant equity-based compensation—could reduce their taxes by billions of dollars by opting not to treat such compensation as a cost for purposes of such QCSAs.

To combat this phenomenon, Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7A(d)(2) explicitly provides that related entities must share the cost of employee stock-based compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as QCSAs. At the same time, the regulations reference the arm's-length standard as an overarching principle, which has led to considerable confusion in light of the fact that unrelated parties are overwhelmingly not sharing the cost of stock-based compensation.

Case History

Tax Court Decision

In July 2015, Altera successfully challenged the stock-based compensation regulation in the Tax Court under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Tax Court held that the IRS had failed, in its promulgation of the regulations, to follow proper procedures which would have demanded that such regulations (1) consider and account for hard data and expert opinions on comparability rather than "speculation" and (2) otherwise respond to commentary from the public identifying and characterizing comparable uncontrolled transactions, in which such unrelated entities were overwhelmingly opting not to share the "costs" of stock-based compensation—a pattern that was starkly at odds with what the regulation required.

At issue in the case was whether Altera's cost-sharing agreement with its Cayman Islands subsidiary should account for the significant stock-based compensation offered by Altera to certain employees. On examination, the IRS had determined that the failure to allocate a portion of such deductible costs to the subsidiary (and therefore away from the U.S. entity) resulted in more than $80 million of income impermissibly escaping U.S. taxation. Altera, in turn, argued that comparable arrangements between unrelated taxpayers acting at "arm's-length" did not account for employee stock-based compensation and that no adjustment was proper.

This issue had previously been touched upon in Xilinx v. Commissioner,[2] a Ninth Circuit case addressing the application of older transfer pricing regulations promulgated in 1994 and 1995. Xilinx involved the allocation of employee stock options expenses between a U.S. entity and its Irish subsidiary. The primary question was whether the general rule requiring the arm's-length standard could be reconciled with a rule, similar to the current Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7A(d)(2), which required that parties to a QCSA share "all" costs incurred in developing intangibles, presumably without regard to the overarching arm's-length standard. Finding that the two provisions were irreconcilable with one another, the court in Xilinx ultimately held that the prior regulations were invalid. Notably, unlike current Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7A(d)(2), the regulations at the time of Xilinx merely referenced "all costs," without explicitly referencing stock compensation costs. As of 1997, however, Treasury began to interpret this language as encompassing stock-based compensation "costs" as well.

In 2003, subsequent to the tax years under review in Xilinx, the transfer pricing regulations were amended to cause the arm's-length regulation in Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(b)(1) to expressly reference the cost-sharing provision that Altera would later challenge.

The Ninth Circuit's Reasoning in Altera

Fast-forwarding to the Ninth Circuit's review of the Altera case, the IRS noted that Altera's cost-sharing arrangement was in direct violation of Treasury Regulation § 1.482-7A(d)(2), which explicitly provides that related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation. Altera, in turn, maintained that the regulation was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act because it evidenced a patent failure to consider clear evidence of comparable transactions between unrelated parties in violation of the overarching arm's-length standard. 

Regulations specifically authorized by statute, as in the case of the section 482 transfer pricing regulations, are traditionally granted considerable deference. Procedurally, there are two steps the Altera court took in order to determine whether the regulation is valid: (1) it sought to determine that the regulation complied with the Administrative Procedure Act and (2) assuming it met the criteria of the Administrative Procedure Act, it sought to determine whether it passed muster under the standard of review provided for in the Chevron[3] and State Farm[4] cases. Under these standards, such regulations may only be invalidated to the extent they are found to be "arbitrary and capricious," are the result of an "abuse of discretion," or are otherwise devoid of observance of the procedure required by law. Such invalidation could only occur to the extent such regulations are (1) outside the scope of Treasury's authority and (2) the product of a process that was not logical and rational.

Despite the decidedly uphill battle of attacking Treasury's broad authority under the transfer pricing regulations, the Tax Court had initially breathed life into the notion that this fight could be won when it held that the IRS and Treasury had inadequately responded to valid claims that the regulation did not consider the arm's-length standard by addressing the reality of comparable transactions. The main message, as summed up by Judge L. Paige Marvel, was that "everyone…judges, practitioners, and regulators—should be paying attention to whether new rules have followed the procedural formalities."[5]

However, on July 24, 2018, by way of a 2-1 vote, the Ninth Circuit panel in Altera reversed the Tax Court decision and ruled that Congress had "clearly authorized" both the IRS and Treasury to determine what should and should not constitute a QCSA and that the failure to adhere to negative commentary at the time of promulgation did not render the regulation arbitrary and capricious within the Chevron and State Farm standards. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit panel emphasized that utilizing a commensurate-with-income standard in lieu of evaluating comparable transactions was a permissible means of allocating costs not inconsistent with the arm's-length standard for multiple reasons, including: (1) the uncontrolled transactions presented by commentators did not involve development of comparably high-profit intangibles and therefore were not sufficiently comparable to the Altera transaction (therefore mandating use of a different standard in order to effect an arm's-length result) and (2) the legislative history of section 482 (reflected in the Tax Reform Act of 1986) clearly expressed Congressional intent to respect QCSAs as consistent with the commensurate-with-income standard—and therefore consistent with the overarching arm's-length standard—if and to the extent that the participants' shares of income reasonably reflected the actual economic reality undertaken by each.

Notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit panel's opinion, while the "commensurate-with-income" standard appears to be grounded in solid statutory authority, dissenters will note that it remains unclear whether this standard, referenced in the section 482 statute itself in connection with "transfers" of certain IP, is properly applicable to QCSAs, which by their nature involve no actual transfer of such IP.

Notably, the 2-1 decision arrived in the wake of the tragic and unexpected death of one member of the majority, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who passed away in March 2018, only five months after oral argument. The opinion notes, however, that Judge Reinhardt had formally concurred in the majority opinion before his untimely death.

In its decision, the Altera court distinguished Xilinx, noting that unlike Altera, Xilinx did not involve a debate of administrative authority but rather of regulatory interpretation. Moreover, unlike Altera, which dealt with the procedural permissibility of promulgating one distinct rule, Xilinx was faced with a conflict between two distinguishable rules which were in direct conflict with one another (i.e., the requirement to account for stock-based compensation as a specific allocable cost versus the requirement to account for stock-based compensation the way unrelated parties would in the course of arm's-length transactions). Rather, Altera focused on whether the procedural process of disregarding commentary as to allegedly comparable transactions when adopting the regulation rendered the process deficient under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Notwithstanding the distinguishing factors between Altera and Xilinx, it remains to be seen whether this reversal may stem the tide of the increase in administrative law challenges predicted by Judge Marvel[6] in the wake of the now reversed Tax Court decision.

Effect on Tech Industry

While the holding in Altera in a technical sense is arguably procedural in nature, touching upon what Treasury and the IRS can and cannot do in promulgating regulations, taxpayers in the software and tech industries will undoubtedly focus on the substantive impact of the controversial regulation, which targets many tech companies that are currently paying equity compensation and have entered into cost-sharing agreements with foreign affiliates. It appears certain that the Altera decision will invariably handicap such companies' ability to allocate costs in an optimally tax-effective manner. Of perhaps even greater concern is that Altera's validation of the regulation is at odds with bedrock transfer pricing principles.

The Ninth Circuit panel majority in Altera indicated that Congress had in fact authorized Treasury and the IRS to allocate income and costs between related parties even when it had been definitively established that unrelated parties in comparable transactions do not generally share such costs, stating that "(t)he arm's-length standard has never been used to the exclusion of other, more flexible approaches." In this case, the favored method is the "commensurate-with-income" standard, which analyzes the income generated by certain IP in comparison with amounts paid to the related party owner of such IP. The decision also states that use of the commensurate-with-income standard was consistent with general arm's-length standard principles because the government may dispense with a comparability analysis where comparable transactions do not exist in order to achieve an arm's-length result. Notably, this result also likely means that administrative challenges of future regulations under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard may face an even more uphill battle.

Conclusion

The Altera decision makes clear that a lack of adherence to comparable transactions in order to comply with the arm's-length standard is not sufficient grounds to successfully claim that transfer pricing regulations are invalid under an "arbitrary or capricious" standard. Accordingly, the decision is being viewed by many as a surprising departure from a principle that has been thought of as the bedrock of U.S. transfer pricing standards and which, longstanding practice would seem to dictate, should be adhered to in all but the narrowest of circumstances. Notwithstanding the substantive import of the decision on the cost-sharing regulations, the lasting legacy of the decision may be the obstacle it creates to future procedural challenges to Treasury regulations under the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. Indeed, prior to the decision, Treasury and the IRS went to great lengths to justify regulatory decisions (as an example, in the section 385 final regulations) out of concern that an Altera challenge might take place.

Opportunities for appealing the decision in Altera still exist. Altera may petition the Ninth Circuit for rehearing by either the panel or a larger 11-judge en banc court. Panel rehearing is rarely granted because judges have generally given the case full consideration and are unlikely to change their vote this late in the process. But given the passing of Judge Reinhardt, the Ninth Circuit would randomly draw a new judge to be the third member of the panel to vote on the panel rehearing petition, and that judge could side with Judge O'Malley's dissent to form a 2-1 opinion going the other way. Alternatively, the full Ninth Circuit could vote to rehear the case en banc, but such proceedings are very rare, particularly in this area of the law. Altera could also elect to bypass the entire rehearing process and ultimately seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Overall, the strong dissent here, coupled with the decision's paramount importance to the technology community, will weigh in favor of further review by either the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

 


[1] Altera Corp v. Commissioner, Nos. 16-70496, 16-70497 (9th Cir. July 24, 2018), rev'g Altera Corp v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. No 3 (July 27, 2015).

[2] Xilinx v. Commissioner, 598 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2010).

[3] Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[4] Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).

[5] Tax Court Chief Judge Paige Marvel, "Every Tax Lawyer Needs to Be Fluent in Administrative Law," Tax Notes, (July 24, 2018).

[6] In connection with the Tax Court decision, Judge Marvel predicted "an increase in administrative law challenges to tax regulations." Id

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Contact
more
less

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.