Regulatory: The impact of uncertain government policies
Uncertainty is always a challenge for business.
July 18, 2012 at 05:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Uncertainty is always a challenge for business. Owners and supervisors best manage their business when they know the key costs of their operations with reasonable certainty. Raw materials, utilities and labor costs, among many other factors, play a major role in decision-making and investment planning.
One challenge clients consistently face is that many of the costs they must plan for are not market-driven, but rather imposed by the government—such as healthcare, taxes and various regulatory schemes. These costs may not be welcome, but if they can be planned for, they can be profitably managed. Today, however, our clients frequently must try to manage around government policies that are not actually final. When a government policy cannot be considered final, the effect on investment and business can be significant.
Several examples of evolving government policies are readily available today.
- Health care costs: The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, but it took several years for this to play out and health care purchasing decisions were held hostage in the interim. Even with the court's decision, many state governments still have to decide which path they will take on reform, thus continuing the uncertainty.
- Taxation: Enterprise zones have proven to be effective tools in helping local governments attract new businesses to economically stressed areas with tax benefits that include sales, tax reductions and hiring tax credits. But, due to increasingly empty municipal coffers, continued efforts to eliminate or claw back the tax benefits have created uncertainty regarding the long term viability of the enterprise zone tax benefits. This uncertainty has led to delayed or altered decisions to locate in areas without long-term protection for the tax breaks.
- Regulation: The scheduled start of California's groundbreaking climate control regulatory scheme has been shrouded in uncertainty, despite repeated agency attempts to assure stakeholders that it will begin on time in January 2013. Pending litigation, legislative intervention and even foreign policy all lead to questions about the ability of regulators to deliver, which translate into cost impacts on everything from the price of power to the price of shipping.
These three examples represent different ways that government policy is currently creating significant risks for clients, even when the policy decision is supposedly complete. As long as clients may see major shifts in how a policy is implemented, then they cannot plan with confidence and this impacts decisions that are fundamental to whether a business can be successful.
Our clients must take basic financial responses in reply to these uncertainties, such as ever more aggressive reductions in administrative costs, deferring new hiring and major investments and building up reserves to hedge against the risk of the unknown. Each of these is a drain on our clients' resources, particularly reserves, as these dollars come straight out of the bottom line.
Since governments create the rules and guidelines in which businesses compete, when the rules change, businesses are forced to change as well. Given the direct impact of uncertain government policy on clients, lawyers need to be mindful of potential shifting sands when counseling clients on the rules of the game. The days of consistent government policy seem to be a thing of the past.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250