TY 2015 Form 990

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)
(1) WILLIAM H SLATTERY...................................................................... PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR UNTIL 7/31/15	40.00 .................	X	X	62,692
(2) HAYWARD D FISK...................................................................... CHAIRMAN/ INTERIM PRESIDENT	30.00 .................	X	X	25,000
(3) DOUGLAS FOSTER...................................................................... VICE CHAIRMAN	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(4) DAVID E WOOD...................................................................... TREASURER AND DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(5) AUGUSTUS I DUPONT...................................................................... SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(6) NEVIN SANLI...................................................................... DIRECTOR & ASST.TREASURER	1.00 .................	X	X	0
(7) TRACY A BACIGALUPO...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(8) THOMAS E BIRSIC...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(9) MARCY S COHEN...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(10) WILLIAM P COOK...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(11) GEORGE S FRAZZA...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(12) ROBERT L HAIG...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(13) STEPHEN J HARMELIN...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(14) JOE G HOLLINGSWORTH...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(15) FRANK R JIMENEZ...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(16) ROBERT E JUCEAM...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0
(17) CATHERINE M KILBANE...................................................................... DIRECTOR	1.00 .................	X		0

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990 or 990EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 11, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990 or 990-EZ))

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 331/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box in lines 11a through 11d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 11e, 11f, and 11g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ..............

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i)Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i)Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) ....	658,989	443,015	370,122	561,704	313,610	2,347,440
2	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.......
3	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
4	Total. Add lines 1 through 3	658,989	443,015	370,122	561,704	313,610	2,347,440
5	The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)..						533,375
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						1,814,065

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	658,989	443,015	370,122	561,704	313,610	2,347,440
8	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources...	526	668	399	256	176	2,025
9	Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on..
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.)..
11	Total support. Add lines 7 through 10.						2,349,465

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

39,373

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2015 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

77.210 %

Public support percentage for 2014 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

78.390 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2015. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2014. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2015. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the facts-and-circumstances test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2014. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 9 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .
2	Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose......
3	Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513...
4	Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf...
5	The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge..
6	Total. Add lines 1 through 5.
7a	Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons...
b	Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year.
c	Add lines 7a and 7b..
8	Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2011	(b) 2012	(c) 2013	(d) 2014	(e) 2015	(f) Total
9	Amounts from line 6...
10a	Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources..
b	Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975.
c	Add lines 10a and 10b.
11	Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.
12	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) ..
13	Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.)..

First five years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2015 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2014 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2015 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2014 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

331/3% support tests—2015. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2014. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization .... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 11 of Part I. If you checked 11a of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked 11b of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked 11c of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked 11d of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer (b) and (c) below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked 11a or 11b in Part I, answer (b) and (c) below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer (b) and (c) below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described in line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined in line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined in line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in (b) and (c) below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described in (a) above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described in (a) or (b) above? If “Yes” to a, b, or c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in (2), did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer (a) and (b) below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described in (a) constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer (a) and (b) below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations? Provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970. See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	Section A - Adjusted Net Income		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Net short-term capital gain	1
2	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	2
3	Other gross income (see instructions)	3
4	Add lines 1 through 3	4
5	Depreciation and depletion	5
6	Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions)	6
7	Other expenses (see instructions)	7
8	Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4)	8

	Section B - Minimum Asset Amount		(A) Prior Year	(B) Current Year (optional)
1	Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year):	1
a	Average monthly value of securities	1a
b	Average monthly cash balances	1b
c	Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets	1c
d	Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c)	1d
e	Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI):
2	Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets	2
3	Subtract line 2 from line 1d	3
4	Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions).	4
5	Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3)	5
6	Multiply line 5 by .035	6
7	Recoveries of prior-year distributions	7
8	Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6)	8

	Section C - Distributable Amount		Current Year
1	Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A)	1
2	Enter 85% of line 1	2
3	Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A)	3
4	Enter greater of line 2 or line 3	4
5	Income tax imposed in prior year	5
6	Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions)	6

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations (continued)

Section D - Distributions		Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required)
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions
9 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount

Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions)		(i) Excess Distributions	(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2015	(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015
1 Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions)
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015:
a
b
c
d From 2013.......
e From 2014.......
fTotal of lines 3a through e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2015 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f.
4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7:
$
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2015 distributable amount
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions)
6 Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions)
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a
b
c Excess from 2013.......
d From 2014.......
e From 2015.......

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) (2015)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule B
(Form 990, 990-EZ,
or 990-PF)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Schedule of Contributors

Attach to Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Information about Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Organization type (check one):

Filers of:

Section:

Form 990 or 990-EZ

501(c)( ) (enter number) organization

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust not treated as a private foundation

527 political organization

Form 990-PF

501(c)(3) exempt private foundation

4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust treated as a private foundation

501(c)(3) taxable private foundation

Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.
Note. Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.

General Rule

For an organization filing Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF that received, during the year, contributions totaling $5,000 or more (in money or other property) from any one contributor. Complete Parts I and II. See instructions for determining a contributor's total contributions.

Special Rules

For an organization described in section 501(c)(3) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that met the 33¹/3% support test of the regulations
under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), that checked Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ), Part II, line 13, 16a, or 16b, and that received from any one contributor, during the year, total contributions of the greater of (1) $5,000 or (2) 2% of the amount on (i) Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h, or (ii) Form 990-EZ, line 1. Complete Parts I and II.

For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, total contributions of more than $1,000 exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Complete Parts I, II, and III.

For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor,
during the year, contributions exclusively for religious, charitable, etc., purposes, but no such contributions totaled more than $1,000. If this box is checked, enter here the total contributions that were received during the year for an exclusively religious, charitable, etc., purpose. Do not complete any of the parts unless the General Rule applies to this organization because it received nonexclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions totaling $5,000 or more during the year ......... Arrow Bullet

Caution. An organization that is not covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules does not file Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF), but it must answer “No” on Part IV, line 2, of its Form 990; or check the box on line H of its
Form 990-EZ or on its Form 990PF, Part I, line 2, to certify that it does not meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990,
990-EZ, or 990-PF).

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions
for Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

Cat. No. 30613XSchedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015) Page 2

Name of organization ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Part I	Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
RESTRICTED	,	$ RESTRICTED	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015)

Page 3

Name of organization ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION		Employer identification number 23-2022920

Part II	Noncash Property (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a) No.from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No.from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No.from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No.from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No.from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No.from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (see instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015)

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015)

Page 4


Name of organization ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION			Employer identification number 23-2022920
Part III Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions to organizations described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) that total more than $1,000 for the year from any one contributor. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry. For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) $ Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.

(a)
No.from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No.from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No.from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

(a)
No.from Part I

(b) Purpose of gift

(d) Description of how gift is held

(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP 4	Relationship of transferor to transferee

Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2015)

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE D
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Financial Statements

Complete if the organization answered "Yes," on Form 990,
Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 12a, or 12b.
SchDMd Bullet

Attach to Form 990.
Information about Schedule D (Form 990) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Organizations Maintaining Donor Advised Funds or Other Similar Funds or Accounts. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 6.

			(a) Donor advised funds	(b) Funds and other accounts

1	Total number at end of year ....
2	Aggregate value of contributions to (during year)
3	Aggregate value of grants from (during year)
4	Aggregate value at end of year ....

Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised
funds are the organization's property, subject to the organization's exclusive legal control? ...........

Yes No

Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds can be
used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring impermissible private benefit? ............................

Yes No

Part II

Conservation Easements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 7.

Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).

Preservation of land for public use (e.g., recreation or education) Preservation of an historically important land area

Protection of natural habitat Preservation of a certified historic structure

Preservation of open space

Complete lines 2a through 2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.


a	Total number of conservation easements ......................	2a
b	Total acreage restricted by conservation easements ....................	2b
c	Number of conservation easements on a certified historic structure included in (a) .....	2c
d	Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 8/17/06, and not on a historic structure listed in the National Register ...	2d

Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during the
tax year SchDMd Bullet

Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located SchDMd Bullet

Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations, and enforcement of the conservation easements it holds? ............

Yes No

Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
SchDMd Bullet

Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section 170(h)(4)(B)(i) and section 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)? .............................

Yes No

In Part XIII, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement, and
balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization’s financial statements that describes
the organization’s accounting for conservation easements.

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets.
Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 8.

If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116 (ASC 958), not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide, in Part XIII, the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.

If the organization elected, as permitted under SFAS 116 (ASC 958), to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide the following amounts relating to these items:

(i)

Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 ......................... SchDMd Bullet

(ii)

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the
following amounts required to be reported under SFAS 116 (ASC 958) relating to these items:

Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 .......................... SchDMd Bullet

Assets included in Form 990, Part X ............................... SchDMd Bullet

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 52283D

Schedule D (Form 990) 2015

Page 2

Part III

Organizations Maintaining Collections of Art, Historical Treasures, or Other Similar Assets (continued)

Using the organization’s acquisition, accession, and other records, check any of the following that are a significant use of its collection items (check all that apply):

Public exhibition

Loan or exchange programs

Scholarly research

Other

Preservation for future generations

Provide a description of the organization’s collections and explain how they further the organization’s exempt purpose in
Part XIII.

During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures or other similar
assets to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization’s collection?...

Yes No

Part IV

Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.

Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not
included on Form 990, Part X? ....................................

Yes No


b	If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII and complete the following table:		Amount
c	Beginning balance .............................	1c
d	Additions during the year ............................	1d
e	Distributions during the year ..........................	1e
f	Ending balance ................................	1f

Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21, for escrow or custodial account liability?

Yes No

If "Yes," explain the arrangement in Part XIII. Check here if the explanation has been provided in Part XIII ........

Part V

Endowment Funds. Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 10.

		(a)Current year	(b)Prior year	(c)Two years back	(d)Three years back	(e)Four years back

1a	Beginning of year balance ....
b	Contributions ...
c	Net investment earnings, gains, and losses
d	Grants or scholarships ...
e	Other expenditures for facilities and programs ...
f	Administrative expenses ....
g	End of year balance ......

Provide the estimated percentage of the current year end balance (line 1g, column (a)) held as:

Board designated or quasi-endowment SchDMd Bullet

Permanent endowment SchDMd Bullet

Temporarily restricted endowment SchDMd Bullet

The percentages on lines 2a, 2b, and 2c should equal 100%.

Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
organization by:

Yes

(i) unrelated organizations .................

3a(i)

(ii) related organizations .................

3a(ii)

If "Yes" on 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R? .........

Describe in Part XIII the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.

Part VI

Land, Buildings, and Equipment.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11a. See Form 990, Part X, line 10.

Description of property		(a) Cost or other basis (investment)	(b)Cost or other basis (other)	(c) Accumulated depreciation	(d) Book value

1a	Land ...
b	Buildings
c	Leasehold improvements
d	Equipment ...
e	Other ...
Total. Add lines 1a through 1e. (Column (d) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B), line 10(c).)..		0

Schedule D (Form 990) 2015

Page 3

Part VII

InvestmentsOther Securities. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11b. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.

(a) Description of security or category (including name of security)	(b)Book value	(c)Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value
(1)Financial derivatives
(2)Closely-held equity interests
(3)Other
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col. (B) line 12.)

Part VIII

InvestmentsProgram Related. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11c. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.

(a) Description of investment	(b) Book value	(c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 13.)

Part IX

Other Assets. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11d. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.

(a) Description				(b) Book value
(1) SECURITY DEPOSITS				8,030
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 15.)...........				8,030

Part X

Other Liabilities. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11e or 11f. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.

1.(a) Description of liability	(b) Book value
(1) Federal income taxes

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, col.(B) line 25.)
2. Liability for uncertain tax positions. In Part XIII, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FIN 48 (ASC 740). Check here if the text of the footnote has been provided in Part XIII

Schedule D (Form 990) 2015

Page 4

Part XI Reconciliation of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total revenue, gains, and other support per audited financial statements .......			1	329,161
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12:
a	Net unrealized gains (losses) on investments ....	2a
b	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2b	15,375
c	Recoveries of prior year grants ...........	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d .....................			2e	15,375
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1..................			3	313,786
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 12, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b .	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ...........	4b
c	Add lines 4a and 4b....................			4c	0
5	Total revenue. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 12.) ......			5	313,786

Part XII Reconciliation of Expenses per Audited Financial Statements With Expenses per Return. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
1	Total expenses and losses per audited financial statements ...........			1	435,813
2	Amounts included on line 1 but not on Form 990, Part IX, line 25:
a	Donated services and use of facilities .........	2a	15,375
b	Prior year adjustments ............	2b
c	Other losses ................	2c
d	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	2d
e	Add lines 2a through 2d....................			2e	15,375
3	Subtract line 2e from line 1...................			3	420,438
4	Amounts included on Form 990, Part IX, line 25, but not on line 1:
a	Investment expenses not included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 7b ..	4a
b	Other (Describe in Part XIII.) ............	4b
c	Add lines 4a and 4b.....................			4c	0
5	Total expenses. Add lines 3 and 4c. (This must equal Form 990, Part I, line 18.) ......			5	420,438

Part XIII

Supplemental Information

Provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part lV, lines 1b and 2b;
Part V, line 4; Part X, line 2; Part XI, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation
PART X, LINE 2:	THE FOUNDATION RECOGNIZES THE EFFECT OF INCOME TAX POSITIONS ONLY IF THOSE POSITIONS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT TO BE SUSTAINED. MANAGEMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD NO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE FINANCIAL STATEMENT RECOGNITION. THE FOUNDATION IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO AUDITS BY THE APPLICABLE TAXING JURISDICTIONS FOR PERIODS PRIOR TO 2012.

Schedule D (Form 990) 2015

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

Schedule J
(Form 990)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Compensation Information

For certain Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest
Compensated Employees
SchJMediumBullet

Complete if the organization answered "Yes" on Form 990, Part IV, line 23.
SchJMediumBullet

Attach to Form 990.
SchJMediumBullet

Information about Schedule J (Form 990) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Open to Public Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Part I

Questions Regarding Compensation

Yes

Check the appropiate box(es) if the organization provided any of the following to or for a person listed on Form
990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a. Complete Part III to provide any relevant information regarding these items.

First-class or charter travel Housing allowance or residence for personal use

Travel for companions Payments for business use of personal residence

Tax idemnification and gross-up payments Health or social club dues or initiation fees

Discretionary spending account Personal services (e.g., maid, chauffeur, chef)

If any of the boxes in line 1a are checked, did the organization follow a written policy regarding payment or reimbursement or provision of all of the expenses described above? If "No," complete Part III to explain .........

Did the organization require substantiation prior to reimbursing or allowing expenses incurred by all
directors, trustees, officers, including the CEO/Executive Director, regarding the items checked in line 1a? ..

Indicate which, if any, of the following the filing organization used to establish the compensation of the
organization's CEO/Executive Director. Check all that apply. Do not check any boxes for methods
used by a related organization to establish compensation of the CEO/Executive Director, but explain in Part III.

Compensation committee Written employment contract

Independent compensation consultant Compensation survey or study

Form 990 of other organizations Approval by the board or compensation committee

During the year, did any person listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a with respect to the filing organization or a related organization:

Receive a severance payment or change-of-control payment? ................

Participate in, or receive payment from, a supplemental nonqualified retirement plan? .........

Participate in, or receive payment from, an equity-based compensation arrangement? .........

If "Yes" to any of lines 4a-c, list the persons and provide the applicable amounts for each item in Part III.

Only 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(29) organizations must complete lines 5-9.

For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the revenues of:

The organization? ...........................

Any related organization?

If "Yes," on line 5a or 5b, describe in Part III.

For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization pay or accrue any
compensation contingent on the net earnings of:

The organization?

Any related organization? .........................

If "Yes," on line 6a or 6b, describe in Part III.

For persons listed on Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, did the organization provide any non-fixed
payments not described in lines 5 and 6? If "Yes," describe in Part III ............

Were any amounts reported on Form 990, Part VII, paid or accured pursuant to a contract that was
subject to the initial contract exception described in Regulations section 53.4958-4(a)(3)? If "Yes," describe
in Part III .............................

If "Yes" on line 8, did the organization also follow the rebuttable presumption procedure described in Regulations section 53.4958-6(c)? .........................

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.

Cat. No. 50053T

Schedule J (Form 990) 2015

Page 2

Part II

Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees. Use duplicate copies if additional space is needed.

For each individual whose compensation must be reported on Schedule J, report compensation from the organization on row (i) and from related organizations, described in the
instructions, on row (ii). Do not list any individuals that are not listed on Form 990, Part VII.
Note. The sum of columns (B)(i)-(iii) for each listed individual must equal the total amount of Form 990, Part VII, Section A, line 1a, applicable column (D) and (E) amounts for that individual.

(A) Name and Title		(B) Breakdown of W-2 and/or 1099-MISC compensation			(C) Retirement and other deferred compensation	(D) Nontaxable benefits	(E) Total of columns (B)(i)-(D)	(F) Compensation in column(B) reported as deferred on prior Form 990
(A) Name and Title		(i) Base compensation	(ii) Bonus & incentive compensation	(iii) Other reportable compensation	(C) Retirement and other deferred compensation	(D) Nontaxable benefits	(E) Total of columns (B)(i)-(D)
1MARTIN S KAUFMANSR VP, GEN.COUNSEL & ASST.	(i) (ii)	158,868 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0	158,868 ------------- 0	0 ------------- 0

Schedule J (Form 990) 2015

Page 3

Part III

Supplemental Information

Provide the information, explanation, or descriptions required for Part I, lines 1a, 1b, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8, and for Part II. Also complete this part for any additional information.

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule J (Form 990) 2015

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at
www.irs.gov/form990.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2015

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Employer identification number

23-2022920

Return Reference	Explanation
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	ATLANTIC LEGAL PROVIDES LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND COUNSEL, WITHOUT FEE, TO INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING SCIENTISTS, EDUCATORS, AND PROMINENT PUBLIC SERVANTS, CORPORATIONS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND OTHER GROUPS. SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL AREAS ON WHICH WE FOCUS ARE: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION PARTICIPATES IN IMPORTANT CASES INVOLVING THE EXPANSIVE AND CAPRICIOUS EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER, AS WELL AS THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN U.S. LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. AMONG THE ISSUES WE HAVE ADDRESSED; CHALLENGING STATE AND LOCAL ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, COMBATING LIMITS ON FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, AND OPPOSING EXPANSIVE ASSERTIONS OF U.S. COURT JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN ENTITIES AND TRANSACTIONS. THE FOUNDATION CONCENTRATES PRIMARILY ON FOUR AREAS: ADVOCATING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOUND SCIENCE IN JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS, PARENTAL CHOICE IN EDUCATION, GOOD CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW BY GOVERNMENT ACTORS. SOUND SCIENCE IN LITIGATION AND REGULATION ATLANTIC LEGAL IS THE NATION'S PREEMINENT PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM ADVOCATING FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOUND MEDICAL AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN TOXIC TORT, PRODUCT LIABILITY AND OTHER LITIGATION. ATLANTIC LEGAL SEEKS TO EDUCATE JUDGES ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC CASES AND FOSTERS THE USE OF SOUND SCIENCE PRINCIPLES IN JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS. OUR AMICUS BRIEFS ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NOBEL LAUREATES AND NUMEROUS OTHER PROMINENT SCIENTISTS WERE CITED AND RELIED ON BY THE MAJORITY IN THE LANDMARK DAUBERT TRILOGY OF U. S. SUPREME COURT CASES. OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES ATLANTIC LEGAL HAS REPRESENTED ALMOST TWO DOZEN NOBEL LAUREATES AND SCORES OF OTHER PROMINENT SCIENTISTS AND SCHOLARS IN THESE CASES. IN 2015, AND CONTINUING INTO 2016, THE FOUNDATION WORKED ON A NUMBER OF CASES IN THIS AREA. OF PARTICULAR NOTE ARE: ISSUES IMPACTING THE MARKET ECONOMY ATLANTIC LEGAL ADVOCATES FOR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND ADVOCATES AGAINST INTRUSIVE REGULATION OF BUSINESS. THE FOUNDATION WAS AN EARLY PROPONENT OF PRESERVATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPULSORY WAIVER OF THAT ESSENTIAL PROTECTION WHERE CORPORATE MISCONDUCT HAS BEEN ASSERTED. IT HAS CHALLENGED ABUSE OF CLASS ACTION PROCEDURES AND HAS STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. EDUCATIONAL CHOICE FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN AN ENERGETIC SUPPORTER OF SCHOOL CHOICE AND IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, MOST IMPORTANTLY ON BEHALF OF CHARTER SCHOOLS. WE CONTINUE TO WELCOME OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT THESE INNOVATIVE, ACCOUNTABLE AND GENERALLY EFFECTIVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. ATLANTIC LEGAL'S WORK IN THIS AREA IS FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING CHARTER SCHOOLS. A MAJOR PART OF THIS EFFORT IS PUBLISHING A SERIES OF STATE LAW GUIDES, WRITTEN BY NATIONALLY KNOWN LABOR LAW ATTORNEYS, TO EDUCATE CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO KNOW TO DEAL WITH EFFORTS BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS TO CURB OR BURDEN CHARTER SCHOOLS WITH INTRUSIVE UNION WORK RULES THAT STIFLE INNOVATION. THE FOUNDATION ALSO PROVIDES LEGAL COUNSEL TO AND REPRESENTS CHARTER SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOL ADVOCATES IN COURT AT NO COST. POSITION PAPERS AND CONFERENCES ATLANTIC LEGAL ALSO PUBLISHES PAPERS ON LEGAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC CONCERN. SOME EXAMPLES ARE: INADEQUATE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NEW YORK ECONOMY; THE NEED FOR A RESTRUCTURING OF NEW YORK'S COURT SYSTEM; CORRECTING WEAKNESSES IN LAW SCHOOL CURRICULA; AND THE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF PARENTAL CHOICE IN K THROUGH 12 EDUCATION. OF NOTE, WE HAVE PUBLISHED A SERIES OF STATE-SPECIFIC GUIDES FOR CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD: WHAT CHARTER SCHOOL LEADERS CAN DO WHEN A UNION SEEKS TO REPRESENT THE TEACHING STAFF. THE FOUNDATION HAS ALSO SPONSORED CONFERENCES ON TOPICS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING: SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS; THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE -- EROSION, ETHICS, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS; CORPORATE LITIGATION -- HOW TO REDUCE CORPORATE LITIGATION COSTS AND STILL WIN YOUR CASE. OF SPECIAL INTEREST ARE. . . . THE FOUNDATION RECENTLY HAS FILED BRIEFS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS IN CASES COVERING DIVERSE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES. THE COMPLETE ROSTER OF CASES IS AVAILABLE ON THE FOUNDATION'S WEBSITE, WWW.ATLANTICLEGAL.ORG. HERE IS A SAMPLE OF THE MATTERS TO WHICH THE FOUNDATION DEVOTED SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES AND WHICH INVOLVED ISSUES OF BROAD PUBLIC IMPACT IN 2015.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS V. HAWKES CO., INC., U.S. SUP. CT., NO. 15-290 - MERITS - CLEAN WATER ACT - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE - JUDICIAL REVIEW. UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA), THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY ISSUE A SITE-SPECIFIC JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) DELINEATING "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF PRIVATE LAND. "JD EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITS THE LAND OWNER FROM USING THE REGULATED PORTION OF HIS LAND WITHOUT A FEDERAL PERMIT. ARGUABLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN SACKETT V. EPA, 132 S. CT. 1367 (2012), THE NINTH AND THE FIFTH CIRCUITS HAVE REFUSED TO REVIEW SUCH DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (APA), HOLDING THEY CREATE NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND ARE NOT AFINAL AGENCY ACTION." ACCORDING TO THESE CIRCUITS, A LANDOWNER MAY BRING A CHALLENGE TO SUCH A DETERMINATION IN COURT ONLY AFTER MAKING A PROHIBITIVELY COSTLY AND TIME-CONSUMING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT, WHICH THE CORPS WILL THEN ISSUE, ISSUE WITH CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS, OR DENY. THE APPLICATION WOULD BE UNNECESSARY, AND OUTSIDE THE AGENCY'S POWER TO ISSUE OR DENY, IF THE JD INCORRECTLY ASSERTS FEDERAL JURISDICTION. THE COURT BELOW, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, HELD THAT A "FINAL" JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION IS JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE. THAT DECISION IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FIFTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN KENT RECYCLING V. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, IN WHICH WE ALSO FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH WAS DENIED. IN BOTH HAWKES AND KENT RECYCLING, THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (WHICH SHARES JURISDICTION OVER CWA ENFORCEMENT WITH EPA) MADE A FINAL JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS SUBJECT TO CWA REGULATION AND CANNOT BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT A PERMIT. ATLANTIC LEGAL'S AMICUS BRIEF, FILED IN DECEMBER IN SUPPORT OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, WAS ON BEHALF OF A COUPLE WHO BOUGHT PROPERTY IN WESTON, CONNECTICUT SEVERAL YEARS AGO. OUR BRIEF HIGHLIGHTS AND "PUTS A HUMAN FACE ON" THE BARRIERS AND FRUSTRATIONS FACED BY LANDOWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE "JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS" BY EITHER THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OR THE EPA. THIS COUPLE PAID SLIGHTLY OVER $210,000 FOR 14 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND IN A SUBURBAN COMMUNITY, INTENDING TO BUILD A $300,000 HOUSE ON IT. THEIR EXPERIENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT A DECADE AGO THAT OBTAINING A PERMIT IS ONEROUS; IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), IN WHICH ATLANTIC LEGAL ALSO FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF, THE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT THE "AVERAGE APPLICANT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT SPENDS 788 DAYS AND $271,596 IN COMPLETING THE PROCESS." OUR AMICUS CLIENTS SPENT APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS AND $200,000 TO OBTAIN LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION APPROVALS. THEN, WHEN THEY STARTED REPAIRING A PRE-EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY LEADING FROM THE PUBLIC STREET TO THE SITE OF THEIR HOUSE, THEY RECEIVED A "CEASE AND DESIST" LETTER FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ASSERTING PROBABLE CLEAN WATER ACT JURISDICTION AND THREATENING FINES OF $37,500 PER DAY AND POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT IF THEY DID NOT IMMEDIATELY STOP WORK. FOUR YEARS LATER, AFTER THEY EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REGIONAL COMMANDING OFFICER AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT ENGINEER'S "JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION" THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAINS OR IS CONNECTED TO "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION. THERE ARE NO MORE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AVAILABLE. THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED THAT THE JD, BY ITSELF, IMPOSES NO AFFIRMATIVE LEGAL OBLIGATION ON THE LANDOWNER, AND THAT A PROPERTY OWNER MUST APPLY FOR A PERMIT, AND ONLY IF THE PERMIT IS DENIED OR CONTAINS UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS CAN THE PROPERTY OWNER THEN SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE FOUNDATION ARGUES THAT, AS WITH THE COMPLIANCE ORDER IN SACKETT, THE JD IN THIS CASE HAS IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. IT IS, IN FACT, AN ADJUDICATIVE DECISION THAT APPLIES THE LAW TO THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND IS LEGALLY BINDING ON THE AGENCY AND THE LANDOWNER, THEREBY FIXING A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP, THE SINE QUA NON OF "FINAL AGENCY ACTION, AND THUS IS APPEALABLE TO AN ARTICLE III COURT. THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON MARCH 30, 2016, AND A DECISION IS EXPECTED BEFORE THE END OF THIS TERM.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	FIRST AMENDMENT, COMPELLED SPEECH AND LABOR UNION AGENCY FEES FRIEDRICHS V. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, US SUPREME COURT, NO. 14-915 - MERITS. WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF THIS CHALLENGE TO THE MANDATORY PAYMENT OF "AGENCY FEES" TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS UNION BY TEACHERS WHO HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO JOIN THE TEACHERS UNION. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES EVERY TEACHER WORKING IN MOST OF ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO FINANCIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOCAL TEACHERS UNION AND TO ITS STATE AND NATIONAL AFFILIATES IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE EXPENSES THE UNION CLAIMS ARE GERMANE TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; FOR TEACHERS WHO CHOSE NOT TO JOIN THE UNION, THESE PAYMENTS ARE CALLED "AGENCY FEES". AGENCY FEES IN THEORY PAY FOR THE UNION'S EFFORTS, THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, TO IMPROVE TEACHERS' WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS, AND PREVENT NON-UNION MEMBERS FROM FREE RIDING;" THAT IS BENEFITTING FROM THE UNION'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING EFFORTS WITHOUT PAYING UNION DUES. PETITIONERS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS WHO HAVE RESIGNED THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND OBJECT TO PAYING THE AGENCY FEE. THEY CLAIM THAT REQUIRING THEM TO MAKE ANY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN SUPPORT OF ANY UNION AND AFFIRMATIVELY OPT OUT" OF CONTRIBUTING TO THE NON CHARGEABLE UNION EXPENDITURES VIOLATES THEIR FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. IN ABOOD V. DETROIT BD. OF EDUC., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD A SCHEME COMPELLING EMPLOYEES TO PAY AGENCY FEES AND REJECTED THE IDEA THAT UNIONS COULD USE THE FUNDS FROM NON UNION MEMBERS FOR POLITICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL CAUSES ONLY IF THE NON UNION MEMBERS AFFIRMATIVELY CONSENTED TO PAY. IN AND AFTER ABOOD, THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED IN A NUMBER OF CASES THAT PAYMENT OF COMPULSORY UNION DUES OR AGENCY FEES IMPLICATES A CORE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO SUPPORT OTHERS' SPEECH, AND INCREASED THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR OBJECTING TEACHERS, WHILE REITERATING THE UNIONS AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN PREVENTING FREE RIDING." THE SUPREME COURT CALLED ABOOD INTO QUESTION IN HARRIS V. QUINN, 134 S. CT. 2618 (2014). THE COURT NOTED THAT ABOOD RELIED ON TWO PREVIOUS CASES, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' V. HANSON, 351 U.S. 225 (1956) AND MACHINISTS V. STREET, 367 U.S. 740 (1961), BOTH OF WHICH AROSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PRIVATE SECTOR UNIONS RATHER THAN PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. THE COURT IN HARRIS NOTED THAT "WHETHER A PUBLIC EMPLOYER ACCEDES TO A UNION'S DEMANDS [. . .] WILL DEPEND UPON A BLEND OF POLITICAL INGREDIENTS, THEREBY GIVING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MORE INFLUENCE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THAN IS POSSESSED BY EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY ORGANIZED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. BUT DESPITE THESE ACKNOWLEDGED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIVATE- AND PUBLIC-SECTOR BARGAINING, THE COURT [IN ABOOD] TREATED HANSON AND STREET AS ESSENTIALLY CONTROLLING. THE OPT-OUT SYSTEM HAS BEEN PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE MACHINISTS V. STREET, IN WHICH THE COURT OPINED, "DISSENT IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED; IT MUST AFFIRMATIVELY BE MADE KNOWN TO THE UNION BY THE DISSENTING EMPLOYEE," 367 U.S. AT 754. THE COURT, IN KNOX V. SERV. EMPLOYEES INT'L UNION, LOCAL 1000, 132 S. CT. 2277 (2012), HOWEVER, EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THIS DICTA HAS BEEN USED TO JUSTIFY A POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITHOUT PROPER ANALYSIS. EVEN IF THE AGENCY FEE ITSELF IS FOUND TO SATISFY STRICT SCRUTINY, THE OPT-OUT SYSTEM IS NOT THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF ACHIEVING ITS GOALS. THE COURT IN KNOX STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT AN OPT-IN SYSTEM WHERE EMPLOYEES ARE CHARGED THE BARE MINIMUM SERVICE FEE AND THEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPT INTO PAYING ANY AMOUNT BEYOND THAT WOULD BE A BETTER METHOD THAN THE CURRENT OPT-OUT SYSTEM IN WHICH EMPLOYEES MUST SUBMIT OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN CHARGES ANNUALLY. WE ARGUED THAT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS INCREASINGLY INTERTWINED WITH POLITICS AND THE ACT OF BARGAINING BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS IS ITSELF POLITICAL. DEBATE ABOUT THE STATE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM IS A MATTER OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPORT THAT DESERVES THE SAME KIND OF PROTECTION AS ANY OTHER POLITICAL SPEECH. ABOOD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT UNIONS INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT POLICY MAKING IN A WAY THAT MAKES THEM POLITICAL. THE TEACHERS UNION, FOR EXAMPLE, BARGAINS OVER PENSION, TENURE/SENIORITY, CLASS-SIZE, CURRICULUM, AND OTHER ISSUES THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EFFECT EDUCATION POLICY AND PERFORMANCE. THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT ISSUES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AS WELL AS TEACHERS AND EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS AND THE DECISIONS MADE AT THE BARGAINING TABLE WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE A HUGE EFFECT ON THE CHILDREN AND THE PUBLIC. FURTHER, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, LOBBYING, AND POLITICAL ADVOCACY ARE SO RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO DRAW THE LINE DETERMINING WHERE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING EXPENSES END AND POLITICAL ADVOCACY EXPENSES BEGIN. AS THE COURT IN HARRIS V. QUINN, 134 S. CT. 2618 (2014) NOTED, ABOOD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING IN PUBLIC-SECTOR CASES BETWEEN UNION EXPENDITURES THAT ARE MADE FOR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING PURPOSES AND THOSE THAT ARE MADE TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL ENDS. IN FRIEDRICHS AND OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION CASES, THE EMPLOYER IS THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEREFORE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING DIRECTED AT THE EMPLOYER, AND POLITICAL ADVOCACY, WHICH IS DIRECTED AT THE GOVERNMENT, IS TENUOUS AT BEST. THE COURT SPLIT 4-4 ON THIS CASE, LEAVING THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN EFFECT.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	CLASS ACTIONS ATLANTIC LEGAL MAINTAINED ITS ACTIVE INTEREST IN TRYING TO LIMIT ABUSIVE AND MASSIVE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS AND MERE CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS CAN CREATE "BET THE COMPANY" SITUATIONS AND COERCE SETTLEMENT OF CASES WITH LITTLE MERIT. SUCH SETTLEMENTS OFTEN BENEFIT THE CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS, BUT NOT MEMBERS OF THE CLASS. WE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN SEVERAL CLASS CERTIFICATION CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY V. INDUSTRIAL POLYMERS, INC., ET AL. (URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION) - U.S. SUPREME COURT, NO. 14 1091 - PETITION STAGE - CLASS CERTIFICATION - PROOF OF ACTUAL INJURY. IN THE DOW CHEMICAL CO. V. INDUSTRIAL POLYMERS, INC., NO. 14 1091. IN DOW, THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED A TREBLE DAMAGES JUDGMENT EXCEEDING $1 BILLION IN A NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION ON BEHALF OF APPROXIMATELY 2400 INDUSTRIAL PURCHASERS OF POLYURETHANE PRODUCTS. THE TENTH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE POLYURETHANE MARKET, INDUSTRIAL PURCHASERS COULD PLAY MANUFACTURERS OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER AND THAT, AS A RESULT, EVEN DURING THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY PERIOD, BUYERS "SOMETIMES AVOIDED PRICE HIKES BY NEGOTIATING WITH THE SUPPLIER AND ASUCCESSFULLY AVOIDED DAMAGES." THAT SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN DENIAL OF CLASS CERTIFICATION IN THIS CASE. NEVERTHELESS, THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED CLASS CERTIFICATION AND JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT CLASS WIDE "IMPACT" COULD BE RESOLVED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER AN "INFERENCE" THAT "PRICE FIXING" ALWAYS CAUSES HARM OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THAT A CONSPIRACY TO RAISE THE "BASELINE PRICES" FROM WHICH NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN ALWAYS CAUSES HARM. THE CENTRAL FLAW IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT'S ANALYSIS WAS THE COURT'S USE OF "INFERENCES, OR PRESUMPTIONS, OF CLASS WIDE INJURY, TO JUSTIFY CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS IN AN ANTITRUST SUIT INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF PRICE FIXING. WAL MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES, 131 S. CT. 2541 (2011) REQUIRES THAT CLASS PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATE THAT CLASS WIDE INJURY CAN BE RESOLVED THROUGH COMMON EVIDENCE IN "ONE STROKE." THIS, TOO, SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED CLASS CERTIFICATION IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED PRICE FIXING CONSPIRACY DID NOT INJURE ALL CLASS MEMBERS. THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMPHASIZED RECENTLY THAT ONLY IN "EXTRAORDINARY" INSTANCES IS ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION WARRANTED. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V. ITALIAN COLORS RESTAURANT, 133 S. CT. 2304 AND OTHER CIRCUITS HAVE HELD THAT CLASS WIDE IMPACT CANNOT BE PRESUMED FROM THE EXISTENCE OF A PRICE FIXING CONSPIRACY AND PLAINTIFFS MUST BE ABLE TO SHOW WITH COMMON EVIDENCE THAT ALL CLASS MEMBERS SUFFERED SOME INJURY. THE COURT RECOGNIZED DECADES AGO (AND HAS REEMPHASIZED RECENTLY) "CERTIFICATION OF A LARGE CLASS MAY SO INCREASE THE DEFENDANT'S POTENTIAL LIABILITY AND LITIGATION COSTS THAT HE MAY FIND IT ECONOMICALLY PRUDENT TO SETTLE AND ABANDON A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE." COOPERS & LYBRAND V. LIVESAY, 437 U.S. 463, 476 (1978). MULLINS V. DIRECT DIGITAL - U.S. SUPREME COURT, NO. 15-549 - PETITION STAGE - CLASS ACTIONS - ASCERTAINABILITY. WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DIRECT DIGITAL'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN DIRECT DIGITAL, LLC V. MULLINS; A CONSUMER CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION CASE. DIRECT DIGITAL IS AN ONLINE MARKETER OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED A CLASS CERTIFICATION OVER DIRECT DIGITAL'S OBJECTION. THE QUESTION PRESENTED WAS WHETHER A COURT CAN CERTIFY A CLASS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(B)(3) AWHERE THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO MAKE ANY SHOWING OF A RELIABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVELY FEASIBLE MEANS FOR ASCERTAINING CLASS MEMBERSHIP," THE SO-CALLED "ASCERTAINABILITY" STANDARD, UNDER RULE 23(B). THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS DIVIDED COURTS AND COMMENTATORS OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, AND IS IMPORTANT TO TARGETS OF CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS. TO HAVE A PROPOSED CLASS CERTIFIED UNDER RULE 23, A PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CLASS IS "ASCERTAINABLE." MANY COURTS HAVE REQUIRED, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ASCERTAINABILITY SHOWING, NOT ONLY THAT THE CLASS BE DEFINED BY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, BUT ALSO THAT THERE IS A ARELIABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVELY FEASIBLE" WAY TO IDENTIFY ALL THOSE WHO FALL WITHIN THE CLASS DEFINITION. THE RULE IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS, WHERE PURPORTED CLASS MEMBERS WILL NOT HAVE ANY RECORD THAT THEY ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE PRODUCT, AND FALSE OR INACCURATE CLAIMS ARE FREQUENTLY FILED AND PAID. IN THE DIRECTDIGITAL CASE, THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REJECTED ANY REQUIREMENT THAT A PLAINTIFF SHOW THAT A CLASS CAN BE FEASIBLY AND RELIABLY IDENTIFIED. IN ESSENCE, THE RULINGS MEAN THAT IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS, CLASS MEMBERSHIP CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH NOTHING MORE THAN UNSUPPORTED, SELF IDENTIFYING AFFIDAVITS. IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS A RELIABLE WAY OF VERIFYING CLASS MEMBERSHIP. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, THIS MEANS THAT THE VALIDITY OF CLASS MEMBERSHIP WILL NEVER BE TESTED, SINCE THE PRESSURE TO SETTLE HUGE CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS BECOMES ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE ONCE A CLASS IS CERTIFIED. WE ARGUED THAT THIS APPROACH DOES NOT COMPORT WITH DEFENDANTS' DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND THAT IT CONFLICTS WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT TEACHINGS ON CLASS CERTIFICATION. TYSON FOODS V. BOUAPHAKEO - U.S. SUPREME COURT, NO. 14 1146 - MERITS - CLASS ACTION - PROOF OF ACTUAL INJURY. PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMED THAT CURRENT AND FORMER WORKERS AT THE TYSON PROCESSING FACTORY IN IOWA ARE OWED WAGES FOR THE TIME IT TAKES TO PUT ON AND TAKE OFF THEIR PROTECTIVE GEAR. BASED ON THE AVERAGE DRESSING TIME OF A SAMPLE OF WORKERS, THE LAWYERS DETERMINED HOW MUCH IN OVERTIME WAGES ALL OF THE CLASS MEMBERS ARE OWED FOR "DONNING AND "DOFFING" WORK CLOTHING AND GEAR. PLAINTIFFS IGNORE THE SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION IN TIME REQUIRED FOR DONNING AND DOFFING OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF GEAR FOR THE OVER 400 DIFFERENT JOBS AT THE PLANT. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 REQUIRES THAT ALL MEMBERS OF A CLASS MUST SHARE A COMMON ISSUE OF FACT AND THAT COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW PREDOMINATE. A STATISTICAL AVERAGE OF TIME IT TAKES TO DRESS AND UNDRESS, AS IN THIS CASE, LUMPS TOGETHER THOSE THAT MIGHT BE INJURED BY BEING UNDERPAID WITH THOSE WHO DID NOT SUFFER ANY INJURY AT ALL. SOME FACTORY WORKERS ARE NOT OWED ANY OVERTIME PAYMENT, WHILE OTHERS PERHAPS TOOK MUCH LONGER TO DON AND DOFF, AND ARE ENTITLED TO MORE OVERTIME PAY. IN WAL MART V. DUKES, THE COURT DECERTIFIED A CLASS BASED ON A SAMPLE OF LIABILITY, HOLDING THAT THE CLASS MUST "RESOLVE AN ISSUE THAT IS CENTRAL TO THE VALIDITY OF EACH ONE OF THE CLAIMS IN ONE STROKE." UNDER THE DUKES DOCTRINE, THE CLAIMS AGAINST TYSON FOODS SHOULD ALSO BE HANDLED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BECAUSE OF THEIR WIDE VARIATION. WE ARGUED THAT BASING CLAIMS ON A SAMPLE OF EMPLOYEES AND APPLYING THAT AVERAGE TO A DISSIMILAR GROUP OF OVER 3,300 INDIVIDUALS IS FLAWED. WE ALSO SHOWED HOW THE USE OF CROSS-JOB FUNCTION AVERAGES DISGUISED VERY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WITHIN JOB CLASSIFICATIONS AND BETWEEN JOB CLASSIFICATIONS.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AGREEMENTS TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES ARE AN IMPORTANT ALTERNATIVE TO TIME- AND RESOURCE-INTENSIVE LITIGATION. ARBITRATION CLAUSES ARE COMMON IN MANY TYPES OF AGREEMENTS AND PART OF THE FABRIC OF COMMERCE; RANGING FROM CONSUMER CONTRACTS, TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS, TO STOCK BROKERAGE ACCOUNT AGREEMENTS. WITHOUT THEM, COMPANIES WOULD SPEND FAR MORE THAN THEY ALREADY DO ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND THE COURT SYSTEM WOULD BE BOGGED DOWN WITH MYRIAD CASES. CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE BENEFITS TO COMMERCE OF EXPEDITIOUS AND COMPARATIVELY INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN ENACTING THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT. BUT NUMEROUS STATE COURTS, SEEING ARBITRATION AS BENEFITTING BUSINESS AND HARMING EMPLOYEES AND CONSUMERS, HAVE SOUGHT TO CIRCUMVENT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION LAW. DICKEY'S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC., ET AL. V. CHORLEY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. - U.S. SUPREME COURT, NO. 15-719 - ARBITRATION - FEDERAL PREEMPTION. IN THIS CASE, THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT DID NOT PREEMPT A STATE MANDATED "MARYLAND CLAUSE" IN A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT NEGATED AN AGREEMENT'S MANDATORY ARBITRATION PROVISION REQUIRING ARBITRATION OF ALL CLAIMS ARISING UNDER MARYLAND'S STATE FRANCHISE LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE MARYLAND CLAUSE WAS IMPOSED BY MARYLAND REGULATORS AS A CONDITION TO APPROVAL OF THE FRANCHISER'S FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT, FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AND THUS THE FRANCHISER'S ABILITY TO DO BUSINESS IN MARYLAND. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH MARYLAND FRANCHISE REGULATORS IMPERMISSIBLY REQUIRED INCLUSION OF THE "MARYLAND CLAUSE" THAT NEGATED ARBITRATION OF FRANCHISE LAW CLAIMS, THE INCLUSION OF THE CLAUSE WAS "VOLUNTARY" BECAUSE "DICKEY'S WAS NOT FORCED TO DO ANYTHING. IT HAD SEVERAL OPTIONS. IT COULD HAVE SIMPLY DECLINED TO DO BUSINESS IN MARYLAND. OR . . . IT COULD HAVE FILED A DECLARATORY ACTION CHALLENGING THE MARYLAND COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES' POSITION BEFORE INCLUDING THE MARYLAND CLAUSE IN ITS AGREEMENTS." THE FOURTH CIRCUIT'S DECISION CREATES AN EXPANSIVE EXCEPTION TO PREEMPTION THAT NOT ONLY AFFECTS ARBITRATION CLAUSES AND THE FAA, BUT EMPOWERS STATE REGULATORS TO UNDERMINE AND CIRCUMVENT OTHER FEDERAL LAWS THAT PREEMPT STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS; AND PERMITS STATES TO USE A "BACK DOOR" TO IMPOSE OTHERWISE PREEMPTED CONDITIONS IN CONTRACTS. WE ARGUED THAT AN OTHERWISE PREEMPTED STATE LAW, RULE OR REGULATION THAT IS REQUIRED BY A STATE REGULATOR TO BE INCLUDED IN A CONTRACT AS A CONDITION AND PREREQUISITE FOR DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE, IS NOT "VOLUNTARY AND IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, WHOSE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WAS TO PROMOTE ARBITRATION AS A SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT MEANS OF RESOLVING COMMERCIAL DISPUTES. DIRECTV, INC. V. IMBURGIA - U.S. SUPREME COURT, NO. 14 462 - MERITS - PREEMPTION - STATE COURT REFUSAL TO ENFORCE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT FOR APUBLIC POLICY" REASONS. PETITIONER, A PROVIDER OF FOR-PAY TELEVISION PROGRAMMING, AND RESPONDENT, A CONSUMER, ENTERED INTO A STANDARD FORM CONTRACT THAT REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES, UNLESS THE "LAW OF [THE CUSTOMER'S] STATE" MAKES THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE UNENFORCEABLE. CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, PRIOR TO U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN AT&T MOBILITY V. CONCEPCION (2011), HAD DISFAVORED ARBITRATION. THE CALIFORNIA COURT HELD THAT THE REFERENCE IN THE CONTRACT TO "LAW OF YOUR STATE" ALLOWED THE COURT TO HOLD THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE UNENFORCEABLE, BECAUSE CALIFORNIA STATE LAW WOULD HAVE SO HELD. ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO REAFFIRM THE PRIMACY OF FEDERAL ARBITRATION LAW OVER INCONSISTENT STATE LAWS THAT SEEK TO LIMIT THE AVAILABILITY OF EFFICIENT PRIVATE ARBITRATION. ALF ARGUED THAT THE CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO HONOR THE PARTIES' AGREEMENT TO INDIVIDUALLY ARBITRATE THEIR DISPUTE. THE STATE COURT TRANSFORMED AN AGREEMENT THAT FORBIDS CLASS ARBITRATION INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT REQUIRES CLASS ARBITRATION IN ORDER TO BE ENFORCEABLE. THE DECISION CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A BRAZEN ATTEMPT TO DEFY CONCEPCION BY RESURRECTING THE PREEMPTED DISCOVER BANK RULE. THE DECISION OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT NOT ONLY CREATES A CLEAR CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ON A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, BUT ALSO EXHIBITS THE HOSTILITY TO ARBITRATION THAT LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE FAA IN THE FIRST PLACE AND HAS BEEN REMARKED UPON BY THE SUPREME COURT IN NUMEROUS CASES. WE ARGUED IN OUR AMICUS BRIEF THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHRASE "THE LAW OF YOUR STATE" TO MEAN "THE (NONFEDERAL) LAW OF YOUR STATE," WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW, FUNDAMENTALLY MISCONSTRUED THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION. UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, "STATE LAW" MUST INCORPORATE THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW, AND PREEMPTED STATE LAW IS A LEGAL NULLITY. THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS AND HELD THAT A COURT INTERPRETING A CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION PROVISION IN A WAY THAT NEGATES THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA). BY A 6-3 VOTE (JUSTICE BREYER, IN AN OPINION JOINED BY ROBERTS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, ALITO, AND KAGAN), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED AN ANTI-ARBITRATION DECISION FROM THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL THAT HAD RELIED ON A CLASS-ARBITRATION WAIVER CONTAINED IN A STANDARD CUSTOMER AGREEMENT AS A BASIS TO DISREGARD THE PARTIES' ENTIRE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. CONCLUDING THAT THE STATE COURT'S CONVOLUTED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION DID NOT PLACE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS "ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH OTHER CONTRACTS," THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTS THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTIES' ARBITRAL AGREEMENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ONCE AGAIN REITERATED ITS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT STATE-COURT HOSTILITY TO ARBITRATION. CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE BEEN ESPECIALLY RECALCITRANT IN RECOGNIZING THE PREEMPTIVE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, BUT PERHAPS THEY WILL FINALLY ABANDON THEIR HOSTILITY TO ARBITRATION. HOPEFULLY, AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, ARBITRATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN ATTRACTIVE AND EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO PROTRACTED AND COSTLY LITIGATION. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION REINFORCES THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOWER COURTS ENFORCE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS. MHN GOVERNMENT SERVICES V. ZABAROWSKI - U.S. SUPREME COURT, NO. 14 1458 - MERITS - ARBITRATION - EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS - APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS. ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION (JOINED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL) FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON THE MERITS IN AN APPEAL FROM A NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMANCE OF A DISTRICT COURT DECISION REFUSING TO ENFORCE AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT FOUND THAT SEVERAL PROVISIONS ARE "AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND REFUSED TO SEVER THE OFFENDING CLAUSES. THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA) PROVIDES THAT AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT SHALL BE ENFORCED "SAVE UPON SUCH GROUNDS AS EXIST AT LAW OR IN EQUITY FOR THE REVOCATION OF ANY CONTRACT." CALIFORNIA LAW APPLIES ONE RULE OF CONTRACT SEVERABILITY TO CONTRACTS IN GENERAL, AND A DIFFERENT RULE OF CONTRACT SEVERABILITY TO AGREEMENTS TO ARBITRATE. THE ARBITRATION ONLY RULE DISFAVORS ARBITRATION AND APPLIES EVEN WHEN THE AGREEMENT CONTAINS AN EXPRESS SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. THE QUESTION PRESENTED WAS WHETHER CALIFORNIA'S ARBITRATION ONLY SEVERABILITY RULE IS PREEMPTED BY THE FAA. MHN OPERATES A HEALTHCARE CONSULTING BUSINESS AND EMPLOYS HIGHLY EDUCATED (MASTERS' DEGREE OR HIGHER) PROFESSIONAL HEALTHCARE WORKERS AND COUNSELORS. WHEN THEY WERE EMPLOYED BY MHN, THESE PROFESSIONALS SIGNED AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CONTAINING AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE REQUIRING ARBITRATION, RATHER THAN LITIGATION, OF ALL DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP. THE AGREEMENT ALSO CONTAINED CLAUSES ANCILLARY TO THE UNDERLYING BASIC PROMISE TO ARBITRATE. THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CONTAINED AN EXPRESS SEVERABILITY CLAUSE WHICH PROVIDED THAT IF ANY PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT IS RENDERED INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT WOULD REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. A PUTATIVE CLASS OF MHN'S HEALTHCARE WORKERS SUED THE COMPANY IN FEDERAL COURT, CLAIMING DENIAL OF CERTAIN OVERTIME BENEFITS. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED MHN'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, FINDING THAT SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT; BUT NOT THE BASIC UNDERLYING AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE RATHER THAN LITIGATE; ARE UNCONSCIONABLE. UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, IF A COURT FINDS MULTIPLE PROVISIONS IN AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT TO BE "UNCONSCIONABLE," IT CAN DENY SEVERANCE AND REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE, THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO SEVER THE OFFENSIVE PROVISIONS, AND INSTEAD INVALIDATED THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AND REFUSED TO HOLD THE EMPLOYEES TO THEIR AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE. A DIVIDED THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. IN THE GENERAL CONTRACTUAL CONTEXT, A COURT A
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	JUSTICIABILITY - "POLITICAL QUESTION" DOCTRINE COOPER V. TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY - NINTH CIRCUIT, NO. 15 80110 - "POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE" AS APPLIED TO NAVAL OPERATIONS. ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF FIVE RETIRED FLAG-RANK U.S. ARMY AND NAVY OFFICERS IN COOPER V. TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, NOW PENDING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. OUR AMICUS CLIENTS ARE ALL FOUR-STAR ADMIRALS WITH EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN COMMANDING AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, CARRIER GROUPS, THE U.S. NAVY PACIFIC FLEET, THE PACIFIC COMMAND, AND ONE WAS VICE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS. THIS CASE IS A PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION, IN WHICH MORE THAN 230 SERVICE MEMBERS (SEEKING TO REPRESENT A CLASS OF 70,000 PERSONS) CLAIM THAT THEY WERE INJURED BY RADIATION FROM THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ("FNPP") DURING "OPERATION TOMODACHI," THE U.S. MILITARY'S EMERGENCY EFFORT TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AFTER THE MASSIVE MARCH 11, 2011 EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI THAT KILLED MORE THAN 15,000 PEOPLE. THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (TEPCO). PLAINTIFFS ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST TEPCO FOR NEGLIGENCE, NUISANCE, STRICT LIABILITY (BASED ON FAILURE TO WARN, DESIGN DEFECT, AND ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY), INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM. PLAINTIFFS SEEK UNSPECIFIED COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND A $1 BILLION MEDICAL MONITORING FUND. THE PUTATIVE DEFENDANTS, IN ADDITION TO TEPCO, ARE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, EBASCO, FUJITSU AND TOSHIBA, WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FNPP. ONLY TEPCO HAS BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS. TEPCO MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS, INCLUDING FORUM NON CONVENIENS. THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ON JUNE 11, 2015. TEPCO WAS GRANTED PERMISSION BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO TAKE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT BY ORDER FILED JUNE 19, 2015. THE DISTRICT COURT RECOGNIZED IN CERTIFYING AN APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C.' 1292(B) THAT ITS ORDER IMPLICATES TWO IMPORTANT AND UNSETTLED QUESTIONS OF LAW: (1) WHETHER THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE BARS ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM DISCRETIONARY MILITARY DECISIONS THAT EXPOSED U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS TO TORTIOUSLY CREATED HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS; AND (2) WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE COMMON LAW "FIREFIGHTER'S RULE," WHICH BARS CERTAIN CLAIMS BY EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WHO ARE INJURED WHILE RESPONDING TO AN INCIDENT, APPLIES TO U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS INJURED DURING AN OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN MISSION. IN ITS APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW, TEPCO RAISES TWO ISSUES: THE "POLITICAL QUESTION" DOCTRINE AND THE "FIREFIGHTERS RULE." OUR AMICUS BRIEF ADDRESSES BOTH ISSUES, BUT FOCUSES PRINCIPALLY ON THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE OPERATION AND HOW JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE "POLITICAL QUESTION" DOCTRINE WOULD BE INIMICAL TO U.S. MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC OBJECTIVES. A "POLITICAL QUESTION" ARISES WHEN A COURT IS ASKED TO DECIDE THE PROPRIETY OF DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE MILITARY. UNITED STATES COURTS WILL NOT HEAR CASES THAT INVOLVE SO-CALLED "POLITICAL QUESTIONS," BECAUSE SUCH QUESTIONS ARE DEEMED NOT JUSTICIABLE. IN THIS CASE, IF THE U.S. NAVY HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE RISKS POSED BY THE FUKUSHIMA REACTOR AND, DESPITE SUCH AWARENESS, DECIDED TO POSITION ITS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER, THE U.S.S. RONALD REAGAN, OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN NEAR FUKUSHIMA, THEN, UNDER U.S. LAW, THE NAVY'S ACTION MAY BE VIEWED AS A "SUPERSEDING INTERVENING CAUSE" OF PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED INJURIES. IF SO, THE CAUSATION CHAIN WOULD BE BROKEN, THUS ELIMINATING ANY POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR OTHER ENTITIES, E.G., TEPCO, G.E. OR TOSHIBA. THE COURT WOULD, AT SOME STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, HAVE TO INQUIRE INTO THE NAVY'S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, INCLUDING WHAT IT KNEW AND WHEN IT KNEW IT. ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS WOULD REQUIRE INQUIRY INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE MILITARY'S AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S POLICY CHOICES IN THE SPHERES OF MILITARY AFFAIRS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. UNDER THE COMMON LAW "FIREFIGHTER'S RULE" A RESCUER CANNOT SUE THE PERSON WHO CAUSED THE CALAMITY THAT LED TO THE ATTEMPTED RESCUE. FOR EXAMPLE, A FIREMAN WHO IS INJURED WHILE TRYING TO PUT OUT A HOUSE FIRE CANNOT SUE THE HOMEOWNER FOR HAVING CARELESSLY CAUSED THE FIRE. TEPCO ARGUED TO THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE SAILORS ABOARD THE U.S.S. RONALD REAGAN WERE ON A RESCUE MISSION AND SINCE THEY WERE ALLEGEDLY INJURED WHILE ENGAGED IN RESCUE ACTIVITIES, THE FIREFIGHTER'S RULE SHOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM SUING TEPCO. THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE "FIREFIGHTER'S RULE" APPLIES ONLY TO DOMESTIC RESPONDERS, AND NOT TO MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS PROVIDING HUMANITARIAN AID TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY AFTER A NATURAL DISASTER. DECISIONS AS TO HOW, WHEN, WHY AND WHERE TO DEPLOY MILITARY PERSONNEL ARE WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE MILITARY AND THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, AND SHOULD NOT BE SECOND-GUESSED BY COURTS OR JURIES. A JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF THE DECISION TO DEPLOY THE U.S.S. RONALD REAGAN OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN FOLLOWING THE TSUNAMI AND EXPLOSION AT THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WOULD NECESSARILY GO TO THE VERY HEART OF HOW THE MILITARY CONDUCTS SEARCH-AND-RESCUE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS UNDER BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL TREATIES AND DECISIONS BY THE PRESIDENT, CABINET OFFICERS, AND THE MILITARY CHAIN OF COMMAND. THE RETIRED FLAG OFFICER AMICI SPOKE TO THIS ISSUE WITH PERTINENT EXPERIENCE AND AUTHORITY AND OFFERED PRACTICAL REASONS WHY IT WOULD BE UNWISE FOR A COURT TO INTERJECT ITSELF INTO SUCH MATTERS. THE AMICI BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION FACTS, IN THE EXTENSIVE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE OPERATION THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT. IN ADDITION, SERVICE MEMBERS IN THE ALL-VOLUNTEER MILITARY MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THE INHERENT RISK IN MILITARY OPERATIONS AND THE UNAVAILABILITY OF INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ATLANTIC LEGAL CONTINUES ITS VIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICATION OF CLEAR AND SOUND RULES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MEDICAL AND OTHER EXPERT TESTIMONY IN TOXIC TORT, PRODUCT LIABILITY AND OTHER LITIGATION. CITY OF POMONA V. SQM NORTH AMERICA - NINTH CIRCUIT, NO. 15-56062 - APPEAL AFTER TRIAL - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE. WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF ON REMAND AND AFTER TRIAL. THIS CASE ARISES FROM THE SALE OF PERCHLORATE DECADES AGO IN CALIFORNIA BY SQMNA. ATLANTIC LEGAL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON A PRIOR NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL AND THEN IN SUPPORT OF SQMNA'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AT AN EARLIER STAGE OF THIS CASE. THE DISTRICT COURT HAD EXCLUDED, ON DAUBERT GROUNDS, THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF THE CITY'S PRINCIPAL EXPERT, BUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED AND REMANDED, CITY OF POMONA V. SQM NORTH AMERICA CORP., 750 F.3D 1036 (9TH CIR. 2014) (POMONA I). IN POMONA I THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOUND THAT THE CITY'S EXPERT'S METHOD AND OPINIONS WERE SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE TO BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL. THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL, RESULTING IN A UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT FOR SQMNA. AFTER TRIAL PLAINTIFFS ARE APPEALING, ALLEGING ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO RE OPEN DISCOVERY AND TO ALLOW THE CITY'S MAIN EXPERT WITNESS TO UPDATE HIS EXPERT REPORT. THE CITY OF POMONA RAISES FOUR ISSUES ON APPEAL: FIRST, POMONA ARGUES THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING POMONA'S MOTION "FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT AMENDED EXPERT REPORTS BASED UPON NEW FACTS, TO SUPPLEMENT DISCOVERY RESPONSES BASED UPON NEW FACTS, TO DESIGNATE A REBUTTAL EXPERT, AND TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY." POMONA SOUGHT TO UPDATE ITS EXPERT'S 2011 REPORT WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DEVELOPED DURING THE THREE YEARS THE FIRST APPEAL WAS PENDING. SECOND, POMONA ARGUES THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE TESTIMONY OF SQMNA'S REBUTTAL HYDROLOGY EXPERT, RICHARD LATON, ON THE SUBJECT OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF PERCHLORATE, A KEY ISSUE IN THE CASE; POMONA ASSERTS THREE ERRORS IN THE COURT'S RULING: (1) THE COURT FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE DAUBERT ANALYSIS OF LATON'S TESTIMONY; (2) LATON'S TESTIMONY WAS IMPROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS REBUTTAL TESTIMONY WHEN HIS TESTIMONY PRESENTED NEW THEORIES; AND (3) LATON'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT RELIABLE UNDER DAUBERT AND FRE 702. THIRD, POMONA ARGUES THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE "CONSUMER EXPECTATION" TEST, AND ALLOWING ONLY THE "RISK-BENEFIT TEST," FOR PROOF OF POMONA'S CLAIM FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY, POMONA'S SOLE THEORY OF LIABILITY AGAINST SQMNA. FOURTH, POMONA ARGUES THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING POMONA'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ADD A NEW EXPERT WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF A SAFER ALTERNATIVE DESIGN OF SQMNA'S FERTILIZER. AN AMICUS BRIEF SUBMITTED BY DAVID FAIGMAN, DEAN OF THE HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW, IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY IS TROUBLING. PROFESSOR FAIGMAN'S BRIEF IS FUNDED BY HIS START-UP BUSINESS JURILYTICS, WHICH PURPORTS TO PROVIDE FOR-HIRE "PEER REVIEW" OF LITIGATION CONSULTANTS. PROFESSOR FAIGMAN'S INTEREST IN THE CASE IS ADMITTEDLY PROMPTED BY HIS DESIRE TO "BETA TEST" JURILYTICS' BUSINESS MODEL, AND HE HAS SUBMITTED EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE WITH HIS AMICUS BRIEF IN ORDER TO TRY TO PROP-UP POMONA'S EXPERT, WHILE ALSO ARGUING THAT HIS EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT SQMNA'S EXPERT OPINIONS WERE NOT RELIABLE UNDER DAUBERT. PROFESSOR FAIGMAN'S NOVEL INTERVENTION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SET DANGEROUS PRECEDENT BY ERODING A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE'S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION UNDER DAUBERT, AND BY ALLOWING EXTRA-RECORD, AFTER-THE-FACT EVIDENCE TO BE USED TO ATTACK THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S DECISION ON APPEAL. SQMNA HAS MOVED TO STRIKE THE EXTRA-RECORD EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PROFESSOR FAIGMAN. BECAUSE OF THE PUBLISHED DECISION, AND THE CUTTING EDGE SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE CASE, IT CONTINUES TO ATTRACT SIGNIFICANT ATTENTION. ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IS ADVOCATING FOR SOUND SCIENCE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN THIS IMPORTANT CASE. DAVIS V. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. - CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY - ASBESTOS - "EACH AND EVERY FIBER" THEORY OF CAUSATION. CALIFORNIA'S COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT HELD IN DAVIS V. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. THAT THE CONTROVERSIAL "EVERY EXPOSURE COUNTS" THEORY IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER GOVERNING CALIFORNIA EXPERT WITNESS LAW TO PROVE CAUSATION IN AN ASBESTOS CASE. ALTHOUGH TRIAL COURTS ARE SUPPOSED TO PLAY A "GATEKEEPER" ROLE TO KEEP OUT UNRELIABLE EXPERT EVIDENCE (SARGON ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (2012) 55 CAL.4TH 747), THE TRIAL AND INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS IN DAVIS ALLOWED THE JURY, NOT THE COURT IN ITS "GATEKEEPER" ROLE, TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE "SINGLE FIBER" THEORY OF ASBESTOS LUNG DISEASE CAUSATION. COURTS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY (NOTABLY PENNSYLVANIA IN BETZ, TEXAS IN BOSTIC. THE 6TH CIRCUIT IN GARLOCK SEALING AND NEW YORK IN JUNI (DISCUSSED BELOW)) HAVE REJECTED EFFORTS BY PLAINTIFF EXPERTS TO TESTIFY THAT EVERY ASBESTOS EXPOSURE IS A "SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR" (RUTHERFORD V. OWENS-ILLINOIS, (1997) CAL. 4TH 953) IN CAUSING DISEASE. SAM DAVIS WORKED AS AN AUTO MECHANIC AND HOME REMODELER. IN HIS AUTO MECHANIC JOB HE USED BENDIX BRAKE LININGS (FOR WHICH DEFENDANT HONEYWELL, WHICH HAD ACQUIRED BENDIX, WAS RESPONSIBLE). THESE BRAKE LININGS CONTAINED 50 PERCENT CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS BY WEIGHT. HE WAS ALSO ALLEGEDLY EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS AS A RESULT OF HIS HOME REMODELING WORK. CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS IS CONSIDERABLY LESS CARCINOGENIC THAN OTHER FORMS OF ASBESTOS. PRIOR TO TRIAL, HONEYWELL FILED A MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY THAT EVERY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ABOVE BACKGROUND LEVELS CONTRIBUTED TO DECEDENT'S DISEASE. THE MOTION WAS DENIED, AND PLAINTIFF'S PATHOLOGIST AND PULMONOLOGIST WERE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY AND ADVANCE THE SINGLE FIBER THEORY. THE JURY FOUND FOR PLAINTIFFS, AND HONEYWELL APPEALED. HONEYWELL'S PRIMARY BASIS FOR APPEAL WAS THAT THE "EVERY EXPOSURE COUNTS" TESTIMONY BY PLAINTIFF'S PATHOLOGIST SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BECAUSE: (1) THE TESTIMONY WAS SPECULATIVE AND ILLOGICAL; (2) THE REGULATORY STANDARDS RELIED UPON BY THAT EXPERT CANNOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION; (3) NO APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SUPPORTS THE THEORY; AND (4) THE THEORY IS CONTRARY TO CALIFORNIA CAUSATION LAW ARTICULATED IN RUTHERFORD, WHICH HELD THAT NOT EVERY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS IS A "SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR" IN CAUSING DISEASE. THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL REJECTED EACH OF HONEYWELL'S ARGUMENTS, HOLDING THAT IT IS FOR THE JURY TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EVERY EXPOSURE THEORY AND ANY COMPETING EXPERT OPINIONS. THE COURT FOCUSED LARGELY ON THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED THE "EVERY EXPOSURE COUNTS" THEORY, AND DECLINED TO WEIGH COMPETING EVIDENCE. "WHILE HONEYWELL IS GENERALLY CORRECT THAT IN MANY (OR EVEN MOST) INSTANCES EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES PROVIDE THE BEST EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION, ITS IMPLIED ARGUMENT THAT IT IS IMPROPER FOR AN EXPERT TO RELY UPON ANY OTHER TOOLS TO DETERMINE CAUSATION, SUCH AS CASE REPORTS, IS NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED." AS TO HONEYWELL'S ARGUMENT THAT "EVERY EXPOSURE" CONTRAVENES RUTHERFORD, THE DAVIS COURT INTERPRETED RUTHERFORD AS NOT REQUIRING A "DOSE LEVEL ESTIMATION, AND INSTEAD READ RUTHERFORD AS SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN A VERY SMALL DOSE COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF ASBESTOS RELATED CANCER. THE DAVIS COURT DISTINGUISHED THE MANY CASES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS REJECTING THIS ARGUMENT. "[W]E SIMPLY DISAGREE" THAT THE "EVERY EXPOSURE" THEORY COULD NOT BE "RECONCILED WITH THE FACT THAT MESOTHELIOMA AND OTHER ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASES ARE DOSE DEPENDENT." THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE WE WILL BRIEF IS WHETHER THE "EACH AND EVERY FIBER" THEORY OF ASBESTOS-RELATED PULMONARY DISEASE MEETS THE "SUBSTANTIAL" CAUSATION CRITERION AND WHETHER THE COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS "GATEKEEPING" ROLE. THIS IS AN ISSUE WE HAVE BRIEFED ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL PROMINENT SCIENTISTS AND PHYSICIANS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYLAND CASES. JUNI V. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT - MEDICAL CAUSATION - ASBESTOS - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER STATE LAW. AN $11 MILLION ASBESTOS JURY VERDICT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK (THE TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION IN NEW YORK) IN AN ACTION ALLEGING THAT THE DEATH OF A MECHANIC DUE TO MESOTHELIOMA ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY HIS EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS AT HIS WORK. JUNI'S DECEDENT WORKED AS AN AUTO MECHANIC ASSISTING WITH BRAKE REPAIRS AND REPLACING CLUTCHES ON FORD PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE MECHANIC'S SURVIVING SPOUSE, THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MECHANIC'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS FROM BRAKES, CLUTCHES, OR GASKETS SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED BY DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CONSTITUTED A SIGNIFICANT CO
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A	EDUCATION CHOICE DAVIDS V. STATE OF NEW YORK - N.Y. STATE SUPREME COURT, RICHMOND COUNTY- CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' SENIORITY AND TENURE RULES - TRIAL COURT - "FIRST CHAIR" REPRESENTATION. WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING A REQUEST BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN DAVIDS V. STATE OF NEW YORK TO TAKE OVER AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS HIGH-PROFILE CASE. THE CASE IS A LAWSUIT BY PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHO ALLEGE THAT THE NEW YORK STATE AND CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICIES AND CONTRACTS WITH THE TEACHERS UNIONS THAT INCORPORATE RIGID SENIORITY AND TENURE PROVISIONS RESULT IN LESS QUALIFIED (OR UNQUALIFIED) TEACHERS BEING ASSIGNED TO PREDOMINANTLY MINORITY OR LOW INCOME ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, THUS HARMING THE STUDENTS AND DEPRIVING THEM OF THE "ADEQUATE" EDUCATION GUARANTEED BY THE N.Y. STATE CONSTITUTION. THE THEORY OF THE CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT IN VERGARA V. CALIFORNIA, IN WHICH INNER-CITY STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS SUCCESSFULLY SUED THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO STRIKE DOWN THE LAWS THAT "HANDCUFF" SCHOOLS FROM DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR STUDENTS, NAMELY THE "PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT" FOR TEACHERS THAT FORCES ADMINISTRATORS TO EITHER GRANT OR DENY TENURE TO TEACHERS AFTER AN INADEQUATE EVALUATION PERIOD, BEFORE NEW TEACHERS COMPLETE THEIR BEGINNER TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND BEFORE ADMINISTRATORS ARE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER A TEACHER WILL BE EFFECTIVE; THE LAW OR CONTRACT PROVISIONS THAT FORCE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO BASE LAYOFFS ON SENIORITY ALONE, WITH NO CONSIDERATION OF TEACHERS' PERFORMANCE IN THE CLASSROOM; AND THE PROCESS FOR DISMISSING INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS THAT INVOLVES NUMEROUS STEPS, REQUIRES YEARS OF PROCEEDINGS, COSTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND RARELY EVER WORKS, RESULTING IN SO-CALLED "RUBBER ROOMS" TO WHICH PATENTLY INEFFECTIVE AND SOMETIMES DANGEROUS OR HARMFUL TEACHERS ARE ASSIGNED, WITH FULL PAY AND BENEFITS BUT NO TEACHING DUTIES. THE VERGARA PLAINTIFFS PREVAILED IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND THAT CASE IS NOW ON APPEAL. THE DAVIDS CASE IS IN THE TRIAL COURT, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RICHMOND COUNTY (STATEN ISLAND). THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY A SOLO PRACTITIONER, AND HAVE WITHSTOOD ONE MOTION TO DISMISS. A RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS BY THE STATE AND INTERVENOR TEACHERS UNIONS IS NOW PENDING IN THE SAME COURT; THE PRIMARY THEORY OF THE RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS IS THAT CHANGES IN STATE LAW AND UNION CONTRACTS RENDER PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS MOOT. THE MOTION IS FULLY BRIEFED AND ORALLY ARGUED, AND IS SUB JUDICE. A PARALLEL CASE, WRIGHT V. NEW YORK, ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, ALBANY COUNTY BY OTHER PARENTS, MAKING SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS AND BASED ON SIMILAR LEGAL THEORIES, HAS BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH DAVIDS. OUR LEADERSHIP IS CAREFULLY EVALUATING OUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS CASE AND THE RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME "FIRST CHAIR" RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS CASE.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11	ATLANTIC LEGAL HAS ENGAGED AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM TO PREPARE ITS FORM 990. THE DRAFT FORM 990, PREPARED BY THE OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM, WAS PROVIDED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND EACH DIRECTOR BY ELECTRONIC MAIL PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. EACH DIRECTOR WAS ASKED TO REVIEW THE DRAFT FORM 990 AND PROVIDE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THE OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION AND THE FOUNDATION'S BOOKKEEPING CONSULTANT WERE IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE FOUNDATION'S OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND TELEPHONE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, RAISE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE FORM 990 PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. AFTER ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THE FINAL FORM 990 IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOUNDATION FOR HIS APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE. IT IS THEN FILED WITH THE IRS.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C	THE FOUNDATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS SUBMITTED ANNUALLY TO EACH BOARD MEMBER, ADVISOR AND STAFF MEMBER FOR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE. IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT EXISTS, THE BOARD MEMBER, ADVISOR OR STAFF MEMBER WILL BE NOTIFIED AND THE MATTER WILL BE INVESTIGATED BY THE CHAIRMAN. NO BOARD MEMBER WILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE OR PARTICIPATE IN BOARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ANY MATTERS INVOLVING THE CONFLICT UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15	THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ATLANTIC LEGAL'S BOARD WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PRESIDENT, DETERMINES THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE SENIOR STAFF, I.E., THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENTS. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS COMPARABLE SALARIES OF OTHER EMPLOYERS OF LAWYERS IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL MARKET AND NATIONWIDE. THIS PROCESS WAS LAST UNDERTAKEN IN NOVEMBER 2014 AND WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19	THE FOUNDATION MAKES ITS FORM 990 AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 6104 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. THE RETURN IS POSTED ON GUIDESTAR.ORG AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF WEBSITES. IN ADDITION, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, FORM 990, FORM 1023, AND BY-LAWS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OR BY CALLING THE ORGANIZATION DIRECTLY.
FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C:	THE FOUNDATION IS GOVERNED BY A 26 MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 25 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THE BOARD ORDINARILY MEETS 3 TIMES A YEAR. BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS, THE FOUNDATION IS DIRECTED BY AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSISTING OF 10 DIRECTORS, 9 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE 9 INDEPENDENT MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ALSO ACT AS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR. THIS PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2015

Additional Data

Software ID:
Software Version:

		Prior Year	Current Year
8	Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) .........	561,704	313,610
9	Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) .........	0	0
10	Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) ....	256	176
11	Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e)	-14,032	0
12	Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12)	547,928	313,786
13	Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 )...	0	0
14	Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4).....	0	0
15	Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10)	328,841	275,205
16a	Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) .....	0	0
b	Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 54,894
17	Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e)....	173,382	145,233
18	Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25)	502,223	420,438
19	Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12.......	45,705	-106,652
		Beginning of Current Year	End of Year
20	Total assets (Part X, line 16).............	236,203	113,462
21	Total liabilities (Part X, line 26).............	34,418	18,329
22	Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20.....	201,785	95,133

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title


4a	(Code: ) (Expenses $ 272,910 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
	ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IS A NONPROFIT, NONPARTISAN PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM WITH A DEMONSTRABLE HISTORY OF FIGHTING FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BY ENSURING THAT COURTS APPLY SOUND LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.THE FOUNDATION'S SOLE PROGRAM IS THE PROVISION OF REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE, WITHOUT FEE, TO INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, SCIENTISTS, EDUCATORS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND OTHER GROUPS, IN CASES THAT ADVANCE THE RULE OF LAW, LIMITED AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, FREE ENTERPRISE, THE USE OF SOUND SCIENTIFIC METHODS IN JURISPRUDENCE AND REGULATORY REGIMES, AND EDUCATIONAL CHOICE.

4b	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4c	(Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )












4d	Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
	(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e	Total program service expenses272,910

(A) Name and Title	(B) Average hours per week (list any hours for related organizations below dotted line)	(C) Position (do not check more than one box, unless person is both an officer and a director/trustee)		(D) Reportable compensation from the organization (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(E) Reportable compensation from related organizations (W- 2/1099-MISC)	(F) Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations
(A) Name and Title
(18) EDWIN L LEWIS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(19) FRANK H MENAKER JR........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(20) NICOLAS MORGAN........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(21) GREGORY J MORROW........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(22) WILLIAM GPRIMPS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(23) PHILIP R SELLINGER........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(24) JEFFREY S SHERMAN........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(25) JAY B STEPHENS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(26) CLIFFORD B STORMS........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(27) CHARLES R WORK........................................................................ DIRECTOR	1.00 .......................	X		0	0	0
(28) MARTIN S KAUFMAN........................................................................ SR VP, GEN.COUNSEL & ASST.	40.00 .......................		X	158,868	0	0

1b	Sub-Total................
c	Total from continuation sheets to Part VII, Section A....
d	Total (add lines 1b and 1c)...........	246,560	0	0

1	Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: THE MISSION OF THE ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IS TO ADVANCE THE RULE OF LAW BY ADVOCATING LIMITED AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT; FREE ENTERPRISE; INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY; SCHOOL CHOICE; AND SOUND SCIENCE.
2	Check this box
3	Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) ........	3	26
4	Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) .....	4	25
5	Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2015 (Part V, line 2a) ......	5	3
6	Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) .............	6	53
7a	Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 ........	7a	0
b	Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 34 .........	7b	0

(A) Name and business address	(B) Description of services	(C) Compensation





2 Total number of independent contractors (including but not limited to those listed above) who received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization 0

1a	Federated campaigns..		1a
b	Membership dues..		1b
c	Fundraising events..		1c
d	Related organizations		1d
e	Government grants (contributions)		1e

f	All other contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts not included above		1f	313,610

g	Noncash contributions included in lines 1a-1f:$
h Total.Add lines 1a-1f.......		313,610

		Business Code
2a
b
c
d
e
f	All other program service revenue.
g Total.Add lines 2a–2f.....

3 Investment income (including dividends, interest, and othersimilar amounts) ..........			176			176
4 Income from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds
5 Royalties...........
		(ii) Personal	(i) Real
6a	Gross rents
b	Less: rental expenses
c	Rental income or (loss)
d	Net rental income or (loss)......
		(ii) Other	(i) Securities
7a	Gross amount from sales of assets other than inventory
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses
c	Gain or (loss)
d	Net gain or (loss).....
8a	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions reported on line 1c). See Part IV, line 18 ....
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from fundraising events..
9a	Gross income from gaming activities. See Part IV, line 19 ...
	a
b	Less: direct expenses ...b
c	Net income or (loss) from gaming activities..
10a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ..
	a
b	Less: cost of goods sold ..b
c	Net income or (loss) from sales of inventory..
Business Code			Miscellaneous Revenue
11a
b
c
d	All other revenue ....
e	Total. Add lines 11a–11d ......
12	Total revenue. See Instructions......			313,786	0	0	176

1	Grants and other assistance to domestic organizations and domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21
2	Grants and other assistance to individuals in the United States. See Part IV, line 22
3	Grants and other assistance to governments, organizations, and individuals outside the United States. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16
4	Benefits paid to or for members
5	Compensation of current officers, directors, trustees, and key employees ....	246,560	185,528	31,737	29,295
6	Compensation not included above, to disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)) and persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B) ....
7	Other salaries and wages	6,752	5,081	869	802
8	Pension plan accruals and contributions (include section 401(k) and 403(b) employer contributions) ....
9	Other employee benefits .......	5,057	3,793	657	607
10	Payroll taxes ...........	16,836	12,627	2,189	2,020
11	Fees for services (non-employees):
a	Management ......
b	Legal .........	7,143	7,143
c	Accounting ...........	15,000		15,000
d	Lobbying ...........
e	Professional fundraising services. See Part IV, line 17
f	Investment management fees ......
g	Other (If line 11g amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 11g expenses on Schedule O)	25,532	2,420	22,725	387
12	Advertising and promotion ....
13	Office expenses .......	25,240	9,471	2,802	12,967
14	Information technology ......
15	Royalties ..
16	Occupancy ...........	44,241	33,181	5,751	5,309
17	Travel ............	7,619	2,906	3,308	1,405
18	Payments of travel or entertainment expenses for any federal, state, or local public officials .
19	Conferences, conventions, and meetings ....	6,128	644	5,484
20	Interest ...........
21	Payments to affiliates .......
22	Depreciation, depletion, and amortization ..
23	Insurance ...	8,765	7,819	946
24	Other expenses. Itemize expenses not covered above (List miscellaneous expenses in line 24e. If line 24e amount exceeds 10% of line 25, column (A) amount, list line 24e expenses on Schedule O.)
a	STATE REGISTRATION FEES	1,700	1,275	221	204
b
c
d
e	All other expenses	3,865	1,022	945	1,898
25	Total functional expenses. Add lines 1 through 24e	420,438	272,910	92,634	54,894
26	Joint costs. Complete this line only if the organization reported in column (B) joint costs from a combined educational campaign and fundraising solicitation. Check here if following SOP 98-2 (ASC 958-720).

1	Cash–non-interest-bearing ........		18,218	1	24,055
2	Savings and temporary cash investments .........		201,259	2	78,191
3	Pledges and grants receivable, net ......		1,000	3
4	Accounts receivable, net .............		810	4	870
5	Loans and other receivables from current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees. Complete Part II of Schedule L
				5
6	Loans and other receivables from other disqualified persons (as defined under section 4958(f)(1)), persons described in section 4958(c)(3)(B), and contributing employers and sponsoring organizations of section 501(c)(9) voluntary employees' beneficiary organizations (see instructions) Complete Part II of Schedule L
				6
7	Notes and loans receivable, net ....			7
8	Inventories for sale or use ........			8
9	Prepaid expenses and deferred charges ......		6,886	9	2,316
10a	Land, buildings, and equipment: cost or other basis. Complete Part VI of Schedule D	10a
b	Less: accumulated depreciation	10b		10c
11	Investments—publicly traded securities .			11
12	Investments—other securities. See Part IV, line 11 .....			12
13	Investments—program-related. See Part IV, line 11 ..			13
14	Intangible assets ...............			14
15	Other assets. See Part IV, line 11 ...........		8,030	15	8,030
16	Total assets. Add lines 1 through 15 (must equal line 34)...		236,203	16	113,462

17	Accounts payable and accrued expenses .....	34,418	17	18,329
18	Grants payable ...		18
19	Deferred revenue .........		19
20	Tax-exempt bond liabilities .........		20
21	Escrow or custodial account liability. Complete Part IV of Schedule D		21
22	Loans and other payables to current and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, highest compensated employees, and disqualified
	persons. Complete Part II of Schedule L..		22
23	Secured mortgages and notes payable to unrelated third parties ..		23
24	Unsecured notes and loans payable to unrelated third parties ..		24
25	Other liabilities (including federal income tax, payables to related third parties, and other liabilities not included on lines 17-24). Complete Part X of Schedule D		25
26	Total liabilities. Add lines 17 through 25..	34,418	26	18,329

	Organizations that follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 27 through 29, and lines 33 and 34.
27	Unrestricted net assets	185,285	27	95,133
28	Temporarily restricted net assets ...........	16,500	28	0
29	Permanently restricted net assets		29
	Organizations that do not follow SFAS 117 (ASC 958), check here and complete lines 30 through 34.
30	Capital stock or trust principal, or current funds .....		30
31	Paid-in or capital surplus, or land, building or equipment fund ...		31
32	Retained earnings, endowment, accumulated income, or other funds		32
33	Total net assets or fund balances ...........	201,785	33	95,133
34	Total liabilities and net assets/fund balances ........	236,203	34	113,462