Jeremy Berry leads the Firm’s government affairs practice. He is joined by Counsel Joseph Siegelman. Relying upon their work in government and private practice, Jeremy and Joe have experience representing clients, both private entities and government agencies, at the intersection of business, law, and politics. The government affairs practice helps clients navigate various aspects of Georgia state and local government and the work involves areas such as government contracts, government and administrative litigation, campaign finance, and other matters involving government agencies.

Government Litigation and Administrative Law

If you need assistance, please contact us today.

Last week, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a decision ruling that the extent of a city’s liability for a motor vehicle collision was $700,000, the statutory limit of liability for a Georgia municipality when two or more people die or are injured in single incident, even though the city had liability coverage in excess of that amount. In this case before the Supreme Court, three people were killed when their vehicle was struck by someone in a stolen vehicle who was being pursued by College Park police in a high-speed chase.

The Georgia Constitution affords municipalities immunity from civil liability when performing governmental functions, what is called “sovereign immunity.” Only the General Assembly, Georgia’s legislative body, has statutory authority to waive sovereign immunity, which they have done for losses arising out of claims for the negligent use of a city vehicle. Code Section 36-92-2 provides that sovereign immunity is waived in that instance up to $500,000 if one person is injured (or dies) and up to $700,000 if two or more people sustain injuries (or die).

However, another provision in the same code section states that those limits do not apply if the city purchases commercial liability insurance, in which case the limits of the applicable insurance coverage would apply rather than the statutory caps of $500,000 and $700,000.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the City of College Park had purchased insurance for automobile liability up to $5,000,000, but the policy contained an exclusion stating that there was no coverage if the defense of sovereign immunity applies.

The Georgia Supreme Court held that exclusion included in the insurance policy kept the limited waiver of sovereign immunity intact and that the extent of liability was therefore the statutory cap of $700,000, not the full limits of the policy, $5,000,000. In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed the decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals which had affirmed the trial court’s finding that the applicable limit was that of the insurance policy, not the significantly lower statutory cap.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the sentencing of three men in the Middle District of North Carolina for fraudulently seeking over $2.7 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDLs) guaranteed by the Small Business Administration under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

According to the DOJ, Joseph Cartlidge, David Redfern, and Eric McMiller participated in a scheme led by James Stote who “recruited the defendants to apply for fraudulent PPP loans for registered businesses, with the understanding and agreement they would provide a portion of the PPP loan proceeds to their recruiter.” The government accused the defendants of submitting PPP loan applications that misrepresented the number of employees and the average monthly payroll expenses of their various businesses. The defendants were also accused of fraudulently applying for EIDLs, misrepresenting the number of employees, gross revenues, and costs of goods sold for each business.

In total, the defendants sought over $2.7 million in PPP loans and EIDL funds. Cartlidge was sentenced to 72 months in prison; Redfern was sentenced to 60 months in prison; and McMiller was sentenced to 66 months in prison. Each defendant was also ordered to pay $498,657 in restitution.

In May of 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force in an effort to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Government has prosecuted over 150 defendants in more than 95 criminal cases, seizing over $75 million in cash as well as real estate properties and luxury items purchased with proceeds derived from fraudulently obtained PPP funds.

Attorneys Jeremy Berry and Andrew Mason recently obtained a significant court victory for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (“MARTA”) in defense of a multi-million dollar contract award for Transit and Digital Advertising. MARTA issued a Request for Proposals to select a contract to maintain and develop MARTA’s advertising program (on buses, railcars, and in transit stations). The MARTA Board of Directors voted to award the contract to Intersection Media based on the Board’s decision that Intersection’s proposal met the Authority’s best interests. The incumbent vendor, Outfront Media Group, filed a bid protest to challenge the award to Intersection, but MARTA denied the bid protest.

Facing a year-end contract termination date, Outfront filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County, seeking a temporary restraining order and interlocutory injunction that would prohibit MARTA from contracting with Intersection and also seeking to require MARTA to award the contract to Outfront.

After a day-long evidentiary hearing on the matter, the judge denied Outfront’s motion for a temporary restraining order and interlocutory injunction, thereby allowing MARTA to proceed with its contract with Intersection. The court held that MARTA had considerable discretion to evaluate the proposals and determine which of the proposals was in the Authority’s best interest, thus acknowledging that the MARTA Board could determine that Intersection’s proposal was most advantageous. As such, the Court affirmed MARTA’s decision that Intersection was the most responsible and most responsive vendor that submitted a proposal that was in the best interest of MARTA to accept.

On February 21, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Muhammad Ateeq of Rawalpindi, Pakistani was sentenced in the Northern District of Illinois for a health care fraud scheme and money laundering conspiracy.

According to court documents, Ateeq worked in the Islamabad office of Home Health Care Consulting, an entity that controlled Medicare billing and maintenance of electronic medical records for health agencies in the United States. Ateeq is said to have used several fake identities to acquire and manage the home health agencies. Once the agencies were under Ateeq’s control, employees of the agencies submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare for home health services at Ateeq’s direction.

According to the DOJ, “Ateeq directed his U.S. employees to deposit checks of fraud proceeds into U.S. bank accounts designated by overseas customers of overseas money transmitting businesses.” The businesses then issued cash payments and bank deposits to Ateeq. Allegedly, Ateeq also directed his U.S. employees to use some of the proceeds to purchase expensive luxury items in the United States to send to his associates in Dubai.

According to court documents, Medicare disbursed $40 million in payments for services that were never rendered, which Ateeq was ordered to pay back in restitution. Ateeq was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

On February 10, the Department of Justice announced the indictment of ten individuals in connection with an alleged $300 million healthcare fraud scheme. The defendants are alleged to have participated in a conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks. Under the Anti-Kickback laws, individuals are prohibited from paying, receiving, offering, or soliciting monetary payment in exchange for prescribing or ordering treatments, tests, medication, or medical devices for federal healthcare program beneficiaries.

The federal government alleges that several lab companies paid illegal kickbacks to medical professionals to induce them to order lab tests that were not medically necessary. The tests were then allegedly billed to federal healthcare programs. The cost of these tests allegedly totaled millions of dollars. The labs are alleged to have hidden the kickbacks in medical advisor agreements, leases, and marketing agreements. The doctors allegedly were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for services that were never performed, paid the salaries of the doctors’ staff, and paid the doctors’ leases. If lab orders lagged, the labs allegedly threatened to withhold payments to the doctors.

The labs then allegedly conceived a plan to open a provider-owned lab in order to disguise the kickback program. Physicians were offered ownership interests if they ordered a minimum number of lab tests. The labs also allegedly occasionally advanced disbursements to the physicians in order to ensure an adequate number of lab tests. In total, the labs involved allegedly submitted more than $300 million in bills to federal healthcare programs. The defendants face as much as 55 years in prison if convicted.

On February 1, the Department of Justice released the statistics for its False Claims Act enforcement efforts for Fiscal Year 2021. The headline for the announcement reads, “Justice Department’s False Claims Act Settlements and Judgments Exceed $5.6 Billion in Fiscal Year 2021.” The press release touts that the Department’s efforts resulted in “the second largest annual total in False Claims Act history, and the largest since 2014.” The Department highlighted that over $5 billion of the funds recovered stemmed from investigations involving the healthcare industry. The press release further noted that over $1.6 billion was recovered as a result of qui tam lawsuits filed by relators with $238 million being paid out to those whistleblowers.

Despite the positive tone of the press release, a review of the statistics themselves yields some interesting insights. Most notable is the total $5.6 billion in recovery the DOJ touts in the press release. While the total recovery does, in fact, add up to $5.6 billion, $2.8 billion of the total comes from the massive opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma, which occurred in October 2020 – one month into the 2021 fiscal year and during the Trump administration rather than the Biden administration. That settlement was the result of years of investigation, and the settlement’s inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2021 total skews the statistics. The inclusion of the Purdue Pharma settlement is proper given the timing of the settlement, but if the settlement is removed from the statistics, the total False Claims Act recoveries realized during the fiscal year was only $2.8 billion – the lowest total since Fiscal Year 2009, outside of the COVID-impacted year of 2020.

Further digging into the statistics reveals a decline in qui tam complaints and recoveries. While the Department’s press release applauds $1.6 billion in total recoveries from qui tam lawsuits, that is actually the lowest total qui tam recovery since 2008. The total recovered from qui tam suits in which the government intervened was also the lowest since 2008. Further, 598 qui tam complaints were filed during Fiscal Year 2021 – 77 fewer than 2020 and the lowest number of qui tam suits filed by relators since 2010. Additionally, the $238 million paid out to relators is the lowest total payout since 2008. So, while the Department advertises this as a banner year for False Claims Act recoveries, the underlying statistics paint a slightly different picture.

As in previous years, the overwhelming majority of the False Claims Act recoveries stem from health care fraud – $5.1 billion of the $5.6 billion total. $120 million of the remainder of the recoveries stem from False Claims Act investigations involving defense contractors. The Department’s press release highlighted recoveries stemming from COVID-19 fraud, investigations that are expected to continue over the next few years. The press release further noted FCA recoveries in the energy, education, and lending sectors. The Department also specifically noted its focus on individual accountability, including recoveries from individual members of the Sackler family – owners of Purdue Pharma.

Given the continued prevalence of healthcare fraud investigations and the wide range of healthcare issues upon which DOJ focuses its enforcement efforts, it is more important than ever that those operating in the healthcare industry implement effective compliance programs. But if served with a DOJ subpoena or CID, those companies need to engage attorneys with experience in healthcare fraud investigations.

Last May, Governor Brian Kemp signed into law Senate Bill 221 (SB221), which created a new type of political committee called “leadership committees” that can accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures during the 2022 election cycle and in future elections. The law provides that leadership committees are available to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and their respective general-election opponents (i.e., any party nominee for Governor or Lt. Governor selected in the primary), as well as to the majority and minority caucuses in the state Senate and House of Representatives.

A leadership committee differs from the traditional campaign finance committees: political action committee (PAC) and independent committee (a.k.a. super PAC). PACs can accept unlimited donations but are limited to making capped contributions to candidates or their campaign committees. Independent committees can both accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures but are not allowed to coordinate with candidates, whereas leadership committees have no such prohibition. Leadership committees, however, have more stringent reporting requirements than independent committees and must register with the state after spending or receiving $500, compared to a $25,000 threshold for PACs.

Governor Kemp created his leadership committee shortly after SB211 took effect last July and has been fundraising into it since. His committee will soon (by February 7) need to file its first disclosure report showing what has been raised so far. In the meantime, former Senator David Perdue, who is running against Governor Kemp and cannot have a leadership committee (unless he becomes the Republican gubernatorial nominee), is challenging the constitutionality of such committees in a federal lawsuit he filed last month.

On January 31, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Cohen held a hearing on former Senator Perdue’s motion for a preliminary injunction but did not issue a ruling. Instead, Judge Cohen asked the parties to complete additional briefing which will conclude on February 4, 2022. Given the expedited briefing schedule, a fairly quick ruling seems likely. Regardless of how the court rules, it will have a consequential impact on fundraising for arguably the most important election in Georgia this year.

On January 26, the Department of Justice announced the 5-year prison sentence of a Mississippi pharmacist for a multimillion-dollar scheme to defraud TRICARE and private insurance companies. David “Jason” Rutland was found to have paid kickbacks to distributors for referring medically unnecessary prescriptions. According to the DOJ, Rutland’s actions resulted in $180 million in fraudulent billings, which included over $50 million paid by federal health care programs.

According to investigators, Rutland adjusted prescription formulas to ensure the highest reimbursement possible. Rutland was also accused of soliciting recruiters to obtain prescriptions for high-margin compounded medications. He then paid those recruiters commissions based on the percentage of reimbursements paid by pharmacy benefit managers and health care benefit programs such as TRICARE, a health care program for uniformed service members, retirees, and their families.

Investigations revealed evidence that Rutland also “routinely and systematically” waived and/or reduced copayments, utilizing a purported copayment assistance program to make it appear as if his pharmacy and its affiliate compounding pharmacies indeed had been collecting copayments.

Rutland pleaded guilty on July 20, 2021 to conspiracy to defraud the United States and solicit, receive, offer, and pay illegal kickbacks. In addition to his 5-year prison sentence, a federal judge ordered Rutland to pay restitution and forfeit all assets traced to the gains surrounding his case.

On January 24, the Department of Justice announced the indictment of Joseph Schwartz, an insurance broker and the former owner of Skyline Healthcare, a network of healthcare and rehabilitation facilities. Schwartz faces 22 federal charges of labor violations and failure to pay federal taxes.

According to the DOJ, in late 2016, Schwartz and an associate allegedly created several businesses that provided staffing and management services for employees of the Skyline-owned facilities. The staffing companies were technically owned by other individuals, but Schwartz is said to have controlled their finances and operation.

The indictment, unsealed by a federal district court in Newark, New Jersey, alleges Schwartz “failed to collect, truthfully account for, and pay over millions of dollars in payroll taxes owed to the IRS on behalf of his employees as required by law.” Schwartz allegedly failed to pay $38,982,016 in payroll taxes for the 15,000 employees he had at 95 facilities across 11 states.

In addition, Schwartz allegedly did not file required reports with the Department of Labor relating to the financial condition, investments, and operation of Skyline’s 401k retirement plan.

If convicted, Schwartz faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for each count of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over employment taxes, five years in prison for each count of tax evasion, and ten years in prison for each count of failure to file a benefit plan report. Schwartz already faces 10 state felony charges in Arkansas for tax and Medicaid fraud, as well as various civil suits.

An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

On January 26, the Department of Justice announced that Tal Prihar, an Israeli national residing in Brazil, was sentenced to 97 months in prison for operating DeepDotWeb (“DDW”). DDW was a news site dedicated to events surrounding the dark web, but also connected Internet users with “Darknet marketplaces” where one could purchase illegal firearms, malware, hacking tools, stolen financial data, and illicit drugs such as heroin and fentanyl.

According to court documents, Prihar and his co-defendant Michael Phan came to own DDW in October 2013. The website was seized in April of 2019 for receiving money for posting links to certain darknet markets. In March of 2021, Prihar pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The government discovered evidence that Prihar and Phan received kickback payments from the illegal marketplaces in the form of virtual currency, including approximately 8,155 bitcoins (valued at $8.4 million at the time of the transactions) for providing links to their marketplaces on DDW. The DOJ reported that, in order to conceal the nature and source of the illegal kickback payments, “Prihar transferred the payments from his DDW bitcoin wallet to other bitcoin accounts and to bank accounts he controlled in the names of shell companies.” While Prihar has agreed to forfeit $8,414,173, Phan remains abroad and is currently undergoing extradition proceedings in Israel.

The investigation and prosecution of this case was a combined effort by the DOJ, French authorities, law enforcement at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, IRS-Criminal Investigation, Brazilian Federal Police Cyber Division, Israeli National Police, Dutch National Police, Europol Darkweb Team, Federal Criminal Police Office of Germany, National Crime Agency in the United Kingdom, and notably the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs.

The False Claims Act is one of the federal government’s most useful tools in rooting out and remedying fraud against the United States by government contractors and healthcare providers. The statutory scheme allows for treble damages and civil penalties against those who have committed fraud. Additionally, the statute allows individuals with knowledge of a violation of the False Claims Act to bring suit on behalf of the United States against the entity that has allegedly committed fraud. These individuals are known as “relators,” and they receive a portion of any funds recovered by the government as a result of the complaint that they filed. The potential monetary benefit to the relator is a significant incentive to individuals and their attorneys to file complaints on behalf of the government.

However, that incentive sometimes makes relators and their counsel overzealous, leading them to overlook the fact that the False Claims Act is, at its core, an anti-fraud statute, and the relator’s complaint alleges fraud on the part of the defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), a plaintiff is required to plead fraud with particularity. The rule increases the information required in a pleading from the notice pleading standard of many states and even the higher plausibility standard applicable to other civil actions in federal courts. Essentially, a plaintiff cannot simply allege that “Defendant has committed fraud” and survive a motion to dismiss. A more detailed recitation of the facts surrounding the alleged fraud is required. However, what level of detail is required depends on the circumstances and the fraud alleged.

In the Eleventh Circuit, a relator must allege in their complaint specific examples of false claims submitted by the defendant. The Relator must say, “This is an example of a false claim submitted by Defendant.” That is enough to survive a motion to dismiss. However, the pleading of a specific example of a submitted false claim is crucial because the Eleventh Circuit has held that a relator may not rely on a mathematical probability to support her allegations of false claims. The relator cannot simply say, “Defendant bills nearly all of its treatments to Medicare or Medicaid. Therefore, Defendant must have submitted a false claim.” It is not enough to allege that fraud must have occurred. The relator must allege that a specific instance of fraud actually occurred.

Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the Eleventh Circuit’s pleading standard. In Johnson v. Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 21-462, the Supreme Court will review a ruling of the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether the Eleventh Circuit’s standard, which is also followed by the First Circuit and is considered the strictest pleading standard for the False Claims Act, is the proper pleading standard and should be extended to every other Circuit in the country.

While it may seem harsh to require a relator to include details of specific claims submitted to the government, it is important to understand the statutory scheme of the False Claims Act. By the time a False Claims Act case reaches the motion to dismiss stage, a relator already has access to evidence obtained from the defendant that plaintiffs in other civil cases do not receive until the discovery period. That is because, after filing a complaint on behalf of the government, the complaint is sealed, and the government begins to investigate and request evidence using civil investigative demands similar to subpoenas. Among the evidence requested by the government should be any claims submitted to the federal government. With that information, the relator – or the government if it decides to intervene in the case – has the ability to plead specific instances of false claims submitted to the government. If a relator does not include that information in an amended complaint, it may be an indication that specific instances of fraud do not exist.

The HIPAA Journal, a well-known website that provides broad coverage of HIPAA compliance and news, recently released its December 2021 Healthcare Data Breach Report. The Data Breach Report analyzes data breach statistics provided by HHS’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and provides the information in a clear form.

The Data Breach Report provides interesting statistics related to December 2021 and the overall 2021 year. There was a decrease of 17.6% in data breaches reported to OCR in December 2021 than in November 2021. Specifically, there were 56 data breaches of 500 or more healthcare records reported to OCR in December 2021, which was just below the 59 data breach monthly average in 2021, according to the HIPAA Journal. While December reflected a decrease from the prior month, there were 70 more data breaches in 2021 than in 2020.

Understandably, the rise and fall of data breaches does not always correlate with the number of records exposed. Such was the scenario in December 2021. Although the number of data breaches in December 2021 decreased by over 17%, the HIPAA Journal reports that the number of records exposed or impermissibly disclosed increased by approximately 24.5%. December 2021 data breaches left 2.95 million records exposed or impermissibly disclosed. Two ransomware attacks accounted for the exposure of approximately 1.28 million records and there were 18 data breaches in December with 10,000 or more records exposed. As of the date that the Data Breach Report was published, the HIPAA Journal reports that OCR data indicated that 45.7 million healthcare records were exposed in 2021, reportedly the second-highest number of exposed records in the last 12 years.

While data security may appear to be a monumental task, simple and consistent safeguards may produce substantive results. According to the HIPAA Journal, eight of the largest breaches in December involved compromised email accounts, including phishing campaigns. Companies should try to remain in compliance with various state and federal laws regarding privacy and IT security and take steps to improve their IT security.

The Data Breach Report can be viewed here and OCR statistics can be viewed here.

In September 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the conviction of Mark Daniel Allen. According to the press release, Mr. Allen was a nurse practitioner and owner of Volunteer Family Medical, a clinic in Manchester, Tennessee. According to court documents and trial evidence, Mr. Allen utilized his clinic to write controlled substance prescriptions for opioids and the prescriptions amounted to over 15,000 pills. The prescriptions were provided to just four people – one male patient who later passed away and three women with whom Mr. Allen had sexual relationships.

On September 1, 2021, after a three-day trial, Mr. Allen was convicted of six counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance outside the scope of professional practice and one count of maintaining drug-involved premises. On January 21, 2022, the DOJ announced that Mr. Allen was sentenced to 14 years in prison for his illegal acts.

Student loans and the impact they have on Americans and the economy have been ever-present in the news for years. Many consider the current student loan system in place in the U.S. university system to be a crisis – one that threatens the economy and American democracy itself. Whether you believe that or not, student loans have a major impact on a significant percentage of the adult population. Just this week, it was announced that Navient, one of the largest student loan servicing companies in the United States, had reached a settlement with the governments of dozens of states to pay $1.85 billion to resolve allegations that it engaged in predatory practices that led to crippling student loan debt for thousands of students.

With that story dominating the news cycle, it is not surprising that another settlement reached by a student loan servicer has flown under the radar. On January 14, the Department of Justice announced that it had reached a settlement with Conduent Education Services LLC (“CES”) (formerly known as Xerox Education Services LLC and doing business as ACS Education Services LLC), a student loan servicer contracted by lenders, resolving allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. CES agreed to pay $7.9 million to resolve the allegations. DOJ alleges that, between 2006 and 2016, CES failed to make adjustments to borrowers’ accounts as required by federal law. It is also alleged that CES granted military deferments to borrowers when they were not actually eligible for those deferments. These alleged acts led to inaccurate information being submitted to the Department of Education.

Prior to the settlement with DOJ, CES had paid $1.4 million to the Department of Education under a remediation plan. That $1.4 million was credited toward CES’s settlement with DOJ. The DOJ investigation and resulting settlement demonstrates that the False Claims Act is not merely a healthcare fraud statute. It is, in fact, meant to address fraud of all types perpetrated against the United States government. As elected officials continue to grapple with the impact of student loan debt on society and ways to alleviate the pressure on borrowers, expect the Department of Justice to continue to investigate allegations of fraud by student loan servicers and others involved in higher education finance, potentially leading to future settlements providing relief to borrowers similar to the recent Navient settlement.

Student loans and the impact they have on Americans and the economy have been ever-present in the news for years. Many consider the current student loan system in place in the U.S. university system to be a crisis – one that threatens the economy and American democracy itself. Whether you believe that or not, student loans have a major impact on a significant percentage of the adult population. Just this week, it was announced that Navient, one of the largest student loan servicing companies in the United States, had reached a settlement with the governments of dozens of states to pay $1.85 billion to resolve allegations that it engaged in predatory practices that led to crippling student loan debt for thousands of students.

With that story dominating the news cycle, it is not surprising that another settlement reached by a student loan servicer has flown under the radar. On January 14, the Department of Justice announced that it had reached a settlement with Conduent Education Services LLC (“CES”) (formerly known as Xerox Education Services LLC and doing business as ACS Education Services LLC), a student loan servicer contracted by lenders, resolving allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. CES agreed to pay $7.9 million to resolve the allegations. DOJ alleges that, between 2006 and 2016, CES failed to make adjustments to borrowers’ accounts as required by federal law. It is also alleged that CES granted military deferments to borrowers when they were not actually eligible for those deferments. These alleged acts led to inaccurate information being submitted to the Department of Education.

Prior to the settlement with DOJ, CES had paid $1.4 million to the Department of Education under a remediation plan. That $1.4 million was credited toward CES’s settlement with DOJ. The DOJ investigation and resulting settlement demonstrates that the False Claims Act is not merely a healthcare fraud statute. It is, in fact, meant to address fraud of all types perpetrated against the United States government. As elected officials continue to grapple with the impact of student loan debt on society and ways to alleviate the pressure on borrowers, expect the Department of Justice to continue to investigate allegations of fraud by student loan servicers and others involved in higher education finance, potentially leading to future settlements providing relief to borrowers similar to the recent Navient settlement.

The 2022 election season is upon us! If you are a candidate or potential candidate, a political action committee or campaign committee, a political enthusiast or simply a voter, you will want to note many if not all of the dates outlined below.

Election dates are in black, campaign finance reporting deadlines are in red, and other key dates are in blue; the most critical are in bold and underlined.

March 7 Candidate qualifying begins at 9:00 a.m.; first day to request an absentee ballot for the Primary.

March 11 Candidate qualifying ends at 12:00 p.m. April 30 Campaign Disclosure Reporting Deadline (covers February 1 – April 30). 

Report grace period ends May 6.

April 25 Last day to register to vote in the Primary (and Primary Runoff).

May 2 Advanced (absentee in-person) voting begins for the Primary. May 13 Last day to submit an absentee ballot for the Primary.

May 24 Primary Election

June 21 Primary Election Runoff (if applicable)

June 30 Campaign Disclosure Reporting Deadline (covers May 1 – June 30). Report grace period ends July 8.

August 22 First day to request an absentee ballot for the General Election.

September 30 Campaign Disclosure Reporting Deadline (covers July 1 – September 30). Report grace period ends October 7.

October 11 Last day to register to vote in the General (and General Runoff).

October 17 Advanced (absentee in-person) voting begins for the General.

October 25 Campaign Disclosure Reporting Deadline (covers October 1 – 25). Report grace period ends November 1.

November 8 General Election

December 6 General Election Runoff (if applicable)

December 31 Campaign Disclosure Reporting Deadline (covers October 26 – December 31). Report grace period ends January 10, 2023.

Some establishments located in the City of Atlanta had difficulty renewing their alcohol licenses before the annual deadline of December 31, 2021. To address this problem, on January 10, 2022, City of Atlanta Councilmember Michael Julian Bond introduced legislation (Ordinance 22-O-1002) during the Public Safety and Legal Administration (PSLA) Committee meeting that would suspend the imposition of penalties for any business that failed to renew its alcohol license by the original deadline of December 31, 2021. Councilmember Bond initially proposed that the hiatus from penalties last through June 30, 2022, but the legislation was amended during the meeting to limit the grace period to two months, lasting though February 28, 2022 instead.

The Councilmembers on the PSLA Committee voted unanimously to pass the legislation as amended. Now the legislation heads to the full City Council for consideration on Tuesday, January 18, 2022. If the City Council passes this legislation as written, which typically occurs when legislation passes a Committee with unanimous consent, City of Atlanta businesses will not be considered delinquent for having not renewed their alcohol license until March of this year.

This legislation, assuming it passes, will be particularly meaningful to many restaurants in the City. Last year, the City imposed an additional requirement on most restaurants seeking to renew their alcohol license for another year. In an attempt to curtail alleged “bad actors” licensed as restaurants yet operating as bars or night clubs (and viewed as contributing to an increase in violent crime), the City Council and Mayor enacted a new requirement that certain restaurants must include with their renewal application “a statement from a certified public accountant evidencing that the establishment derived at least 50 percent of its gross food and beverage sales from the sale of prepared meals of food,” essentially mirroring the state law requirement for restaurants found in O.C.G.A. § 3-3-7(c)(2).

While that new requirement for a statement by a certified public accountant (CPA) became law in Atlanta last February, many restaurant owners were nonetheless unaware of the new requirement, which would not be enforced until November, when the renewal period for alcohol licenses began. Due to confusion surrounding this requirement for a CPA statement, many eating establishments faced the unintended consequence of difficulty meeting the requirement by the December 31 deadline. Should Councilmember Bond’s legislation pass, those restaurants will now have until February 28, 2022 to obtain the requisite CPA statement and renew their alcohol license without penalty.