Monthly Archives: January 2012

Nauris Grigals on payment of debt of the previous tenant or owner, “Dienas Bizness”

Nauris Grigals

In January 24 issue of newspaper “Dienas Bizness” Nauris Grigals, TARK GRUNTE SUTKIENE attorney at law, gives his commentary on JSC Latvijas gaze activities when it requests new owners or tenants to pay debts for consumption of natural gas by previous users.
Click here to read the publication (available in Latvian).

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Foreign orders no defence to contempt of court

In the long running matter of Masri v Consolidated Contractors and others [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) the court had made orders in support of a judgment, including two receivership orders, various freezing orders and orders requiring the provision of affidavits of assets.

The defendants were Lebanese and, after the English orders were made against them, they obtained orders from the Lebanese courts to the effect that they could not provide the information, nor account to the court appointed receivers, unless the initial order had obtained recognition or exequatur in Lebanon. In the circumstances, compliance with the English court’s orders would expose the defendants to criminal sanctions in Lebanon. The defendant companies were placed under a Lebanese judicial administration which also prevented compliance with the English orders. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post



1. Amendment to the Commercial Code

2. Amendment to the Labour Code

3. New legislation on Corporate criminal liability

4. Amendment to the Act on the Transformation of Companies and Cooperatives

5. Amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice

6. Increased fee for entries in the Land Register

7. Amendment to the Employment Act


Read full article

New York State Caps State Funding for Executive Compensation & Administrative Expenses of Service Providers

In order to “prevent public funds from being diverted to excessive compensation and unnecessary administrative costs,” New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo executed an executive order on January 18, 2012 (“Executive Order”), capping both executive compensation and administrative costs that New York State (“NYS” or “State”) will pay to for-profit and not-for-profit service providers.[1] The Executive Order appears to be part of a larger ongoing trend of increasing scrutiny of, and attempts to limit, the executive compensation practices of health care, social service, and not-for-profit organizations in NYS and across the country.

This client alert discusses: (i) the Executive Order, (ii) key considerations/questions about the Executive Order, and (iii) related recent developments to put the Executive Order in context.

Read full article

OSHA Continues to Bear Down on the Grain Industry

Last week, the leaders of the grain industry in North Dakota gathered for their annual conference, this year the Centennial gathering of the North Dakota Grain Dealers Association.  I had the opportunity to speak at the conference, and share some background about OSHA’s increasing focus on the grain handling industry, a review of grain handlers’ rights vis-a-vis OSHA, and some strategies and tips for preparing for and managing an OSHA inspection.

An audience member at the convention wrote two articles that provide some detail about my presentation.  The first article covers the increased enforcement activity and OSHA inspection rights and tips, and the second article reviews OSHA’s inconsistent and impractical enforcement stance regarding sweep augers inside of grain bins.

Read full article

EHR Contracting Tip: Attestation for AIU

Now that most states have their Medicaid EHR Incentive Program in full swing we have gotten a glimpse of what they are requiring for attesting to “adopt, implement and upgrade” aka “AIU”.  As described in the CMS rules themselves, practices need to show that they have some skin in the game and have actually invested in […]

For more information please visit or click on the headline above.

Read full article

Jason Tremblay authors Inside Counsel article, “5 ways to protect your company when a key employee departs”

Arnstein & Lehr attorney E. Jason Tremblay

E. Jason Tremblay

Arnstein & Lehr Partner E. Jason Tremblay authored the article, “5 ways to protect your company when a key employee departs,” which appeared in the January 23 edition of Inside Counsel. In the article, he stresses the importance for all companies to know what steps to take when an employee decides to leave, especially in circumstances where he or she leaves to work for a competitor.

Mr. Tremblay’s article appearing in Inside Counsel:

5 ways to protect your company when a key employee departs
In this competitive business world, it’s crucial to properly handle an employee’s departure, especially to a competitor

Read full article

The Business of Protecting Customer Relationships

In an article appearing in the January 25, 2012 edition of, Peter L. Altieri and David J. Clark discuss how — over a dozen years after the New York Court of Appeals specifically recognized, in BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg, 93 N.Y.2d 382, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854 (1999), that an employer may have a legitimate and protectable business interest in preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the relationships and goodwill of its customers which had been created and maintained at the employer’s expense — some New York courts still appear to be reluctant to uphold contractual provisions in employment agreements that are designed simply to protect customer goodwill.

Read full article

Improper Use of Criminal Background Information in Making Hiring Decisions Can Land an Employer in Hot Water!

Arnstein & Lehr attorney Lori Adelson

Lori Adelson

Employers must be mindful of how they use criminal background information in making hiring decisions to avoid liability for failing to hire an applicant. Employers may not simply reject an applicant solely because they have an arrest record and/or “criminal” history. Rather, the employer must consider the impact of a conviction on the particular job.

Case in point – Pepsi Beverages (formerly Pepsi Bottling Co.) recently agreed to a pre-litigation settlement in the amount of $3.13 million dollars to resolve charges by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it improperly considered arrest records in making hiring decisions. The EEOC claimed that as a result 300 otherwise-qualified African-American applicants were rejected because it appeared that Pepsi was flatly rejecting anyone with a criminal record instead of considering the conviction on the particular job. As part of the settlement, Pepsi is revising its employment policies, in addition to offering the 300 applicants positions with Pepsi.

Read full article
ILN Today Post Finally Gets its “One-Click” Patent

In the last issue of IP Currents, we reported that the Federal Court of Appeal had ordered the Canadian Patent Office to re-examine, on an expedited basis,’s Canadian patent application for its “one-click” internet shopping ordering method. The Patent Office had refused the application on the basis that it was directed to a business method that the Patent Office did not consider to be patentable subject matter. A series of appeals followed which culminated in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the patenting of business methods. More…

Read full article