Home > Zen & the Art of Legal Networking > Week of February 6, 2012 on ILN Today – Roundup!

Week of February 6, 2012 on ILN Today – Roundup!

Happy Friday all! It’s been a very busy week here at the ILN, which makes me feel as though this is a well-deserved weekend ahead. On to the roundup – because it’s been so busy this week, I’m going with a top 5!

  • You better get your 401(k) assets moving from McDonald Hopkins: McDonald Hopkins’ John Wirtshafter discusses the issue of employer contributions to 401(k) plans, identifying what the Department of Labor sees as a reasonable amount of time to make these contributions and what companies should do to make sure they’re complying.
  • IRS UPDATES GUIDANCE FOR W-2 REPORTING OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE from Davis & Gilbert: D&G’s bottom line on this sums it up best: “W-2s issued in 2013 for the 2012 tax year will need to reflect the cost of employer-sponsored group health coverage. Employers should immediately begin determining which of their group health coverages (including EAPs, wellness programs, and hospital and fixed indemnity plans) must be reported in accordance with the updated guidance.”  See the full article for additional details. 
  • IRAN SANCTIONS: CAN INDIA WALK THE TALK? from LexCounsel: LexCounsel offers an interesting perspective on sanctions against Iran, detailing China’s bilateral trade with Iran, as well as India’s need to include them in their consumption of imported oil.
  • Off to the Marché We Go! – Not Descriptive and Not Confusing from Clark Wilson: Clark Wilson’s Larry Munn discusses the Federal Court’s recent ruling in Movenpick Holding AG v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and Attorney General of Canada over the trademark “Marche Express.”
  • Excluding Chemical Risk Assessment Evidence From the Courtroom from Epstein Becker & Green: EBG’s Bill Ruskin examines the potential use of chemical risk assessments in the courtroom, noting that since regulators base their assessments on a different set of criteria, which differ widely from the burden of proof required in court, these assessments are not legally relevant and should be excluded.

Happy reading!