1. Turnpike bonding legislation heading to Senate
This week the Ohio House passed House Bill 51, which authorizes the Ohio Turnpike Commission to issue revenue bonds for infrastructure projects. Following a rancorous debate on whether 90 percent of the bond revenue would go towards infrastructure improvements in Northern Ohio, as Governor Kasich had previously stated, members adopted an amendment requiring projects to have a nexus to the Turnpike in order for bond revenue to be used. The so called “guardrail” was previously absent from the bill due to concerns the provision could negatively affect the project’s bond rating.
Monthly Archives: February 2013
1. Turnpike bonding legislation heading to Senate
Cleveland, Ohio (March 1, 2013) – Emily E. Vlasek has joined the Cleveland office of McDonald Hopkins as an associate in the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice.
Vlasek advises clients on intellectual property matters including patent, trademark and litigation. She is a registered Patent Attorney and has experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications for filing both in the U.S. and internationally focused in biotechnology, the chemical field and medical devices. Vlasek also prepares product clearance, patent invalidity, patentability, and state-of-the-art opinions, and has experience preparing and prosecuting trademark applications.
President Obama will sit down with House and Senate leadership from both parties Friday, on the same day the across-the-board cuts, known as the sequester, go into effect. The talks are designed to be a “constructive discussion” about how to minimize the impact of the cuts, according to the White House.
On Thursday, Republican and Democratic sequestration alternatives were defeated in the Senate. The Republican proposal, which the Obama White House said it would veto, would have given President Obama the discretion to implement the cuts. The Democratic proposal relied on a combination of cuts and a tax increase on those making more than $1 million a year.
Business Restructuring Alert: Who is legally required to pay a receiver’s fees and expenses when the receivership estate does not have sufficient fund
In most state court receivership cases, the order appointing the receiver includes the procedures for the compensation of the receiver and reimbursement of his or her expenses, including the fees and expenses of professionals retained by the receiver. A recent case decided by the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio on November 8, 2012, Dyczkiewycz v. Tremont Ridge Phase 1 Ltd., 2012-Ohio 5173, highlights certain uncertainties in Ohio’s receivership laws in situations where (i) the order appointing receiver does not specifically obligate one or more creditor parties to pay the allowed fees and expenses of a receiver, and (ii) the receivership estate does not have sufficient funds to pay the receiver’s fees and expenses in full after payment of secured obligations.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, was given the authority to set their own fees. These new fees set by the USPTO will be effective on March 19, 2013. Patent maintenance fees under this new system have significantly increased. Below are charts showing the current maintenance fees and new maintenance fees.
Critical Legal Issues in Selling or Merging Your Pathology Practice: How to Enhance Deal Value and Get a Successful Outcome (Richard Cooper)
Richard Cooper will be a speaker at the upcoming G2 Intelligence Pathology Institute. He will be presenting “Critical Legal Issues in Selling or Merging Your Pathology Practice: How to Enhance Deal Value and Get a Successful Outcome.
Co-authored with Ted A. Gehring.
Except for very limited statutory exceptions (which do not apply to most employer/employee disputes), California courts will not enforce non-compete agreements, or any restrictive covenant by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600. Since § 16600 embodies a strong California public policy, California law is clear that a party cannot circumvent the § 16600 restrictions with a choice of law provision that designates a more non-compete friendly jurisdiction as the applicable law. The Application Group, Inc. v. The Hunter Group, (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 881, 888-89.
Mark Weintraub will co-chair the British Columbia Trial Lawyers Association’s upcoming seminar, Estates Litigation: A Trial Lawyers Primer. The seminar will be held on April 26, 2013 at the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver, starting at 8:30 a.m. In addition to estate litigators, the speakers will include the Deputy Public Guardian and Trustee, a geriatric psychiatrist, a geriatric physician, and a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Amy Mortimore will be speaking at the seminar. Her topic is “Unjust Enrichment: Fairness and the Law”. This topic will include the development of the concept of unjust enrichment, and its specific application to cases involving estates. The topic will also include a consideration of the appropriate remedies, such as constructive trust.
Proposed Federal Legislation: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 aims to level sales tax playing field between online and brick and mortar retailers
Rocky Rodriguez will be a panelist at the 11th International Litigation and Arbitration Conference presented by The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee and The International Law Section.