November 25, 2013
Inchcape Russia has chosen Lidings to be its official legal adviser in Russia. Lidings will advise the leading auto retailer on corporate law matters, ensure protection of the company’s assets in its investment projects and represent Inchcape in dispute resolution.
“Inchcape’s success formula is based on the cornerstones of the company’s unique business model,” says Sergey Aksenov, managing partner at Lidings. “In this context we can see quite a few similarities to our own strategy. An innovative approach to service package development and commitment to anticipation of customer demand are the common denominators of our business philosophies. In offering key companies of the automotive sector comprehensive legal support in the Russian market Lidings undertakes to put in place a sound legal platform for their successful growth and development. I am confident that our cooperation with Inchcape will benefit both parties.”
November 25, 2013
There are three important “take-aways” from New York Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos’ recent decision in Greystone Funding Corporation v. Kutner: (1) termination “without cause” is not a per se prohibition of enforcement of a non-compete unless the language of the contract as in this case so provides; (2) conclusory allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference and unfair competition are inadequate and will be dismissed unless supported by facts on each element of proof; and (3) customer and prospect identity and impressions about them are sufficiently sensitive to warrant cause for sealing of a record under 22 NYCRR § 216.1.
November 25, 2013
By Nancy L. Gunzenhauser and Jeffrey M. Landes
It’s performance review season…meaning reports of various performance review systems are making headlines for employers. In a recent survey by OnForce, former technology employees turned-independent contractors stated that performance reviews were one of the least missed aspects of working as employees, only behind commuting. Performance reviews come in various types, with some causing more controversy than others. One of the most controversial types of performance review systems is the bell-curve (aka “forced” or “stacked”) ranking.
November 25, 2013
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 3 PM (Eastern) / 2 PM (Central), Eric J. Conn, Head of the national OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green will conduct a free webinar focused on OSHA’s enforcement landscape as it relates to work on top of rolling stock (specifically railcars) at grain elevator facilities. This is the second in a series of OSHA law related webinars for the grain industry in conjunction with Grain Journal.
Whether it’s prepping cars down track away from the elevator, helping to guide a load out spout into a railcar, or allowing state or federal grain inspectors access to railcars for stowage inspections and sampling, there are numerous work activities that require employees to stand and walk between the tops of railcars. With potentially miles of track where work may need to be done on top of the railcars, there often is no feasible way to provide anchor points to which employees can tie off fall protection over the tracks.
To make matters worse, OSHA’s requirements regarding Railcar Fall Protection, however, are among the most confusing and inconsistently enforced. So what does the law require and how is OSHA treating this issue from an enforcement standpoint? Get the answers to these questions and more during this webinar. The webinar will:
November 24, 2013
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is reducing fees that applicants must pay in order for their applications to issue as patents. Large entities currently pay $2,080 after receiving a notice of allowance for an application to issue as a patent. That fee includes the issue fee of $1,780 and a publication fee of $300. Effective January 1, 2014, the issue fees will be reduced and the publication fee will be eliminated. The new fees will be:
November 22, 2013
We’re all familiar with the classic product demonstrations in television commercials: who hasn’t seen re-enactments of the super-absorbent paper towel, or the dish detergent that cuts through grease with a single drop?
How do we define a demonstration? Well, a demonstration is just that: a way for advertisers to show the product functioning as it actually would, as objective “proof” of performance. As such, it is especially important that demonstrations actually consist of a true and accurate portrayal of the product. When the FTC began bringing enforcement actions concerning advertising demonstrations in 1959, it encountered cases where products or props had been doctored, enhanced or replaced to achieve the desired performance, and the advertiser had not disclosed any modification. Even if the product claim itself was not false, the issue was that the demonstration was false. For example, in the early 1990s, Volvo ran an advertisement which showed a monster truck crushing other cars, except for a Volvo station wagon, in order to show that Volvo vehicles would provide superior safety in a collision. However, the commercial was produced by weakening the competitor vehicles’ roofs and reinforcing the Volvo’s roof, and then subjecting the Volvo to less severe crushing by the truck – none of which was disclosed to consumers. Subsequently, the FTC issued a consent order requiring Volvo to stop depicting demonstrations that involved undisclosed mock-ups or material alterations to products.