Monthly Archives: February 2014


On October 28, 2013, in Promutuel du Lac au fjord vs. Gagné Construction et Rénovation Gagné et Fils), the Superior Court rendered an interesting ruling with respect to the insurer’s duty to defend and to indemnify regarding a CGL policy in the context of unfinished construction work.

Download the publication

Read full article

Two for Tuesdays: Connecting

In the legal industry, we’re in the business of relationships. It’s the nature of being service providers. So this week’s tips are brought to you in the spirit of encouraging additional connections and reaffirming the relationships that you have with those connections, whether they be clients or potential clients, referral sources, or other influencers and amplifiers. 

Read full article
ILN Today Post


There seems to be general agreement that some or even many middle income workers do not save enough for retirement. These are the people who do not have a workplace pension, and have not saved sufficiently in tax-deferred programs. At this time employers and employers contribute 9.9% of income up to the YMPE, 4.5% each. The maximum benefit at age 65 is just over $1,000 per month, although the average CPP monthly payment is a little under $600. It is true that this income, together with the OAS monthly payments of $550 and GIS is barely enough for a single person to live on and would certainly result in a substantial decreased standard of living for middle income people. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post


On July 3, 2013, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) revoked the Renewable Energy Approval (“REA”) that had been issued by Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment for the construction of a 22.5 MW wind energy project known as Ostrander Point. The Tribunal’s decision was based on its finding that engaging in Ostrander Point in accordance with its REA would cause serious and irreversible harm to Blanding’s Turtle, a threatened species in Ontario. More…

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Biocept Announces Pricing of IPO

According to a press release issued on GlobeNewswire, Biocept, Inc., an oncology diagnostics company focused on improving individual patient treatment, today announced the pricing of its initial public offering of 1,900,000 shares of its common stock offered at a price to the public of $10.00 per share. The gross proceeds to Biocept from the initial public offering are expected to be $19,000,000, before underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses. Biocept has granted the representative of the underwriters a 45-day option to purchase up to 285,000 additional shares of common stock to cover over-allotments, if any. The shares are expected to begin trading on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the symbol “BIOC” on February 5, 2014 and the offering is expected to close on February 10, 2014, subject to customary closing conditions. Read the complete press release here. The Biocept IPO team was led by Stradling Shareholders Michael BrownHayden Trubitt and Michael Lawhead. More…

Read full article

Understanding Stark/Anti-Kickback Compliant EHR Donation Arrangements

In 2006 and extended in December 2013, CMS issued Stark and Anti-Kickback exceptions/safe harbors permitting EHR technology donation arrangements between hospitals (and other organizations) and physician groups.  This exception permitted hospitals to aid physician groups, who may be referral sources, in acquiring and implementing EHR and other health information technology.  Originally, hospitals had a seven-year […]
The post Understanding Stark/Anti-Kickback Compliant EHR Donation Arrangements appeared first on OMW Health Law.

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

Read full article

OSHA Forecast – 5 Important OSHA Issues to Monitor in 2014 (#4 – New Judges to Decide OSHA Disputes)

By the national OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green

As we closed the book on 2013 — a truly remarkable year of OSHA enforcement and regulatory activity — we look to the future, and think about what to expect from OSHA in 2014.  Over the next 5 weeks, we will roll out what we believe are the 5 most significant OSHA developments to monitor in 2014.

If you are interested in how accurate our past predictions have been, take a look at these articles from December 2011 forecasting five OSHA developments for 2012 and from December 2012 predicting three developments from OSHA in 2013.

Read full article

Den nye forbrugeraftalelov

Den 13. juni 2014 træder den nye Forbrugeraftalelov i kraft. Lovændringen gennemfører EU’s forbrugerrettighedsdirektiv. Ændringen af Forbrugeraftaleloven medfører bl.a. helt nye spilleregler for nethandel.


Den nye Forbrugeraftalelov medfører en række ændringer, der må ses som skærpelser over for virksomhederne. Loven kan ikke fraviges ved aftale til skade for forbrugeren. De væsentligste skærpelser i forhold til den nuværende lov er beskrevet nedenfor.

Read full article

Data Privacy Alert: Class action puts bulls eye on Target’s directors and officers

As if the executives at Target did not have enough to worry about, Target shareholders recently filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against 14 of Target’s directors and officers. The complaint is the second shareholder derivative suit filed against these officers and directors.

Plaintiffs allege four counts against the directors and officers: Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Gross Mismanagement; Waste of Corporate Assets; and Abuse of Control. 

Read full article


From time to time there are stories of cleaners mistakenly clearing and throwing out modern art work.  One would have to be particularly dedicated to modern art, and po-faced, (or the artist!) not to snigger.
The latest report comes from Bari in Italy where a cleaner has thrown out a work by Sala Murat.  Given that the work is described as “newspaper and cardboard and cookie pieces scattered across the floor”, it sounds like a cleaner-magnet.  Apparently it is valued at €10,000.
The apologetic cleaning firm, which presumably wants to maintain its relationship with the gallery, has said that its insurance would cover the matter.  I wonder if that is right.  If I were acting for the insurers, I would require the insured to defend any claim by the gallery on the basis that the loss was caused by its negligence.  It should have anticipated the potential loss and left a sign for the cleaners saying “Not to be removed”. Normally such a sign might say “Not rubbish”, but perhaps that wouldn’t be true in this case.
Read full article