Monthly Archives: February 2016

ILN Today Post

Kommentarer på blog fører til bortvisning

DAHL Advokatfirma har netop vundet en sag om bortvisning af en medarbejder på baggrund af kommentarer på en offentligt tilgængelig blog.

I sommeren 2015 blev en medarbejder bortvist fra sin arbejdsplads, efter han på en åben blog på ekstrabladet.dk havde kommenteret en artikel om en seksuel hændelse.Hændelsen var sket på en ferierejse i Tyrkiet.

På trods af, at hverken medarbejderen eller arbejdsgiveren var indblandet i hændelsen, valgte medarbejderen at promovere sin arbejdsgiver ved navns nævnelse og med det sigte, at arbejdsgiveren kunne sikre gæsterne mod lignende seksuelle hændelser. Han skrev bl.a., at han havde haft et privat tæskehold til at tage sig af disse modbydelige hændelser, og at udøverne fik, hvad de fortjente.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Recent Developments in the Regulation of Defensive Tactics in Canadian Take-over Bids – Part II

By Ethan Minsky

This is the second instalment of a three part article. In the first part, we discussed the basic concepts and guiding principles applied by Canadian securities regulators when they are asked to cease trade an effort to defend against a take-over bid. In this second part, we will discuss the British Columbia Securities Commission’s decision in Re Red Eagle, 2015 BCSECCOM 401, in which these guiding principles were applied. If you missed the first instalment and you would like to read it now, here is a link to Part I.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Canadian Securities Regulators Amend Early Warning Reporting Requirements

On February 25, 2016, the Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”) announced amendments to the early warning reporting regime (the “Amendments”), which take effect where a party’s total holdings of a reporting issuer’s securities reaches 10 per cent or more.

Once a shareholder reaches the 10 per cent threshold, it must, no later than the opening of trading on the business day following the acquisition of securities bringing it to 10% or more, issue and file a news release containing the information required by section 3.1 of National Instrument 62-103, and within 2 days of the acquisition, file a report on SEDAR with the same information.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Canadian Securities Regulators Substantially Change Take-Over Bid Rules

By Bernard Pinsky

On February 25, 2016, the Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”) announced amendments to take-over bid rules in Canada. The changes, as reflected in National Instrument 62-104 Take-Over Bids and Issuer Bids (NI 62-104) and National Policy 62-203 Take-Over Bids and Issuer Bids, are intended to enhance the quality and integrity of the take-over bid regime while rebalancing the dynamics among bidders, target company boards of directors and target company shareholders during a take-over bid.

Read full article

Defending Against Website Accessibility Claims: Recent Decisions Suggest the Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Is Unlikely to Serve As Businesses’ Silver Bullet

Joshua A. Stein

Joshua A. Stein

For businesses hoping to identify an avenue to quickly and definitively defeat the recent deluge of website accessibility claims brought by industrious plaintiff’s firms, advocacy groups, and government regulators in the initial stages of litigation, recent news out of the District of Massachusetts – rejecting technical/jurisdictional arguments raised by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – provides the latest roadblock.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

Merger & partnership with Hill Brown Solicitors & Miller Samuel LLP

We are delighted to inform you that as of today, Monday 29th February, Miller Samuel LLP and R & JM Hill Brown & Co Ltd have merged to form Miller Samuel Hill Brown LLP.

This exciting new partnership brings together two of the city’s long established and respected legal firms, creating a new legal entity boasting 13 Partners and over 45 lawyers and support staff at our home in Renfield Street, Glasgow.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

From #SAFEHARBOR to #PRIVACYSHIELD through the Judicial Redress Act

No matter what anybody says, the “privacy shield” is just “smoke in the eyes”. There are not fundamentals to protect personal data in the way the European Court of Justice asked in October 2015 Judgment versus Facebook (C-362/14, 6 October 2015).

Many people thought of the Judicial Redress Act (hereinafter JRA) as a rule extending to US citizens’ prerogatives to “allied countries citizens”.

Maybe the first version of the JRA, the one passed behind the House of Representatives in October 2015, was drafted in this perspective.

Read full article

Promoting Diversity Without Reverse Discrimination

Technology media and telecommunications (“TMT”) industry employers should begin taking steps to mitigate a new litigation risk—reverse discrimination claims. This past year there were a number of news stories regarding the lack of diversity in the technology industry (see, for example, articles in Inc., The Cut, Fusion, The New York Times, and Wired). Numerous advocacy groups pressured TMT employers to focus on increasing workplace diversity in order to eliminate this disparity. As TMT employers continue to defend themselves against these allegations, the recently filed Complaint in Anderson v. Yahoo!, 5:16-cv-00527 (N.D. Cal. 2016), alleges that Yahoo!’s robust attempts to encourage gender diversity constituted unlawful sex discrimination against male employees.

Read full article

From #SAFEHARBOR to #PRIVACYSHIELD through the Judicial Redress Act

From #SAFEHARBOR to #PRIVACYSHIELD through the Judicial Redress Act
No matter what anybody says, the “privacy shield” is just “smoke in the eyes”. There…

Many people thought of the Judicial Redress Act (hereinafter JRA) as a rule extending to US citizens’ prerogatives to “allied countries citizens”.

Maybe the first version of the JRA, the one passed behind the House of Representatives in October 2015, was drafted in this perspective.

The JRA that Obama signed last week it’s not even “the cousin of the original version”. It’s an act with a giant pair of “caveat”.

The declarations of Vera Jourova don’t help to correctly evaluate the weight of the Judicial Redress Act.

But to understand my point of view it’s preferable to analyze the parts of the JRA I’m referring to.

Actually, the devil is in the details …

If we read the part entitled “Designation of covered country”, the reader can probably understand my doubts.

Designation of covered country

(1)In general

The Attorney General may […] designate a foreign country or regional economic integration organization, or member country of such organization, as a covered country for purposes of this section if—

(A)

(i)the country or regional economic integration organization, or member country of such organization, has entered into an agreement with the United States that provides for appropriate privacy protections for information shared for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses; or 

(ii)the Attorney General has determined that the country or regional economic integration organization, or member country of such organization, has effectively shared information with the United States for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses and has appropriate privacy protections for such shared information;

(B)the country or regional economic integration organization, or member country of such organization, permits the transfer of personal data for commercial purposes between the territory of that country or regional economic organization and the territory of the United States, through an agreement with the United States or otherwise; and

(C)the Attorney General has certified that the policies regarding the transfer of personal data for commercial purposes and related actions of the country or regional economic integration organization, or member country of such organization, do not materially impede the national security interests of the United States.

The conditions under points A, B and C, are not alternatives but they have to coexist.

Another point is the sequence of the requirements, they have to be already in force when the Department carries out its evaluation.

It looks like the European position made strong by the ECJ judgment is suddenly growing weaker and needs to agree with the USA requirements in order to create the suitable conditions for the respect of the European data protection framework. Even if we were to consider that option, and I don’t agree with that, the final framework will be able to protect the European citizens’ fundamental rights.

In Italian, we say “a dog chasing its tail”!

In other words, the condition for the application of the JRA needs as a pre-condition the agreement of the data transfer and such agreement must not interfere with National security purposes … as I underlined in a previous post, the Umbrella Act (made public by EPIC.org with a FOIA versus USA Department of Justice) and, more practically, cases like the FBI vs Apple case, demonstrate that the “doubts” that led the ECJ judgment to invalidate #safeharbor are still unresolved.

By reading the Umbrella Act and the approved version of the JRA, I’m not so sure the new framework will survive to a detailed and competent evaluation of the Data Protection Authorities or, worse, of the European Court of Justice.

Read full article

New regulations of the EEU in respect of the classification of medical products and medicines

On 22 December and 29 December 2015 respectively, the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter – “EEU”) has approved the “Rules for the classification of medical products depending on the potential risk of their use” and the “Rules for determining non-prescription and prescription categories of medicines”.

Rules for classification of medical products depending on the potential risk of their use (hereinafter – the “Rules 1”)

Read full article