The Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“CT PURA”) issued notices in its pending dockets confirming that, as required by new state ethics rules effective January 1, 2017, out of state attorneys can no longer practice before CT PURA without meeting Connecticut Bar requirements – either membership or securing pro hac vice status from a Connecticut Superior Court. Going forward, attorneys must file proof of state bar compliance in each PURA docket. Pro hac vice status is potentially difficult to obtain and is supposed to be granted to out of state attorneys only “upon special and infrequent occasion and for good cause shown…” See Connecticut Practice Book, Section 2-15, which can be found here. Section 2-15 also requires that a Connecticut licensed attorney participate in CT PURA hearings along with the attorney granted pro hac vice status.
Monthly Archives: January 2017
The Supreme Court of Russia confirmed the possibility of non-recovery clauses in debts restructuring deals
The Judicial board on economic disputes of the Supreme Court delivered ruling on the case № 305-ЭС16-12298, which has resolved the question of the validity of an agreement on recovery refusal.
According to the facts of the case, the overdue debt restructuring agreement regarding of debt on a contractor agreement (“Agreement”) was sign between the parties of partially performed construction contract.
On January 13, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear three cases involving the enforceability of arbitration agreements that contain class action waivers.
Whether such agreements are enforceable has been a hotly contested issue for several years now, particularly in cases involving wage-hour disputes.
Effective today, January 17, 2017, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has announced the conditional lifting of 20 years of U.S. sanctions against Sudan.1 This action is occurring in connection with an Executive Order issued by President Barack Obama on January 13, 2017, “Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Providing for the Revocation of Certain Sudan-Related Sanctions,” as a result of what the administration has deemed “sustained progress” by the Government of Sudan on a variety of fronts, including: a marked reduction in offensive military activity; a pledge to maintain a cessation of hostilities in conflict areas in Sudan; steps toward improving humanitarian access throughout Sudan; and cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism and addressing regional conflicts.2
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the Department of Health and Human Services recently issued a final rule that will allow more flexibility for sharing patient records relating to substance use disorders.
The final rule amends Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (Part 2 Regulations), which governs the confidentiality of substance use disorder records and sets forth more stringent privacy protections than the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The Part 2 Regulations had not been substantively amended since 1987 and therefore did not reflect changes in health care such as the use of electronic health records and integrated care models involving the sharing of information to coordinate care. SAMHSA stated its goal with this final rule is to ensure patients with substance use disorders can benefit from new integrated health care models without fear of putting themselves at risk.
Industrial design registrations under the Industrial Design Act (the “Act”) are similar to design patents in the US. They protect the features of a product that are visually appealing and not purely utilitarian. They can consist of a shape, configuration or composition of pattern or color, or combination of pattern and color in three-dimensional form, such as the design of a table or the shape of a computer monitor.
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) published six new practice notices on January 13, 2017 regarding the industrial design registration process under the Act. Each notice came into effect immediately and affects both pending and future design applications. According to CIPO, the changes will improve client service, reduce administration and modernize Canadian practices in order to align those practices with international standards. These changes may also impact registrable subject matter (see below).
Stakeholder Agendas in the Washington Transition: 5 Takeaways for Converting Ideas into Technically Effective Proposals
As the transition in Washington moves into high gear this month, it’s not just the new Administration and Congress that are putting in place plans for policy and legislation; stakeholders are busy creating agendas, too.
Many stakeholder agendas will seek to affect how government addresses such prominent health care issues as the Affordable Care Act, Medicare entitlements, fraud-and-abuse policies, FDA user fees, and drug pricing. There will be a myriad of stakeholder ideas, cutting a variety of directions, all framed with an eye to the new political terrain.
(1) Always smile and be kind with each person you cross at RSS. You will be surprised how much every single person in the office plays an integral part in the firm’s extended ecosystem. Whether it is a late-night security guard or a bike messenger in the elevator, every individual you see come in and out of the office merits your respect and energy. This applies especially to the office’s amazing team of secretaries and receptionists!
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) protects individuals who are at least 40 years of age from discrimination in the workplace. As such, the outcome of disparate-impact claims under the ADEA hinges, ordinarily, on whether or not an employer’s facially neutral-policy has a disparate impact on employees who are 40 years of age or older. On January 10, 2017, the Third Circuit, in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 2017 BL 6064 (3d Cir. 2017), issued a precedential ruling, holding that disparate impact claims under the ADEA are not limited to comparisons of the impact an employer’s policy has on employees over 40 with the impact to employees under 40. Rather, the Third Circuit found that claims premised on an allegation that an employer’s policy impacted workers over the age of 50 are cognizable under the ADEA even when the policy had no disparate impact when employees in their forties were considered.
Our colleagues Judah L. Rosenblatt, Jeffrey H. Ruzal, and Susan Gross Sholinsky, at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Where Federal Expectations Are Low Governor Cuomo Introduces Employee Protective Mandates in New York.”