Taxjar.com, a business set up to help internet sellers navigate sales tax issues, defines software as a service (SaaS) as a model in which software is hosted in one place but licensed, by subscription, for use by customers that may be located in a different place.
Monthly Archives: March 2018
Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network. For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Olga Torres of our member firm Torres Law – Customs & Global Trade in the US.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) has awarded $604,159 in damages to a plaintiff for injuries sustained whilst working as an independent contractor.
On 18 March 2018, the Federal Government introduced the Subclass 482 visa program designed to take over the Subclass 457 Temporary Skilled Visa. Key features of the program which have not been introduced yet are the Skilling Australians Fund (SAF) and amended Labour Market Testing (LMT) provisions as these are subject to the passage of legislation.
New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Exceptions to the Unemployment Compensation Law’s Disqualification Rule for Voluntarily Leaving Employment
New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law (N.J.S.A. 43:21-4) provides that an unemployed individual who meets an earnings and employment duration threshold is eligible to receive unemployment benefits if he or she “is able to work, and is available for work, and . . . actively seeking work.” An individual’s eligibility for benefits is subject to disqualification conditions outlined in N.J.S.A. 43:21-5. One such condition (N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a)) states that an individual is ineligible for benefits if he or she leaves work “voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work and for each week thereafter until [he or she] becomes reemployed and works eight weeks in employment.” Accordingly, an individual may voluntarily leave work and remain eligible for benefits so long as the individual can show that he or she left work with “good cause attributable to such work.” The inquiry does not end there.
Fifteen Epstein Becker Green Attorneys Named to 2018 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists
Newark, NJ (March 19, 2018) – The national law firm of Epstein Becker Green (EBG) is pleased to announce that fifteen attorneys based in the firm’s Newark and Princeton offices have been selected for the 2018 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. These attorneys join colleagues in EBG’s Chicago and Los Angeles offices who were selected for other regional Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists earlier this year. All of the EBG attorneys recognized are listed below.
Litigation funders may be feeling uneasy after the recent High Court decision of Bailey v Glaxosmithkline. Until this decision, funders could justifiably have assumed that they would only be ordered to pay security for costs up to the level of their funding, an application of the so called “Arkin cap”. Foskett J has shown this assumption to be wrong, ordering the claimants’ funder to pay £1.75 million into court as security for the defendant’s costs, a sum well in excess of their £1.2 million funding.
Depending on the jurisdictions within which they operate, certain employers and their counsel will soon see a significant change in early mandatory discovery requirements in individual wage-hour cases brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Christine N. Czuprynski, a Detroit attorney in the firm’s national Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group, sits down with host Mike Witzke to discuss GDPR, the European Union’s new data protection regulation, which takes effect on May 25, 2018. Christine informs listeners why U.S. businesses must have the GDPR on their radar and steps they can take to prepare to be compliant.
To answer the question in my title, the courts, apparently. Discovery is straightforward. Candidly respond to the requests of an opponent. Object where applicable. Withhold nothing responsive. Simple, right? Yet, what happens when one suspects that an opponent may be withholding documents during discovery?