In its long awaited decision in Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the United States Supreme Court clearly and unequivocally held that it is a violation of public employees’ First Amendment rights to require that they pay an “agency fee” to the union that is their collective bargaining representative, to cover their “fair share” of their union representative’s bargaining and contract enforcement expenses. The Janus decision overturns the Court’s own 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which had found state and local laws requiring public sector employees to pay such fees to be lawful and constitutional. Commentators expect the decision to have serious economic consequences for unions in the heavily organized public sector.
Monthly Archives: June 2018
Supreme Court Holds Requiring Public Sector Employees to Pay Representation Fees Is Unconstitutional – Violates Government Employees’ First Amendment Rights
HOWARD & HOWARD CONGRATULATES OUR TWELVE ATTORNEYS NAMED TO MOUNTAIN STATES SUPER LAWYERS AND RISING STARS 2018
Royal Oak, Michigan, June 27, 2018: Twelve of Howard & Howard’s attorneys were recently named to the 2018 Mountain States Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists as a result of a patented selection process. This process includes peer evaluation and independent research. Mountain States Super Lawyers covers the states of Nevada, Utah, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Only five percent of the lawyers in each of these states are named to Super Lawyers and two and one half percent to Rising Stars.
On 24 April 2018 the Intellectual Property Court published its Decision in case A41 85807/2016 between Swiss-based Novartis AG and local generic Nativa LLC.
Following the successful appeal in medical negligence proceedings, a surgeon (Dr Gray) filed a notice of motion to vary the Court of Appeal’s costs orders. Mr Hobson, the plaintiff and respondent to the appeal, made his own application on costs.
The decision in Chelliah v NSW Police  NSWSC 557 serves as a reminder that the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is not a panacea for any ownership issues arising. In this case, the purchaser of a vintage Lamborghini purported to register a security interest on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to assert title in the vehicle and sought to rely on the taking free provisions to claim a superior interest to that of the true owner who acquired title to the vehicle under a will. The PPSA did not assist, because the true owner did not have a ‘security interest’ for the purposes of the PPSA and so was not required to register any interest. The purchaser’s claim did not defeat that of an outright owner.
Royal Oak, Michigan, June 26, 2018: Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC is pleased to announce that attorney Michael R. Lied is one of eight recipients of the Illinois State Bar Association’s 2017-2018 Newsletter Service Award and one of only two being honored for his 30 years of service as the editor of the Labor & Employment Law newsletter. He will be presented with a plaque in recognition of his service and dedication at the ISBA Awards reception on Wednesday, July 18, 2018.
Best Lawyers, an international legal directory annually identifying the most prominent lawyers around the world by analyzing their professional skills and achievements during the year, as well as their business reputation based on the feedback of peers from their respective jurisdictions, once again lists Lidings’ Managing Partner Andrey Zelenin and Partner Tatiana Bicheva among the best lawyers in Russia in four key practice areas.
BACK DOOR ENTRY OF THE DEFAULTING PROMOTERS – INAPPLICABILITY OF SECTION 29A OF INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE
With the introduction of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), there has been a flurry of litigation before the National Company Law Tribunals (“NCLT”) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal seeking initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process with respect to companies in default of debt. The Code being a new legislation is not without loopholes. As a result, the Code has already undergone amendments within a short span of time to eliminate such ambiguities and achieve the real objective of the Code.
A few years ago while traveling, I had the opportunity to read an article about how private labels in grocery stores were gaining traction against national brands. While the article isn’t available online anymore, the story offers some interesting food for thought (no pun intended) for the legal industry and the way that law firms are tackling the challenges presented by the current marketplace.