The Federal Court has published its reasons in ACCC v Cascade Coal Pty Ltd (No 1)1 (Cascade). The ACCC’s application was dismissed with costs. While the relevant provisions of the Act have been amended following the Harper Review in November 2017, the reasons offer useful guidance on the following aspects of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (Act):
Monthly Archives: September 2018
Funds and financial products
ASIC updates guidance for trustees of wholesale equity schemes
On 4 September, ASIC released Regulatory Guide 192 Licensing: Wholesale equity schemes following public consultation.
The Federal Law No. 280-FZ “On Organic Products and Amendments to Certain Legal Regulatory Acts of the Russian Federation” (“Law”), which regulates the production, storage, transporting, labeling and sales of the organic products, was officially published on 03.08.20181.
California sets the standard for the rest of the country in a lot of areas—now, we can add privacy regulation to the list, as discussed by my colleagues Richard S. Eisert and Gary A. Kibel in a recent Davis & Gilbert client alert. This summer, California passed a bill known as the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, imposing rigorous privacy-related obligations on entities that do business in the state. Some have called the act “GDPR-light” since it implements some concepts similar to those in the new European law.
“This person doesn’t benefit me.”
“I’m not getting any business.”
Have you ever said, or thought, either of these things about a networking event or while involved in a business organization? It’s not the first time I’ve heard them, which is why they merit a mention here.
Lindsay was recognized with an article in the Top 10 Law Blogs. Currently LexBlog has over 17,000 legal bloggers contributing to the network which makes this a great effort.
Russian IP Court compelled domain name registrars to remove illegal content reported by trademark holders
On 4 July 2018, Russian IP Court rendered a landmark judgment in case No. A40-132026/2017.
Ninth Circuit Clarifies California Law Regarding “No Future Employment Provisions” in Settlement Agreements—But Also Leaves Several Open Issues
On April 13, 2015 we blogged about the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, 782 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2015). There, the Ninth Circuit considered whether, under California law, an employee could be ordered to sign a settlement agreement that included language that restricted him, inter alia, from future employment with his former employer.
This case1 confirmed that advisors can be legally liable when their clients breach the Fair Work Act.
In the early days of the shale energy boom, way back in 2012, the northern tier of Ohio’s Utica shale was widely expected to constitute the core of the formation’s potential. The area consisting of Columbiana, Mahoning, Trumbull, and, depending on who you ask, Stark, Summit, Portage and Tuscarawas counties, was among the first to draw the attention of national producers with promising results from several early horizontal wells. Following the customary land grab, wherein producers such as Chesapeake, BP and Halcon spent billions of dollars to gobble up hundreds of thousands of acres under leases in the northern tier, companies arriving later were forced to lease further south into Monroe, Belmont, Guernsey and Noble counties.