RSS fought the “February blahs” very aggressively by recruiting four lawyers, who will be joining the firm’s vitality:
Monthly Archives: March 2019
“…For me? As what? Tough guy? I don’t need tough guys. I need more lawyers…”: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
There is a popular vintage Harley Davidson t-shirt that says “Tough Guys Finish First.” That may be true. But, sometimes, to finish first, one does not need more tough guys; one needs more lawyers, as a crime-related matter involving the Mongols Motor Cycle Club has recently shown. So today we thought that we would use Michael Corleone’s observation as the title of our discussion of how creative intellectual property lawyering has impacted that recent Mongols’ matter in a California federal court. [Not only is the Corleone quote apt here, but it is often useful in any context to start with a quote from The Godfather, which has been described as the “sum of all wisdoms” and “the source of all knowledge.” So it is probably fitting that we lead this piece (or any piece) with a Godfather quote or reference, especially since it has worked for us before.]
New Occupations List
On 11 March, the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) released a new list of eligible occupations affecting Subclasses 482, 189, 190, 186, 187, 407 and 485.
“Authenticity” has become a dirty word in the last few years.
It’s right up there with some of the other most hated buzzwords and phrases – “at the end of the day,” “thinking outside of the box,” “synergy,” “value add,” “circle back,” “bandwidth.”
As we wrote in this space just last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed a new salary threshold for most “white collar” exemptions. The new rule would increase the minimum salary to $35,308 per year ($679 per week) – nearly the exact midpoint between the longtime $23,600 salary threshold and the $47,476 threshold that had been proposed by the Obama Administration. The threshold for “highly compensated” employees would also increase — from $100,000 to $147,414 per year.
Pennsylvania District Court Concludes Ex Parte Communications between Defense Counsel and Putative Class Members Are Improper
In putative class action lawsuits, it is not uncommon for counsel for the employer to interview putative class members about the claims in the lawsuit. A new decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has concluded that such communications could be improper, at least in that state.
Have you been assessed or think you might be assessed with a surcharge rate of duty or land tax as a foreign person?
The U. S. Supreme Court established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants in state court “mass” actions in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct 1773 (June 17, 2017) (hereafter “BMS”). BMS’s key holding was that the necessary nexus between an appropriate court for a mass action and a corporate defendant required more than just the company’s connections in the state and the alleged similarity of claims by resident plaintiffs and non-resident plaintiffs. The practical effect is to limit forum shopping by plaintiffs in large state mass or class actions and to require such suits be maintained only where a corporate defendant has significant contacts to support general jurisdiction.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment passed on February 28, 2019 in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) West Bengal vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir and Others (clubbed with certain other civil appeals) has re-affirmed the position concerning treatment of allowances for determining the provident fund contribution.
The common question of law which was raised by the appeals for determination by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the special allowances paid by an establishment to its employees would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘basic wages’ under section 2(b)(ii) read with section 6 of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”), for computation of deduction towards provident fund contribution.