On October 23, 2019, the Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) removed the sanctions imposed in Executive Order (E.O.) 13894 on the Government of Turkey’s Ministry of National Defence and the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, as well as the Minister of National Defence, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, and the Minister of the Interior. OFAC stated that the removal of the sanctions was a direct result of Turkey’s adherence to the terms of a ceasefire in Syria as agreed on October 17, 2019. Pursuant to the removal of the sanctions, all property and interests in property, which had been blocked as a result of the designation of the five persons listed above, are unblocked and all otherwise lawful transactions involving U.S. persons and these entities and individuals are no longer prohibited.
Monthly Archives: October 2019
David Powsner Joins Davis Malm
David Powsner has joined Davis Malm as a Shareholder.
Dave is an IP attorney, advising high-tech companies on a range of matters. He is actively involved in the startup community, coaching new businesses and running educational programs that bring together angel investors and startups.
Dave’s physics degree from MIT and experience in computer programming, combined with his legal experience, enables him to understand, analyze and provide practical guidance on patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, licensing and litigation matters.
We are excited to grow our IP team with the addition of Dave and look forward to working with him and his clients.
Ohio: House of Representatives votes to reinstate business income deduction for lawyers and lobbyists
Earlier in the year, lawyers and lobbyists were excluded from the list of small business owners eligible to claim the Ohio business income deduction, which allows business owners to deduct the first $250,000 of “business income” earned in the ordinary course of their business and pay a preferential 3 percent tax rate on business income above that threshold. But on October 10, 2019, the Ohio House of Representatives unanimously voted to restore the business income deduction for lawyers and lobbyists. READ MORE
Ohio: Court of Appeals rules for highway contractor in sales/use tax case
Late last month, the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Summit County decided Karvo Paving Co. v. Testa in favor of a highway construction contractor that disputed an Ohio use tax assessment on traffic maintenance equipment. READ MORE
Handling Requests for Time Off Under the BRAVE Act
In August of 2018, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law An Act Relative to Veteran’s Benefits, Rights, Appreciation, Validation and Enforcement, otherwise known as the BRAVE Act.
The BRAVE Act amended existing laws concerning Massachusetts veterans in a number of ways, some of which touch directly on the employer-employee relationship.
Lessons from the L3Harris Technologies Consent Agreement with DDTC
On September 19, 2019, the U.S. Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”) entered into a consent agreement with L3Harris Technologies, Inc. (“L3Harris”) for alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”). L3Harris, an aerospace and defense technology company, allegedly committed violations that involved the unauthorized export of defense articles and technical data, as well as a failure to provide accurate and complete reporting and violations of licenses.[1]
The L3Harris consent agreement with DDTC provides five valuable takeaways for all defense exporters:
Building Relationships: Connection Through Storytelling
Daily, we interact with lots of people – this happens in person, at our offices, in the coffee shop, at our kids’ sporting events or art classes. It happens online, through our group chats, text messages with friends, Facebook shares, LinkedIn comments, etc. We interact so much and so frequently, that we’ve reached a real saturation point with these interactions, and even with our professional messages, we can see a lack of care that a lot of us are giving to the details over the tools and the shiny new thing. Instead, we’re just blindly producing more and more and more and more, adding more noise (as Adrian Lurssen would say).
InsightsCBP Announces New Rule to Combat Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Infractions
On August 14, 2019, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring customs brokers to verify the identity of their importer clients, in particular non-resident importers.[1]
CBP stated that the purpose of the rule is to strengthen the agency’s ability to prevent fraudulent transactions, improve revenue protection, and help prevent the use of shell or shelf companies attempting to evade customs laws, in particular as relates to intellectual property rights, anti-dumping / countervailing duties, and health and safety requirements. CBP also asserted that creating more rigorous standards for importer verification will improve the competitiveness of brokers that comply with customs regulations.
Published by American Bar Association, Comprehensive Reference Work Covers Franchise Law in the U.S. Howard & Howard Attorney Matt Kreutzer Edited California Chapters for Franchise Deskbook: Selected State Laws, Commentary, and Annotations
Las Vegas, October 22, 2019 – Matt Kreutzer, attorney at Howard & Howard in Las Vegas, served as senior contributing editor of the recently published Franchise Deskbook: Selected State Laws, Commentary, and Annotations, Third Edition.
The two-volume reference book, published by the American Bar Association (ABA), was designed and authored specifically for franchise lawyers in the U.S. More…
The insurer’s obligation to defend and indemnify: A subject revisited, yet still current
By Marika Douville, from our Insurance Law Practice Group.
October 22, 2019 — In Développement les Terrasses de l’Île inc. c. Intact, compagnie d’assurances, 2019 QCCA 1440, the Court of Appeal of Quebec examined claims for the cost of repairing construction defects and the cost of repairing the damage caused by the defects, and had to decide the extent of the insurer’s obligation to provide a defence to the insureds, who were allegedly responsible for the defects.
Click here to read more (PDF).
Connect with ILN
Firm of the Month
ILN Members Twitter Feed