Maxima Legal began cooperating with the ROSINFRA digital platform, launched in the summer of 2020 by the National Center for PPP to support the parties in the infrastructure market. The platform acts as a full-fledged accelerator of design solutions and financial instruments to assist in the preparation and implementation of infrastructure and PPP projects, and also produces analytical studies and educational programmes. More than 50 regions of the Russian Federation are already working with the platform, as well as more than 5,000 market players, including construction contractors, private investors, banks, including VEB.RF, Sberbank, Gazprombank and others.
Monthly Archives: July 2020
Maxima Legal has joined the panel of legal partners for ROSINFRA, a new digital platform for infrastructure projects
ANSE, one of the largest players in the fashion industry in the Russian faux fur market, instructed to Maxima Legal to protect its clothing designs that a competitor had misused. Maxima Legal lawyers helped the client prove the unlawful use of original designs. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has ruled that Goodwill’s actions amount to unfair competition. It was found that the company and its affiliates intentionally introduced coats which reproduced the design of ANSE’s products. The matter is rare for the Russian fashion sector – the dispute paves the way for financial sanctions against the violator.
The Best Lawyers international rating has listed Maxima Legal in 16 areas and named Maxim Avrashkov lawyer of the year
International ranking Best Lawyers has presented its annual list of Russian lawyers recommended in various fields of law. Seven experts from Maxima Legal were listed.
Managing Partner, Head of the Commercial and Corporate department, Maxim Avrashkov, has been listed as one of the leading Russian lawyers for M&A matters. In addition, Maxim Avrashkov was listed in corporate governance and compliance sector and also ‘Lawyer of the Year’ in this category.
New York State Executive Order Requires Out-of-State Travelers to Quarantine and Amends Covid-19 Sick Leave Law
One June 15, 2020 and June 24, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued two Executive Orders (“EO”) numbers 202.45 and 205, which address COVID-19 travel-related restrictions. EO 202.45 temporarily modifies New York State’s pandemic-related Sick Leave Law to prohibit employees from receiving paid sick leave benefits if, as of June 25, 2020, they travel to a “restricted state” for non-work related reasons and contract COVID-19. EO 205 (the “Travel Advisory”) imposes a 14-day quarantine requirement on travelers from a “restricted state” entering New York. For the purposes of both orders, a “restricted state” is a state with a COVID-19 positive test rate higher than 10 per 100,000 residents, or higher than a 10% test positivity rate, over a seven day rolling average, based on data provided by the states.
By Mariella De Stefano, from our Insurance Law Practice Group
July 15, 2020 — Over the last month, activities in various sectors are gradually resuming and the re-openings are occurring in phases — as has been the case for our courts.
You may recall that last March, ministerial orders were issued to order the suspension of numerous delays and limitation periods until the Government of Quebec announces the end of the current state of emergency, which continues to be extended. On May 28, we informed you that the Courts would gradually resume their activities as of June 1st. We highlighted that the delays which were suspended temporarily, including prescription periods and procedural delays, would eventually be lifted.
The ILN is proud to announce our latest firm of the month, Llinks Law Offices, China!
Llinks Law Offices is a leading PRC law firm with a domestic and international practice specialized in cross-border transactions, renowned for providing high quality legal services and formulating innovative solutions to complex legal problems. The firm’s professionalism and business expertise have been consistently recognized over the years as one of the top tier firms in China by international and domestic rating organizations, industrial and professional associations, and relevant regulatory agencies, including by Chambers and Partners, Legal 500, Asialaw Profiles and International Financial Law Review 1000, Asian Legal Business, Asia Asset Management, China Law & Practice, China Business Law Journal and many more. Llinks was also honored in being designated as a National Outstanding Law Firm in China, a Shanghai Outstanding Law Firm, and one of the Shanghai Top Ten Law Firms.
James Flynn is the managing partner of Epstein Becker & Green, a US law firm with 14 offices, and a member of the International Lawyers Network. In this episode, Lindsay and Jim discuss how the pandemic has broken down barriers between offices, the ways in which he addresses the myriad of challenges facing all of us in the current moment, from the economic crisis to COVID-19 to racial diversity, and how a multinational network is an asset when you’re facing adversity.
Public issuers may choose to go private for several reasons. Among those most common may include the desire to minimize the time and costs affiliated with being a reporting issuer (audit, legal, transfer agent, stock exchange), the potential for greater fundraising activities, and the ability to close transactions faster. We have prepared this article to summarize ten (10) considerations that issuers, directors and special committee members should turn their minds to during a going private transaction.
TERMINATION CLAUSES UPDATE: YOUR “FOR CAUSE” PROVISION MIGHT NOW INVALIDATE YOUR “WITHOUT CAUSE” PROVISION
A recent case from the Ontario Court of Appeal likely invalidates thousands of termination clauses across Ontario. If you are an employer using template employment agreements, you should have your templates reviewed right away. Your termination clauses may no longer be enforceable.
What’s the Case?
In Waksdale v. Swegon North America Inc., 2020 ONCA 391 (CanLII), the Court considered a relatively standard summary judgment motion dealing with allegations of wrongful dismissal. The main issue on the motion was the legal effect of a written employment agreement between the parties. The employee took the position that the termination clause in his employment agreement was void because it attempted to contract out of the minimum standards set out in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 (the “ESA“). The employer conceded that the “Termination for Cause” provision in the agreement was void because it violated the ESA. However, it argued that the “Termination of Employment with Notice” provision in the agreement was valid and, because the employer was not alleging cause, it could rely on it.