Be careful what you ask for.
We have used that expression frequently when writing about recent federal court orders requiring DoorDash and Postmates to conduct thousands of individual arbitrations in California pursuant to the terms of their arbitration agreements with their drivers.
Thousands of individual arbitrations for which DoorDash and Postmates would have to pay many millions of dollars in arbitration fees alone.
Pursuant to the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) is authorized to review certain real estate transactions by foreign persons in the United States. The regulations at 31 C.F.R. part 802[1] (effective on February 13, 2020), implement CFIUS’s authority to review certain “covered real estate transactions,” involving the purchase or the lease by, or a concession to, a foreign person of certain real estate in the United States. The real estate transactions subject to review include transactions meeting certain criteria and that are in, or around, sensitive sites such as specific airports, maritime ports, and military installations. The airports and maritime ports are identified in the regulations and contained on lists published by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the military installations are listed at Appendix A to Part 802.
By Zachary Ouimet, from our Insurance Law Practice Group
March 26, 2020 — A recent judgment reminds us that, as a general rule, an action for damages against a municipality must be brought within six months of the first sign of the occurrence of the damage, even though the extent of the damage may not necessarily be known and may not have fully materialized.
In Martin c. Ville de Magog, 2020 QCCS 182, the Honourable Justice Gaétan Dumas dismissed a lawsuit instituted by the plaintiffs allowing a ground of dismissal on the basis that the action was prescribed under section 586 of the Cities and Towns Act [“CTA”].
On March 9, 2020, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published their long-awaited final rules that seeks to promote interoperability. Market participants waited longer than usual for this rule due to the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) extending the comment period at the request of a variety of stakeholders.
The Internet has been changing our lives at an unprecedented pace. In addition to E-shopping and food delivery, Internet medical services have become a significant part of our life. People start trying online diagnosis services when they feel sick; when they visit a doctor, they make online appointments beforehand; people also buy pharmaceuticals online as opposed to from brick and mortar pharmacies. Read more…
On March 4, 2020, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law House Bill 21 (“Law”), limiting the use of non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”) in settlements of sexual misconduct claims.
The Law prohibits employers from requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee agree to an NDA in a settlement agreement relating to a claim of sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation whether occurring in the workplace or at a “work-related event[s] coordinated by or through the employer.” In settlement agreements with former employees, the Law permits the amount of the settlement be kept confidential and, at the former employee’s request, a confidentiality provision may be included that prevents disclosure of factual information that might reveal the complainant’s identity. Further, at the former employee’s “sole” request, a broader NDA – one that prohibits disclosure of “factual information related to the underlying sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation claim,” is permissible, as long as it does not bar disclosure pursuant to a subpoena or other legal order issued in an administrative, judicial, or other governmental proceeding.
Employers in California have been inundated with wage-hour class actions for the past two decades. And, time and again, they have had to deal with employee-friendly decisions from the California Supreme Court.
Leave it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to step in and put an end to a proposed class action, finding that there were no “real-world consequences” from wage statements had an error in the employer’s name.
On 17th March 2020, the Government has introduced the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (“Bill”) in the Lok Sabha to further amend Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”) proposing various changes pertaining to removing criminality from most of the offences under the Act and offering simpler penalty regime for businesses as well as paving way for direct overseas listing of Indian companies.
The key amendments introduced in the Bill, inter alia, are listed below:
On March 17, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) posted an article on its website, “What You Should Know About the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and COVID-19.” The article confirms that workplace anti-discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC remain applicable, but that nothing in those laws interferes with or prevents “employers from following the guidelines and suggestions made by the CDC or state/local public health authorities about steps employers should take regarding COVID-19.”
As the United States and the rest of the world hunker down in their homes to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), many organizations have implemented “working-from-home” procedures that are designed to protect the health of the employees. Working-from-home, however, presents heightened threats to the cybersecurity of benefit plans, including the plan’s assets and employee data that is collected, transmitted, and stored with regard to employee benefit plans. Plan sponsors and fiduciaries have asked about the particular risks that working-from-home might present to the protection of sensitive data and whether there are additional proactive measures they can take to reduce those risks.
Welcome to ILN-terviews, a series of profiles of ILN member firm attorneys, designed to give a unique insight into the lawyers who make up our Network. For our latest interview, we chose ILN member, Arthur Li of our member firm Lee and Li in Taiwan, China. In one sentence, how would you describe your practice?...… Continue Reading
Connect with ILN
Firm of the Month
ILN Members Twitter Feed