Vide its circular dated March 30, 2020, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) had introduced the Companies Fresh Start Scheme, 2020 (“CFS Scheme”) and amended the LLP Settlement Scheme, 2020 (“LLP Modified Scheme”) to allow defaulting companies and limited liability partnerships an opportunity to file belated documents, returns etc. without charging of additional fees with respect to the delay in filing and grant immunity from prosecution with respect to such delay. We had, in an earlier update, highlighted the key provisions of the CFS Scheme and the LLP Modified Scheme (available at https://www.mondaq.com/india/shareholders/918732/relaxation-schemes-for-companies-and-limited-liability-partnerships and https://lexcounsel.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Newsletter-April-012020-.pdf).
By the end of 2020, the Pension Fund must be notified of the employee’s employment and dismissal within one business day
On April 9, 2020, the Government approved the “Temporary rules for registering citizens to find suitable work and registering as unemployed, as well as for making social payments to citizens who are recognized as unemployed under the established procedure” (“Rules”). In addition to the procedure for registering citizens as unemployed, the Rules, among other things, establish the employers’ obligation to submit information to the Russian Pension Fund in cases of hiring and firing a citizen no later than 1 business day following the day of issuing the relevant order (decision), as well as other decisions or documents confirming the execution of employment relations (clause 6 of the Rules).
Another California Federal Judge Denies Postmates’ Attempts to Escape Thousands of Individual Arbitrations Continue Reading…
We have written here about the efforts of several gig economy companies like DoorDash to avoid having to conduct – and pay for – thousands of individual arbitrations alleging that their workers had been misclassified.
As we have said before, companies that implement arbitration agreements with class action waivers must be careful what they ask for. By using such agreements, they run the risk of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations, the cost of which could threaten the companies’ very existence. (In California, we estimate that the arbitration costs alone for a single-plaintiff case are approximately $60,000 – which does not include the attorney’s fees in defending that case or the potential exposure.) It is for that very reason that some companies have elected not to implement such agreements.
The Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) vide notification number SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2020/09 dated April 07, 2020 amended the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations, 2019 (“FPI Regulations”) and allowed foreign portfolio investors (“FPIs”) from countries other than Financial Action Task Force member countries, to be registered as category I FPIs if such countries are specified by the Central Government by an order or by way of an agreement or treaty with other sovereign Governments. The notification may be accessed here [Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Portfolio Investors) (Amendment) Regulations, 2020].
It is not required to notify of changes in the terms of the contract with a highly qualified specialist, including the assignment of other work or changes in the address of its performance
On February 04, 2020, the Russian Constitutional Court recognized1 clause 2 of article 67 of the Russian Labour Code (employer’s obligation to issue an employment contract within 3 business days from the date of the employee’s actual work authorization or the date of the court’s recognition of civil relations as labor ones) and paragraph 1 of clause 8 of article 13 of the Federal law No. 115-FZ “On the legal status of foreign citizens in the Russian Federation” (obligation of an employer or customer to notify regarding the conclusion or termination (cancellation) of the labor or civil contract with a foreign citizen within 3 business days from the date of concluding or termination (cancellation) of the relevant contract) as constitutionally acceptable.
An ordinance was promulgated on December 28, 2019 (“Ordinance”) making further amendment in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC) and the President of India accorded his assent to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Amendment Act) inserting section 32 A which is now the fourth amendment to IBC.
The Amendment Act inter alia introduced Section 32 A to IBC which provides immunity to the corporate debtor and its assets if the resolution plan is approved and it results in change of the management of the corporate debtor from any prosecution, action, attachment, confiscation.
First Circuit: Massachusetts Employee Must Abide by a Restrictive Covenant Governed by a Delaware Choice of Law Clause – the More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same, Part II
When Massachusetts enacted the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (“MNCA”) in mid-2018, some commentators suggested that the statute reflected an anti-employer tilt in public policy. But, we advised that sophisticated employers advised by knowledgeable counsel could navigate the restrictions set forth in the MNCA. As reported here, the May 2019 decision from the District of Massachusetts in Nuvasive Inc. v. Day and Richard, 19-cv-10800 (D. Mass. May 29, 2019) (Nuvasive I) supported our initial reading of the MNCA. The First Circuit’s April 8, 2020 decision in Nuvasive, Inc. v. Day, No. 19-1611 (1st Cir. April 8, 2020) (Nuvasive II),which upheld the District Court’s decision, provides further evidence that Massachusetts courts will still enforce contractual choice of law provisions when considering requests to enforce certain restrictive covenants in employment contracts. Indeed, in Nuvasive II, the First Circuit concluded that the MNCA, by its terms, does not apply to non-solicitation agreements, and that the Massachusetts employee, Day, had not demonstrated a legal basis for the District Court to ignore the Delaware choice of law clause in his employment agreement.
Delhi High Court: Party challenging an award under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or seeking a stay on award to deposit the entire sum awarded
Judgment: Power Mech Projects Limited Vs. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation [O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 523/2017],
Forum: Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Court”)
Judgment delivered on: February 17, 2020
Act/Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).
InsightsPresident Trump Adds Teeth to CFIUS Bite: Chinese Company Ordered to Divest Acquisition of U.S. Hotel-Software Company
The U.S. Department of the Treasury finalized the new Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regulations, which became effective on February 13, 2020.
Amongst other matters, the new regulations significantly expand CFIUS’s jurisdiction for non-controlling investments, including the review of transactions involving U.S. businesses that manage or collect “sensitive personal data” of U.S. citizens. Notably, section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, authorizes CFIUS’s jurisdiction to review covered transactions for national security implications, and enumerates the President’s authority to “suspend or prohibit any covered transaction that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.” Read more…
Regular readers of our newsletter, and those familiar with U.S. import and export regulations, know that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP” or “Customs”) generally enforces the U.S. import regulations, while multiple executive government agencies administer regulations related to the export of goods. Such agencies include, but are not limited to, the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), the Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Census Bureau. Read more…