The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a recent judgment dated November 04, 2019 in the matter of Mukut Pathak & Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. [W.P.(C) 9088/2018 & CM Appln. No. 35006/2018] interpreted the provisions of Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”) in detail including disqualification of directors, retrospective applicability of the section and applicability of principles of natural justice and discussed its consequent repercussions under Section 167(1) of the CA 2013.
The National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) has announced that it is publishing proposed changes to its Rules and Regulations that will begin to reverse the Board’s 2014 changes, which took effect in 2015, to its representation election rules and procedures commonly referred to as the “ambush election rules.” The proposed final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2019 and to become effective 120 days after publication.
December 13, 2019 — The Supreme Court issued yesterday a much anticipated decision on the application of family patrimony rules where a family residence is held by a trust rather than by either spouse.
In Yared v. Karam, 2019 SCC 62, the Supreme Court, in a 5–2 decision, resolved the issue by deciding that the value of a family residence held in a trust can be included in the family patrimony when it is determined that a spouse retains the rights that confer use.
See below to download it in PDF format—following is an excerpt:
The Court of Appeal Clarifies the Impact of Expert Opinions on the Burden of Proof in an Action for Latent Defects
By Gabriel Chaloult Lavoie, from our Insurance Law Practice Group
December 11, 2019 — In Groupe Royal inc. v. Crewcut Investments Inc., 2019 QCCA 1839, the Court of Appeal affirmed that in an action for latent defects, the Plaintiff’s expert opinions are not required, whereas those filed in defence must demonstrate the precise cause of the defect in order to rebut the presumption.
NLRB’s General Counsel Signals Major Shift in Neutrality Agreement Between Employers and Unions Seeking to Organize Their Employees
The General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) has signaled what may be a major resetting of the law on the Board’s position concerning the legality of so called neutrality agreements, in which employers make concessions and accommodations to labor unions seeking to organize and represent their employees. This occurred with the General Counsel’s consideration of an appeal by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. (the “Fund”) of a dismissal of an unfair labor practice charge had filed against United Here! Local 8 (“Union”) and Embassy Suites by Hilton, Seattle Downtown Pioneer Square (“Employer”) on behalf of an employee who did not wish to be represented by the Union after the Employer had entered into an agreement with the Union that enabled the Union to gain recognition of employees of the Employer without having to win a secret ballot representation election conducted by the Board.
By Eliab Taïrou, from our Labour and Employment Law Practice Group
December 4, 2019 —
It goes without saying that we live in a world that has become “hyper-connected”, as we are constantly staring at our cell phones or other electronic devices. Many employees find themselves, outside of office hours, constantly responding to emails and requests from their employer, colleagues or clients.
Fiduciaries of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) that appoint investment managers (“Appointing Fiduciaries”) will be interested in the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Scalia v. WPN Corporation, et al (“WPN”) regarding their duty to monitor investment fiduciaries. Given the potential risk related to a breach this fiduciary duty, the WPN opinion is likely to be an important one for Appointing Fiduciaries.
Court to Consider Whether California Ride Share Drivers Who Make Airport Runs Are Exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act Continue Reading…
On November 26, 2019, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) might not apply to Uber drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce while driving passengers to or from international airports.
In his claims before the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (“DLSE”), driver Sangam Patel (“Patel”) seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, meal and rest break premiums, and unpaid business expenses allegedly owed by Uber. Uber petitioned to compel arbitration of Patel’s (“Patel”) claims under the FAA.
Two announcements made by FDA in late October signal a marked change to FDA’s regulatory approach to “homeopathic” drugs. On October 25, 2019, FDA withdrew the 1988 Compliance Policy Guide (“CPG”) 400.400 Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May Be Marketed, and, concurrently, published revised draft guidance titled Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic (the “Revised Homeopathic Draft Guidance”).