Davis Malm announces that seven of its shareholders were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019. Published by Woodward/White, Inc., Best Lawyers® is considered by many as the oldest and most respected peer review publication in the legal profession.
Thirteen lawyers from Connolly Gallagher LLP were selected for inclusion in the 2019 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. The results are based on peer-review evaluations from more than 79,000 eligible attorneys.
Will Federal Special Registration Exception Preempt More Stringent State Rules on Remote Prescribing of Controlled Substances?
The Ryan Haight Act Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (21 U.S.C. § 802(54)) (the “Ryan Haight Act” or “Act”) expanded the federal Controlled Substances Act to define appropriate internet usage in the dispensing and prescribing of schedule drugs, and in doing so effectively banned the issuance of prescriptions via telemedicine services for any controlled substances unless the ordering physician has conducted at least one in-person evaluation of the patient. The Act includes multiple exceptions that permit prescribing of controlled substances without conducting an in-person evaluation, the most relevant to the practice of telemedicine being the mandate that the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) or other federal agency establish rules for a “Special Registration” to be utilized by health care providers. However, despite the statutory mandate, since the 2008 passing of the Act neither the DEA nor any other federal agency has promulgated any regulation or other guidance regarding the development and implementation of such a Special Registration process.
In its judgement passed a few weeks ago, the treatment of European Court of Justice (ECJ) was flexible in the interpretation of the VAT “triangular transactions”. While this decision in favour of the taxpayer creates a tax planning opportunity for businesses involved in international trade of goods, it pays off to be cautions on the other side.
NLRB Implements Changes to Case Processing – Announces Early Retirement and Voluntary Separation Programs for Professional Staff
Since earlier this year, reports have circulated that National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) General Counsel Peter Robb planned to introduce changes in its case handling processes and organizational structure that would move certain authority away from the Regional Directors and transfer substantive decision making authority to Washington. While the General Counsel denied the specifics, he acknowledged that as the Board was faced with a reduced case load and budgetary pressures, some changes would be necessary and appropriate. It now appears safe to say that change is indeed coming to the NLRB and that more is likely.
On August 10, 2018, the Governor of Massachusetts signed “An Act relative to the judicial enforcement of noncompetition agreements,” otherwise known as The Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, §24L of Chapter 149 of the Massachusetts General Laws. (That bill was part of a large budget bill, H. 4868, available here; the text of the provisions relevant here at pages 56-62 of the bill as linked). The Act limited non-competition provisions in most employment contexts to one-year and required employers wishing to enforce such a one-year period to pay their ex-employees for the time that such employees are sidelined. The Act also precluded enforcing such provisions against employees laid-off or terminated without cause or against employees classified as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. These and the other requirements noted below become effective and apply to employee noncompetition agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2018, and the Act curiously contains some significant exceptions as well. Below we will highlight material aspects of the new law, which was recently featured on Employment Law This Week.
On 3 August 2018, Inghams Enterprise Pty Ltd (Inghams) successfully appealed a decision by the District Court of Queensland which found the company negligent for failing to protect a female employee from being attacked by an ex-employee whilst returning to her car after her shift. The Queensland Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis the trial judge erred in finding that Inghams’ breach of duty caused the employee’s injury.
Investigating misconduct complaints in the workplace is never easy for any employer, but the recent decision of the Fair Work Commission in Natoli v Envision Employment Services  FWC 4034 should provide some comfort: an investigation need not be perfect for an employer to be able to rely upon it in dismissing an errant employee.
No poach agreements between employers play a starring role in recent federal multi-district litigation class action lawsuits
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently consolidated three class action cases by employees of two of the world’s largest rail equipment suppliers in federal court in Pennsylvania. All three lawsuits accuse the competitor companies of agreeing not to solicit, recruit, or hire each other’s workers without permission from the hiring company. The agreement allegedly started in 2009, ran through 2016, and impacted various skilled employees, including project managers, engineers, executives, business unit heads, and corporate officers. The class action complaints allege that the agreement suppressed employee salaries and benefits and, as a result, violated Sections One and Three of the federal antitrust Sherman Act.
Taxation is one of the most fundamental aspect of cross border transactions and generally attracts a lot of attention while negotiating and closing international deals. Varied opinions, narrow interpretations by tax assessing officers (often favouring treasury) and conflicting judicial precedents on the same issues sometimes shake investor confidence.