Client Alerts

Butzel first reported the Trump Administration’s decision to increase existing tariffs on $200 Billion worth of Chinese imports in our Client Alert of May 6th. The alert explains that tariffs on products covered by List 3 of the Section 301 tariffs were to increase from 10 to 25%. This increase took effect on May 10th. The Trump Administration has now issued a request for comments on a new list of proposed tariffs which is scheduled to appear in the May 15th Federal Register. This proposed List 4 identifies possible tariffs on an additional $300 Billion worth of Chinese products imported into the US.

On the anniversary of the announcement that the United States was withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that relaxed sanctions on Iran, the United States announced new sanctions on Iran’s iron, steel, aluminum, and copper sectors. Who do the new sanctions affect and what do they mean going forward?

Three years ago this week, on May 11, 2016, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (the “DTSA”) was signed into law. Butzel Long was one of the first law firms in the nation to report on the passage of this Act. Shortly after, Butzel Long successfully defended against the very first application for an Ex Parte Seizure in the nation in the case of Dazzle Software II, LLC v. Kinney, Case No. 16-cv-12191 (E.D. Michigan, Slip Op. July 18, 2016). Since that time, Butzel Long has continued to defend, litigate, and be a leader on the topic of the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

President Trump announced Sunday his plan to increase tariffs on Chinese imports of over $200 Billion. These goods, referred to as being on List 3 of the Administration’s Section 301 action against China, are currently covered by tariffs of 10%.

Yesterday the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced immediate reinstatement of Component 2 of the Revised EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting requirements for mid-size and large employers, in light of the successful court challenge to the Administration’s long delay in implementing that requirement.

Signaling a dramatic about-face to its penalty assessments in recent years, HHS has just announced a new interim policy to reduce maximum penalties.

In recent years, federal courts have struggled to determine whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits employers from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) employees.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health (MSHHSD) has released its report which sets forth “screening levels” for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS. Human exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is a public health concern that the MSHHSD  has been working on with the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team’s (MPART) and other agencies.

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has recently issued guidance on cannabidiol (“CBD”) that is expected to have widespread ramifications for the industry.

Changes may be on the way for Michigan’s new Paid Medical Leave Act (“PMLA”) and the amendments to the minimum wage rate, depending on an anticipated ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court. 

Some uninvited guests have shown up to the party and are starting to create a scene. Just days after calling on the Government Accountability Office to conduct a federal investigation into the effect of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, federal legislators are now asking the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to take action following a petition urging the agency to issue a rule prohibiting employers from requiring that their workers sign non-compete agreements.

Not long after the American Revolution, circa 1791, the Whiskey Tax became the first tax placed on domestic products by the newly formed federal government.  This tax came on the heels of the Boston Tea Party, which itself led to the onset of the American Revolution.  

A bill introduced in the Michigan Senate would require publicly held corporations with their principal executive offices in Michigan to have a minimum number of female directors. 

A bill introduced in the Michigan Senate would require publicly held corporations with their principal executive offices in Michigan to have a minimum number of female directors. 

For the past 30-years, Mexico has enjoyed a relative peaceful labor climate. That may change soon. As part of the new USMCA deal (Chapter 23) and international obligations assumed by Mexico in the ILO Convention 98 on rights to organize and bargain collectively, Mexico is now required to reform its labor laws before the USMCA may be passed in the U.S.

On March 7, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a proposed rule that would increase the salary threshold for the overtime exemption from $23,660 annually ($455 per week) to $35,308 annually ($679 per week). 

Last month, United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer informed Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) that his agency would not establish an exclusion process for products subject to Section 301 “List 3” tariffs unless and until these tariffs increased from 10% to 25%. Congress begged to differ.

A criminal trial is underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where the defendant, Robert O’Rourke, faces thirteen separate counts of trade secret violations. Under the subject federal statute, “trade secret” means any type of technical, engineering, financial, or other business information that derives independent economic value by not being generally known to—or readily ascertainable through proper means by—another person who can derive economic value from having or using the information. However, for any item of information to qualify as a trade secret, its owner, whether a company or an individual, must demonstrate that it took reasonable measures to keep the information secret.

After weeks of rumors that the tariff increase to 25% in the 3rd tranche of section 301 tariffs scheduled for March 2nd might be again postponed, President Donald Trump announced that the US would delay an increase of its tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

For many years it was debated and disputed whether an attorneys’ fee shifting clause in a non-compete agreement would actually be upheld.