Client Alerts

A recent federal court decision provides cautionary guidance for manufacturers or suppliers planning on terminating their dealers in a distributorship. In Keen Edge Co, Inc, v Wright Mfg, Inc, No. 19-1673, 2020 WL 4926664 (ED Wis, Aug. 21, 2020), the court held that the manufacturer was not allowed to terminate its business relationship with an exclusive dealer—temporarily trapping the manufacturer.

A bill expanding the authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may provide safer medical devices to the American public amid the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as support manufacturers of legitimate medical devices, by addressing a loophole in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  Counterfeit medical devices have been a danger in the U.S. supply chain for years, but their presence has been especially of concern during the current pandemic, when there have been shortages of products considered to be medical devices by the FDA, such as medical masks, surgical gowns and gloves, respirators, and other products.  Counterfeit medical devices may include various products like those mentioned above, but often depend on the intended use and labeling.

The Internal Revenue Service has recently announced cost-of-living adjustments applicable to dollar limitations for retirement plans (and other items) for 2021. 

For years, the healthcare industry has been on guard for ransomware attacks, and now, more than ever, healthcare leaders must continue to be vigilant. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have received credible information of an increased and imminent threat to U.S. hospitals and healthcare providers. On October 28, 2020, the agencies issued a joint announcement (revised on October 29th) to advise healthcare providers to take timely and reasonable precautions against these threats.

Export control on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and machine learning algorithms should be considered by multinational automotive suppliers and OEMs, especially for those who have research and development (R&D) facilities overseas.

A lawsuit filed by three vinyl tile importers last month at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) implementation of Section 301 “List 3” and “List 4” duties on products from China, HMTX Industries LLC et al. v. United States (Court No. 20-00177), has resulted in the filing of thousands of additional lawsuits brought by other affected importers.

Many suppliers contact us complaining about a buyer’s alleged oppressive conduct and want to terminate the supply relationship or delay performance. One of the first grounds considered for such action, is whether the alleged conduct is a breach of contract by the buyer justifying termination of the contract by the supplier.

On Friday, October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s use of emergency powers under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945 (“EPGA”) and the Emergency Management Act of 1976 (“EMA”).

The United States District Court of the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction, halting implementation of the  USCIS’s updated fee schedule and the other accompanying policy modifications set to go into effect October 2, 2020.

Author Stephen King wrote, “Sooner or later, everything old is new again.”  While King might have been referring to his many novels, this adage appears to be equally applicable to the independent contractor test.

There’s been a fair amount of talk in recent months about how many companies have changed their operations, and in some cases, their fundamental business models, in the age of COVID. 

As a reminder to all those planning to file an application with USCIS on or after October 2, 2020, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin implementing a new fee schedule. Any applications or petitions postmarked on or after October 2, 2020 will be subject to the new fee schedule.

On September 18, 2020, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that it would place continued limitations on travel between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico that were first put in place on March 24, 2020.

On September 19, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued its Notice of the reporting requirements for health care providers that received over $10,000 in financial assistance under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act Provider Relief Program (PRF).

Recently, in a case of first impression in Michigan, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that, depending on the circumstances (as further explained below), an individual may be prevented from asserting attorney-client privilege with respect to communications with his attorney that were made via an employer’s e-mail system.

In our Client Alert on August 6, we discussed the re-imposition of Section 232 tariffs on certain aluminum products from Canada. On September 15, 2020, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice that after consultations with the Canadian government the U.S is modifying its original re-imposition of the 232 tariffs and replacing it with what is essentially a voluntary quota system, similar to those in effect on steel products many years ago.

The adage that “change is the only constant in life” aptly describes the legal landscape surrounding the current pandemic.

As businesses begin to open back up, they must prepare themselves for an impending wave of civil lawsuits relating to COVID-19. For businesses that are financially recovering from layoffs and lockdowns, these lawsuits could have serious financial consequences.

On August 27, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 2020-172, titled “Protecting workers who stay home, stay safe when they or their close contacts are sick”. Executive Order 2020-172 rescinded the recently issued Executive Order 2020-166 but the only major difference was clarifying what constituted COVID symptoms.

Is responding to a request for proposal a breach of an employee’s obligations under a non-solicitation agreement?  It certainly can be, as confirmed by a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision.