Client Alerts

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.

The implementation of the CARES Act’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has caused great uncertainty among borrowers, lenders, lawyers, and accountants (among others) as to how to properly comply with the intricacies of the CARES Act and related guidance

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has reopened the Phase 2 Provider Relief Fund (“PRF2") for certain Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”) Providers until August 28th to apply for PRF2 funds.

Non-manufacturing sellers may be entitled to the protection of MCLA 600.2947(6). This Michigan statutory provision provides that in a product liability action, a seller other than a manufacturer is not liable for harm allegedly caused by a product unless a statutory exception to non-liability applies.

In 2016, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the two federal agencies responsible for enforcing the antitrust laws, issued “Guidance” to HR Professionals, outlining the types of compensation and hiring agreements that the enforcement agencies will challenge as violations of the antitrust laws.

On Friday, August 7, 2020, Governor Whitmer issued Executive Order No. 2020-166 (the “Order”)

It is well-established that a company can be sued in a state where they are headquartered or have their principal place of business. But what if a company is sued in a state where it has no physical presence and where its only contact is that one of its products landed in the “stream of commerce” and ended up causing injury in the forum state?