Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Parties engaged in private offshore outsourcing transactions (those not involving the provision of goods or services to federal or state governments) relaxed a bit last fall when it became apparent following the November elections that short-term prospects for federal anti-offshore outsourcing legislation had dimmed. Similarly, although bills that would have placed restraints on private offshoring were introduced in many state legislatures in 2004, most of these measures either were vetoed or have expired, making it appear unlikely that any substantial state anti-offshore outsourcing measures will be put in place in the near future. This does not mean, however, that certain other federal or state statutes or administrative rules might not impact a company's proposed offshore outsourcing transaction. In fact, depending on the nature of the transaction, existing regulations may have the indirect effect of making offshoring more difficult by imposing requirements on the outsourcing customer that must be flowed down to its offshore vendor. Such flow downs may either be expressly required by law or may simply be necessary to ensure that the customer is in compliance with its own regulatory obligations. Special attention to compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements is of particular importance in offshore outsourcing, where vendors may have no parallel experience complying with comparable local laws. Making sure that offshore outsourcing vendors understand and agree to comply with applicable U.S. statutes and administrative rules should be an important feature of every offshore outsourcing deal.
In order to assure such compliance, customers outsourcing work offshore need to implement a procedure to model their offshore outsourcing transactions in detail as part of the deal preparation process. The procedure should ensure that the customer: 1) identifies which regulatory provisions may impact the work being sent offshore and determines what needs to be done to comply with those provisions; 2) understands the specific outsourcing transaction in order to determine which regulatory provisions are impacted; and 3) communicates such requirements to the offshore vendor so that the vendor can implement appropriate measures to comply with the regulations.
Laws Impacting Offshore Outsourcing
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.