Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected President, businesses throughout the United States have expected a lessening of the pervasive regulatory regime in place under the Obama Administration. This expectation has come as a result of President's Trump's own rhetoric, and comments by key members of his Administration. President Trump has publicly stated his opinion that “Excessive regulation is killing jobs.” In addition, former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon had voiced the goal of the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” However, employers should expect one major exception: immigration.
The Obama Years
Under President Obama, the federal government attempted to overcome the Congressional gridlock preventing passage of new legislation through two primary means: 1) issuing executive orders directing administrative agencies to promulgate new, stronger regulations on key issues without the need of legislative approval; and 2) increased/stricter enforcement of existing laws and regulations. This strategy manifested itself in multiple ways. Wage and hour and other forms of employment-related audits and investigations increased considerably during President Obama's terms in office. Additionally, his Department of Labor promulgated changes to multiple significant regulations, including the near-doubling of the white-collar exemption salary threshold and the narrowing of the “advice” exception to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. With respect to immigration, President Obama stepped up audits of employers' Form I-9 records to crack down on businesses employing illegal aliens.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.