Tom D’Amore, Managing Partner and owner of D’Amore Law Group, is pleased to announce that on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a 2019 federal jury verdict of $26.4 million – the largest trucking verdict out of the state of Oregon – in full with no further ability to appeal. D’Amore represented Mr. Matthew Allison, a 27-year-old man who suffer significant injuries and lost his 30-year-old wife Sara Allison in a horrific head-on truck v. car collision caused by the recklessness and prolonged bout of road rage between four commercial truck drivers employed by Horizon Transport Inc. and Smoot Brothers Transportation.

Defendant Horizon Transport, after the trial court denied its motion for a new trial/remittitur, appealed to the Ninth Circuit last summer, but then dismissed its appeal last month. The case is Matthew Allison and Tim Nay, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sara Allison v. Horizon Transport and Smoot Brothers Transportation.

Of note, the plaintiffs shared 70 percent of the $6.5 million punitive damages jury verdict with the State of Oregon pursuant to Oregon law; the shared funds go to the state Crime Victims Fund to pay for care for other victims of crime.

This victory earned D’Amore recognition as a Litigator of the Week runner-up by The Litigation Daily from The American Lawyer.

An attorney for more than 25 years, D’Amore is licensed to practice law in Oregon, Washington and California, and is a board-certified civil trial attorney with the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA). D’Amore is also board-certified in trucking injury law by the NBTA. Actively engaged in the plaintiff’s trial bar, D’Amore is a national Board Member, Executive Committee member, and current Budget Chair of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) in Washington, D.C., Past President of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association and a member of ABOTA. D’Amore has been selected to the Top 50 Super Lawyers in Oregon for several years including 2020.

About D’Amore Law Group

Since 1992, the D’Amore Law Group has represented thousands of injury victims and their loved ones in Oregon, Washington and California in various complex and catastrophic personal injury matters. Founder Tom D’Amore is dedicated to asserting the rights of clients who have been seriously injured by the negligence and intentional conduct of individual and corporate wrongdoers. The firm handles a wide variety of personal injury and wrongful death cases, in areas including automobile and trucking accidents, motorcycle and bicycle accidents, nursing home and medical negligence, sexual abuse, construction accidents and job site injuries, class action suits and bad faith insurance practices. The firm has locations for meeting clients in Portland, Lake Oswego, and Bend, Oregon, as well as in Vancouver, Washington. For more information, please visit www.damorelaw.com.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to announce that Jessica Sparhawk has joined the firm’s Montgomery office as an associate in the Litigation Practice Group.

“We are happy to welcome Jessica to our experienced team of litigators in Montgomery,” said Bradley Montgomery Office Managing Partner Robert Emmett Poundstone IV.

Ms. Sparhawk received her J.D. from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Miami Law Review. During law school, she was a clinic intern for The Eleanor R. Cristol and Judge A. Jay Cristol Bankruptcy Pro Bono Assistance Clinic. She received her Bachelor of Arts (magna cum laude) from the University of Nevada.

The Litigation Practice Group is Bradley’s largest practice and includes almost half of the firm’s nearly 550 attorneys who represent clients in litigation and arbitration in every U.S. state and federal district court across the country, as well as internationally. Attorneys handle matters in nearly every substantive area of business law and in a wide range of industries, including high-stakes and complex cases.

About Bradley
Bradley combines skilled legal counsel with exceptional client service and unwavering integrity to assist a diverse range of corporate and individual clients in achieving their business goals. With offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and the District of Columbia, the firm’s nearly 550 lawyers represent regional, national and international clients in various industries, including banking and financial services, construction, energy, healthcare, life sciences, manufacturing, real estate, and technology, among many others.

“New York-based private equity investment firm Harvest Partners has hired Jamie Toothman as general counsel and chief compliance officer. In her new role, Toothman oversees the firm’s legal and compliance work and provides legal support for funds managed by Harvest,” reports Ben Maiden in Corporate Secretary’s Appointments.

“Toothman was previously a senior vice president at Oaktree Capital Management, where she managed fund formation and operations, regulatory compliance and other legal issues related to strategies such as private equity and credit opportunities.”

“She started her legal career at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, where she advised clients on private and public acquisitions, capital markets and other corporate transactions.”

Read the article.

“Based on a mistake about when a Cook County default judgment became final — plus a 60-cent discrepancy between the amount of the judgment ($238,007.61) and the amount listed in a memorandum of judgment ($238,007.01) that the plaintiffs filed as a lien on the defendant’s real estate in Will County,” reports Steven P. Garmisa in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s Courts & Cases.

“Leonard and Cecilia Urban sued Joseph L. Blewitt in Cook County. On August 6, 2003, a default judgment was entered against Blewitt, in favor of Leonard, in the amount on $238,007.61. And on March 29, 2004, a Cook County judge (1) denied Blewitt’s motion to vacate and (2) revised the judgment to include Cecilia. As the judge explained: ‘The order of August 6, 2003, was considered by the court at that time to adjudicate all claims, therefore the order will be considered to include the non-injured spouse (Ms. Urban) nunc pro tunc to August 6, 2003.'”

“A Rule 23 order from the 1st District (a) affirmed the order that denied Blewitt’s motion to vacate (b) ruled that the judge erred in adding Cecilia nunc pro tunc and (c) concluded that the March 29, 2004, order was the final judgment that resolved all the claims of all the parties — with a money judgment for Leonard and no award for Cecilia.”

“On Sept. 16, 2004, the Urbans filed a memorandum of judgment in Will County that listed Leonard and Cecilia having scored a default judgment of $238,007.61 on Aug. 6, 2003. But on Feb. 28, 2006, the Urbans filed a memorandum of judgment that said the default judgment was $238,007.01.”

Read the article.

“A retired FBI agent arrested Friday near his home in Lafayette accepted more than more than $200,000 in cash bribes and gifts in exchange for funneling sensitive information to Armenian organized crime,” reports Bay City News.

“Babak Broumand, who retired from the FBI last year after 20 years as a special agent, was arrested by special agents with the FBI and Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General.”

“Broumand was charged in a criminal complaint Tuesday in United States District Court in Los Angeles, with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery of a public official.”

Read the article.

“Atlanta lawyer Robert Ward acknowledges that he took off his pants at a security checkpoint at a federal courthouse in Tampa, Florida,” reports Debra Cassens Weiss in ABA Journal’s Trials & Litigation News.

“In an April 13 opposition, Wyndham noted that U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell ordered Ward Feb. 21 to show cause why she shouldn’t revoke his pro hac vice status for taking off his pants.”

“The Jan. 30 incident was precipitated when a court security officer told Ward that he would have to take off his belt for the metal detector. Ward replied that lawyers shouldn’t have to take off their belts. Ward then took off his pants, threw them in the bin and walked through the metal detector.”

Read the article.

Regulated corporations today are challenged to personalize their web presence and deliver complex information to customers in a way that is clear, compelling, and creating a memorable experience. As the customer experience becomes a key differentiator, compliance and marketing professionals must ensure that more and more dynamic information from complex websites is defensibly captured and preserved for regulatory compliance.

Hanzo, the company known for its pioneering technology in dynamic web archiving for compliance and ediscovery, is announcing new innovations to deliver the highest quality captures of dynamic web content regardless of the complexity of the website. Hanzo Dynamic Capture is built to deliver the highest-fidelity contextual data captures for corporate ediscovery and compliance teams to preserve the most dynamic and interactive data sources today.

Hanzo is releasing its fifth-generation crawler to support its long-term commitment to capturing the ever-evolving landscape of web technologies. With a focus on rapid updates, this technology will support the evergreen nature of today’s web.

“For over 10 years Hanzo has been focused on addressing enterprise challenges surrounding defensibly archiving dynamic data that is embodied by today’s interactive complex websites, social media, and collaboration applications,” said Keith Laska, CEO, Hanzo. “Our commitment is to future-proof current and future customers. That’s why financial services and insurance marketers rely on Hanzo to capture the most complex charts, graphs, and personalized information so that they can easily meet their complex regulatory compliance requirements.”

About Hanzo

Hanzo provides modern ediscovery and compliance software for enterprise organizations. Our solutions empower legal and compliance teams to efficiently manage the preservation, targeted collection, and review of dynamic content from enterprise collaboration applications, social media, and complex websites. Hanzo is SOC 2® Type 2 certified, demonstrating Hanzo’s commitment to data security and serves large corporations across the globe—giving them control, visibility, and context over their data to reduce cost and mitigate risk. Learn more at hanzo.co.

Dallas office doubles headcount in just 14 months

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP is pleased to announce that prominent business attorney David L. Pratt has joined the firm’s Dallas office as a partner, expanding the firm’s real estate, banking, and financial services practices. Anna Lee Alford also joins the firm as an associate.

“Adding David and Anna Lee to our Dallas office allows us to enhance the business transactional services we can provide to our clients on the local, regional, and national level,” said Richard A. Sayles, managing partner of Bradley’s Dallas office. “David is well known in the Texas legal community for his broad real estate and financial services practice, and his skills will help us better meet the expectations of our clients.”

Bradley Chairman and Managing Partner Jonathan Skeeters added, “The addition of David to our Dallas office reflects the firm’s commitment to expanding the transactional services we offer to clients in Texas and beyond, even in a challenging economy. David’s deep skill set, broad experience and client base of lenders, developers and operators will allow the firm to expand our capabilities in Texas while we continue to successfully meet our clients’ needs across the country.”

Pratt brings a pragmatic business-oriented approach to counseling clients based on his more than 25 years as a general business, banking, and commercial real estate law attorney. Mr. Pratt represents developers and operators in all aspects of development transactions including land-use planning, construction, and lending matters; as well as the representation of landlords and tenants in retail, office and industrial development, sales and leasing transactions. In addition, his practice includes the representation of banks and other financial institutions in a variety of loan originations, workouts, and foreclosure transactions. Before joining Bradley, Pratt was a founding partner of Johnston Pratt PLLC and a director with Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC. Pratt received his J.D. from the University of Tulsa Law School and his B.B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin.

“Joining Bradley is a client-driven decision. Many of my clients need a full-service law firm with a deep bench of attorneys that can offer high-quality legal services efficiently, and at rates that offer high value. Bradley covers all of these bases, and I am thrilled to join the firm,” Mr. Pratt said.

Alford joins as an associate from Pratt’s former firm and focuses her practice on real estate finance, financial services, and business and corporate transactions. She advises commercial lenders and commercial real estate owners, developers, investors and tenants. Alford received her J.D. from The University of Texas School of Law and has a M.S. in Finance and a B.S.B.A. (cum laude) in International Business.

Bradley’s Dallas office has doubled in size since it opened in January 2019. In addition, the firm has grown to more than 45 lawyers located across offices in Dallas and Houston, and more than 70 lawyers licensed in the state, allowing the firm to handle a wide variety of legal issues for clients in Texas and beyond.

About Bradley
Bradley combines skilled legal counsel with exceptional client service and unwavering integrity to assist a diverse range of corporate and individual clients in achieving their business goals. With offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and the District of Columbia, the firm’s nearly 550 lawyers represent regional, national and international clients in various industries, including banking and financial services, construction, energy, healthcare, life sciences, manufacturing, real estate, and technology, among many others.

DALLAS – In recognition of their work on behalf of personal injury and wrongful death clients, Dallas trial lawyers Michael Lyons and Chris Simmons have been selected among the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers for 2020.

Selection to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list is based on a rigorous process that includes internal research of top verdicts and settlements, as well as through interviews conducted with attorneys nationwide, in which they are asked to identify other attorneys they admire and who they would hire in a personal legal matter. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Simmons, co-founders of Dallas-based Lyons & Simmons, LLP, share a proven record of obtaining outstanding results for their clients in high-stakes, high-exposure cases tried before judges, juries and arbitrators involving life-altering personal injuries, wrongful death and “bet-the-company” business disputes across the country.

“We are so grateful for this tremendous recognition by our peers. I can tell you that it has been a real honor representing our clients, and what comes with that is a responsibility to do everything we can to get the best result,” said Mr. Simmons.

Mr. Lyons agreed, adding, “I’m extremely honored to be mentioned among this elite group of lawyers. In my heart I believe we’ve done some incredible things in the most difficult circumstances our clients will face and in the process we have inspired real change. That means a lot to me.”

Known for an aggressive approach that utilizes innovative technology and creativity, Mr. Lyons has earned professional accolades for personal injury and business litigation work including selection among the Top 100 Lawyers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area by Texas Super Lawyers, as well as Best Lawyers in America and D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas recognition. He is a member of the Million Dollar and Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forums, as well as a member of America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators.

Combining strategic and creative problem-solving abilities with highly skilled advocacy, Mr. Simmons has obtained record-setting results for his clients and has earned recognition as one of the top 100 lawyers under 40 in Texas by Texas Super Lawyers. He also has been included in D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas and has earned a Professional Excellence Award from Texas Lawyer magazine.

About Lyons & Simmons LLP
Dallas-based Lyons & Simmons, LLP is a trial boutique representing clients in wrongful death, personal injury, products liability and “bet-the-company” business litigation matters across the country. To learn more, visit http://www.Lyons-Simmons.com.

Perkins Coie is pleased to announce that Jose Villarreal has been named managing partner of the firm’s Austin office. He is the Austin office’s first managing partner since its official opening in February 2020.

A veteran patent litigator and advisor to technology and growth companies, Villarreal focuses his practice on patent litigation and patent trials, strategic intellectual property counseling and licensing, and merger and acquisition IP diligence across diverse technologies including semiconductors, telecommunications, and software. He has represented clients in federal district courts around the country and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Prior to his legal career, Villarreal worked in the telecommunications and networking industry. Jose has served on the Conference Planning Committee of the University of Texas School of Law Advanced Patent Law Institute since 2014 and is a founding member of the Yeakel IP Inn of Court.

Drawn by the dynamic growth of the Texas economy, Perkins Coie first entered the Texas market 10 years ago with the opening of its Dallas office. With the addition of the Austin office, the firm now has more than 30 attorneys in the Lone Star State across a range of practices, with particular strength in technology and privacy.

Texas Super Lawyers® Names Langley . Banack & Pfeuffer’s Justin B. Morley
Rising Star in Family Law for 2020.

Morley, who runs the firm’s Central Texas office in New Braunfels, provides counseling in family law matters, probate and guardianship law, probate litigation, estate planning, will preparation, temporary and permanent guardianship, medical powers of attorney and more. He is Board Certified in Family Law, a Certified Mediator, and was named a Fellow of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in 2019.

Morley graduated from St. Mary’s University School of Law with a J.D. in 2006. While a law student, he was a member of the Dean’s List, the International Legal Honor Society, Phi Delta Phi, and an Associate Editor of the St. Mary’s Law Journal. Morley received a B.A. from Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, in 2002.

Langley & Banack, Inc. has 18 specific practice areas that feature a depth of experience to provide the highest quality legal representation to clients. Their main office is in San Antonio, with additional offices located in Carrizo Springs, Castroville, Eagle Pass, Fredericksburg, Karnes City, Kerrville and New Braunfels. For more information about the firm, please visit www.langleybanack.com.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has announced that Curtis J. Busby, a partner at Bowman and Brooke LLP in Phoenix, has accepted an invitation to join the IADC, the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests.

“I am excited to become acquainted with such a talented group of attorneys that make up the IADC’s membership,” Mr. Busby said.

Mr. Busby focuses his practice on defending manufacturers in product liability claims throughout the Southwestern United States including Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico. Having defended large corporations in very technical and complex claims involving catastrophic injury and wrongful death, Mr. Busby has extensive experience in litigation for nearly every major vehicle manufacturer. In addition, he has worked extensively representing manufacturers of household appliances and products in consumer products litigation. He also has experience in the energy industry.

Mr. Busby received his J.D. from the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School and his Bachelor of Arts (cum laude) from Brigham Young University. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

About the International Association of Defense Counsel
The IADC is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC has members who hail from six continents, 51 countries and territories, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members and their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community. For more information, visit www.iadclaw.org.

The Supreme Court ruled in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group that a trademark holder is not required to prove that infringement was willful to obtain the infringer’s profits. Romag had reached an agreement whereby Fossil would use Romag magnetic fasteners on Fossil handbags and other products. Romag subsequently discovered the Chinese factories that Fossil had hired to make the Fossil products were using counterfeit Romag fasteners and Fossil was doing little to prevent such occurrences. Romag filed suit in the District of Connecticut. A jury found Fossil liable for trademark infringement but determined while Fossil had acted “in callous disregard” of Romag’s rights, Fossil had not acted willfully. The District Court determined that, under Second Circuit precedent, willfulness was a prerequisite to the award of Fossil’s profits on the sales of the infringing goods, and therefore denied Romag’s request for Fossil’s profits. The Federal Circuit (who heard the appeal due to the existence of patent infringement issues) agreed that Second Circuit precedent required willfulness, while noting that other Circuit Court’s had disagreed.

The Supreme Court resolved the Circuit split and reversed the decision. The Court noted that, while the statutory language expressly requires a finding of willfulness as a precondition for defendant’s profits for trademark dilution, it does not for trademark infringement. The Court noted that the reluctance to read into statutes words that are not present is enhanced where the term in question appears elsewhere in the same statutory provision. The Court further noted that the Lanham Act makes frequent use of the defendant’s mental state, be it through terms like “willful,” “intentional” or “knowing,” that suggests where willfulness is required, the Lanham Act expressly provides for such. The absence of an express requirement strongly suggests willfulness is not a prerequisite.

Fossil sought to find a willfulness requirement implied in the Act’s requirement that defendant’s profits be awarded “subject to the principles of equity.” The Court refused, however, to read such requirement into that phrase, noting that “equity” is used widely in the law without being so interpreted. A different section of the Lanham Act, for example, lists laches, estoppel and acquiescence as examples of equitable principles, none of which relate to willful infringement. Accordingly, it would be difficult to imagine that the phrase was intended by Congress to incorporate a willfulness requirement in the sole instance of disgorgement of profits, particularly where Congress had seen fit to expressly include the defendant’s mental state in other portions of the statute in question. The Court further found that, while precedent indicated mental state was an important consideration in awarding profits (and should remain so), the case law did not speak clearly to the issue one way or the other.

The Court rejected Fossil’s policy-based argument for the inclusion of willfulness, noting that such policy decisions are for Congress — not the courts — to determine. Justices Alito, Breyer and Kagan concurred, writing separately and briefly to assert that willfulness, while not an absolute precondition, is a highly important consideration in the analysis. Justice Sotomayor concurred but sought to expressly exclude good-faith or innocent infringement from resulting in an award of profits as not being in accordance with traditional understanding of equity.

Thomas McNulty is Counsel at Boston intellectual property law firm, Lando & Anastasi, LLP.

Sidley Austin LLP is pleased to welcome Nathan Greene and Jay Baris as partners in its Investment Funds group in New York. Greene and Baris joined Sidley from Shearman & Sterling LLP, where they were both partners in the Investment Funds practice.

Greene represents U.S. and foreign investment companies, sponsors, advisers and directors in complex formation, operational and regulatory matters, especially with issues arising under the Investment Company Act of 1940. His practice includes SEC registration and other related matters, fund formation, associated distribution and marketing, and fund board and governance matters. Mr. Greene frequently counsels funds and financial institutions on regulatory considerations around emerging technology like big data, blockchain and artificial intelligence. He is widely known for his work in the registered alternatives market and for advising clients in M&A deals relating to registered advisers.

With more than 35 years of experience in the asset management area, Baris has advised many clients on a full spectrum of financial services regulation, transactions and governance matters. He is highly recognized for his work with registered funds on the regulatory aspects of fund and investment advisory operations. Similar to Mr. Greene, Baris has represented many clients on M&A, reorganizations, compliance, exceptive, and “status” issues under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Baris is the chair of an investment management task force on blockchain and cryptocurrencies with the American Bar Association and counsels fintech clients on cryptocurrency issues.

The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has entered into a strategic, two-year cross-promotional partnership with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), a global non-profit organization that advances dispute prevention and resolution practices and provides high-quality solutions.

Through the collaboration, IADC members will gain access to the CPR’s numerous resources and publications, as well as preferential rates for CPR membership and attendance at CPR events, including the organization’s annual meeting that convenes panels on a variety of topics of interest to the alternative dispute resolution community. Both U.S. and international IADC members can apply to serve on CPR’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals.

As part of the partnership, the IADC recommends CPR to its membership as an ADR provider whose arbitration, mediation and dispute resolution services and rules can be utilized worldwide by the IADC’s approximately 2,500 members and their clients. In addition, the IADC will promote membership with the CPR among IADC members and will facilitate attendance by CPR corporate members at the IADC’s Corporate Counsel and International Corporate Counsel Colleges, which provide content of particular interest to the in-house community.

The IADC and CPR also will explore joint programming opportunities through the new collaboration.

“We believe the IADC’s collaboration with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution will be a great partnership that delivers enhanced benefits and new professional development opportunities for our members,” said IADC President Amy Sherry Fischer.

CPR President and CEO Allen Waxman said, “With our goal of enhancing and improving the dispute prevention and resolution process, we look forward to a fruitful collaboration with IADC, and to providing our innovative dispute resolution services, thought leadership, tools and resources to an even broader audience.”

About the International Association of Defense Counsel
The IADC is the preeminent invitation-only global legal organization for attorneys who represent corporate and insurance interests. Founded in 1920, the IADC has members who hail from six continents, 51 countries and territories, and all 50 U.S. states. The core purposes of the IADC are to enhance the development of skills, promote professionalism, and facilitate camaraderie among its members and their clients, as well as the broader civil justice community. For more information, visit www.iadclaw.org.

About CPR
Established in 1977, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) is an independent, nonprofit organization that helps prevent and resolve legal conflict more effectively and efficiently.

The CPR Institute drives a global prevention and dispute resolution culture through the thought leadership of its diverse membership of top companies, law firms, lawyers, academics, and leading mediators and arbitrators around the world. The Institute convenes best practice and industry-oriented committees and hosts global and regional meetings to share practices and develop innovative tools and resources. The Institute trains on dispute prevention and resolution, publishes a monthly journal on related topics, and advocates for supporting and expanding the capacity for dispute prevention and resolution globally.

CPR Dispute Resolution harnesses the thought leadership and output of the Institute while providing independent ADR services – mediation, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, dispute resolution boards and others – through innovative and practical rules and procedures and through CPR’s Panel of Distinguished Neutrals.

For more information visit https://www.cpradr.org.

“This is a frustrating time for small businesses. Many employers are trying to figure out how to cut costs and keep their businesses afloat during the on-going Covid-19 crisis. Employers are wondering how to manage their payroll when facing decreased revenue – some employers are in the undesirable position of having to reduce employees’ hours or, in some cases, end employment contracts. Given the unprecedented and unforeseeable long term effects of Covid-19 on business revenue, some employers may be wondering about ‘frustration’ of employment contracts,” writes Zoë Roberts in Minken’s Covid-19 Center.

“‘Frustration’ of a contract occurs when, through no fault of either party, the contract becomes impossible to fulfill. This might be, for example, because of a natural disaster – if a fire completely destroys a concert hall, the venue cannot fulfill a contract to have a band perform there. In other words, if an unforeseen event renders it impossible for the contract to be performed as initially agreed, the contract is ‘frustrated’ and both parties are released from their contractual obligations.”

“This concept is important in employment law because, generally, employees are not entitled to notice of termination or termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 if the employee’s ‘contract of employment has become impossible to perform or has been frustrated by a fortuitous or unforeseeable event or circumstance’.”

Read the article.

“Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has drafted two separate Interim Guidance statements to help alleviate some of the industry’s and BLM’ hardships created by the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and dramatic collapse of oil prices. The final guidance should be issued by the end of the week,” writes Angela Franklin in Holland & Hart’s Legal Insights.

The article provides interim guidance for the following areas:

• Lease Suspension Requests During the COVID-19 National Emergency
• Royalty Rate Reduction Requests for Oil and Gas Leases during the COVID-19 national emergency

Read the article.

“The current market volatility arising from the restrictions imposed to reduce the risk of spread of COVID-19 has led many market participants to consider their position under existing contractual relationships, including, assessing their own obligations and whether any potential or actual event of default has occurred in respect of their counterparty. This memo illustrates practical issues to be taken into account by a counterparty to a financial contract in making these considerations using, as an example, a derivative transaction,” discussed in Cadwalader’s Resources.

“The impact of COVID-19 has led to unprecedented measures being put in place in many jurisdictions around the world which have, or may in the future have, the effect of closing markets in a variety of locations. These closures, and the location of the markets which are subject to closure, will need to be carefully considered to determine their impact on a party’s position under a financial contract.”

Read the article.

“Often included in long-term outsourcing/managed services agreements but sometimes overlooked as a contractual right, in this post we look at benchmarking provisions, including what benchmarking is, common rights and restrictions, and other considerations for customers and suppliers,” writes Vito Petretti and Oliver Bell in Morgan Lewis’ Blog.

“What Is Benchmarking?”

“Benchmarking provisions grant the customer a right to appoint a third-party organization (the benchmarker) to undertake a review of the price and/or the level of service that is being offered by the supplier under a contract as compared to the price and/or level of service offered by comparable suppliers for comparable services.”

“Benchmarking provisions aim to give the customer the right to ensure that the services it receives are a ‘good value’ (as defined by the parties in the agreement).”

“How Does It Work?…”

Read the article.

“Ann Arbor officials this week again delayed voting on a resolution to seek a federal Superfund cleanup of the Gelman dioxane plume,” reports Ryan Stanton in mlive’s Ann Arbor.

“City Council voted unanimously Tuesday morning, April 21, to postpone the matter until July 6, while city officials wait to see how legal negotiations with polluter Gelman Sciences play out in Washtenaw County Circuit Court.”

“Council also voted 10-1 to approve a fifth amendment to the city’s legal services agreement with Bodman PLC, which is representing the city in litigation against the polluter.”

“The contract is being increased by another $92,500, adding to $500,000 previously approved.”

“’The amount of time spent on recent negotiations, including the exchanges of drafts, court conferences, and providing advice as needed, has been more time consuming than anticipated,’ Assistant City Attorney Abigail Elias wrote in a memo.”

Read the article.