Update to the TMT Industry Insider article, “New Federal Safety Standard Proposed for Phthalates in Children’s Toys and Certain Child Care Articles,” which was posted on February 12, 2015. The deadline to submit comments on the proposed CPSC rule on phthalates has been extended to April 15, 2015.

If you would like to discuss…

Husch Blackwell was a Premiere Sponsor of the Federal Bar Association’s 39th Annual Tax Law Conference held on Friday, March 6 in Washington, DC.  The Conference was attended by more than 400 practitioners, including private practice attorneys, CPAs, in-house counsel, and government attorneys from the Department of Justice Tax Division, the IRS, and the…

Additive manufacturing, otherwise known as 3D printing (3DP), offers exciting possibilities that will impact any number of industries. In the legal field, much of the focus remains on product liability and intellectual property issues, such as patent and copyright law. However, as with any new technology, many of the rules affecting the 3DP industry will be decided in Congress and administrative agencies rather than in courtrooms.

As yet, 3DP remains largely unregulated absent a few exceptions such as firearms. As the technology becomes more mainstream, however, manufacturers and users of 3DP would be foolish to assume the trend will continue. Adding to the potential complexity is that a technology capable of creating anything from body parts to food to automobiles is likely to come under the jurisdiction of a large number of Congressional committees and administrative agencies. Additionally, the IP issues that many lawyers within the industry focus on could just as easily be decided within Congress as within the courts.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015, CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” ran a lengthy piece reported by Anderson Cooper regarding accusations that Lumber Liquidators imported laminated flooring products that did not meet the standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for levels of formaldehyde. The focus of the story was on Lumber Liquidators, but the issue is likely to affect almost every importer of flooring and other wood products from China.

During the segment, Cooper referenced various lawsuits that are pending against Lumber Liquidators alleging that the company failed to meet CARB standards in California for formaldehyde. Cooper interviewed the CEO of Lumber Liquidators, Robert Lynch. Lynch said the company has a good system in place and checks carefully to make sure that CARB standards are met.

After making this statement, Lynch was shown a video interview of the plant manager of a Chinese plant that manufactures products for Lumber Liquidators. In the video, the plant manager plainly states that the flooring did not meet CARB standards. The journalist narrating the video adds that visits made to two other plants that manufacture flooring for the company revealed that the company’s flooring failed to meet the standards.

After more than a half-century, the U.S. has finally taken steps toward normalizing its relations with Cuba. In a series of executive actions on December 17, 2014, President Obama announced changes to existing regulations that will ease sanctions against Cuba.

U.S. and Cuban officials will meet on February 27, 2015 at the State Department to continue talks of restoring ties and ending the embargo. Likely sticking points will be the opening of a U.S. Embassy in Havana, Cuba’s continuing appearance on the U.S. list of countries that support and sponsor terrorism, the potential return of Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, and U.S. support for Cuban political dissidents.

The executive actions alone however offer various opportunities for U.S. and Cuban businesses. This is particularly true in industries such as telecommunications and agriculture where technological and scientific advances could lead to improved infrastructure and increased production.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced today that it will be extending U.S. employment authorization to certain H-4 spouses of foreign nationals in H-1B status.  Family members of H-1B workers are permitted to enter the United States in H-4 status as dependents of the H-1B worker, but they are not authorized to work.  This change permits spouses in H-4 status to apply for an unrestricted work card provided that the principal H-1B employee:

  1.  Is the beneficiary of an approved Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker; or
  2. Has been granted H-1B status under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21), which permits H-1B employees seeking permanent residency to extend their H-1B status beyond the usual six-years.

A new and more stringent federal safety standard for phthalates in children’s toys and certain child care articles was proposed by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) on Dec. 30, 2014. See Consumer Product Safety Commission, Prohibition of Children’s Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates, 79 Fed. Reg. 78324 (Dec. 30, 2014) (amending 16 C.F.R. § 1307). This proposed rule on phthalates (the “proposed rule”) would establish a new federal standard on the use of specified phthalates in children’s toys and child care articles and expand the list of permanently banned phthalates under current law.

On Monday, January 19, 2015, Husch Blackwell sponsored the Missouri State Society of Washington, DC’s second annual outing to the Washington Wizards NBA basketball game to benefit the Boys & Girls Club of Greater St. Louis. Over 50 members of the Missouri State Society, a non-profit group of Missourians who live and work in the…

This month the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District issued an opinion which slammed the door, once again, on the ability of employers to enter into an agreement with their employees whereby parties agree to bypass the court system in favor of private arbitration.  In Jimenez v. Cintas Corporation, S.W.3d (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) the Court found that there was insufficient consideration to support such an agreement due to lack of mutuality of obligation and the at will status of Jimenez’s employment.  This is not the first time in which a Missouri court has addressed this issue.  In Morrow v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 273 S.W.3d 15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) these concepts were also addressed.  However, in Morrow, the issue of consideration was in reference to continued employment, not initial employment, which was the case in Cintas.  However, even more concerning was the fact that Cintas found that since the employer alone was exempt from arbitrating alleged violations of the non-compete provisions the agreement lacked mutuality.