Shumaker Manufacturing

A Legal & Industry Review


Sustainability: Some United States and European Comparisons

Politics and the popular press rely on slogans and generalizations.  One popular international viewpoint is that the United States has moved away from commitments to reduce carbon emissions.  This is understandable in light of certain policy statements from the Trump administration, such as pulling out of the Paris accords and rescission of the Clean Power Plan, and other environmental regulations applicable in the United States.

Nevertheless, the United States continues to rapidly move from electricity generation from coal. Over all, the United States has and continues to reduce carbon in carbon emissions.  This result is counter to the expectations for a complex set of reasons.  However, with regard to use of coal for electricity generation, there are several identifiable factors.  Some of these are:  overabundance of natural gas production and record low natural gas prices relative to coal; corporate acceptance of “sustainability” as a corporate and social value; regional policies in different states in the United States on electricity pricing; local and federal subsidies for  renewables; and state renewable energy portfolio standards.

Follow the link to read more of the article “Sustainability: Some United States and European Comparisons”, written by partner Louis E. Tosi of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP’s Toledo office.

This article is featured on the website of Globaladvocaten, an international network of leading law firms which Shumaker is a member of.


Chain Reaction

Additive manufacturing, also known as 3-D printing, is a win-win for people who restore classic cars and the companies that made them. 

While additive manufacturing is usually the most expensive way to make any part, it makes economic sense for supply chains. Which is why manufacturers of everything from aircraft and rolling stock to appliances, industrial equipment, and medical devices are looking at 3-D supply chain solutions—as are the U.S. Marines and UPS. 

Click here to read more of the article written by Alan S. Brown, Senior Editor, Mechanical Engineering Magazine.

 


Hyundai Can’t Escape Antitrust Claims According to Federal Judge in North Carolina

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has denied plaintiffs Hyundai Motor Company’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (#36). This means that Defendant DTI, Inc. may proceed with its antitrust, false advertising, and unfair competition counter claims against Hyundai.

Follow the link to read more of the press release featuring I.P. attorneys W. Thad Adams, III, Kathryn A. Gromlovits, Samuel A. Long, Jr., and Christina Davidson Trimmer of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP’s Charlotte office.

 


“New Amazon Brand Registry Released – A Tool for Brand Protection”

It’s not uncommon for businesses to feel frustrated in trying to protect their products/brands on Amazon from trademark infringers. Many believe that there’s a lack of control over their product listings, and that third parties can too easily use such listings to sell counterfeit goods.

 To address these concerns, Amazon recently updated its Amazon Brand Registry Program for sellers who manufacture or sell their own branded products. Amazon advertises that enrollment in this program “helps you protect your registered trademarks on Amazon and create an accurate and trusted experience for customers,” and that a registrant would have “access to powerful tools including proprietary text and image search, predictive automation based on [the registrant’s] reports of suspected intellectual property rights violations, and increased authority over product listings [containing the registrant’s] brand name.”

 Follow the link to read more of the Client Alert, “New Amazon Brand Registry Released – A Tool for Brand Protection”, authored by partner Doug Cherry of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP.

 


“Chapter 15: A Sword and a Shield”

A U.S. company doing business globally will inevitably encounter issues with its foreign customers or counter-parties in the supply chain. Such issues include a foreign insolvency proceeding of such customer or counter-party in their “home” country. Since there is no uniform global insolvency law, the outcome for the U.S. company is primarily dependent on the insolvency law in the foreign jurisdiction, which will be quite different from Chapter 11, the primary insolvency law in the U.S.

Follow the link to read more of the Client Alert, “Chapter 15: A Sword and A Shield”, authored by partner David H. Conaway of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP.

David Conaway is the Chair of Shumaker’s Bankruptcy, Insolvency and Creditors’ Rights Practice and Co-Chair of Shumaker Global and Shumaker Manufacturing. His focus is representing manufacturing companies regarding a variety of issues involving customers and the supply chain, including commercial and financial contracts, disputes, insolvency; and cross-border transactions, litigation and insolvency. David advises clients and handles matters throughout the U.S. and represents numerous foreign-based clients regarding U.S. issues, and U.S. companies doing business globally.

 


Feds Shine a Light on Medicare Advantage Plans and Physicians Related to Risk Adjustment Practices

Although the sufficiency of medical records documentation supporting beneficiary diagnoses for Medicare Advantage (MA) risk adjustment has been on the OIG’s work plan since 2013, the Department of Justice has upped the ante with a 2016 physician criminal conviction and recent intervention in two qui tam cases related to MA risk adjustment. These initiatives allege that MA plans made false claims by submitting diagnoses for risk adjustment that were unsupported by medical documentation or medical condition and that both insurers and providers engaged in a variety of questionable practices.

Follow the link to read more of the Client Alert, “Feds Shine a Light on Medicare Advantage Plans and Physicians Related to Risk Adjustment Practices”, authored by partner Kelly A. Leahy and associate Rachel B. Goodman of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP.


“Employee ‘No Poaching’ Agreements Meet the Antitrust Laws: Protection of Employees in the New Economy”

For centuries employers have maintained a strong interest in trying to protect their most valuable asset, their key employees, from solicitation by and loss to other employers, especially competitors. As a result, “no poaching” (i.e., “we agree to not solicit or hire each other’s employees”) agreements have become prevalent, not only in contracts between competitors, but also in many vendor/buyer agreements.  

Follow the link to read more of our Insights article, “Employee ‘No Poaching’ Agreements Meet the Antitrust Laws: Protection of Employees in the New Economy”, authored by partner Michael Briley of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP’s Toledo office.