Shumaker Manufacturing

A Legal & Industry Review

“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.


“The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act in a Nutshell”

The UVTA reflects an update to creditors’ rights law, and serves as a reminder that as transactions become more sophisticated, creditors, too, must be vigilant in protecting their rights. As transactions continue to expand beyond state and country lines, creditors of the parties involved must understand the consequences of such expansion. Creditors in all jurisdictions, especially those without the UVTA, must be increasingly aware of how a debtor can force a creditor to seek relief under the law of a pro-debtor location.

Follow the link to read more of our Insights article, “The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act in a Nutshell”, authored by Tampa partner David Slenn and Sarasota partner Mark Hildreth at Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP.


Revised Form I-9 is Now Available for Use

Providing personal identification has become both accepted and expected in many parts of our day to day lives. Whether boarding a plane, buying a home, purchasing an alcoholic beverage or entering a particular venue, we as consumers know that our identity will inevitably come into question at some point or another. When seeking employment, it comes as no surprise that the candidate must disclose private information regarding where they come from, who they are and their ability to legally perform work for the company. It is in the nature of our legislature for laws to change over time, therefore, highly important to stay current, such as periodically reviewing the updated documentation requirements for employment.

 Follow the link to read more of the Client Alert, “Revised Form I-9 is Now Available for Use,” authored by Maria Ramos partner at Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP.


Resolving Disputes by Expert Determination: What Happens When Parties Select Appraisers, Accountants, or Other Technical Experts to Decide Disputes

Expert determination is a form of dispute resolution in which the parties use a subject-matter expert, rather than a judge, mediator, or arbitrator with legal training, to decide the dispute.1 It may be the least known form of alternative dispute resolution. In fact, it’s been called the “secret alternative to arbitration.”2 While the term “expert” may call to mind the concept of an expert witness, expert determination actually has its roots in the English common law of “valuation” or “appraisement.”3 Perhaps because we do not generally use the word “expert” to describe the decisionmaker, the concept of a person without legal training acting as the ultimate decider of law and fact may be most familiar in the form of an agreement to resolve a dispute over value through an appraiser or panel of appraisers.4

Continue reading

Administrator Pruitt Issues a Directive to Eliminate “Sue and Settle” Agreements in Environmental Regulation

On October 16, 2017, Administrator Pruitt issued a directive and accompanied memorandum that would eliminate “Sue and Settle” agreements that have been used during the past administration to influence U.S. EPA’s regulations.  Sue and settle is a concept where a federal agency agrees to a settlement agreement with special interest groups to create rules outside the normal rulemaking process.  This directive would bar these agreements and eliminate plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees in instances where the agency enters into a consent decree or settlement agreement.

The agency’s directive puts forth a 10-point procedure for lawsuits against U.S. EPA.  Continue reading

Justice Department Issues Memo on Marijuana Enforcement

On January 4, 2018, the Department of Justice published a memorandum authored by Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, which rescinds previous guidance issued by the Department of Justice regarding marijuana prosecutions, and directs that “[i]n deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the Department’s finite resources, prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions.”  Notably, the memorandum expressly rescinds the August 29, 2013, Department of Justice Memorandum authored by former United States Attorney General, James M. Cole, commonly referred to as the “Cole Memorandum.”  The Cole Memorandum directed federal prosecutors to generally refrain from prosecuting those in the marijuana field who were complying with state law.  Continue reading