Dave Froling and John Petzinger, attorneys in the Vorys Columbus office and members of the tax group, co-authored an article titled “Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Bright-Line Domicile Creates Uncertainty Going Forward – Ohio’s Bright-Line Test Is Not So Bright” for the Fall 2015 edition of the Journal of State Taxation.
Many businesses today are finding their products being sold online without their permission, often on third-party websites. While the First Sale Doctrine generally permits buyers to resell others’ trademarked goods without incurring any liability, it does not apply when a reseller sells goods that are materially different from the genuine goods sold by a trademark owner.
Nelson Cary, a partner in the Vorys Columbus office, and George Stevens, an associate in the Columbus office, co-authored an article for Employment Law360 titled “When Calling The Police Is Permissible Under Labor Law.”
Last week, the Washington Supreme Court handed down a favorable ruling in a case turning on the application of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) – favorable, that is, for those seeking to hold websites accountable for certain harm arising out of content published on their sites.
Mark E. Vannatta, a partner in the Vorys Columbus office, authored an article entitled "The Ohio Bright Line Residency Test: It Is Not So Luminous Anymore" for the Sep/Oct 2015 edition of the Probate Law Journal of Ohio.
Mike Griffaton, of counsel in the Vorys Columbus office and a member of the labor and employment group, authored an article for Recruiting Trends Bulletin titled “Screening Candidates Through Social Media.”
Nelson Cary, a partner in the Vorys Columbus office, and George Stevens, an associate in the Vorys Columbus office, co-authored an article for TLNT.com titled “Why the NLRB Ruled That College Football Players Can’t Unionize.”
Rob Phillips, the firm’s senior manager of strategic communications, recently authored an article for PR Daily titled “Why you should talk to your employees first in a crisis.” The article focused on the importance of including internal communication in your response to crises.
Vorys attorneys Daniel Buckley, Lisa Babish Forbes and Elizabeth Weinewuth authored an article for the Probate Law Journal of Ohio titled “Newcomer V. National City Bank Appeal Concludes, Affirms Important Guidance for Ohio Trustees.”
In mid-2000, the SEC adopted Regulation FD to protect investors by creating a level playing field for all investors for access to material, nonpublic information. The SEC’s primary concern was that selective disclosure, and the perception of selective disclosure to analysts and institutional investors, of material, nonpublic information, leads to a loss of investor confidence in the integrity and fairness of the securities markets.
On June 9, 2015, the Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC (as well as the SEC, CFPB and NCUA) issued a final interagency joint policy statement (JPS) establishing standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the entities they regulate.
Imagine the following scenario: your bank has just announced an agreement to be acquired by a larger institution that is entering your market for the first time. Two months into the process your CEO, CFO and chief lender tell the board that they have decided to accept offers from local competitors because (a) they will make more money, (b) they have a built-in customer following and (c) despite good relations with the buyer they are uncertain as to their future and have families to consider.
As the M&A environment heats up and industry chatter increases, banks and their boards need to be prepared to take advantage of strategic opportunities. Boards should have an M&A strategy in place and this preparation needs to take place before the situation arises.
In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that individuals have the right to ask Google to remove certain search results about them. This “Right to Be Forgotten,” as it is popularly known, has led to nearly 290,000 removal requests and counting, with Google having evaluated well over a million URLs to date.
A Washington appellate court offered defamation plaintiffs a friendly reminder last week: if you want to unmask the identity of an unknown internet poster, you better present evidence to back up your defamation claims.