Mathnasium Center Licensing, LLC v Chang,
(1) the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant s appeal against a lower court s finding that he had made a false statement of truth with respect to an admission in a defence filed on behalf of a company. As is normal in such appeals, the Court of Appeal was reluctant to disturb a lower court s primary finding. However, in this case, the Court of Appeal considered that the lower court had been plainly wrong to make an order for committal for contempt of court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that, in principle, a person who makes a statement of truth in a pleading that verifies a false admission of fact can be committed for contempt of court. However, the admission must be clear and unqualified and this is where the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court. In this case, the defendant appears to have made a mistake, possibly as a result of an unfortunate miscommunication with the company s lawyers while under pressure to
The rule adopts Rule 13q-1 and amends Form SD to implement Section 13(q) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934. It will come into effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
This new rule implements the resource payment disclosure requirement of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 2010 and follows the SEC s effort in 2018 to modernise its disclosure requirements for mining company issuers, which came into effect for many issuers on 1 January 2021.(2)
The SEC also created an alternative reporting regime which enables issuers subject to certain foreign reporting regimes to comply with the new rules by providing copies of those foreign reports (see
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in the use of electronic platforms to provide access to health services. There are various types of platform, but most enable patients to consult with a medical practitioner or solicit responses to health-related questions. Often, these responses are generated through automated mechanisms and algorithms. These platforms seemingly push the legal boundaries of telemedicine.
Legal framework
When providing telemedicine services, health practitioners must comply with the General Ethical Guidelines for Good Practice in Telemedicine, which the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) issued under the Health Professions Act (56/1974) in August 2014.
assignment of rights.
In light of the above, there are a few important factors that trademark practitioners should consider when dealing with applications and registrations under a co-ownership regime in Brazil. The following is an overview of some of the most important points.
Actions before Brazilian Trademark Office
Statements and responses in compliance with office actions must be signed by all of the owners. However, oppositions, administrative nullity actions and non-use cancellation actions may be submitted to the agency by only one owner.
Legitimacy
According to the Brazilian Trademark Law, applicants must declare that they effectively and lawfully conduct business in connection with the goods and services claimed in the application. In the case of co-ownership, all owners must be engaged in a compatible activity and the same condition must be met in the event of an assignment.
In a recent case, a court ruled that an employer's summary dismissal of a manager was justified, since the manager had entered into a contract with one of the employer's business partners without the employer's approval. The case highlights the difficult considerations regarding evidence that employers must make before making a choice of disciplinary action – especially in situations where the course of events can be proven only through witness statements.