Government bodies have introduced progressive measures and restrictions to minimise the COVID-19 pandemic s negative impact on employment and sustain employment relationships. One of the most significant arrangements in this respect is the termination prohibition. However, mutual termination agreements have become a point of contention in light of this prohibition as they are unregulated under Turkish law.
Termination prohibition
On 17 April 2020 the Law on Minimising the Impacts of the New Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak on Economic and Social Life and the Amendment of Certain Laws (7244) (the Amendment Law) entered into force on its publication in the
Official Gazette (31102) (for further details please see Prohibition on termination and unilateral unpaid leave enters into force ). With the Amendment Law, employers termination of employment contracts – including those subject to the Code of Obligations and other employment-related acts, such as the Press Labour Act and the
Cloud computing has increasingly become a dominant model for computer and IT service, with the majority of businesses worldwide using computing resources and storing data in the Cloud. However, despite the ease of use and convenience of cloud computing, moving data and services into the Cloud raises several legal issues for both cloud computing providers and users. This article highlights some of the issues and questions relating to IP rights raised by cloud computing.
What is cloud computing?
Generally, cloud computing is the remote delivery of computing services and resources to a client. Data is stored and/or processed remotely from the client, on infrastructure that is generally called the Cloud . The client can access this infrastructure remotely, usually over the Internet. Importantly, the client (eg, a personal computer) does not have to perform any of the data storage or processing that now occurs in the Cloud, significantly reducing the hardware, software and security r
In October 2020 the Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice issued a unanimous decision, on repetitive appeal, establishing that a claim to collect amounts relating to expenses for demurrage previously established in a maritime transport contract (unimodal) is limited to five years by the statute of limitations. This decision ratifies the court's prevailing position on the matter.
The Federal Court s decision in the case of
Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd v Sham Chin Yen,(1) regarding applications made by a company or its creditors under Section 368 of the Companies Act 2016 to restrain proceedings against the company under a proposed scheme of arrangement appears to be a welcome decision. It has provided clarity on the previously rather ambiguous procedure to be adopted when making such applications.
Facts
The appellant, Mansion Properties Sdn Bhd, the developer of a housing project known as D Maison, failed to deliver vacant possession of the condominium units of D Maison within the stipulated time. The respondents, purchasers of the condominium units, filed a claim against the appellant for liquidated ascertained damages in 2017.
A new provision establishes the requirements for the suitability of transfer pricing documentation. In order to align the domestic transfer pricing framework with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development standards, the provision updates the rules relating to the content of transfer pricing documentation, which must be prepared in order to support the application of the arm's-length principle to intercompany transactions.