Last week, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application deadline was extended from June 30, 2020 to August 8, 2020. According to reports from the Small Business Administration, the government agency that administers the PPP loans, approximately 4.9 million loans totaling over $520 billion have been approved, with about $130 billion in funding remaining to help small businesses. Congress is currently debating whether small, harder-hit businesses should be allowed a second round of funding under the program.

If a poll was taken of all U.S. companies using the personal information of European Union (EU) residents in connection with their business activities, most would report having taken steps to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). If you asked the same businesses what they have done to comply with the EU ePrivacy Directive of 2002 (also known as the “Cookies” Directive)[1], which regulates the use of cookies and other tracking technologies, many would need to admit they have not done anything. 

New York-area member Stephan Grynwajc recently wrote an article comparing the key terms of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California's Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), which was featured on the blog of our UK partners, Legal Edge. 

Just as the reasons why parties choose to terminate a contract will vary, so too will the nature of the relationship between the parties, as well as the complexity of the original business arrangement. Sophisticated relationships and complex deal terms often necessitate the inclusion of additional provisions in the termination agreement. In Part 2 of this series, we review those terms which are illustrative of a more complex termination arrangement:

On June 22, 2020, President Trump issued a new Proclamation extending the suspension of admission to the US of certain classes of immigrants (that is, individuals who are seeking to travel to the US in order to establish permanent residence) set forth in Proclamation 10014 dated April 22, 2020.[1]

In business, as in life, things don’t always work out as expected. When the parties to a contract wish to end their relationship (for any number of reasons, such as dissatisfaction with goods/services, better pricing found elsewhere, or simply a desire to walk away from the deal), a termination agreement enables them to formally cancel their contract before its expiration date[1]. In this two-part series, we will examine the basic provisions found in most termination agreements (part 1), as well as more complex provisions that are often required in more sophisticated transactions (part 2). 

As we previously shared, California employers with 5 or more employees are required to provide harassment prevention training to all employees no later than January 1, 2021. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) recently released its long-awaited, free online training for non-supervisory employees. This interactive training is one-hour in duration, optimized for mobile phones, accessible to people with disabilities, and available in Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean. The DFEH plans to release a two-hour supervisory training module in the coming months.

In this ACC Docket article, Washington D.C.-based member Lakshmi Sarma Ramani explains why force majeure clauses should be reviewed closely by nonprofits to ensure such clauses can be relied upon in the event contract performance (including payment obligations) becomes impossible.