This week we are pleased to have a guest post from Edward Heath and Kevin Daly. Attorneys Heath and Daly are members of Robinson+Cole’s Manufacturing Industry Team and regularly counsel clients on trade compliance, anti-corruption compliance, and other corporate compliance issues.

Proposition 65 is the California law that requires warning labels on products sold to California customers that potentially expose users to certain chemicals which may cause a risk of cancer or reproductive harm. The state maintains  a list of approximately 900 chemicals that fall within Prop 65, and the statute provides detailed guidance on what the warning label must contain.  Because of the steep penalties that can be imposed under Prop 65 litigation, compliance with the warning requirements is vital for any company selling products into California. Recently, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed amendments to the format requirements for Proposition 65 warnings that will require companies to re-assess the sufficiency of their current warnings.

Prop 65 provides two forms of “safe harbor” warnings. If a warning label conforms to the statutory specifics, it is deemed to shield the company from liability.
Continue Reading California Regulators Propose New Regulations to Limit Use of “Short Form” Proposition 65 Warnings

2021 Corporate Compliance & Litigation Outlook for Manufacturers

In late 2012, we created the Manufacturing Law Blog with the goal of providing our manufacturing clients with a holistic approach to the unique issues facing manufacturers that operate globally. Starting in 2016, we made sure our first three posts of the year are dedicated to providing

Regular readers of this blog know that I have been cautioning manufacturers about what I expect will become a significant “snap back” in federal workplace regulations because of Joe Biden’s election as president.  It may be time to consider the changes which may lay ahead.

During his first term, President Biden will be able to

This week we are pleased to have a guest post from Edward Heath and Kevin Daly. Attorneys Heath and Daly are members of Robinson+Cole’s Manufacturing Industry Team and regularly counsel clients on trade compliance, anti-corruption compliance, and other corporate compliance issues.

It would be a mistake to think that the $2.9 billion settlement Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has agreed to pay in order to resolve allegations of widespread bribes to government officials in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates has no relevance to those in the manufacturing industry. Although the settlement did involve a financial services firm, the underlying facts highlight important considerations for manufacturers with respect to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

The FCPA is the federal law that prohibits U.S. companies from paying, offering, or promising anything of value to a foreign government official in order to obtain or retain business opportunities. The DOJ and SEC share enforcement authority for the FCPA, and it is a major enforcement priority for both agencies. Total FCPA recoveries for the U.S. government total in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and in some years exceed $1 billion. The Goldman Sachs settlement is the largest FCPA settlement ever.
Continue Reading Historic $2.9 Billion Anti-Bribery Settlement Has Important Takeaways for Manufacturers

On Friday, September 11, the U.S. DOL issued revised regulations under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).  Responding to a Federal Court’s August 4 decision invalidating four provisions in the prior regulations (see Post here), the Revised Regulations become effective September 16 and will sunset on December 31, 2020.

Adopted with lightning speed in

This week we are pleased to have a guest post from Edward Heath and Dan Brody. Attorneys Heath and Brody are members of Robinson+Cole’s Government Enforcement and White-Collar Defense Team.

McDonald’s Corporation, a Fortune 500 company and one of the world’s largest fast-food chains, was recently reminded of the value of two basic internal controls: maintaining an anonymous reporting system and conducting an internal investigation based upon information received through that system. Those two measures, which can be adopted by any manufacturing company of any size, may have saved the Golden Arches over $40 million.

Last November, McDonald’s terminated its CEO, Stephen Easterbrook, for having a consensual relationship with an employee, deeming it conduct that demonstrated poor judgment. During the termination process, Easterbrook informed the company’s Board that the relationship had been the only one of its kind. Based on that representation, McDonald’s agreed to pay Easterbrook a severance package valued at about $42 million.
Continue Reading Internal Investigation Leads to Potential $40 Million Clawback Effort

A United States federal judge in Manhattan struck down four regulations issued by the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) limiting paid leave entitlements under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.  In his August 3, 2020 decision, Judge J. Paul Oetken found the DOL exceeded its authority (a) by determining that employees were not entitled

Below in an excerpt from an article authored by Robinson+Cole Manufacturing Industry team lawyers Edward J. Heath and Kevin Daly with Sasha Glassman, assistant general counsel for global materials manufacturing company Rogers Corporation, that was published on ACCDocket.com.

On June 1, 2020, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a

On July 10, 2020, a New York State Supreme Court Judge issued a surprising decision finding that not only did a private arbitration agreement not bar a plaintiff’s court complaint, but that a company policy amended the parties’ previously executed employment agreement.  The decision, Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., Index No.

This is the second of two posts dedicated to reopening plans for manufacturers.  In the first post on May 26, I addressed the first two questions which every manufacturer may wish to ask as it forms its reopening plans.  Manufacturing;  Back to Business (Part One) (May 26, 2020).  Here, I address the next four questions.