For the past few years, Silicon Valley has anticipated a period where plentiful venture capital funding dries up and startups with not-yet-profitable businesses must make it on their own.

For many start-ups, this will mean having to sell at a discount or to accept money at significant discounts to the valuations of their prior financing rounds, or suffer the ultimate ignominy of shutting down the company. The expected coronavirus-induced recession may well be the start of that period.

This article, first published on Bloomberg Law, is the first of a two-part series for buyer and investors on how to structure transactions for distressed start-ups. It will cover mergers and acquisitions transactions; the second part of this series will cover investments.


The post US: Buying Distressed Tech Start-ups appeared first on Global Compliance News.


This webinar recording covers government orders, creating a timeline, workplace safety and prevention strategies, testing and health screening, labor agreements, workforce communication, managing employee concerns, and litigation mitigation.

What US Employers Should Be Thinking About Right Now

Please see below the webinar materials as well as additional resources.

MCLE Credit

To receive MCLE credit, click on the state where you wish to obtain credit. A certificate of attendance is provided for those outside of the jurisdictions where we are not approved for MCLE credit. Once you complete the form(s), submit your form(s) to MCLE Support. This will immediately begin to process your request.

These are challenging times for all, but we are committed to helping our clients as they work through the impacts of COVID-19.

The post US: The Reopening Playbook – What US Employers Should be Thinking About Right Now (Webinar Recording) appeared first on Global Compliance News.


In brief

The North America Tax Practice Group presented Managing Supply Chain Disruption, the third webinar in the series The Importance of Tax in the Response to COVID-19 on 24 April 2020.


Global supply chains across many industries have suffered significant supply chain interruption.  There are many business, legal, tax, treasury and other implications resulting from those disruptions.  This webinar analyzes the impact of supply chain issues and address alternatives for efficiently addressing those changes and minimizing potentially adverse impacts.  Additionally, future changes to supply chains may be in order for longer-term optimization, and the session makes suggestions for making these changes efficient and beneficial.

If you have any questions, please contact any of the speakers listed.

View the recorded webinar.

Download the materials.

The post United States: Managing supply chain disruption – Recorded webinar appeared first on Global Compliance News.


While businesses have struggled most immediately with loss of revenue and threats to supply chains stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, financial and other uncertainties create complex disclosure issues for companies across all industries. The directive by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that companies provide investors with assessments and plans for addressing material risks to their businesses and operations created by the coronavirus “to the fullest extent possible” positions companies for heightened scrutiny by regulators and shareholders alike. Stock market volatility, share price declines, and the rise in “event-driven” securities litigation have companies and their officers and directors bracing for regulatory investigations, as well as private shareholder lawsuits.

Claims and government investigations of COVID-related issues and required public disclosures implicate directors and officers liability and possible insurance coverage under directors and officers (D&O) liability policies. Indeed, lawsuits have already been filed alleging that companies and their directors and officers violated SEC Rule 10b-5 by disseminating or approving disclosures relating to COVID-19 that they knew or should have known were false or misleading. And the SEC’s Co-Directors of Enforcement have already warned about some issues they anticipate in future investigations. Below, we outline some of the issues that may prompt COVID-related government investigations and private litigation, and we highlight the D&O insurance coverage considerations that companies should be focusing on now.

COVID-Related Claims & Government Investigations

We foresee a number of possible COVID-related claims and government investigations, including:

  • Investigations by the SEC and State Attorneys-General into inadequate disclosure of a company’s financial situation, including alleged misstatements and omissions of material negative information and risks related to COVID-19 stresses and impacts, concealment or improper valuation of impaired assets, insider trading or fair disclosure (Reg FD) issues, and inadequate due diligence;
  • Whistleblower claims relating to federal and state funds received from government programs;
  • Investigations by the SEC and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) associated with the increased bribery risks prompted by travel restrictions, mandatory quarantine and the challenging economic landscape; and
  • Inquiries by the SEC, state securities regulators, and self-regulatory organizations that regulate financial services firms (including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)) regarding alleged unsafe or unsound business practices, such as failures related to supervision, books and records retention and perhaps, most notably, Business Continuity Plans, and investigations related to customer-facing issues that challenge suitability or the discharge of other standard of care obligations imposed on these regulated entities and licensed individuals in connection with, for example, the sale of complex, structured or illiquid products, particularly to retail investors.

D&O Coverage Considerations

Much of the commentary concerning insurance coverage for COVID-19 issues has focused on business interruption coverage. However, as US companies publicly disclose the material risks to their businesses and plans for addressing those issues, the public filings may trigger enforcement investigations and shareholder lawsuits. The significant defense costs and other expenses associated with these actions could implicate D&O coverage, depending upon the specific language of the policy and circumstances under which a claim is made. With respect to government investigations, in particular, any coverage assessment requires a close textual analysis of the language of the insurance policy and application of key contractual terms to the intricacies of the complex and often opaque governmental investigative process.

A company’s D&O policies provide coverage for directors and officers named in securities lawsuits. Almost without exception, companies, themselves, also have coverage for securities lawsuits – although, in many policies, there is coverage for a company for a securities lawsuit only if the securities lawsuit is also lodged against a director or officer. Shareholder allegations that directors and officers failed to properly manage the impact of COVID-19 issues on their companies, or that the company failed to disclose potential or actual COVID-19 concerns, would in most cases be covered under standard D&O policy language, absent applicable exclusions.

Some of the most common business insurance coverages, such as commercial general liability (CGL) insurance, commercial automobile insurance and property insurance are highly standardized – primarily because an insurance industry organization develops most of the forms that comprise those coverages. However, there is no insurance industry organization or other group that develops the majority of the forms that comprise D&O insurance. Over the years, marketplace competition and other factors have led to standardization of a good deal of D&O policy wording, but, as with cyber insurance, media insurance, and some other types of insurance, there still is a fair amount of somewhat idiosyncratic or even sui generis language.

Coverage for Government Investigations

In our experience, most D&O policies now provide coverage for expenses incurred in response to government investigations, including subpoenas and requests for documents. In most D&O policies providing this coverage, the coverage is triggered only if an individual insured receives a formal request from the government or is the target of the investigation, regardless of whether the company, itself, is also named. This coverage sometimes is subject to a “sublimit” that is well below general per-claim limit of the D&O policy.

Insurance policies are contracts and, generally speaking, are interpreted pursuant to the rules that govern the interpretation of contracts. Not surprisingly, with rare exceptions, unambiguous insurance policy language will be enforced as written. Coverage for expenses incurred in response to government investigations typically turns, then, on what the policy says in that regard, and if what it says is unambiguous in the context of the matters at issue. This subject was recently addressed in Jalbert v. Zurich Services Corporation, 953 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2020). In Jalbert, the First Circuit ruled that a Formal Order of Investigation issued by the SEC during a prior D&O policy period constituted a “Claim” first made during that earlier policy period, allowing two excess insurers under the later policy period to deny coverage for subsequent related actions. There was no dispute that the investigation initiated by the Formal Order was a “formal investigation,” and therefore a “Claim,” defined in both policies as “a formal regulatory proceeding (civil, criminal or administrative) against, or formal investigation of an Insured, including when such Insured is identified in a written Wells or other notice from the SEC or a similar state of foreign government authority that describes or alleged violations of securities or other laws by such Insured … for a Wrongful Act… .”

With respect to notice to the insurer, the policies contained a provision that “[a] Claim shall be deemed first made” with respect to a formal investigation on the date when “an Insured [has been] identified by name in an order of investigation, subpoena, Wells Notice or target letter … as someone against whom a civil, criminal, administrative or regulatory proceeding may be brought….” Jalbert turned on whether the “Claim” against the company was “deemed made” by the SEC’s Formal Order where the Order arguably was not conclusive proof that enforcement proceedings against the company were a “reasonable possibility.”

Noting the ordinary meaning of the policies’ language, the First Circuit drew a distinction between an investigative subpoena or other investigative request that merely seeks information from an individual or entity and a Formal Order of Investigation issued by the SEC ordering the investigation into conduct that, if verified, would constitute violations of federal laws. Agreeing with the District Court, the First Circuit concluded that the issuance of a Formal Order supported the inference that commencement of proceedings against the company was entirely possible and, therefore, satisfied the “Deemed-Made” clause.

The nature of the regulatory inquiry – and whether it constitutes a “Claim” under a particular policy, and against whom – is not always as clear. Particularly for regulated entities, this can be complicated, since investigations may commence with one or more regulatory requests, which may include a vague, broadly-titled investigation name that does not include your firm or identify any individual. Until such time as a subpoena is issued, for example, to obtain materials from a third party or testimony, the SEC Staff may choose not seek a Formal Order of investigation. Thus, if all that a company receives is a regulatory request, the issue of whether an insured should notify the insurance company is one that should be carefully analyzed, particularly since some insurance policies will cover regulatory investigations even absent the issuance of a Formal Order.

Key Takeaways

Businesses confronted with COVID-19-related lawsuits and government inquiries should carefully evaluate their D&O insurance policies when assessing available coverage. The timing of notice to insurers is critical (an issue that we will address in greater detail in a subsequent alert), and can impact coverage for related claims that arise from the same underlying facts. In most cases, companies should immediately give notice of the lawsuit or regulatory inquiry under any insurance policies that could potentially provide coverage.

Further, if COVID-19 related events put the company at risk of particular claims, including claims by shareholders in connection with a stock drop, companies should consider providing notice of circumstances under relevant policies – particularly where policies are scheduled for renewal. This is not only because subsequent policies may include less favorable terms, including COVID-19 and/or infectious disease-related exclusions, but also because the insured’s awareness of circumstances that could later give rise to an actual “Claim” could result in a finding, for a number of reasons, that there is no coverage for that “Claim” under subsequent policies.

The post United States: Securities Claims and Government Investigations Relating to COVID-19 – D&O Coverage Considerations appeared first on Global Compliance News.


Numerous states have provided tax relief in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, often in the form of tax filing and payment deadline extensions. At this time, 40 states and Washington, D.C., have provided a corporate income tax filing and/or payment deadline extension. Some of these states have conformed to the July 15 federal corporate income tax extension date, while others have extended to an earlier or later date. Some states have also extended income tax deadlines for partnerships and other business entities and many states have extended individual income tax deadlines.

Additionally, 21 states and Washington, D.C. have extended certain sales and use tax deadlines. The particular sales and use tax relief varies significantly by state, and is often limited to qualifying businesses (based on the entity’s size, industry, in-state operations, or other criteria). Some states have also extended certain deadlines for other indirect taxes, including excise taxes.

Baker McKenzie is tracking states’ corporate income tax and sales and use tax deadline extensions. Our tracker is available here and is updated as of 14 April 2020.

The post United States: State and Local Tax Responses to COVID-19: Corporate Income Tax and Sales and Use Tax Deadline Extensions appeared first on Global Compliance News.


United States: Federal Reserve releases details of lending programs in response to COVID-19 pandemic, including Main Street lending program for mid-sized businesses


On 9 April 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it would be providing up to USD 2.3 trillion in loans to support the US economy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Federal Reserve released details of the Main Street lending program for mid-sized businesses that it had previously announced, release details of Municipal Liquidity Facility for states, cities and counties and released updated information about several recently announced financing programs: the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF), the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF).

The Federal Reserve stated that these programs were still being finalized, and requested comments from interested parties. Comments are open until 16 April.


The post US: Federal Reserve Releases Details of Lending Programs in Response to COVID-19 appeared first on Global Compliance News.


Our Global PIPE Guide sets out a comparison of the key features and requirements applicable to PIPE deals in a number of jurisdictions around the globe.

In this guide, our transactional lawyers share their insight and knowledge on PIPE deals including the key advantages of using PIPEs, why and how they are used. We also cover the key considerations for investors, and highlight any potential legal or regulatory hurdles an investor or issuer might face. We hope you find this guide useful.


Topics covered:

  1. Is it possible to avoid pre-emption rights?
  2. Is there a limitation on issuance of shares at a discount (limit on % stake &/or % discount)?
  3. What measures are available for PIPE investors over and above the rights available to other shareholders?
  4. Does PIPE trigger a takeover?
  5. What is the free float requirement?
  6. Do you need a prospectus or other registration statement?
  7. Do you need the approval of the existing shareholders?
  8. Any specific limitations on due diligence (due to insider trading restrictions)?
  9. Any key PIPE terms that may be required by investors or issuers?
  10. Any other potential obstacles in implementing PIPEs, etc.

We will be happy to provide more details of the rules and practice in any jurisdiction.

NOTE: The content of this guide is current as of 1 May 2020; the high-level guidance in this document is not intended to be comprehensive legal advice. We will be keeping this resource up to date, and also adding more jurisdictions over time, so we encourage you to refer to the most recent report available on this page.

The post Global Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE) Guide appeared first on Global Compliance News.


In brief

Up until now, the medical exception to the substantial presence test has been limited only to medical conditions arising while such individual was present in the United States. During this unprecedented time, with countries closing their borders, global travel limited and persons stranded in countries not their own, following the lead of the OECD and other countries, the IRS has expanded the medical condition exception to the substantial presence test to account for US days of presence related to COVID-19.


Here is a summary of this alert of the newly issued Revenue Procedure 2020-20 (the “Revenue Procedure”):

  • Foreign nationals who spend too much time in the US may become US resident taxpayers under the Substantial Presence Test
  • The Medical Condition Exception, generally, is an exception that excludes certain days of US presence related to a medical condition that arose while the foreign national was in the US
  • The Revenue Procedure expands the Medical Condition Exception for COVID-19 related US days of presence of foreign nationals
  • Under the expansion, a foreign national may exclude for purposes of the Substantial Presence Test up to 60 days of US presence during a consecutive period that begins on or after February 1, 2020 and on or before April 1, 2020 (the “COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception”)
  • The COVID-19 Medical Condition Travel Exception is claimed by attaching an IRS Form 8843, Statement for Exempt Individuals and Individuals with a Medical Condition, to their IRS Form 1040NR if they are required to otherwise file an IRS Form 1040NR. If they are not required to file an IRS Form 1040NR, such foreign nationals are not required to present an IRS Form 8843 to the IRS but are urged to document and maintain records in case the need to present the eligibility to exclude such days arises.

You may access the full alert here.

The post United States: Asked and answered, IRS expands medical condition exception to include US days of presence related to COVID-19 appeared first on Global Compliance News.


In brief

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent warning letters to ten companies in recent days, instructing them to cease making any claims that their products treat or prevent COVID-19 and requiring confirmation within 48 hours that such advertising claims have ceased.


Because there are currently no products that have been scientifically proven to prevent or treat COVID-19, any advertising claims that suggest otherwise will be considered unsubstantiated and therefore, unlawful.

One company’s website advertised that it had designed a set of programs for a device that emits a specific sound frequency that would kill the virus. Another company’s website advertised that its air purifiers were proven to prevent the spread of the air-borne virus. Another company used social media to advertise appointments for an intravenous drip that would boost immunity to the virus, and other companies used social media to advertise Vitamin C intravenous treatments, including using “covid 19” and “coronavirus” hashtags.

The FTC continues to monitor social media and online commerce to prevent unsubstantiated advertising claims related to the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. These latest warning letters show that preventing unsubstantiated advertising claims for serious health conditions is a priority for the FTC.

If you have any questions about your COVID-19 advertising, please contact your Baker McKenzie attorney or the authors listed below.

The post United States: FTC Sends Warning Letters to US and Foreign Companies Regarding Unsupported COVID-19 Claims appeared first on Global Compliance News.


With signs that the virus is peaking in the US, and with some state Shelter-in-Place Orders scheduled to be lifted in the coming weeks, employers are turning their attention to planning for how best to bring employees back to work.

As with the initial outbreak, US employers can look to other corners of the world that are ahead of us in terms of the curve of the virus to help construct a blue print for reopening. As some countries scale back restrictions and start returning to daily life, the transition is purposefully gradual in an effort to safeguard against a second spike of infections. So, what should a US employer be focusing on as it strives to achieve a necessary balance between maintaining a safe workplace and putting people back to work?

There are eight key considerations employers must address in planning to reopen the workplace. A US employer’s “playbook” for reopening should include a “chapter” on each topic as outlined below. While we provide a table of contents and high level advice here, stay turned for articles from our team in the coming days and weeks that will take a deeper dive into some of these areas.

Government Orders

Monitor the lifting of government Shelter-in-Place Orders to determine the appropriate time frame for returning to work. Italy, Spain, Germany, and other European countries are in the process of transitioning to reopen businesses in phases. Spain, for instance, is allowing workers who cannot work from home – like construction workers – to return to their jobs. Austria has allowed small shops to reopen, subject to social-distancing rules. Here in the US, the White House recently issued guidelines for “Opening Up America Again.” The guidelines set forth three phases to reopen state economies, with each phase lasting, at minimum, 14 days. These guidelines, however, do not have the force of law, and do not supersede applicable state and county health orders. Finally, various states’ Shelter-in-Place Orders have expiration dates, which if not extended or amended, will mean that the Order is lifted at the end of April, while others like Texas have announced that portions of the state will reopen starting April 20.


Evaluate whether some sort of phased re-opening with either a partial return of some functions or staggered schedules makes the most sense for your workforce. Determining if and how to coordinate a phased approach will be influenced by factors like location, sector, business type or size, and the health status of workers.

Workplace Safety & Prevention Strategies

The new normal requires continued physical distancing, expanded use of personal protective equipment and other counter-measures. Bringing employees back to work necessitates policies and practices regarding:

  1. General Health Screening
  2. COVID-19 Testing
  3. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
  4. Sanitation Measures to Maintain a Healthy Work Environment
  5. Physical Distancing

Employers should stay up to date on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and from state and local authorities. Key guidance documents are linked here:


Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers to Plan and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Implementing Safety Practices for Critical Infrastructure Workers Who May Have Had Exposure to a Person with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19


Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19

Control and Prevention

Prevent Worker Exposure to Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Ten Steps All Workplaces Can Take to Reduce Risk of Exposure to Coronavirus

Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)


Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

Besides adhering to the guidance and creating new policies and practices, it is essential to train employees on any new health and safety procedures implemented to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Testing & Health Screening

To ensure workplace safety, employers will want to introduce testing and health screening procedures and protocols for certain employees and third-parties (customers, visitors, etc.) In March, the EEOC confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic meets the “direct threat” standard for employee medical examinations and disability related inquiries. Employers do not violate the ADA by requiring employees to undergo medical examinations, such as temperature checks, or asking employees disability-related questions, such as whether the employees suffer from underlying health conditions that may make COVID-19 more severe for them. As with all medical information, the fact that an employee has a fever or an underlying health condition is subject to the ADA’s confidentiality requirements.

  • Temperature Screening and Thermal Scanning: Employers may measure their US-based employees’ body temperature if doing so is job-related and consistent with business necessity. For example, there may be no job-related or business need to check the temperature of an employee who works in isolation, but there likely is a compelling business need to test employees who interact closely with customers or co-workers. However, employers should be aware that body temperature measurements may not be conclusive. Some people with COVID-19 will not have a fever. Other persons may intentionally or unintentionally suppress fevers by taking fever-reducing medications. Employers who institute temperature checks should do so in the least invasive manner possible. And again, if any data is retained after checking temperatures, it should be handled as confidential medical information.
  • COVID-19 Testing: Diagnostic testing may be done if the testing is performed in the least invasive and most private manner feasible and so it does not reveal results to others. Assuming the testing is not covered by HIPAA, companies should include in their more general notification to employees information about the data that will be provided to the company by the healthcare provider and the manner for which it will be used. Companies must implement reasonable security measures to protect the test result data it receives from unauthorized access, acquisition, destruction, use, modification or disclosure. And companies must notify employees in California, and Illinois, and approximately 15 other states in the event of a breach of their test result data in unencrypted form.

For all testing, it would be safer to engage a professional service provider trained on the use of the medical equipment, and who can handle the medical information properly in compliance with applicable health information and data privacy laws. For example, we would not recommend using security guards to administer the temperature checks, unless they were specially trained for that purposes, and can handle the medical information properly. There will need to be standardization as to when tests are used, the frequency of tests (especially important if testing for infection, rather than antibodies), and the documentation.

Companies should implement an internal policy that documents how employee health data and medical information generated from such testing will be protected once results are received from the third party health care provider. The policy should state that the tests would be applied neutrally and without regard to protected characteristics. Positive tests must be reported to applicable health department labs, so companies should ensure that any third party health care providers have contractual responsibility for such reporting.

We recommend investing in ongoing education for supervisors about protecting privacy of employee medical information/conditions, and monitoring ongoing changes to rules regulating employee health screenings.

Managing Employee Concerns About Returning to the Worksite

Prepare to address potential disability accommodation requests for legacy and new employees with medical restrictions. As employees are asked to return to the physical worksite, or new hires are on-boarded, it is likely that some may raise concerns for their safety at work, especially if they or a family member has a pre-existing medical condition that could put them or their family member at higher risk of infection. To the extent that such employees have been able to successfully work from home, there may be some questions raised about a permanent remote work arrangement. As when cases were initially being reported and employers were facing these concerns, it will be important to regroup and be prepared to think through the various potential legal entitlements, i.e., ADA, FMLA, OSHA, Workers’ Comp and companies’ policies (and state equivalents) as well as how those are impacted by new legislation such as FFCRA, when responding to employee requests.

Workforce Communication

Keep your COVID-19 working group intact and allow the working group to transition from crisis matters to recovery matters. If not already handled by another department, task the working group with drafting employee facing communications to ease the employee transition back to a regular working schedule. Consider establishing a hotline which employees can use to ask questions regarding the transition back to work and any other COVID-19 related questions, including mental health.

This is a time of high anxiety. Remain in constant communication with employees as locations reopen, so employees know what to expect upon returning to work. Include, for instance, any information regarding new health and safety precautions and information with respect to pay and sick leave.

Labor Agreements

Employers with a union represented workforce should remember their obligations under the National Labor Relations Act when making decisions affecting their employees. Most labor agreements anticipate and provide for the return of laid off workers. Reviewing these provisions to identify any areas not already addressed will permit planning for potential consultation/negotiations with employee representatives, unions, and/or works councils regarding newly adopted or imposed conditions in a re-opened facility. Prepare for the potential that representatives may push back based on safety perceptions depending on the scope of the pandemic in a particular area and/or based on phased in store re-openings.

Manage seniority/bumping rights when filling labor gaps.

Develop a local strategy particularly focusing on preserving rights to leverage short term employment arrangements for new hires covering legacy employees away on statutory/approved leaves of absence.

Litigation Mitigation

Employers navigating the pandemic know that staying compliant during this period has meant following an unprecedented intersection of wage and hour laws, anti-discrimination laws, health and safety laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, various new (and old) paid sick and family leave rules and much more. As we transition into the new normal back to work, consider how to handle any potential employee claims that may arise from the measures taken during the crisis period. Think about how to address specifically any discrimination related claims, particularly regarding individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 and those of certain ethnic and age groups. Be ready to open investigations and to adequately discipline employees if necessary to prevent future claims.

Know there are already workers protesting and suing where they feel like their employers are not doing enough to protect them on the frontlines, or are bringing them back too soon. This only underscores the importance of strong safety standards and of following Shelter-in-Place rules. As a corollary to the rise of complaints about workplace conditions, now is the time to re-look at whistle-blower policies and hotlines to ensure robust mechanisms are in place to encourage reporting, conduct effective investigations and to protect against any related retaliation.


As we move into unchartered territory, planning ahead and communication with employees is key. Developing a playbook is a good start, but this will be an iterative process. As such, one of the most important parts of returning to the new normal is staying informed. US employers who make it part of their routine to pay attention to the following issues will be well positioned to navigate through these unprecedented times:

  • Any local government orders and how they interact with the company’s decision to increase operations in various jurisdictions;
  • Staying abreast of COVID-19 specific government orders or regulations relating to wage and hour issues;
  • Monitoring the websites for the EEOC, OSHA and the CDC for updated guidance.

Stay safe, and stay tuned for our further alerts and upcoming webinars.

The post United States: The Reopening Playbook: What US Employers Should be Thinking About Right Now appeared first on Global Compliance News.