With the long list of sanctions imposed on dealings with Russia continuing to grow, many businesses are finding themselves in need of expert guidance not only on compliance, but also on resolving disputes resulting from impacts of those sanctions on existing contractual relationships. One critical question is which forum, or which court, such contract disputes and other related disputes should be litigated in.

The increasing number and intensity of U.S. sanctions against Russia have brought the need to conduct adequate due diligence prior to the execution of an agreement for the sale of goods and services into sharp focus. In the current fraught environment, businesses need to exercise an elevated degree of care to avoid the risks of both potential sanctions violations and the limited recourse available in the event of a contract default caused by the imposition of sanctions.

The United States has had economic sanctions in place against Russia since 2014, when it invaded the Crimea Region of Ukraine. But reaction to Russia’s wholesale military incursion in 2022 has taken the extent and degree of sanctions to a far higher level, creating the need for U.S. companies to establish much stronger diligence programs and in some cases deal with complex compliance issues.

On March 23, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v Ironics, Inc., et al., Slip Opinion 2022-Ohio-84. The court ruled that an umbrella insurance policy provides liability coverage for claims against an insured for supplying a contaminated ingredient (in this case, tube scale) that was incorporated into a final product (namely, glass containers). The “your work,” “your product,” and “impaired product” exclusions did not apply.

The FDIC recently published a Notice of Proposed Policy Statement that seeks to provide a framework for the safe and sound management of large banks’ exposures to climate-related financial risks. While the proposed policy would apply only to the largest commercial banks at this time, the FDIC has signalled the broader implications of the new policy.

Beginning July 1, 2022, Illinois trial courts will begin imposing new time standards for closing out pending cases. This change follows the Illinois Supreme Court’s March 25, 2022 announcement setting new time standards for case closure in trial courts. This announcement will apply to all cases filed in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2022.

The New Jersey Appellate Division’s recent decision in Gilbert Antonucci v. Curvature Newco, Inc., et al., Docket No. A-1983-20 (February 15, 2022), confirms what was understood to be the law: a properly drafted and consented-to employer-employee arbitration agreement is binding notwithstanding the prohibition on mandatory arbitration for discrimination claims set forth in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts that prohibition as to arbitration agreements governed by the FAA.

In Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, et. al., Case No. 20-12422 (11th Cir. March 21, 2022), a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld a district court decision that celebrity restaurateur and Lewis Brisbois client Nusret Gökçe (also known as “Salt Bae”) and his Miami steakhouse were in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when they used an 18% mandatory service charge to fulfill the restaurants minimum wage and overtime obligations.