Copy
This month we focus on issues heating up in employment law and the implications for employers due to the recent ruling on warrantless searches by the EEOC. We also take a glimpse at  Fletcher v Doig, a case that is unusual because it will require an artist to back up his verbal denial that he did not paint a painting in Plaintiff's possession. Millions are on the line.   

Sponsorships


Carlson Dash was proud to sponsor and have attorneys in attendance at two events in the past few weeks.

First up was the American Bankruptcy Institute's 23rd Annual Central States Bankruptcy Workshop which was held on June 16-19 in Lake Geneva, WI. This annual event is an excellent opportunity for bankruptcy attorneys to advance their understanding of current and complex bankruptcy issues, and to further their relationships with fellow bankruptcy professionals in the Midwest.

The second was the Illinois Land Title Association's Annual Convention on July 7-8 in Champaign, IL. James Dash currently serves on the Title Counsel Committee of Illinois Land Title Association. The convention covered a wide variety of current issues facing the title industry, including how new regulations are being applied and an analysis and discussion of recent court decisions.  


The EEOC Needs No Warrant


This month Doug Moran takes a look at the ruling in EEOC v Nucor Steel and the implications for employers. The ruling addressed whether the EEOC may enter private commercial property for the purpose of investigating a discrimination claim without the occupant's consent and without a warrant. Read the analysis.

 

His Word Is Not Enough

 
Authenticity in the art world is of the utmost importance. Next month the case of Fletcher v. Doig will be heard in the United States District Court for Northern Illinois. What makes this case unique is that the artist, Peter Doig, will be required to prove that he is NOT the artist of a painting Robert Fletcher has in his possession.

According to Mr. Fletcher, when he was a corrections officer in Canada back in the 1970s he paid $100 for a painting created and signed by an inmate named Peter Doige (note the "e"). A few years ago, a friend of Mr. Fletcher saw the painting and commented that the painter was the now famous Peter Doig (without an "e"). Mr. Fletcher consigned the painting to a gallery in Chicago and was in the process of selling the painting when Mr. Doig himself stated that even though there are many elements of his style in the painting, he did not paint it. This denial of authenticity negatively impacted Mr. Fletcher's ability to sell the painting and since a Peter Doig painting has sold for as much as $25 million in the past there is a lot at stake financially for the plaintiff.

Mr. Fletcher is seeking $5 million in damages and a declaration from the court that it is an authentic Peter Doig, despite the different spelling of Doige on the painting and Mr. Doig's denial of having painted it. Mr. Doig will need to address his age, his whereabouts and even a local college ID photo that looks strikingly similar to the famous artist. Read more about this interesting case.


 
Carlson Dash blogs you may have missed:
LinkedIn
Website
Email

CARLSON DASH, LLC
© Carlson Dash. July 2016 Issue.


ILLINOIS                          
216 S. Jefferson Street
Suite 504                      
Chicago, IL 60661
312.382.1600

WISCONSIN
10411 Corporate Drive
Suite 100
Pleasant Prairie, WI 53158
262.857.1600
                        

            

                       
 

                    unsubscribe from this list 
               update subscription preferences